House of Commons
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 4 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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
My Department is working closely with the Department for Exiting the EU to understand the impacts that leaving the EU will have on businesses, consumers and other economic actors across the UK, including in east Lancashire. As the Prime Minister has said, we will work hard to get the best deal for Britain.
Jake Berry
Although not quite as eye-catching as the motor industry, the construction products, furniture-making and chemical industries, represented by Crown Paints, J & J Ormerod and others in my constituency, employ more people. Will my hon. Friend ensure that these strategic industries to east Lancashire can trade on no less favourable terms than any other industry following Brexit?
Jesse Norman
As my hon. Friend will know, I am closely involved with the construction products sector, and the construction industry in general, through the Construction Leadership Council. It would be premature to comment on any deal to be struck, but he can take it from me that it has my closest attention, as does the future of the construction industry itself.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
As a fellow MP for Rossendale, I echo the comments and concerns about leaving the EU and what the tariff framework would be if there was a hard Brexit. When I visited Simon Jersey, which did the formal wear for our Olympic team, I was told that the cliff-edge tariffs on textiles are between 9% and 12%. This is a real concern. What assurances can the Government give to companies that they will not be taxed out of business through leaving the EU?
Jesse Norman
As I have said, it is premature to give any kind of assurance. What is striking, though, is the amount of new investment that has been taking place in this country, irrespective, one might think, of any concerns about Brexit. That includes investments in BAE Systems, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Honda, Associated British Ports and many other large industrial players.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explore how World Trade Organisation-compliant tariff drawback mechanisms and inward processing measures can ensure that the objectives of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) are met?
Jesse Norman
That is a formidably technically sophisticated question, for which I thank my hon. Friend. I think that it probably lies to be answered between ourselves and the Department for International Trade. We will certainly consider it carefully.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Food production and food processing is an important part of the north-west economy that is not necessarily susceptible to export beyond the European Union because of different consumer tastes and preferences in the rest of the world. What negotiations are the Government considering or already undertaking to protect this important industry? Can the Minister confirm that specialist negotiators who understand the industry are in place to carry out those negotiations?
Jesse Norman
That question is really as much for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as it is for us. Nevertheless, it is true that tastes are expanding around the world, and therefore one sees every opportunity for British food producers to expand their world markets in the days to come.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Given that we have a massive trade deficit with the European Union, surely it would be economic suicide for the EU not to agree a free trade deal with us. However, Civitas has calculated that if it did go down that line, British business would have to pay about £5 billion a year in tariffs under WTO rules to access the EU market, and EU businesses would have to pay about £13 billion in tariffs to access the UK market. Given that, could we not agree to cover all tariffs for British businesses exporting to the EU, so that they do not have to pay anything, and still be quids in?
Jesse Norman
Alas, long experience has taught me to distrust some of these speculative estimates of cost and benefit, so I will not comment on that.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
We are all aware that the cross-border trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland is absolutely vital, and if tariffs are put in place, it could be a complete disaster. Can we please make sure that the Northern Ireland voice is heard and embedded in any negotiations?
Jesse Norman
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that question is being taken extremely seriously in my Department. Northern Ireland is an area for which I have a ministerial responsibility. I have met, on several occasions, Northern Ireland Economy Ministers and senior figures in industry there. We will continue to look at this question very closely.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
This Government are strongly committed to science and innovation. We protected the science budget at the spending review in 2015. In the last autumn statement, a few days ago, we committed to spending a further £2 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. The creation of UK Research and Innovation, through the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, will increase the value and impact of our investments in science and innovation in the years ahead. [Official Report, 16 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 7-8MC.]
Adam Afriyie
I thank the Minister for that answer. It has certainly been a good time for science and innovation in Britain. It has also been a good year for the UK space sector, with Major Tim Peake’s historic visit to the international space station and a new spaceport here in the UK. It certainly strikes me that the next big challenge will be the successful delivery of the ExoMars programme, particularly given some of the rumours that have been going around. Will the Minister update the House on any progress made at the European Space Agency summit recently?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, I am happy to provide a brief update. My hon. Friend is an aficionado of space policy and former chair of the parliamentary space committee, so he will be delighted to know that we had an excellent outcome at the European Space Agency’s Council of Ministers. We committed a further €1.44 billion, which has secured the future of the ExoMars programme, among many other things.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to ruin the Minister’s Christmas celebrations, which are imminent, but if he looks at the deplorable investment in research and development—the figures that came out only this week—does he not see that he needs to wake up and smell the coffee? The fact of the matter is that research and innovation will be deeply damaged by leaving the European Union. He should ask the universities what they think.
Joseph Johnson
I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government’s commitment to research and development, which was underscored in the autumn statement with a further £2 billion by the end of this Parliament—perhaps the biggest single increase in R and D expenditure by any Government in the memory of anyone in this Parliament.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Innovate UK plays a key role in promoting science and technology by giving grants to entrepreneurs. Will the Minister continue to support it as new fourth industrial revolution businesses come forward to seek new funding to develop the next generation of science and technology businesses?
Joseph Johnson
Yes, I am happy to provide that assurance. Innovate UK, our innovation agency, will be at the heart of our industrial strategy, and the autumn statement will provide it with the resources it needs to continue to do its job of supporting small businesses in innovation.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Tidal Lagoon Power’s report, “Ours to own”, anticipates that tidal lagoons could bring more than £70 billion to the UK industry. Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is key to unlocking that innovative potential, which has great opportunities for Cardiff and the north Wales coast, as well. I appreciate that the Minister will have concerns about costs to customers, but will he commit to weighing up all aspects of the energy trilemma in his response to the Hendry report?
Joseph Johnson
We are looking very carefully at the report and will be coming forward with our response in due course.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Chemical and pharmaceutical businesses are an important feature of the northern powerhouse and emerging enterprises in the sector are often rooted in university research labs. What support and funding can the UK Government commit to encourage continued research collaboration across Europe—and indeed the rest of the world—to increase our innovative business base post-Brexit?
Joseph Johnson
We support international collaboration in science and research in Europe, and indeed around the world, and will continue to do so.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Joseph Johnson
We will consult the sector and the science community very carefully as part of our development of the industrial strategy, in a discussion paper that we will launch in the weeks to come.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Catalyst science discovery centre in my constituency does an excellent job of promoting careers in science and engineering for young people. Will the Minister come and visit it? It struggles to keep going financially, but it does an absolutely unbelievably good job.
Joseph Johnson
I commend the good work going on in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and look forward to an opportunity to visit that centre as and when it arises.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Our industrial strategy will help to build an economy that works for everyone. To do that, we will look to drive productivity and growth in all parts of the country. We have already set out steps to deliver this, including, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation just said, significant funding announcements for science, research and development and infrastructure in the autumn statement.
Neil Gray
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I note that he said that the industrial strategy should work for everybody. The Office for Budget Responsibility projects that there will be an additional 500,000 new jobs by 2020, but even if all those jobs were taken up by disabled people, the disability employment gap would still not be halved. Can the Secretary of State explain how the industrial strategy will support achieving the Government’s commitment to halve the disability employment gap by 2020?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important that we close that gap, and the Government have made a firm commitment to doing so. He will see when we make our proposals—I hope that he will contribute to them—that part of our purpose is to ensure that people who may have been excluded from the labour market have the skills to enable them to prosper in the future.
Dr Whitford
Ayrshire is a beautiful coastal county with areas of both rural and urban deprivation, but with huge potential in the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries. The Scottish Government are supportive of a growth deal to invest in infrastructure and key sectors. Will the Minister meet me to hear the proposal to unlock Ayrshire’s industrial potential?
Greg Clark
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. I am proud of the city deals and the growth deals that we have negotiated, including in Glasgow, which is not far away from Ayrshire in the west of Scotland. Ayrshire has a huge amount to offer, and Prestwick is an important asset. I welcome the initiative of the councils in Ayrshire.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider creating free ports across the nation? Such free trade zones around our great port cities can simultaneously boost manufacturing, promote regional growth and grow exports—surely, all key ingredients in a successful industrial strategy.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his industry. He has published an excellent report for the Centre for Policy Studies, which makes for very good reading. He knows that I am considering it with my colleagues, and I commend him for writing it and putting it forward.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend develops his industrial strategy, may I give him some friendly advice? Drop the word “industrial” and drop the word “strategy”, and replace them with the words, “competition, innovation and skills policy”.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will see that one of the differences between our approach to industrial strategy and policy—it is important to note that industry, for this purpose, means the services sector as well as manufacturing—and previous approaches is that our approach will not be about simply addressing the needs of incumbents; we want to make Britain the best, the most competitive and the most contestable place for business to locate. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend contributed to it. I think that he will find that it is music to his ears.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Surely, one of the Secretary of State’s priorities should be the steel industry. Is he aware that Noel Village foundry in Doncaster is being badly affected by reductions in the steel industry supply chain? Will he ask his Department to give urgent advice to the company to see whether anything can be done to prevent it from going into administration, even at this late stage?
Greg Clark
I am happy to meet the right hon. Lady about this, but I can give her some news on steel that I think she will welcome. I can announce today that the Government are going to publish their demand for steel, through public sector bodies, to 2020; that will be 3 million tonnes. We are updating the procurement guidelines for steel to include the health service and local authorities and to drop the previous threshold of £10 million for which those guidelines apply. That will be good for the steel industry generally and for all firms within it.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Small-scale manufacturing in firms that often have fewer than half a dozen people is key to the local economy in Kettering and is responsible for a lot of the employment opportunities. Will the Secretary of State make sure that small-scale manufacturers are a key priority in his industrial strategy?
Greg Clark
I will indeed. I would commend two things to my hon. Friend. First, we want to make sure that small manufacturers can access the extra funding for research and innovation that my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation has described. Secondly, we want to address the ability of small and growing firms to obtain the finance to allow them to grow to the next stage, which is very important in having a vigorous competitive market, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
From education to research and development, Scotland’s universities play a key role in boosting our economy across all regions and sectors. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State outline what the role of universities will be in his forthcoming industrial strategy? Will the recently announced new money for R and D be available to Scottish universities?
Greg Clark
Yes; universities are very important. We have had a number of very constructive sessions with university leaders and researchers. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that science does not recognise boundaries. Universities and researchers in Scotland have a fantastic record of success. In fact, with 8.5% of the UK population, Scotland attracts 10% of UK research funding, which shows that it can prosper and thrive with the new changes we are making on funding.
Callum McCaig
Science does not recognise boundaries. Universities Scotland estimates that 10% of research funding comes from the EU and that up to 16% to 20% of staff come from EU nations. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State ensure that, as we exit the EU, Scotland’s universities are not hit punitively by immigration sanctions and the withdrawal of EU funding?
Greg Clark
It follows from what I have just said—science does not respect boundaries—that the science community is very global and international. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, we will in the negotiations reflect the importance of that not just for Scotland, but for the whole United Kingdom.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about an industrial strategy and those words are in his title, but so far he has shared only bland generalities. Despite the high-profile examples cited, the Institute of Chartered Accountants predicts that business investment will fall by 2.4% in 2017. There are great opportunities for British businesses post-Brexit, but they need leadership, and this climate of uncertainty is toxic to investment. Will the Secretary of State stop playing Scrooge with his assurances, and give British business the Christmas present it wants—an industrial strategy?
Greg Clark
A bit of optimism on the part of the hon. Lady would not go amiss, especially in this Christmas season. In fact, there is huge enthusiasm in businesses right across the country and huge engagement with us in developing our long-term policies. Perhaps she has been distracted by some of the events in her party in recent months, so let me summarise the things we have done since July. We have given the go-ahead—she may have missed this—for some very important strategic infrastructure projects: Hinkley Point C, the third runway at Heathrow and the next phase of HS2. We have secured investment in Nissan, close to her constituency, as we announced a month ago. We have ratified the Paris agreement, and we have secured the extra investment that my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation talked about. We have done more to put our industrial future on the right footing in five months than the previous Government did in 13 years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
To turn from Marley’s ghost stalking the Labour Front Bench, the number of businesses in the UK continues to grow: at the start of 2016, there were a record 5.5 million private sector businesses, which is an increase of 97,000 since 2015 and 1 million more than in 2010.
Bob Blackman
This weekend, small businesses in my constituency held a Christmas market in Belmont Circle to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Eye 2 Eye opticians, which is doing a brilliant job locally. What more can my hon. Friend do to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses prosper and grow in this country?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the central importance of small and medium-sized businesses to our economy. The Government have been supporting that vital sector of our economy through: the extension of small business rate relief; our support for the British Business Bank, which has dealt with more than 51,000 small businesses; the new productivity council, which was announced in the autumn statement; and the new patient capital review.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the number of businesses, will the Minister ensure that there is a level playing field so that the level of subsidy for tariffs applied to the motor industry is applied equally across all exporters? Will he publish the total amount of subsidy before 31 March?
Jesse Norman
There has been no special deal for Nissan or any other part of the motor industry. Whatever arrangements are made to support different sectors of the UK economy are fully transparent. The general picture is that we are proceeding vigorously and with some care towards a rather attractive destination.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Jesse Norman
My hon. and learned Friend is right. She will know that I have been a pretty tireless campaigner for superfast broadband, especially in relation to BT and Openreach. I agree with her about the importance of broadband. The autumn statement announced a £1 billion package for fibre and 5G connectivity, prioritising business connections across the UK. That follows the superfast broadband programme, which is due to deliver 91% coverage in South East Cambridgeshire by mid-2017 and a new universal service obligation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Fifty thousand businesses die unnecessarily every year because of late payment. Some £31 billion is owed and small firms alone spend £10 billion chasing outstanding invoices. While the duty to report and the small business commissioner have been much delayed, just 378 of the largest 55,000 businesses have signed up to the prompt payment code. When will the Conservative Government start doing something about the scourge of late payment? Put some teeth into it, so that small businesses can act.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman is right to point the finger squarely at the issue of late payment. It is a serious matter that we will continue to press forward on, but one must see it in the context of the thriving small business economy that I have outlined.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
The proportion of women on FTSE 100 boards has increased from 12.5% in 2011 to 27%. Since 2011, the number of women on FTSE 350 boards has more than doubled to 23.5%. We support the business-led target of 33% of those on FTSE 350 boards being women by 2020.
Nusrat Ghani
I welcome the Minister’s response, but to get more women on boards we have to get more women into business in the first place. I championed and spoke at the Wayfinder Woman conference in Uckfield. The mission of the Sussex-based organisation is to get more women into business. What work do the Government do with such organisations to get women into enterprise so that they get the skills that they need to rise to the top?
Margot James
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work she does to mentor women. More than 16,500 start-up loans have been issued to female entrepreneurs and almost half the users of the business support helpline are women. The Hampton-Alexander review is looking beyond boards at building female pipelines among senior management. We also support the Women’s Business Council.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Is there a regional pattern in low numbers of women on boards? Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations about increasing the number of women on boards?
Margot James
I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to increasing the number of women on boards in Scotland. I will have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the national target applies equally to Scotland as to elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I apologise to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)—I meant Northern Ireland, of course, in my earlier response.
The gov.uk website and the business support helpline provide information on starting and running a business. Growth hubs also provide access to local and national support, and 4.8 million people are now self-employed.
Mrs Murray
In South East Cornwall we have some fantastic self-employed people who make a host of excellent food products. Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be opportunities for them to grow their businesses and be released from excessive red tape once we leave the European Union? What advice does she have for them?
Margot James
The Government committed in their manifesto to reducing the burden of regulation on business by £10 billion during this Parliament. We will also carefully consider the implications of leaving the European Union for the business impact target, and the opportunities to reduce further the burdens on businesses such as the excellent self-employed food producers in South East Cornwall.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
False self-employment is a particular issue in sectors such as retail, care and construction. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority is now expected to regulate those industries, which contain more than half a million businesses, yet has only 79 members of staff across the entire UK. Its director of labour market enforcement has not yet been appointed, despite the new powers being in place. Will the Government ensure that they act speedily on that?
Margot James
I assure the hon. Lady that we are acting swiftly to appoint the director of labour market enforcement. I agree with her that it is a crucial role.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will not, as a consequence of our withdrawal, allow any erosion of rights in the workplace, whether those rights derive from EU or UK law. She has further made it clear that the Government are determined to deliver an economy that works for everyone, and fundamental to that is the preservation of existing workers’ rights.
Mr Shuker
Is it not the fact that our EU-derived employment rights are upheld not by legislation but because they are enforced by the relevant European courts? Given that progress on a British Bill of Rights has been patchy at best, what will guarantee those rights after we leave?
Margot James
Such rights will be upheld by British courts after we leave the European Union. The UK enjoys record employment at the same time as employment rights that exceed what is required by EU law in the important areas of maternity leave, parental leave and statutory annual leave.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Given the sorry history of Brexit broken promises, does the Minister understand the widespread cynicism expressed about the idea that rights will be protected post-Brexit, including on a continuing basis? Does she agree with the Brexit promise-breaker par excellence, the Foreign Secretary, that these crucial rights are back-breaking?
Margot James
The hon. Gentleman prejudges the situation by saying that we have had a chance to break Brexit promises before we have even started the negotiations. The Prime Minister could not have been clearer—she has been supported in this at the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—that workers’ rights will be protected and possibly even enhanced.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman bears a striking resemblance to an exploding volcano. Let us hear the feller.
Mr Bone
As always, I am very reasoned, Mr Speaker, but really, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) was talking absolute rubbish just then, which is not unusual. Does the Minister agree with the democratic principle that the Government of the day will decide on employment rights? Is that not what we want—employment rights decided in this House, not in Europe?
Margot James
This House will decide on employment rights, but it is important to remind my hon. Friend that during the lifetime of this Government, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer that workers’ rights will be protected after Britain leaves the European Union.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
We have held a wide range of discussions with businesses, their representatives, investors, workers and local leaders in all four home nations. We expect that to continue in the coming months to secure UK interests in any exit negotiations.
Emma Reynolds
There is concern among business about a potential cliff edge in March 2019 if we leave the EU and fall back on World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor, who yesterday told the Treasury Committee that there is
“an emerging view among businesses…that having a longer period to manage the adjustment between where we are now as full members of the European Union and where we get to in the future as a result of the negotiations…would be generally helpful, would”
help smooth the transition and would help to reduce disruption for business?
Jesse Norman
It is a tempting invitation to offer a running commentary on our exit arrangements, but since we are not going to do that as a Government, I will not do so now.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Last week’s news from Port Talbot was hugely welcomed in steel towns such as Corby. It came about because of constructive work not only in the House, but involving Ministers, the unions, the workforce and the industry. As we move towards reaching final agreement, what role does my hon. Friend see the industry playing in the industrial strategy, and what discussions has he had on that in the EU context?
Jesse Norman
That is more a matter for my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
Not Uxbridge—my constituency is Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.
Jesse Norman
I stand corrected. We will leave the Foreign Secretary out of this.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other ministerial colleagues have had a series of meetings with steel companies across the production and supply chains, and have been able to give them the support and structure needed in that context.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
The retail energy market works well for those who are able and have the time to switch, with customers able to make savings of up to £300 by moving on to the cheapest tariffs. However, we want a market that works for all consumers, not just those who switch supplier. That is why we have been clear that we want energy companies to come forward with proposals on how they are going to treat their loyal customers fairly.
Justin Tomlinson
The Competition and Markets Authority has found that two thirds of households are on expensive standard variable tariffs. Does the Minister agree that suppliers should do more to ensure that their loyal customers are on better-value tariffs?
Margot James
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not right that customers are penalised for their loyalty. We want energy companies to treat all their customers fairly, and not just customers who switch between suppliers. That is why we have challenged them to come forward with proposals to ensure that all their customers get a fair deal.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
I have been saying for about five years now that companies have been overcharging their customers who are on the standard variable tariff. That has been confirmed by the Competition and Markets Authority, Ofgem and the Government. The only way we will shift how those companies operate is by extending to those people on the standard variable tariff the protection we offer those on prepayment meters. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to ensure that we give the big six energy companies a kick up the backside?
Margot James
I am happy to meet the right hon. Lady, who has extensive experience in this area. We are certainly considering the CMA remedies.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
A large number of rural properties are heated by oil-fired central heating. Will the Minister confirm that home efficiency measures are a vital way of cutting bills for those rural properties?
Margot James
I agree with my hon. Friend. Efficiency measures are fundamental to reducing the energy bills not just for people in rural areas, but for the population as a whole.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This week, a senior Ofgem executive warned that, as a result of our higher reliance on renewable energy, consumers may face the possibility of having to pay a premium to ensure that they have a reliable source of electricity to their homes and without having their lights turned off. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofgem on that, and are the Government considering the policy of relying on costly renewable energy rather than on cheaper fossil fuels?
Margot James
We have an ongoing dialogue with Ofgem on a number of issues, but apropos the cost of supporting investment in low-carbon technologies, this is expected to increase, but so too are the savings from energy efficiency policies. This means that by 2020 household energy bills are still estimated to be lower on average than they would have been in the absence of those green policies.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
We are working to make the UK even more competitive in advanced manufacturing by cutting corporation tax and red tape and by increasing our support for the research and innovation that is crucial to success. We are doing that not least through our £300 million investment in the high-value manufacturing catapult centre.
Philip Boswell
Given the potential increase in tariffs due to Brexit, how does the Minister plan to ensure that high-value manufacturing does not deteriorate?
Mr Hurd
High-value manufacturing is extremely important to our future—it presents many opportunities but also presents risks that we have to manage—and so will be an important part of our industrial strategy. On the broader concerns about tariffs, the hon. Gentleman has heard it often enough, so he should start believing it: the Government are listening carefully, as I witnessed yesterday, to manufacturing and other sectors about their priorities and concerns as we shape and finalise our negotiating position.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the Minister, or one of his ministerial colleagues, meet me and representatives from M+W Group and DBD from my constituency, which are part of a consortium bidding for a vitrification project in China’s nuclear sector? It would give them a lot of confidence if he and his team could meet them and help them to win the contract, which would create hundreds of jobs in this country.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The low-carbon energy sector could drive the energy manufacturing industry in this country and be very helpful in developing the industrial strategy, which I fully support. One practical example is small nuclear reactors. Can the Minister tell the House when we can get an announcement on the funding and help for this important sector?
Mr Hurd
We are reviewing our priorities in relation to the energy innovation portfolio, which sits inside our Department, and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed the comments by the Chancellor at the autumn statement. We are reviewing our priorities and will announce them shortly.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
National Grid’s electricity capacity report for this year was published in July and includes a forward look on electricity security. Through competitive capacity auctions, we have already secured capacity from 2018-19 to 2020-21, and in January we will hold a further auction to secure capacity for 2017-18. Our most recent gas security analysis was published in October and shows that our diverse and flexible gas supply can meet demand even under severe weather conditions.
Jeremy Lefroy
The importance of substantial gas storage to electricity generation and avoiding damaging price hikes was highlighted by the partial closure of the Rough storage facility. What are the Government doing to tackle the question of increasing gas storage for the future?
Jesse Norman
That is a proper and important question. Our gas supply arrangements are quite diverse, and we have more than 30% spare gas capacity even on a cold winter’s day. The system has been tested, and has responded well in the past to shocks, including higher than expected demand for heating or power and restrictions to supply infrastructure, but it is certainly something we keep under constant review.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Jesse Norman
All I can do is refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) on this topic.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Avalon community energy on completion of its solar PV installation at Brookside school in Street? Does he agree that such schemes create a greener and cheaper energy system and afford us greater security of supply?
Jesse Norman
I certainly do, and I am very glad that my hon. Friend has brought that to the attention of the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
After the latest capacity auction, the overall scores for the procurement of new combined cycle gas generation plant stand at one small buildable plant over three auctions, at a total cost so far of £3 billion and £12 a year on customer bills. Does the Secretary of State have any other good ideas up his sleeve to secure the procurement and building of new capacity up to 2020?
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the gas capacity market auction was an enormous success. It secured a widespread diversity of supply at low cost and in higher amounts than ever before, and it included some innovative new technologies. The Department should be celebrated for managing this.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Steel Council will next meet in the new year. I will also meet senior steel industry chief executives and the trade union steel committee next month.
Chris Elmore
I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating all those involved in the Save our Steel campaign—especially the Community, GMB and Unite trade unions—on their vital contribution to the recent announcement on Port Talbot and other steel sectors across the UK. I am sure that he agrees that it is trade unionism at its best. Thousands of steelworkers and their families can look forward to a more certain 2017, but one of their real concerns remains their pensions. What will he do to bring forward better plans to ensure that steelworkers’ pensions, as well as their jobs, are protected?
Greg Clark
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming and congratulating the workforce, trade unions and the employers on their very constructive set of discussions. It is important that the membership is consulted, but this is a positive step forward and he is right that this will provide greater comfort to employees this winter. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is right and proper for the independent Pensions Regulator, rather than the Government, to approve and be content with pensions arrangements. It would be wrong for the Government to intervene in that.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Greg Clark
I will indeed congratulate Severfield Steel, which is a very successful company, not only on the Ordsall Chord but on winning a global award in recent weeks. It was also responsible for construction of the Olympic stadium, the Shard, and Birmingham New Street station. Many of the buildings that we admire and have in our minds are constructed with British steel by British companies.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
While we have recently had some really good news for the steel industry, giving steel workers and their families the stability they need for now, the fact that steel was not mentioned in the autumn statement gives cause for concern. Furthermore, the UK Government’s leading of a group of countries that are blocking the EU reform of anti-dumping trade defence instruments is another serious issue for the industry. Will the Secretary of State commit to including the steel industry in the future industrial strategy, and detail the steps that the Government will take to support this vital foundation industry?
Greg Clark
Of course steel is incredibly important, and it is important that it should have a bright future—we all want to see that. One thing I have been doing with the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, working closely with the steel industry on both the employer and trade union side, is to fund and bring together a strategic review, and the whole industry is coming together to work on it. That is expressly designed to inform our industrial strategy, so that we can look forward with confidence to a very successful steel industry.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 14 and 21 together.
Local enterprise partnerships do extremely important work as voluntary partnerships, bringing together business insight, local authorities and universities to shape and support local growth, not least through growth deals that are funding more than 800 projects across England.
Mr Speaker
We are, in fact, grouping this question with Question 18. Ministers have to keep their eye on the Order Paper. The numbers change over a period, for reasons that I think will be fairly obvious to the Minister.
James Morris
There are 30,000 more businesses with high-speed broadband in the black country as a result of the leadership of the Black Country local enterprise partnership. Does the Minister agree that the Black Country LEP has been an excellent example of bringing together the private and public sector to drive growth, improve skills and build the infrastructure that the black country economy needs?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House; it sounds like a fantastic deal that will unlock many opportunities for people and businesses in the black country. I hear great things about the LEP and the chairmanship of Stewart Towe, and through my hon. Friend, who I know has been a tireless champion of the LEP, I pass on the congratulations of the Government.
Sir Henry Bellingham
At a time when LEPs have been having a hard time in the media, is the Minister aware that my constituency is well served by two excellent LEPs: the New Anglia LEP and the Greater Cambridgeshire Greater Peterborough LEP? What wider role does he envisage for LEPs, and will he consider expanding the growing business fund?
Mr Hurd
I thank my hon. Friend for standing up for his LEPs at a difficult time for them as a result of the allegations made. I assure him that LEPs are at the heart of the process of feeding into the industrial strategy; we are absolutely clear that that industrial strategy needs to reflect deep understanding of the different challenges and opportunities each area faces, which is why the Secretary of State has allocated ministerial champions to each LEP.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman will be very brief, I will take him now, but if he won’t, I won’t.
Clive Lewis
I will be very brief, Mr Speaker.
Some newspapers have exposed shocking examples of what I can only describe as crony capitalism in some of our LEPs. For example, the former elected mayor of Bristol, George Ferguson, received more than £50,000 for his own brewing firms while on the LEP board, which kept no minutes; perhaps the Minister is impressed to find right-wing politicians who can organise a booze-up in a brewery. Given that the Government are putting nearly £2 billion into LEPs through the autumn statement, can he tell us what they are doing to enforce basic standards of accountability?
Mr Speaker
I promise not to buy my dictionary from where the hon. Gentleman got his.
Mr Hurd
As was said the other day, never trust Labour Members when they say they are going to be brief.
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point about LEPs. This is taxpayers’ money and, as he would expect, we take extremely seriously any allegations about it being spent inappropriately, particularly when there are allegations of conflicts of interest. We are reassured by the prompt and robust response of LEPs to the individual allegations, including the one in Bristol, but we continue to press and make the point very strongly that we expect full compliance with the requirements of the strengthened national assurance framework.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Over the last month we have made substantial progress across the Department’s responsibilities. Our recently published review of corporate governance will make sure Britain is not only an excellent place to do business, but also is where business is done best. We continue to tackle climate change, ratifying the Paris agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and Industry played an important part in the climate discussions in Marrakech, and he and I had the great pleasure of opening the Siemens wind turbine factory in Hull, creating 1,000 new jobs in that great city. By providing an additional £2 billion a year for research and innovation by 2020 and giving British homes and businesses certainty that their electricity demands will be met for the next five years, we are investing in our country’s economic future.
Neil Carmichael
That was a fabulous introduction to my question about the Hendry review. I know the Government have received the review, and I am confident that it makes some clear and useful recommendations, so I would like to know whether the Government intend to make it public soon, and what are their thoughts about some of Charles Hendry’s comments and recommendations?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and would like to put on record my gratitude to Charles Hendry for writing his report. It is important that it is published soon. Charles Hendry is travelling at the moment, but as soon as he is back I will agree with him a date to publish it and he can answer questions on it. It is a substantial document and my hon. Friend will understand that we will want to consider it and make our response in due course.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
Order. Members need to understand that topical questions were always intended to be briefer. We cannot have these three, four and five sentence questions. What one wants is a quick question.
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
We will publish early our emissions reductions plan in the new year. It is a legal requirement on the Government to set out exactly how we expect to meet our long-term carbon commitments.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to bring the misuse of laser pointers to the Government’s attention. The Government are concerned about the misuse of high-powered laser pointers and will seek evidence early next year on the potential options for tackling such misuse.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
We look forward to reading that research. It clearly contains some interesting findings, of which we will take full note.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Margot James
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this type of fraud, which affects businesses in all sectors. It is essential that business owners and staff know what to do when they are notified of changes to bank account details. The best pointer in the first instance is the advice available on the Action Fraud website.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Mr Hurd
The transition to a clean energy system is fundamental to our energy strategy, and significant supply chain opportunities will flow from that. As for the Government’s commitment to renewable energy, this country has seen one of the fastest deployments of renewable energy across Europe since 2010, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have renewed that commitment through the contract for difference auctions.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Greg Clark
We certainly will. It is important that the industrial strategy and business policy recognise the strengths of particular places. Yorkshire is a particularly fine example.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, GB Energy ceased trading, affecting 160,000 customers. Credit must go to Ofgem for ensuring that those customers were promptly transferred to another supplier, but does the Secretary of State believe that the regulator’s approach to risk management needs to change? Instead of carrying out little or no assessment of the viability of new entrants and then picking up the pieces if they fall, more rigorous financial health checks need to be undertaken to minimise the risk of failure, disruption to customers and a loss of confidence in switching to new energy providers.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I commend Ofgem for the arrangements that it put in place. He raises a reasonable point, and as Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee he will want to work with me to ensure that the right arrangements are in place.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Margot James
Earlier this year, the Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out an independent review of modern employment practices, such as in my hon. Friend’s example, as part of ensuring that our economy works for everyone. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will also consider my hon. Friend’s suggestion.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The energy-intensive industries compensation scheme is due to end in April 2017. The Government have promised to bring forward legislation to exempt energy-intensive industries from renewable obligations and feed-in tariffs, but we are still waiting for that to happen. As things stand, the steel industry is therefore looking down the barrel of having to go back to the crippling energy costs it faced until the compensation package was introduced. Will the Secretary of State assure us that measures will be put in place before April 2017 to ensure that we do not go back to that situation?
Greg Clark
The discussions we have had with the steel sector emphasise the importance of energy costs, and our commitment is to work with the sector to bring them down.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Joseph Johnson
With higher and further education policy, apprenticeships and skills in a single Department, the Government can now take a comprehensive, end-to-end view of skills and education. This Government will, of course, support people from their early years through to postgraduate study and work.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Is it not time for the Secretary of State to order an investigation into the Royal Bank of Scotland’s practices on lending to small businesses?
Margot James
The situation with RBS is under review and I am sure proposals will be made in the near future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Greg Clark
It is important that nuclear energy should form a key part of that. One of the pieces of neglect of the previous Labour Government is that they presided over the forecast closure of our nuclear fleet without making any plans to replace it. When I made the statement about Hinkley Point C, I also said that this would be the beginning of a new era of civil nuclear power in this country, and that is absolutely right.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
In the week when we saw a great deal between Tata Steel and the Community trade union, largely down to Roy Rickhuss and the return of Ratan Tata, we also saw the merger of Baosteel and Wuhan Iron and Steel. What risk assessment has the Department made of market economy status for China and its effects on the British steel industry?
Greg Clark
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to both Ratan Tata and Roy Rickhuss, as both the company and the unions have worked constructively together, and the progress is welcome. I have, with the Minister for Climate Change and Industry, a very regular dialogue with both employers and trade unions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been active in making sure that we have the right trade defences against practices where countries dump steel unfairly in the UK market.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Although business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, rather than by the Government, it is right the Government then try to soften the blow for those most affected. Will the Minister expand on what is being done to protect the businesses using solar panels that have been adversely impacted by high business rates?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend is right to point out that these rates are set independently. She will also know that the overall net effect of the reforms is to reduce business rates and that some transitional relief is in place. She is also right to highlight the challenges in respect of businesses that have installed solar for their own use, and we are working through that issue.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
When will the Government publish their response to the Law Commission’s report on “Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency”? We need to do more to protect consumers when businesses go into administration.
Margot James
I will note the hon. Lady’s comments and I will write to her. I am sorry, but I did not hear all of the question.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
INEOS, Tata Chemicals and Banner Chemicals in my constituency provide high-quality, high-wage, high-skilled jobs. What consideration has been given to energy price competiveness in respect of our European neighbours, as a more competitive energy price would disproportionately benefit the northern powerhouse?
Greg Clark
As I said to a number of hon. Members, the energy prices that are paid by businesses generally, and by energy-intensive industries in particular, are a crucial part of competitiveness, and we want to work with these industries to reduce the costs.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Nissan has benefited from a pre-Brexit deal. What reassurance can the Secretary of State offer Brighton-based businesses such as American Express and EDF that, after Brexit, they will still be able to have an open and free relationship with the EU?
Greg Clark
American Express is a very important employer in Brighton, and it is very welcome here. It has located itself in this country because Britain is a fantastic place from which to do business. That is the message that I receive wherever I travel to in the world. There is great appetite to invest in Britain, and the hon. Gentleman will know of our recent success stories. I hope that American Express will continue to invest more and employ more in his constituency.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Following the collapse of the Greater Lincolnshire devolution deal, the LEPs in Humber and Greater Lincolnshire take on a greater significance, but there is concern that some central Government funding may be lost as a result of the collapse of the deal. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the LEPs will be used to channel the funds from his Department when suitable projects are identified?
Greg Clark
As my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said, we regard local growth as a very important component of our industrial strategy, and my hon. Friend knows that I have been a big champion of local growth, so I want to see more of that. Obviously, certain offers were part of the proposed deal, but these deals are never compulsory, and if the councils and the businesses do not want to proceed then it is a matter for them.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, as part of the industrial strategy, the future development of enterprise zones will be of great economic benefit, especially to the manufacturing sector?
Greg Clark
I agree that enterprise zones have been successful. They have provided some tax advantages and, in many cases, a simplified regulatory environment, which is very attractive to businesses. Their experience commends them.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition of over 200 residents of the Airdrie and Shotts constituency, which I represent, on the subject of the Women Against State Pension Inequality.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Airdrie and Shotts,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001997]
Road Safety in Southampton Itchen
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of my Southampton, Itchen constituency, particularly those who live on the junction of Station Road and Spring Road. Even as I was with the Clerks yesterday to signal my intention to present this petition today, there was another accident at that junction. It is now imperative that Southampton City Council do something about it before there is another serious injury or, God forbid, fatality.
The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Southampton Itchen,
Declares that there should be road safety measures introduced at the junction of Spring Road and Station Road in Southampton, after a series of road traffic accidents that have occurred in recent months.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Southampton City Council to review the safety at the Spring Road and Station Road junction and outline what actions it plans to undertake to ensure the safety of road and pedestrian users; and further that the council confirm the timeframe for implementing those changes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001996]
Greater Manchester Spatial Framework
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise on behalf of 3,500 of my constituents and local residents who have signed this and similar local petitions to present a petition relating to the Greater Manchester spatial framework and its potential effects on the green belt in my constituency.
While of course we need to provide new developments to fill the housing shortage, it should be done in a way that is sensitive to the local environment and the wishes of local communities. The green belt is a vital barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people. The framework proposes the building of 4,000 new homes on green-belt land, effectively doubling the size of the village of High Lane.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to avoid including large-scale residential development on the greenbelt in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, as well as prioritising brownfield land for residential developments.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid large-scale residential development on the greenbelt, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people; and further declares that brownfield land should be prioritised for residential development provided that proper infrastructure is in place.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to avoid including large-scale residential development on the greenbelt in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, as well as prioritising brownfield land for residential developments.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001993]
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), on behalf of more than 2,400 local residents who have signed this and similar paper and online petitions. Those residents are representative of many thousands of others in my constituency who are concerned that valuable green-belt land will be built on as a result of the proposals in the Greater Manchester spatial framework.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid large-scale residential development on the greenbelt, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people; and further declares that brownfield land should be prioritised for residential development provided that proper infrastructure is in place.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to make such provisions in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001994]
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to join my colleagues from Greater Manchester in presenting a petition to the House on the Greater Manchester spatial framework. I rise to present the petition on behalf of residents of the United Kingdom. This and similar petitions in the constituency have attracted more than 2,600 signatures from concerned residents. I thank all those across Cheadle who have signed the petitions.
If this scale of development goes ahead, it will not only devastate our countryside, but place unprecedented pressure on local infrastructure and undermine our local communities. Instead, I call for the development of brownfield sites so that communities can enjoy the additional investment from regeneration projects and avoid the loss of our natural landscape and precious green belt.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid development on the green belt; further that Cheadle could lose much of its precious and much valued land if development is permitted on green belt land; and further that action should be taken to prioritise development on suitable brownfield sites to protect our green space.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government to agree a Greater Manchester Spatial Framework that prohibits development on green belt land and prioritises development on brownfield sites.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001995]
CQC: NHS Deaths Review
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement. On 12 April, I asked the Care Quality Commission to conduct an investigation into lessons that needed to be learned following the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk in 2013 at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. I pay tribute to his family, and particularly to his mother, Sara Ryan, for persistently and determinedly campaigning for a proper investigation into what happened. The lesson of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and indeed other injustices such as Hillsborough is that when families speak out, we must listen. In this case, thanks to Dr Ryan’s efforts, many improvements will be made to the care of people with learning disabilities and many lives will be saved.
I asked the CQC to look at what happened at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust and to assess more broadly what lessons there are for the NHS as a whole. Its findings make sobering reading. Among other findings, the report says that families and carers often have a poor experience of mortality investigations; that they are sometimes not treated with kindness, respect and sensitivity; that they can feel that their involvement is tokenistic; and that they often question the independence of the reports.
The report also says that the NHS does not prioritise learning from deaths and misses countless opportunities to learn and improve as a result, and that there is no single framework that sets out how local NHS organisations should identify, analyse and learn from deaths of patients in their care or those who have recently been in their care. As a result, there is inconsistency. Some NHS trusts get elements of mortality reporting right, but not one gets all the elements right. In particular, the leaders of NHS organisations and their doctors, nurses and other staff simply do not have access to the full picture of how many patients die in their care, which deaths were preventable, and what needs to be learned.
I thank Professor Sir Mike Richards and his CQC colleagues for an extremely thoughtful and thorough report. I am accepting all their recommendations. From 31 March next year, the boards of all NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be required to collect a range of specified information on potentially avoidable deaths and serious incidents, and to consider what lessons need to be learned, on a regular basis. This will include estimates of how many deaths could have been prevented in their own organisation and an assessment of why this might vary positively or negatively from the national average, based on methodology adapted by the Royal College of Physicians from work done by Professor Nick Black and Dr Helen Hogan.
We will require trusts to publish that information quarterly, in accordance with regulations that I will lay before the House, so that patients and the public can see whether and where progress is being made. Alongside those data, trusts will publish evidence of learning and action that is happening as a consequence of that information. They will feed the information back to NHS Improvement at a national level so that the whole NHS can learn more rapidly from individual incidents.
All trusts will be asked to identify a board-level leader as patient safety director to take responsibility for this agenda and ensure that it is prioritised and resourced within their organisation. This person is likely to be the medical director. They will be asked to appoint a non-executive director to take oversight of progress.
We will ensure that investigations of any deaths that may be the result of problems in care are more thorough and that they genuinely involve families and carers. More broadly, instead of the patchwork approach that we currently have, all trusts will be asked to follow a standardised national framework for identifying potentially avoidable deaths, reviewing the care provided and learning from mistakes.
I have asked the NHS National Quality Board, which includes senior clinicians from all national NHS organisations, to draw up guidance on reviewing and learning from the care provided to people who die, in consultation with Keith Conradi, the new chief investigator of healthcare safety. These guidelines will be published before the end of March next year, for implementation by all trusts in the year starting next April. We will also be working with the National Quality Board to ensure that much more support is offered to bereaved families. As the report highlights issues around support to families, Health Education England will be asked to review the training for all doctors and nurses with respect to engaging with patients and families after a tragedy and, equally importantly, maintaining their own mental health and resilience in extremely challenging situations.
As the report identified particular concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities, we will take two further actions. In acute trusts we will ask for particular priority to be given to identifying patients with a mental health problem or a learning disability to make sure that their care responds to their particular needs, and that particular trouble is taken over any mortality investigations to ensure that wrong assumptions are not made about the inevitability of death. We will also ensure that the NHS reviews and learns from all deaths of people with learning disabilities, in all settings. The learning disabilities mortality review—LeDeR—programme will provide support to families and local NHS areas to enable reporting and an independent, standardised review of all learning disability deaths of people between the ages of four and 74.
We will ensure that there is coverage in all regions by the end of next year and full national roll-out by 2019. As the programme develops, all learnings will be transferred to the national avoidable mortality programme. I have today asked the LeDeR programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings and how best to take forward the learnings across the NHS. From next year we will become the first country in the world to publish data on avoidable deaths at a hospital-by-hospital level.
I want to address the issue of how we ensure that data published about avoidable deaths are accurate, fair and meaningful, and that the process of publication rewards openness and honesty. Of course we will be working closely with the CQC, NHS Improvement and senior NHS doctors and nurses to get this right, but I want to make it clear to the House that I will not be setting any target for reducing reported avoidable deaths, and nor do I believe it will be valid to compare numbers between hospitals because the data depend on clinical views that may change or vary. I expect—this might surprise some in the House—to see an increase in the number of reported avoidable deaths. This is more likely to be because hospitals get better at spotting and reporting them than because care is deteriorating.
We should also remember that when there is a tragedy in the NHS, there is always a second victim—namely, the doctor or nurse involved, who invariably suffers huge anguish. So let us today also give credit to all NHS front-line staff for the changes that are already taking place to improve patient safety. For example, the number of people experiencing the four main hospital harms is down by a third since November 2012; MRSA and clostridium difficile rates have halved since 2010; and we have 10,000 more hospital nurses in our wards since the Francis report, and they are now at record numbers.
There is a new healthcare safety investigations branch to perform speedy, no-blame inquiries into avoidable harm and death, modelled on the successful system that has operated in the airline industry for many years. There is also a consultation concluding this week on legislation to create a safe space for NHS staff to talk openly about how to improve the safety of care for patients, without having to worry about litigation or professional consequences.
The culture of the NHS is changing following a number of tragedies, but this report shows that there is much progress to be made in the collection of information about unexpected deaths, analysis of what was preventable and learning from the results. Only by implementing the report’s recommendations in full will we honour the memory of Connor Sparrowhawk, and I commend the statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I thank the CQC for its report.
Any death is a tragedy for families, but when that death could have been prevented, or was the fault of a system that is meant to care for our loved ones, the trauma is all the more difficult to cope with. The circumstances of Connor Sparrowhawk’s death were shocking, and I, like the Secretary of State, pay tribute to his family, who have fought so hard for justice and to ensure other families do not have to go through what they went through. Connor Sparrowhawk’s step-father, Richard, told Radio 5 live:
“When a loved one dies in care, knowing how and why they died is the very least a family should be able to expect”.
We agree.
The findings of the CQC are a wake-up call: relatives shut out of investigations; reasonable questions going unanswered; and grieving families made to feel like a “pain in the neck” or feeling they would be better dealt with at a “supermarket checkout”. This is totally unacceptable—it is shameful and it has to change. We therefore strongly welcome the recommendation of a national framework and the specific measures the Secretary of State has outlined today. I assure him we will work with him and the Care Quality Commission to support the establishment of such a framework in a timely fashion.
Families and patients should not be forgotten in this process. Will the Secretary of State pledge that families and carers will be equal partners in developing the Government’s plans for implementing the CQC’s recommendations? Does he agree that those who work in the NHS show extraordinary compassion, good will and professionalism? Does he accept that when something, sadly and tragically, goes wrong, it can often be the result of a number of interplaying systemic failures and that therefore a national framework will provide welcome standards and guidance across the service?
Does the Secretary of State recall that the National Patient Safety Agency was responsible for monitoring patient safety incidents in the NHS, including medication and prescribing errors, before it was scrapped under the Health and Social Care Act 2012? Will he perhaps acknowledge in retrospect that scrapping that agency was a mistake?
For such a national framework and the Secretary of State’s proposed measures to succeed, investment will be necessary. Will hospitals and trusts receive extra funding to carry out the additional requirements that the CQC has recommended? More generally, hospitals across England are suffering chronic staff shortages, which is leaving doctors and nurses overstretched and struggling to do basic tasks. We all recall that Sir Robert Francis called for safe nurse staffing levels to be published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, but this guidance has been blocked. Will the Secretary of State now consider committing to NICE publishing safe nurse staffing levels, as recommended by the Francis report?
The Secretary of State is aware of the wider pressures on the service. Will he acknowledge that cuts to social care and the failure to provide it with extra investment in the autumn statement two weeks ago are leaving hospitals dangerously overstretched, with patients at risk of harm?
The Secretary of State will also be aware of the pressures on mental health provision. Over the weekend, we saw reports that bed shortages in England are now such that seriously ill patients with eating disorders are having to travel hundreds of miles for treatment. What does he make of this practice, and does he consider it safe and sustainable?
May I ask the Secretary of State about the heart-breaking case of the death of baby Elizabeth Dixon? I know that he has spoken of this in the past. He rightly ordered an investigation, but I understand from the family that 16 months down the line the investigation has not started. Will he provide the House with an update?
The CQC has called for the issues addressed in its report to be a national priority, and for all those involved in delivering safe care to review the findings and publish a full report. We absolutely agree. Action is needed. We welcome the recommendations and stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that these issues are no longer ignored.
Mr Hunt
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for the constructive nature of his comments. He is absolutely right in that, because this issue can unite people in all parts of the House. In fairness, these tragedies happen when those on either side of the House are responsible for the NHS, and we all have a responsibility to work to do better than we are doing at the moment.
I particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman that front-line doctors and nurses work incredibly hard, and we need to get away from a blame culture when these tragedies happen. That blame culture is the root cause of why we are not learning as we should from the problems that arise, because people are worried about what will happen to them personally if they speak out. We have seen this with a number of tragedies. Through the national framework, we are trying to move away from a blame culture. Of course people have to be held accountable. If there is gross negligence and people do totally irresponsible things, then there must be no hiding place and proper accountability: that is what families rightly insist on. For the vast majority of the time, however, people are just trying to do their jobs as best they can. As he rightly says, it is often a systemic problem that can be solved with systemic changes. We are now trying to implement the culture of investigation that has worked so successfully in the airline industry and other industries.
I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that families and carers will be equal partners as we develop the new national guidance. This area was one of the most shocking things about the CQC report. I am sure that it was a great surprise to many people in the NHS how excluded many families felt. We clearly have to do better in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the National Patient Safety Agency, and I pay credit to Sir Liam Donaldson, who was chief medical officer under the previous Labour Government and a great champion of patient safety, but we now have different structures in place. The new CQC inspection regime and the healthcare safety investigation branch are giving equal, if not greater, priority to patient safety.
We discuss on many occasions the funding issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, as I think he is acknowledging with his facial expressions. The point I would make, because we have had a good exchange and I do not want to get into the specific politics of NHS funding, is that this is a win-win, because avoidable harm and death is incredibly expensive for the NHS. The time it takes to carry out investigations when things go wrong is utterly exhausting for the doctors, nurses and managers involved, who would much rather be doing front-line care. Preventing these things from happening in future is the best possible way of freeing up time for people on the frontline.
I will take away what the hon. Gentleman said about the Elizabeth Dixon case and find out what is happening with that review.
The real lesson of today is that every family, every doctor and every nurse has a simple aim when a tragedy happens. It is not about money; it is about making sure that lessons are learned openly and transparently so that history does not repeat itself. That is really what this is about, and that is why we will continue our mission to make NHS care the safest and highest quality in the world.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Secretary of State has answered my point, but I would like to say, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety, that the publication of avoidable death figures is really welcome news. I support what he said about creating a just culture where clinicians and other staff feel safe. That is important so that they can speak up about failure, and vital in delivering the high-quality but, most importantly, safer and better-value services the NHS aspires to.
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend, who does a huge amount of work on patient safety, not least because of sadness in her own family’s experiences that gives her particular passion in this respect. This is absolutely about creating a just culture. Inspiring people like James Titcombe, who lost his own son at Morecambe Bay, talk far more eloquently than I can about the need to get this right. Part of that just culture is about justice for people who use the NHS in future, to whom we have a responsibility to learn the lessons and make sure that mistakes are not repeated. One of the really important things we need to get right is to make sure that when something goes wrong in one place, there is a national way in which the lessons can be conveyed right across the NHS as quickly as possible.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome this statement and remember the discussion of this tragic case. Obviously the majority of people who go into hospital and die in hospital will be people who are simply too ill for us to save, but we must not be nihilistic in imagining that that applies to everybody. The particular failure here was that people with learning difficulties or mental health needs were somehow just set aside and not looked at.
I welcome the idea of a safety board; there will be lots of things that can be learned and shared in that. I slightly pick up the Secretary of State on what he said about the Scottish patient safety programme, which is a national programme that has been running since the beginning of 2008. Part of that was about breaking down all the barriers, very much like in the airline business—being on first-name terms and making it everybody’s business so that even the cleaner in the theatre feels they can point out that they think a mistake is going to be made, but then when something happens having these adverse case reviews. In my hospital, we also reviewed near misses, and I commend that. It means that there is a review when what might have happened would have been serious. Certainly in the cases that I have been involved in, the family have been involved repeatedly. That is really important.
I also welcome the idea of a safe place for whistleblowers. People who have raised issues in the past and have been appallingly treated by the NHS still stand there as a terrible example to those who currently work in the NHS, so there needs to be some ability to go back to these old cases and provide justice for people who have ended up losing their careers by trying to raise patient safety issues.
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I recognise the progress made in the Scottish patient programme, and particularly the inspirational leadership of Jason Leitch, who has done a fantastic job in Scotland and some very pioneering work.
The hon. Lady made some good points that I will take in reverse order. On whistleblowers, I asked Sir Robert Francis to look at this in his second report. He concluded that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to go back over historical cases, because the courts have pronounced and it is very difficult to create a fair process where legal judgments have already been made. However, I take on board what she says, and I do not think that that means that we cannot learn from what has happened in previous cases; they are very powerful voices.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about near misses, and we will include that issue in the “learning from mistakes” ambition.
The hon. Lady is most right of all about people with learning disabilities. The heart of the problem is deciding when a death was expected and when it was unexpected. About half of us die in hospitals. As she rightly says, the vast majority of those deaths are expected, but when a person has a learning difficulty it is very easy for a wrong assumption to be made that they would have died anyway. That is a prejudice that we have to tackle, and one that Connor Sparrowhawk’s mother talks about extremely powerfully. We have to make sure that this is not just about lessons for the whole NHS, but particularly about ensuring that we do better for people who have learning disabilities.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, for me the most chilling phrase in the foreword of the report was when Mike Richards and his team said:
“We found that the level of acceptance and sense of inevitability when people with a learning disability or mental illness die early is too common.”
Will the Secretary of State put on the record what Mike Richards says in the report, namely that there can be no tolerance of treating the deaths of people with learning disabilities with any less importance than the deaths of any other patient in the national health service?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to put on the record the fact that those words have the Government’s wholehearted support. I credit my right hon. Friend for his work leading the APPG. I commissioned the CQC report because a year ago we had a report by Mazars on what happened at Southern Health, which said that only 19% of unexpected deaths were investigated and that that fell to 1% for people with learning disabilities. That cannot be acceptable, and it is why it is so important that we act on today’s report.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I seek the indulgence of the House while I raise a personal issue. This Thursday I should have been attending the inquest into my father’s death, which I anticipate will conclude that his death was avoidable. An hour ago I was notified that one of the key witnesses will not be attending because the hospital had incorrect contact details for him—he was a locum, and was unaware that the inquest was taking place. For the second time, therefore, it is being cancelled. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the report looked into the issue of locum doctors—the pressure, and the failure to learn lessons because so many people in the health service, and in A&E in particular, come to the specific hospital on a one-off occasion, which is partly the cause of the defensiveness in the system?
Mr Hunt
First, I am sure the whole House will join me in offering my condolences to the hon. Gentleman for what happened to his father. The incredible grief that he and others feel when they lose a family member is compounded if it is subsequently discovered that the death was avoidable.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. The CQC was not specifically looking at the issue of locums in this report, but in many other reports, on many occasions, it has talked about the dangers of locum and agency staff for precisely the reason he mentions. It is partly because people are not necessarily around at the time of an investigation, as they have moved on and work somewhere else, but it is also partly because, as I am sure we all believe, staff can give better care if they are in a team of people who know and trust each other. That is not possible if the majority of staff are employed on a temporary basis. He makes a very important point.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is clear that half of medical negligence claims are in the field of maternity. Does the Secretary of State agree that the fear of legal action often prevents people from speaking out? How will the safe space be created that does not allow lawyers to intervene—very often lawyers slow up the process? An early admission of fault and a willingness to express the fact that lessons have been learned would provide so much comfort for families.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend has spoken very eloquently about that issue many times in this House. If a baby is born with a serious brain injury there will typically be a court case that lasts 11 years, and a settlement of around £6 million. That family are having to cope with the shock of having a disabled child—some families say that that is a kind of mourning process because the baby is not the one they were expecting, although they then go on to give the most extraordinary love to that child—and we compound it by making them go through a legal process that lasts more than a decade. It is absolutely shocking and despicable if that happens. We need to find a way to get those families the financial support that they need earlier, and make sure that we learn the lessons more quickly. That is absolutely what this agenda is all about.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I also pay tribute to Sara Ryan, the mother of Connor Sparrowhawk, who has fought tirelessly for justice for those with learning disabilities. I warn the Secretary of State that I think she will take some convincing that things really will change, given all the resistance she has come up against. I hope he has managed to meet her; if not, would he be willing to meet her, with me, to discuss the plans going forward?
One key issue not covered in the report or statement is the timeliness of investigations. A report nine months or a year after the incident is often no good at all: the organisation has moved on, and people have forgotten what has happened. I commend Mersey Care, which does a very quick, thorough investigation within 48 hours, when the information is really current and people are still shocked by what has happened. That is how Mersey Care seeks to implement the lessons from every tragedy.
Mr Hunt
I want to put on the record that the right hon. Gentleman was a big champion for people with learning disabilities when he was in my ministerial team, in particular over issues such as Winterbourne View, which he brought to my attention and did a huge amount of positive work on.
I have met Sara Ryan. I spoke to her again yesterday. I repeat what I said in my statement: that without her campaigning we would not now be making the huge changes on a national level that we are. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s other comments.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The review found that acute and community trusts do not always record whether a patient has a mental health illness or learning disability. What steps will we take—such as, for example, the expansion of liaison psychiatry services—to make sure there is proper join-up and real parity of esteem?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are making sure that all A&Es have liaison psychiatry services by the end of this Parliament. The critical issue is that someone with a severe mental health problem or learning disability who turns up in an A&E has special needs, and has bigger needs than the other patients there, but unless that is recognised early in the process, they are unlikely to get the care they need. If a tragedy then happens and they go on to die—as sadly happens sometimes—but the illness or disability is not known about, people do not realise that there are other potential issues. That is why the report is very clear that all acute trusts are required to know when patients have learning disabilities or mental health problems and to pay particular attention in any mortality investigations that happen regarding those patients.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The CQC has produced a grim report, and there was an even grimmer internal report on maternity services operated by Pennine Acute NHS Trust. Mothers and babies have died. I have put in parliamentary questions to the right hon. Gentleman and talked to the chief executive to try to find out which of those deaths were avoidable. I welcome today’s statement, but is it possible to be retrospective, so that the families of those people who have died in the Pennine maternity service can find out whether those deaths were preventable?
Mr Hunt
When the new guidelines are published, we need to investigate, as far as we possibly can, deaths that have already happened. I totally recognise the hon. Gentleman’s picture of Pennine and share his real worry about the standard of care in that trust. The positive thing is that under the leadership of Sir David Dalton—the chief executive of Salford Royal, which is one of the safest trusts in the NHS and a CQC outstanding trust—things are beginning to turn around. I have spoken to him about the situation at Pennine on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a lot of work to do there.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Many people will be shocked to hear that some trusts do not even know how many in-patients have died in their care. Will my right hon. Friend say more about what action should be taken against boards and leaders who are negligent in that way?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Boards now have a legal duty of candour, and are obliged to tell patients the truth about what has happened when something goes wrong, but how can they possibly do so if they do not properly record deaths or avoidable deaths? That is why this is a very significant moment. From next year, on a quarterly basis, all trusts will be publishing how many avoidable deaths there are in the trust. Those figures will be compared with national benchmarks. That is how we will start to make boards feel that they have a critical responsibility on this.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the learning disability mortality review that the Secretary of State has announced, but I am keen to ensure that it includes unexpected deaths in care settings other than the NHS. When I was first elected, Longcroft, which purported to be a care home for people with learning disabilities, was actually a torture chamber for people with learning disabilities. We have ended that kind of thing, but we need to ensure that unexplained deaths of people with learning disabilities in other care settings are fully investigated, and that those investigations feed into this review.
Mr Hunt
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will take away with me the question of what the legal responsibilities will be for people in adult social care settings. One thing the report highlights, which I had not particularly anticipated, was the problem that a number of people with learning disabilities are cared for in multiple settings, so if there is a tragedy, the place where the tragedy happens may not be the place responsible for what went wrong. Often, the person’s previous care provider never even finds out that that person has died. One thing that Sir Mike Richards talks about is making sure that all care providers are informed promptly when something happens, so that there can be a multi-institution examination of what went wrong.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the measures that he has announced. I have been supporting the family of a constituent who died unexpectedly in hospital, and they have suffered at every step along the way. There has been a wall of silence, the trust has refused to co-operate and the CQC has refused to investigate. Every step along the way, the family have been frustrated. That has been made even more important by the fact that the son of the deceased is a doctor in the NHS, and he knows that processes have been badly handled. All he wants is for the NHS to learn from its mistakes. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to say what he will do about the number of unexplained deaths that have occurred in the NHS over the past few years, and whether any of those cases can be examined by an appropriate authority?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to look personally at the case that my hon. Friend talks about. I think he speaks for all patients and families who have suffered tragedies when he says that the only thing people want is for lessons to be learned. A more challenging issue is that staff sometimes do not feel empowered to speak out in such situations, and they worry about the consequences. A number of trusts have an outstanding learning culture that is really supportive of staff, but that is not the case everywhere. One of the big lessons from today is that we must work out how to spread that positive culture across the NHS.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On 10 December last year, I asked:
“Is the Secretary of State satisfied that families seeking truth and justice for their loved ones are having to rely on pro bono lawyers for advice and representation, and on crowdsourcing to get legal advice?”
He said:
“It should never come down to lawyers.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1147.]
Sadly, we all know that, on occasion, it will come down to lawyers getting involved. Will any of the recommendations from the CQC cover such eventualities?
Mr Hunt
It is a difficult one, because access to lawyers is a matter for the Ministry of Justice. I am not trying to duck the issue, but my responsibility, in what we are trying to do today, is to try to make sure that families do not feel as though they need to go to lawyers, because the NHS is open and transparent enough. With the values of people in the NHS, I think that ought to be achievable. I am happy to look at the case that she raises, and to bring it up with my colleague the Lord Chancellor.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State tell the House more about the healthcare safety investigation branch? How big will it be, who will head it up, where will it be based and how will it use its forensic detective work locally to get to the nitty gritty of the things that cause problems for hospitals?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do that. The best way to understand what we are trying to achieve—this relates to what the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said earlier about the speed of investigation—is to think about the tragedy of the recent Croydon tram crash. Within one week of the accident, the rail accident investigation branch produced and published a full investigation into exactly what happened, which made it possible to transmit that learning around the whole tram industry. That is what we are looking for. We have modelled the healthcare safety investigation branch on what happens in the transport industry. It has already been set up, and we are lucky that the person heading it up is Keith Conradi, who headed up the air accident investigation branch and knows exactly how these things should happen.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The CQC clearly identifies the need for a change in culture, and the Secretary of State acknowledged that a number of times in his remarks today. The NHS has to be less defensive, and it needs to be more honest and open with families if there is to be a genuine commitment to reflect, learn and make sure that things are different in future. What does he think are the barriers to ensuring that that culture change takes place, and what steps does he intend to take to overcome those barriers?
Mr Hunt
There are a number of barriers, one of which is time. Staff feel very pressured for time. I strongly argue that it is a false economy not to allow time for lessons to be learned, because tragedies, when they happen, take up a huge amount of time. From a management and leadership point of view, we have to make sure that doctors and nurses are given the time for reflective learning as part of what they do.
Another thing is the management culture. If people feel that the management of their trust are open and listening, they are more likely to be open and listening themselves. If they feel that there is a hire-and-fire culture, they are less likely to take that approach. There are a number of lessons.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Given the case of three-year-old Sam Morrish, who died at Torbay hospital in 2010, and the conclusions of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that many investigations into avoidable deaths were not fit for purpose, I welcome the statement. I also welcome the spirit of openness that will follow in relation to these extremely difficult issues. We are, ultimately, all mortal. Although I think it is absolutely right that we will not be setting targets, will the Secretary of State reassure me about the ongoing monitoring we will undertake and the proactive work we will do with trusts to reduce the number of such incidents?
Mr Hunt
As my hon. Friend knows, I have met the parents of Sam Morrish—Scott and Sue Morrish—on a number of occasions. They described how when their son died, all the shutters came down. I met them only a few months after I became Health Secretary, and that engraved itself on my memory because it was so awful to hear about what they were doing.
My hon. Friend raises a rather sensitive issue, which I tried to talk about in my statement. I expect, as a result of the changes, the number of reported avoidable deaths to increase. If that happens, I do not think that it will necessarily mean that patient care is suffering. We have to be very careful, in this House and with our local newspapers, to say that if trusts start to report an increased number of avoidable deaths, it might mean that they have a more transparent culture and are being more open. Their standards about what is expected and what is unexpected may start to change as they realise that things could have been done to prevent a death that they might previously have described as expected. We have a duty, as Members, to encourage responsible reporting of this new openness, and that, in turn, will help staff.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I want to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). A constituent of mine who is an agency nurse told me that she had been left in charge of 24 fragile patients, some of whom had the norovirus, on a ward that she did not know very well, with only two healthcare professionals working with her. Given that, will the Secretary of State now commit to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence publishing safe nursing staffing levels, as recommended by the Francis report?
Mr Hunt
NICE has published its staffing levels for wards. I recognise the problem, and it is exactly what we were dealing with in the Francis report. We now have 10,000 more full-time nurses on our hospital wards than we had three years ago. We are making significant progress, but there is still huge pressure on hospital wards. We have developed a new methodology that more accurately makes sure that patients get the care that they need, whether it is from a nurse, a healthcare assistant or whoever else in the hospital. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady and tell her what that guidance is.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The families of those who died in the care of Southern Health in Hampshire have played a vital role in campaigning for transparency and improvements, and they include the family of David Hinks from Havant. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the families for their work in the most distressing of circumstances?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely do so. I know that the family of David Hinks have campaigned very strongly on this matter. The key point about families is that they are often the people who know best what happened to individuals when something went wrong, because they saw the care at every single stage. Whether the care took place in a care home, hospital or a GP surgery, families are likely to have seen the whole thing, and can really help us to understand what might have gone wrong. They are therefore a positive force in this process.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I am so pleased that the Secretary of State took the time to praise James Titcombe and other campaigners in my constituency who have done so much to help to break down the culture of secrecy and cover-up that has afflicted too many of our trusts. The right hon. Gentleman deserves real credit for his determination, and I hope that the tone he has struck today will last and that we do not go back to the accusatory and vindictive tone that, I am afraid, too often marred discussions about this during the last Parliament. Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker—will the Secretary of State say more about the tension between the families’ desire for individual accountability and the need to encourage a culture of openness in which people can come forward?
Mr Hunt
In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, he makes two important points. I know that he worked very closely with James Titcombe, who is one of his constituents.
We are now learning the right way to deal with the tension between accountability and having a learning culture. Essentially, this boils down to an understanding that 98% of the time a mistake is made because of a systems problem—a structure or a framework that did not enable a doctor or a nurse to operate to the best of their ability—while 2%, 1% or perhaps even less of the time it is a case of genuine negligence by an individual that deserves full accountability. When we understand it in that way, we start to realise that the first thing to ask is what could be changed in the system, but if we uncover bad behaviour by individuals—there are 1.3 million people in the NHS, so it is obviously going to happen at some stage—then there of course needs to be full accountability.
On the tone of these exchanges, let me say something optimistic: I really do believe that the NHS can become the safest, highest-quality healthcare system in the world. That would be welcomed by the Labour party, as the party that was in power when the NHS was set up, and we would welcome it as part of our absolute commitment to higher standards in public services. There is no country in the world that is even considering what we have announced today, which is to ask hospitals to publish the number of their avoidable deaths on a quarterly basis. It is a very big step that can happen in a system built around public service.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Kevin, the son of my constituent Desmond Watts, suffered from very significant learning difficulties and was neglected in a care home in the county, which led to his tragic death. This was completely avoidable. Des has never seen justice for Kevin, but I know that he would want my right hon. Friend to consider whether it is possible to apply to social care some of the principles that he has set out today. I join the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in encouraging him to do that.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I will have discussions with the Minister responsible for social care, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), about what we can do in the social care field. I am optimistic that we can do something, because if we make this part of the framework of the new CQC inspection regime—obviously, that has to happen with the consent of the CQC—we can create a very strong incentive for adult social care providers to do what we want and to follow what is happening in the NHS.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I, too, want to raise the issue of the appalling neglect in medical care at Pennine Acute. The report—the extremely damning report—only came to light following the persistence of Jennifer Williams, a journalist on the Manchester Evening News, and the bravery of a whistleblower at the trust. I know that the Secretary of State will do what he can to protect whistleblowers, but how will he enforce a no-blame culture and a culture of openness in a trust such as Pennine Acute that appears to have tried actively to suppress this extremely damning report?
Mr Hunt
There should be no hiding place for managers who neglect their legal responsibility, which is the duty of candour that we in this place passed into law in 2014. That is my first point. It is also important to be realistic about the ability to impose a culture on organisations by ministerial diktat, but we can achieve that because this is something that NHS staff want. In some ways, what is most worrying about Pennine is that Salford Royal, one of the best hospitals in the NHS, is virtually next door to it, but the transmission of learning at Salford Royal did not seem to penetrate even into a neighbouring hospital. That is why we must get much better at sharing learning between hospitals.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State say more about how the additional and extra information he has mentioned, which will be so important for patient groups in judging rates of progress, will be made available?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do so. We will lay down in regulations in the House that the information must be published for all trusts on a quarterly basis. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to what I said in the statement, which is that it is not legitimate to compare the numbers in different trusts, because trusts will have different levels of reporting. In fact, our better trusts may actually have higher levels of reported avoidable deaths because they are better at picking up these things.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
One of the recommendations says:
“Greater clarity is needed to support agencies working together to investigate deaths and to identify improvements needed across services and commissioning.”
How is that going to happen?
Mr Hunt
This is a very complex issue, but it is a very important one, particularly for people with learning disabilities who are users of the services of multiple organisations. The National Quality Board will put together guidance before the end of March, so that we can roll this out across the whole NHS during next year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and indeed his commitment to retraining and his recognition of its importance. Does he acknowledge the finding that the families, whom we must remember will be grieving, are not always treated with kindness, respect and sensitivity, which is unacceptable? Does he agree that those handling review cases involving deaths must have compassion and the ability to empathise with families, and that those must be among the qualifications of that job?
Point of Order
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A fundamental part of our parliamentary democracy is the right of our constituents to raise concerns with their Members of Parliament. My constituent Dawn Knight has raised with me the terrible treatment she received from the Hospital Medical Group following cosmetic surgery. I have raised her case on a number of occasions with Ministers, including on the Floor of the House.
Last week, Dawn Knight and Lorna Kidd, a constituent of the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), received solicitors’ letters from Schillings solicitors on behalf of the Hospital Group threatening them with legal action if they discuss their cases with a third party —in other words, including with their Members of Parliament. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has already written to you, Mr Speaker, concerning his constituent. May I ask you to look at this case, because allowing our constituents to raise their concerns with us is fundamental to the way in which we operate?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and indeed for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I can confirm that I have received the letter to which he refers, and I shall reply to it in due course. Any attempt to impede an hon. Member going about his or her parliamentary business is potentially a contempt, and in such circumstances I would ask the hon. Member to write to me about this matter in the first instance. I hope that that is helpful both to the hon. Gentleman and more widely to the House.
Mutualisation of the Royal Bank of Scotland
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Mutualisation of the Royal Bank of Scotland Bill 2016-17 View all Mutualisation of the Royal Bank of Scotland Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the ownership of the Royal Bank of Scotland to its customers and employees; and for connected purposes.
Taxpayers saved the Royal Bank of Scotland; they should now be allowed to own it. It should become a people’s bank that every tax-paying British citizen has the right to be a part-owner of. Making it the Royal Building Society of Scotland would mark a decisive break with the disastrous Fred Goodwin era.
There are new entrants to the banking market and there have been many reforms to banking regulation, many of which have made a difference, but the structural problem in Britain’s banking market—a lack of competition between different types of financial services institutions—is as bad now as it was in 2008, and arguably worse following the banking mergers that the crash precipitated. The problems of 2008 can be traced back, in part, directly to 1992, when the wave of building society demutualisations began. Although only 10 of the 89 societies that existed demutualised, because those 10 were among the largest, they represented about 70% of the mutual sector’s assets.
Before 1992 in the UK, as is still the case in most of the rest of Europe, banking services were provided by financial service providers with a range of ownership structures and, therefore, with different incentives and business ambitions. After 1992, the gradual takeover of most of the big players in the building society world led to a steady decline and deterioration in competition in banking in the UK.
Although many other countries have had serious problems in their banking sector, few have suffered as much as the UK and, crucially, few others have been so dominated by traditional shareholder investor-owned banks. Each of the last two Governments have been wrong to leave in place what is effectively a cartel of the major banks, with just one building society challenging their dominance.
There have been persistent concerns about the level of competition in the banking market and its structure. I am pleased to say that those finally led to the Competition and Markets Authority being called in to investigate. In August this year, it published its retail banking market conclusions. For anyone who is tempted to think that banking is a wholly reformed and properly functioning market, its report makes sobering reading.
The CMA report describes the personal banking market as concentrated and states that concentration levels have increased since the crisis and that competition is not working well. On lending to small and medium-sized businesses, the CMA notes that the four largest providers—RBS, Lloyds, Barclays and HSBC—had a combined market share of over 80% and that new entrants had reduced their market share by just 1%. It found that there had been little product innovation in SME lending and went on to note the adverse effects on competition in personal banking, basic current accounts and SME lending caused by the combination of persistent concentration in the market and the very high barriers to entry and expansion for new lenders.
Almost 60% of banking staff work in just two banking groups and almost 70% of bank branches are held by just three banks. In 2014, of the top 10 banking groups by market share for personal current accounts, only two could reasonably be described as mutual and only one of those had a market share of 5% or higher.
What was striking about the remedies package that the CMA advanced was that it did not consider reforms to the ownership model of any of the major banks as a possible part of the solution. It did discuss the idea of breaking up the big banks, but I repeat that it did not discuss changing the ownership model. State ownership of RBS has steadied a sinking Titanic, but it has not fundamentally changed the key structural weakness in British banking: the lack of competition between different types of financial services business. Full private ownership of all the big banks—the stated aim of the last two Governments—is only likely to exacerbate the lack of competition.
There has been discussion about mutualising one of the banks. Indeed, for some time, the Co-operative party tried, ultimately unsuccessfully, to convince both the last Governments to consider remutualising Northern Rock. Neither of them, for slightly different reasons I suspect, was willing to countenance that option. There has been consistent support across all the main parties for reinvigorating competition and choice in the banking sector, first by fostering more diversity and secondly by promoting mutuals. The case for mutualising RBS, rather than selling the rest of its shares at some future point on the open market, is partly that it would encourage a more diverse group of big banking businesses, partly that it would enhance the critical mass of the mutual sector and partly that it would accelerate improvements in the culture and practice of RBS itself.
Andrew Haldane of the Bank of England has argued that a more mixed system of different corporate structures is likely to produce a more stable financial system. While there is evidence that building societies offer their customers a better deal, on average, than traditional banks, I am not making the case for mutuals per se, although I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for mutuals. I am making the case for the systemic advantages of a mix of banks and mutuals, which turning RBS into the Royal Building Society of Scotland would deliver. Mutuals, although affected by the downturn, proved more stable than traditional proprietary banks. Given the huge barriers to entry to setting up a new mutual of any significant size in the financial services, it makes sense to explore the mutualising of a mature business, while conserving the remaining mutuals.
As we have had to suspend the sale and reprivatisation of shares in RBS, there is an opportunity to consider an alternative to state or private ownership. After all, no one thinks the Government will get their money back in full from the sale of RBS shares for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is no longer factoring in any sales of RBS shares in this Parliament. Those shares that were sold resulted in a net loss of £1 billion to the taxpayer.
The mutualisation of RBS would not mean that its debt to the taxpayer could not be repaid. A new mutualised Royal Bank of Scotland would need to make annual payments to the Treasury for some time to come. An asset lock for the new Royal Building Society of Scotland would also be needed to ensure that members—that is, customers or employees of the society—would benefit only from their ongoing financial relationship with the business. Crucially, it would be clear up front that membership of the new society could not lead to a demutualisation-style handout, so members would have no incentive other than to see the business stick to its core activities.
The trade sale of RBS shares was to other financial services players. If Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are allowed to continue with that, it will simply reinforce ownership of the big banks by the wealthiest in our country and beyond.
A Royal Building Society of Scotland would be a chance to change the culture fundamentally at one of Britain’s biggest financial players. Above all else, it would inject some competitive energy and dynamism into what is, to all intents and purposes, still a monopoly industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Gareth Thomas, Luciana Berger, Stephen Twigg, Stephen Doughty, Stella Creasy, Geraint Davies, Mr Mark Hendrick, Mr Adrian Bailey, Mike Gapes, Ms Karen Buck, Christina Rees and Mr Steve Baker present the Bill.
Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 111).
Aleppo/Syria: International Action
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.
The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), with whom I co-chair the friends of Syria all-party group, joins me in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for granting this emergency debate. We are both concerned that on occasions, motions such as this can appear to be hand-wringing and to focus on the concept that something must be done. We are anxious today to encourage the Government to pursue all avenues and options, as I know they are extremely anxious to do.
The House will be particularly grateful to the Foreign Secretary for responding to the debate himself. On the earlier occasion when you granted an emergency debate on these matters, Mr Speaker, he returned to the House and made his first major speech from the Dispatch Box. I believe his presence signifies the concern of Foreign Office Ministers about the tragedy that is Aleppo today.
I wish to cover three points this afternoon. The first is the current situation in Aleppo. Secondly, I have some specific suggestions for the Government to consider together with our allies, and, thirdly, some observations on how this crisis could develop in 2017 and the action that the international community should take.
I start with the position on the ground today. We are able to monitor what is going through Twitter and other social media to some extent, but in particular, the reports of the United Nations and its agencies, and of the International Committee of the Red Cross, are likely to be extremely accurate. They have reported over lunchtime that there is clear evidence of civilians being executed—shot on the spot. There are dead bodies in the street that cannot be reached because of gunfire. In the last couple of hours, we have heard that probably more than 100 children who are unaccompanied or separated from their families are trapped in a building in east Aleppo and under heavy fire.
We learn from totally credible independent sources inside Aleppo that all the hospitals have been deliberately destroyed with barrel bombs and bunker-busting bombs, and that in case the people in those hospitals were not destroyed by those munitions, cluster munitions, which are anti-personnel munitions, have also been used. There are pop-up clinics in underground locations, which are suffering nightmare conditions, with people lying on the floor and pools of blood everywhere. Doctors and nurses are wearing boots because there is so much blood on the floor, and casualties are moved in and out as fast as they possibly can be because there are grave dangers to them from being in those locations. The ambulances of the White Helmets have been specifically targeted, and there is now no fuel available for them.
In the mid-afternoon yesterday, a 10 km by 10 km zone was the centre of the fighting in Aleppo. It is contracting, and at 10 o’clock this morning it was probably less than half that size. There are approximately 150,000 civilians crammed into that area, and very large numbers of them are children. Large numbers are stranded in the open and looking for shelter. The only food available is dates and bulgur wheat. Water has run out, and there is no electricity. Last night, people were flooding into that enclave. As I have said, there are credible reports of executions and the removal of groups of adult males.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman paints an absolutely grim picture of the current situation in Aleppo. Two years ago, I travelled to Srebrenica with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). We visited an exhibition in Sarajevo of pictures from Srebrenica and pictures from Syria, and they were indistinguishable. When we hear of summary executions, disappearances of men and boys, unmarked graves and the types of atrocities that the right hon. Gentleman is describing, does he not believe that we risk this being the Srebrenica of our generation?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, which I will come to directly.
The terrified civilians in Aleppo are of course sophisticated, educated people from what was one of the great cities of the world. With 2 million people, it is 6,000 years old and has treasured Islamic civilisation and artefacts within it. A senior Aleppo resident, terrified, said this morning:
“The human corridor needs to happen. If the British Government is serious about fighting terror, they can’t ignore state terror. Doing so creates so many more enemies and if they offer but empty words, nobody will ever believe them in future.”
Ten years ago, this country, along with the entire international community, embraced the responsibility to protect, a doctrine that said that nation states great and small would not allow Srebrenicas, Rwandas and other appalling events such as those in Darfur to take place again. That responsibility was signed up to with great fanfare and embraced by all the international community, great and small. Yet here we are today witnessing—complicit in—what is happening to tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo.
That is the situation today. I come to my second point, which is to put specific actions to the Government, which I know they will wish to consider. First, there is an urgent need for humanitarian teams to be deployed and given unfettered access to Aleppo once Government forces there are in control. That is essential if we are to avoid the same circumstances as Srebrenica—the precise point that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made. There is a very serious danger, from the position I have described, that such events are already taking place, so it is essential that those teams are deployed.
We need to get food, medicine, fuel and medical services into east Aleppo immediately. We also need to have independent humanitarian eyes and ears on the ground, not only to give confidence to terrified civilians—who, I remind the House, are caught out in the open in temperatures that are predicted to fall below minus 4° tonight—but to avoid possibly false allegations of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law by Government forces and their military associates. It is not easy to see why Russia and Syria would wish to resist that, unless they do not wish the world to know or see the actions that they are now taking in Aleppo.
The second action that I hope the Government will evaluate and support is organising the evacuation to comparative safety, in United Nations buses and lorries, under a white flag and in a permissive environment, of the people who are wounded or have been caught up in this terrible catastrophe. It is clear that the United Nations has the capacity, with available vehicles, to move north up to the Castello road and then west to Bab al-Hawa, near Reyhanli, on the border, which Clare Short, the distinguished former International Development Secretary, and I visited earlier this year. There are hospitals in Bab al-Hawa, and there are significant refugee facilities on the Syrian side of the border. They are easily resupplied via the Reyhanli crossing by international humanitarian actors, and that route out of the nightmare of eastern Aleppo should be made available as fast as possible.
Britain is in a pivotal position at the United Nations to try to convene an acceptance that that action should be taken. We are hugely respected on humanitarian matters at the UN. Matthew Rycroft, the permanent representative to the UN5 on the Security Council, is extremely effective in what he does. The current National Security Adviser, Mark Lyall Grant, a key United Nations operative for many years, has great convening power, and there are senior UK officials at the United Nations. The head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, who worked with me at the Department for International Development, plays a pivotal role. The British foreign service is respected and admired around the world, and, in supporting Staffan de Mistura and Jan Egeland, has an absolutely pivotal role to play in trying to convene the consensus that is now urgently required.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful and important speech. Does he think the Syrian regime would allow those very necessary humanitarian interventions without counter-attack and disaster?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, I believe that if the Russians could be persuaded at this point that they have nothing to lose from allowing international humanitarian actors into Aleppo, the Syrians would agree. If they do not, the world must ask why they wish to hide from purely humanitarian action.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about the importance of international pressure. He will have seen as we all did the grotesque story on the front of the Morning Star suggesting that what is happening is the “liberation of Aleppo”. While such scandalous propaganda on behalf of Russia is being put about within the UK, is it not all the more important that we have that international pressure so that we open the eyes of everyone in the world to what is happening?
Mr Mitchell
I confess to the hon. Gentleman that the Morning Star is not on my morning reading list. In view of what he has just said, I am most unlikely to add it.
Will the Foreign Secretary commit today to Britain’s using every sinew of the immensely impressive diplomatic machine I described to secure a consensus on those two actions in these last moments for Aleppo?
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am sorry I cannot stay for the whole debate—there is a concurrent meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend about the efforts to relieve the situation in Aleppo, but a year ago 20 nations—the International Syria Support Group—sat around a table and produced an agreement on the future of Syria. Does he agree that our efforts must also return to the politics of getting the whole international community into the same place on the future of Syria?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right that the support group has proved to be a cumbersome and not entirely effective mechanism, but his central point is absolutely correct.
I come to my third and final point, which is on the House looking to the future. What can we do as part of the international community to bring the catastrophe that has engulfed the Syrian people to an end? By an incredibly unfortunate sequence of events, the international community has so far been completely unable to help. The United Nations has been hobbled by Russian actions, using the veto, which it has the privilege to use on the Security Council, to shield itself from criticism and to stop international action on Syria.
The Kofi Annan plan originally put forward by the UN was, in my view, tragically and wrongly rejected by the American Government. The Russians in their turn have shredded a rules-based system, which will have cataclysmic effects on international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights. The Americans have been absent. Crucially, President Obama made it clear that, were chemical weapons to be used, it would cross a red line and America would take action. Chemical weapons were used and no action was taken by the Americans.
This House, in my view, was ill-advised to reject the former Prime Minister’s motion in August 2013 for British action. I hope the Government keep an open mind about putting another resolution before the House, as is necessary.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the powerful case he is making and the leadership he is demonstrating, but would he concede that the 2013 motion was not on a comprehensive plan to bring peace, and that if a motion is brought before the House, it should be on a comprehensive, UN-backed plan to deliver peace and not on such a narrow issue?
Mr Mitchell
I hope that, if there is a chance for Britain, with its pivotal role at the United Nations, to support a UN-backed force, if necessary with military action, Britain will very seriously consider it, and that such a proposition will be put before the House of Commons.
I was listing the unfortunate coincidence of events that has hobbled the international community, the fourth of which is that the Arab states in the region are irredeemably split on what should happen in Syria. Europe has become dysfunctional, facing inwards and not looking outwards, and focused on the symptoms of the problem—the refugees—and not on the causes. A resurgent Russia is pursuing its interests. The House should understand Russia’s interests and respect them, even as her actions are rightly condemned, and as we confront it when it breaches humanitarian law, as it has undoubtedly done in Aleppo.
There are only two ways in which this catastrophe will end. There will either be a military victory or there will be a negotiation. There will not be a military victory, so at some point there will be a negotiation and ceasefire to enable bitterly antagonistic foes to negotiate. When that time comes, Britain has the experience, the connections, the funds and the expertise to assist. The great powers must support that negotiation, however difficult it is, and put pressure on the regional powers to do the same. It is essential that we provide, through our position at the UN, the strongest possible diplomatic and strategic support to that process.
There will come a moment, too, when President-elect Trump and President Putin discuss these matters. As is widely recognised, there are indications that the two men can do business. I hope that the United States lifts its veto on Assad being part of any negotiations—Assad is part of the problem, and therefore by definition part of the solution—and that Russia uses its power to stop the conflict on the ground while both combine to defeat ISIL.
Finally, I ask the Foreign Secretary: will he intensify the efforts of his office to collect evidence, especially now, of breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes, so that individuals as well as states, no matter how long it takes, can be held to account one day for what they have done?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this emergency debate. I compliment the right hon. Gentleman for speaking with his customary force and authority, and for the way in which he has spoken up for the people of Aleppo persistently. Labour Members will always remember that he took up Labour’s fight to meet the 0.7% aid target after he became International Development Secretary in 2010. If, following the Chancellor’s words yesterday, we need to resume that fight in the coming years, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will be on our side again.
Since our previous emergency debate on Aleppo just over two months ago, every worst prediction that was made that day has happened. We all warned that the grotesque war crimes being committed by Russia and the Assad regime would only intensify, and so it proved. We all warned of the increasing humanitarian crisis, with thousands of civilians still trapped in Aleppo, desperately short of food, water, medical supplies and shelter. That crisis has only got worse. Finally, we all warned that, if nothing changed, eastern Aleppo would be destroyed by Christmas, and that is exactly what is coming to pass.
It was depressing to read in recent days the accounts of the talks that have taken place in Washington—they are said to have been going on for months—about the technical options for making airdrops of humanitarian supplies into Aleppo. The subject was raised recently in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South. According to The Guardian, the last meeting on the subject of airdrops collapsed because of fears that, by the time any airdrop took place,
“there would be no one…left to save”.
It was equally depressing and chastening to read the text sent yesterday by a doctor in eastern Aleppo, which he described as his “farewell message”. He wrote:
“Remember that there was once a city called Aleppo that the world erased from…history”.
Although we all condemn Russia and Assad for their actions in eastern Aleppo—we must ensure that one day they are held to account—and we equally condemn Iran and Hezbollah for the role that they have played in the massacre, we must remember the words of that doctor, who blamed not only those directly responsible for destroying his city, but the world as a whole for allowing it to happen. This has been a global collective failure every bit as great as Srebrenica. On that point, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
What do we do now? I believe that the answer boils down to four points. First, we must take every diplomatic step to press Russia and Iran to allow safe passage from eastern Aleppo, not just for the remaining fighters and their families, but for medical professionals, journalists and others. Many will have watched the extremely moving “Inside Aleppo” films on Channel 4. They were filmed by a 25-year-old mother and Aleppo citizen—not a camera woman or a journalist—who is married to a doctor whose professional duties have kept them in the city, even after many of the other civilians have fled. It is difficult to imagine the terror that they feel, but we have read their messages for ourselves.
We must make it clear to Russia and Iran that those civilians must be given safe passage from the city or be protected if they remain. I have been told by several sources, including journalists, the UN and the Red Cross, that there is a makeshift building—some might call it the last remaining hospital; others might say that it is simply a building that people have moved into in the last few days—inside which hundreds of children and injured people and 110 medical staff are trapped. Following negotiations with the Russians and the Syrian Government, the Russians have said that while the fighters and their families will be allowed to leave, the so-called civilians and activists will not. The “activists” they refer to are medical staff. Why would medical staff not be allowed to leave? According to the Russians, they must remain in the city, presumably to face the shelling. They presumably have a high chance of being massacred by the regime or at the very least detained. How can it be that men with guns can leave eastern Aleppo, but men with stethoscopes cannot?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
It might be that the men with guns have a high chance of being killed in some future conflict, whereas the citizen journalists and humanitarian doctors and nurses to whom my hon. Friend refers would be credible witnesses in any future criminal proceedings, and Russia and Syria have every incentive to make sure that their evidence is never given to the world.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that, in many ways, echoes what was said earlier about the importance of allowing aid workers and independent people into the area to bear witness to what is going on.
Secondly, once the fighting in Aleppo has ended—an end might well come very soon—how will we get humanitarian relief to the citizens still in eastern Aleppo and to those who have fled elsewhere, particularly as the temperatures begin to plummet and the need for shelter and blankets becomes as great as the need for food, water and medical supplies? As I have said, there is also a need for witnesses to the aftermath. If Russia and Assad continue to block road convoys into the area, surely the Government must finally accept that we have reached the point of last resort—that point at which the previous Foreign Secretary promised that airdrops would be used. If we fear that manned flights might be too dangerous, as does the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
indicated dissent.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister sits and shakes his head, but if we fear that such flights might be too dangerous, the Government must consider using unmanned drones or GPS-guided parachutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am really concerned about the idea that we might send our aircraft into airspace that is contested and hostile. As I know, they fly low to drop the aid, and they can be taken out by ground fire, not just missiles. I suggest that all those people who wish this to happen sign their names and perhaps travel on the RAF aircraft, because the action would be extremely dangerous.
Emily Thornberry
There is a live debate about this, which is why I also pray in aid solutions such as unmanned drones or GPS-guided parachutes, which can carry much more than unmanned drones. We know that the Government are actively considering all these proposals. If airdrops are not the answer to delivering humanitarian aid, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us what is, because inaction is simply not an option.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate those who have secured this debate. A UN spokesperson stated this morning that there had been a “complete meltdown of humanity” in Aleppo. If that does not mean that we have reached the point of last resort, does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear from the Foreign Secretary exactly what that point would be?
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I could not have put it better myself.
Thirdly, once Aleppo has fallen, attention will at some point turn to Raqqa and other cities where Daesh is currently in control or attempting to take control. Civilians are trapped in those cities as well, and they will be just as vulnerable as the civilians in Aleppo to bombardment, the use of chemical weapons and the humanitarian effects of any siege. To what extent, if at all, will there be co-operation with Russia, Iran and pro-Government forces, if and when their attention turns to fighting Daesh? If the answer is none, how will we stop Raqqa and other cities turning into repeats of Aleppo?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend refers to other cities in Syria. Is it not clear that the Assad regime and the Russians have focused all their resources on destroying eastern Aleppo and allowed ISIL/Daesh to retake Palmyra? Does that not show their real priorities?
Emily Thornberry
In some ways, that takes me to my fourth and final point. The impending fall of Aleppo must raise the question: what exactly is the Government’s current thinking about Syria? Increasingly across the country, we are seeing what the Foreign Secretary has called moderate rebel groups either defeated by pro-Assad forces or signing truce agreements with them. It has been claimed that more than 1,000 such local truce agreements are now in place. Do the Government believe that the moderate rebellion is still taking place or has any chance of succeeding? If not, what endgame are the Government now working towards?
In September, the Defence Committee published its report on the Government’s military strategy in Syria and concluded that the goal of creating new leadership in Syria that was
“neither authoritarian and repressive, on the one hand, nor Islamist and extreme, on the other”
was too ambitious to be achieved “by military means alone”. That remains a wise judgment, yet the Government seem to be even further away than they were in September from squaring this particular circle.
These are desperately dark and terrifying hours for the people of Aleppo. They are hours of shame and disgrace for the Governments of Syria, Russia and Iran, who have perpetuated this vicious assault, and they should be hours of deep sorrow and reflection for every international institution and Government who failed to stop it happening and did not do enough to help the people of Aleppo while there was still time. Even now, there are still things that we can do. There are still important lessons to learn and important questions for the Government to answer about where we go from here. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take this opportunity to answer some of those questions today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will begin with an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr George Osborne (Tatton) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on speaking with such passion and compassion for the citizens of Aleppo, and on bringing to bear his experience as one of the country’s outstanding International Development Secretaries. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate; it is good to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary here to respond to it.
What we have heard already moves us to tears: the tens of thousands of civilians trapped in Aleppo; the reports today of residents being shot on sight; and the barbarous assault by the Syrian army, Iranian militias and Russian airpower that the Morning Star, as we have heard, describes as a “liberation”. Let me offer my support and gratitude to the incredibly brave people who are risking their lives as doctors and White Helmet workers in that war zone. I support everything that has been said about what we need to do to get aid into Aleppo, or to provide some kind of ceasefire so that civilians can get out of Aleppo.
The whole concept of an emergency debate suggests that this tragedy has somehow come upon us out of the blue and that there is an almost natural aspect to it, but that is not the case. The Syrian civil war has been waged since 2011, so this is something that we could have foreseen and done something about. We are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament if we believe that we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria. The tragedy in Aleppo did not come out of a vacuum; it was created by a vacuum—a vacuum of western leadership, including American and British leadership. I take responsibility, as someone who sat on the National Security Council throughout those years, and Parliament should also take its responsibility because of what it prevented being done.
There were multiple opportunities to intervene. In 2012, David Petraeus, the head of the CIA, devised a plan for a much more aggressive intervention in Syria, providing lethal support to what was then clearly a moderate opposition in the Free Syrian Army. That approach was rejected. Britain provided support for flak jackets, medical kits and so forth, but it was clear throughout 2012 and 2013 that there was not a parliamentary majority in this House for providing lethal support to that opposition so that they could shoot down helicopters and aircraft, and fire back with sophisticated weaponry.
In 2013, of course, this House of Commons took a decision not to back a Government motion to authorise airstrikes when Assad used chemical weapons, breaking a 100-year-old taboo—we established it in the west and it survived the second world war—that you do not use chemical weapons, as well as crossing a red line that the President of the United States had established.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such lethal force would have overcome the Iranians, the Russians and Assad? Does he really think that if we had provided more munitions, this was a winnable war?
Mr Osborne
On the narrow point, in August 2013, we were responding to the use of chemical weapons and providing airstrikes as a demonstration that the use of those weapons was completely unacceptable and that a red line had been crossed—and, indeed, that the west had established that red line. Of course, once this House of Commons took its decision, I believe it did have an impact on American politics. We cannot have it both ways—we cannot debate issues such as Syria and then think that our decisions have no impact on the rest of the world. I think that that did cause a delay in the American Administration’s actions and did cause Congress to get cold feet.
This is where I want to begin to draw my remarks to a close, because I know many Members want to speak. The last time I spoke from the Back Benches was in 2003, from the Opposition Benches, when we were debating intervention in Iraq. We all know the price of intervention. My political generation knows the price of intervention: the incredibly brave servicemen and women who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan; the thousands of civilians who died in those conflicts; the cost to taxpayers in this country; the chaos that inevitably follows when there is intervention in a country; and, of course, the division in our society, our families and our communities.
I believe, however, that we have come to a point where it is impossible to intervene anywhere—we lack the political will, as the west, to intervene. I nevertheless have some hope for what might come out from this terrible tragedy in Syria, which is that we are beginning to learn the price of not intervening. We did not intervene in Syria, and tens of thousands of people have been killed as a result while millions of refugees have been sent from their homes across the world. We have allowed a terrorist state to emerge in the form of ISIS, which we are now trying to defeat. Key allies such as Lebanon and Jordan are destabilised, and the refugee crisis has transformed the politics of Europe, allowing fascism to rise in eastern Europe and creating extremist parties in western Europe. For the first time since Henry Kissinger kicked it out of the middle east in the 1970s, Russia is back as the decisive player in that region. That is the price of not intervening.
Let us have our debate, and let us do everything that we can to help the civilians of Aleppo. Let us hope that the new American Administration and the new Secretary of State work with the Russians to get the ceasefire, but let us be clear now that if we do not shape the world, we will be shaped by it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank those Members who have already spoken and made remarks that I agree with. It is an honour to speak after the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). I have vigorously opposed so many times in this House everything that he has put to us. Today, I respect his very thoughtful and important contribution.
I rise today with one purpose, which is to persuade the Foreign Secretary that if he chooses to listen to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and take the action that he suggested, he will do so with wide support across this House. Overnight, we have seen reports of the fresh hell that Aleppo has become. We hear this message from the White Helmets:
“100,000+ civilians are packed”,
as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said,
“into a tiny area. Bombing and shelling relentless. Casualties unimaginable. Bodies lie where they fell.”
Last night, we heard the final distress call. Today, we decide whether to answer.
The situation in Syria is so dire and the need so urgent that we must not waste further time in deliberation and delay. It is as simple as this: civilians in Syria cannot be left to the mercy of Assad. Ban Ki-moon was very clear in his message yesterday that we all have an obligation
“to protect civilians and abide by international humanitarian and human rights law.”
He went on:
“This is particularly the responsibility of the Syrian government and its allies.”
Like the Secretary-General of the UN, we here all know what President Assad and his allies are doing to the people of Aleppo—and the Government know it, too. A letter of condemnation signed by our Prime Minister last week described the bombing of hospitals and children being gassed. It described these acts as war crimes. These are strong words, but strong words will not rescue a single child while Assad continues to drop bombs on their heads. The Prime Minister rightly condemns the Russians for their
“refusal to engage in serious peace talks”,
but I say it is time for our Government also to rethink their efforts.
As has been said, we can now clearly see the consequences of our inaction. We have asked our Government to step forward with a strategy to protect civilians. Without this, we can see the consequences: so many bodies that the White Helmets can no longer count them, let alone mount a rescue. So our inaction must now become action, which is why, 18 days ago, when I asked Members of this House from all parties to sign a letter to the Prime Minister in support of getting aid to Syrians—by air, if necessary, as a last resort—I was unsurprised, though very glad, that within one day, 100 Members had agreed to put their names to such a request. Very quickly, that number had risen to over 200 and is now 221 if we count all parliamentarians—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Scottish nationalist, Social Democratic and Labour party, Democratic Unionist party, Plaid, Green; Mr Speaker, who cares what party we are today? Human beings are being slaughtered without mercy, and I say, never mind party policy; that is a sin against nature itself.
So what should the Government do? We know that Russia will continue to frustrate the UN process by using its veto to protect Assad. Strongly worded letters from our Prime Minister and others are worth nothing if we are not prepared to back them up with actual action. First, we need to get the vulnerable out of there. Children, medics, the injured and the disabled urgently need safe passage to somewhere with shelter, food and basic medical facilities.
Secondly, as 221 parliamentarians are begging the Government: get aid in—by whatever means we can. The reality in front of our eyes is this: even to save a single life, aid is required. We know it is there, and even at this late stage we must do what we can to get it to people.
Thirdly, we must protect those left behind. The Government must press with the full capacity of the British legal profession for UN monitoring, or even just British monitoring, of the atrocities now being committed. If we offer Syrian civilians so very little, the least we can do is promise that, however long it takes, Assad will see justice.
We have all heard the Government’s usual lines on this: they say they are doing all they can, they are keeping their options open, and nothing is off the table. That is not good enough. We are calling on the Government to put something on the table. The reality is that by delaying we are not keeping our options open; we are closing them off. Every day we miss a chance to do what is right.
I am sure that the Government will put out another press release telling us how tragic the fall of Aleppo is, but then Assad will move on, maybe to Idlib or somewhere else, and then somewhere else, and the whole thing will play out again; and we will see more bombed-out hospitals, more dead children, more war crimes, and no doubt more well-written press releases from Governments.
So I have two final questions today. First, will the Foreign Secretary support the call of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for an immediate ceasefire to evacuate the children and medical staff still trapped in the rubble of east Aleppo? Will the Government help make that happen, yes or no? Will they go further and do everything possible to secure a more permanent ceasefire and humanitarian access in Aleppo?
The Foreign Secretary knows that the support is here in this House for airdrops of aid if the Government give it their backing. As I have said, more than 200 hon. Members have signed a letter in support of that; the only obstacle is the question of action from the Government. If that is the wrong option and we need another way to open humanitarian corridors, all I ask is for the Foreign Secretary to come back to this House with a strategy to protect civilians.
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary commit here and now that the Government will not stand by as the Syrian regime moves on to the next city, because does anybody seriously believe that if we allow Assad to have his way now, he is going to stop?
I want to finish by reminding the Foreign Secretary that, alongside the bombs and the gas, the Assad regime has been dropping propaganda leaflets into eastern Aleppo in recent weeks. These leaflets tell the people there that the world has abandoned them and there is no hope. It is up to us to show that that propaganda is a lie. We must show the desperate people of Syria that there are still people in this world who have not forgotten them—people who will honour the commitments we have made in international law and will stand with them against barbarism.
Aleppo may have just hours left, but there are still souls alive in Syria who we can help. If we do nothing—if we just stand by and watch—thousands more people in Syria will die in agony, and millions in Britain will live with the shame of our inaction.
The Foreign Secretary sits on the Treasury Bench. For more than six years, I have sat here on the Opposition Benches with my Labour friends, and I am deeply proud of my party. Yet I have to tell the Foreign Secretary that if he chooses to act—if he chooses to offer a hand in friendship to people in Syria—there will be no Front Benches or Back Benches, no Government Benches and Opposition Benches; there will simply be all of us here—British citizens, representing the British people, wanting him to act, not in the worst of our country’s traditions, but in our best, and wanting him, on behalf of all of us, and for the sake of those in Syria who cannot escape and who desperately need safety, in our name and for them, begging him, to lead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches will for now be reduced to six minutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would very much like to see a humanitarian corridor going to eastern Aleppo, but may I talk about the practical requirements needed to establish such a route, and to get people to safety without anyone fighting to achieve it? I will give a few thoughts based on my experience of frequently having had to do that job in the 1990s.
Everyone present knows that this would be a very difficult operation and would require, at least, Syrian Government and Russian approval. Clearly the route must be free from air and ground attack. Without this, establishing a safe route into and out of Aleppo would be impossible. That is the first, and probably most vital, prerequisite for achieving success, and I suppose our diplomats are working overtime on such matters as I speak.
I also take it as a given that this operation would be done under the United Nations flag. Of course, therefore, every vehicle would be emblazoned with the UN cypher, and be operating under the moral authority of the world’s forum, but in truth, forces fighting on the ground may not be under effective control of even their own side. In such circumstances, small fighting groups often act independently and, if so, they could cause huge loss of life.
In Bosnia I used small teams led by a liaison officer to prove that we could use routes before allowing convoys to go down them. This was dangerous work and it was a job that involved convincing every commander of every roadblock that it was to be open. I have to say that if we were to suggest such a thing, we may well have to send our officers on the ground to do it. I would support that.
Of course there also has to be a plan for the worst case when things go wrong. In Bosnia I could send my own troops in, but we cannot send troops into Syria. These convoys would be on their own, and they would be dependent on Syrian military and militia goodwill, and of course that of the Russians.
If we are successful and get a humanitarian convoy out of Aleppo to a place of safety, we will be responsible for the people in that convoy. We have heard already today of people being “executed.” I hate that word; they are murdered. Execution is a judicial process; those people have been murdered. We would have responsibility for ensuring these people’s safety.
Establishing a safe humanitarian corridor can be done, given determination and the will and consent of belligerents. We cannot fight our way in—well, we could if we were up to it, but we are not—but let me be clear: this will not be easy and it requires a huge number of preconditions to be met.
Finally, may I remind this House that if Members suggest that we should lead humanitarian convoys into Aleppo, we will bear responsibility for whatever happens, good or bad?
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), said that what is happening in Syria shames the Assad regime, Iran and Russia; it shames all of us in this House and every political party in this country. It shames the democratic world, the United States, and the United Nations, and if we do not do anything about it—let us not kid ourselves that Assad will stop here; Idlib will be next—that will be the end of the rules-based global order we thought we had achieved after the horrors of Srebrenica, with all the grave consequences that will entail for our future peace and security.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bradshaw
I will not give way for the moment.
There have been so many missed opportunities. As the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), said in his excellent speech, many people across the world have been calling for action against Assad since he started slaughtering his own people five years ago. In August 2013, after the international outrage at his use of chemical weapons, we had the chance, but we blew it; the Conservatives blew it, we blew it—every political party in this House blew it. The former Chancellor was absolutely right when he said that that had a direct impact on what the United States did then, with President Obama fatally withdrawing from the red line he had drawn on the use of chemical weapons, with absolutely horrendous consequences, not just now in Syria, but for the future of our world to come.
At any stage since that calamity, the Government could have come back to this House with proposals for safe areas, no-fly zones and, most recently, aid drops, but they did not. Just two weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury made it quite clear that we would support airdrops. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), hid behind the excuse of not having parliamentary authority, but he did not even seek it, which has been a pattern of this Government over the past few years. As a desperate aid worker told the BBC yesterday, it might now be too late.
We now have the disgusting spectacle of a combination of far right and far left from around the world, united only in their contempt for democracy and human rights, celebrating what they call a “liberation”. Why do we constantly forget the lessons of appeasement, whether from the 1930s or more recently from the Balkans? Statements on Syria from Conservative Ministers have sounded just like the ones I remember from when they were dealing—or not dealing—with Milosevic as he rampaged through Bosnia. When will we understand that dictators such as Assad and Putin only respect strength and the credible threat or use of force? When will we realise that Russia’s strategy is to weaken and divide the free world and that driving the biggest refugee flows into Europe since world war two is a deliberate part of that plan? When will we admit that Putin is already achieving what he cannot achieve militarily through cyber-warfare and propaganda?
The motion that we are debating is welcome, but it is pathetic. It refers to the House considering “international action” in Aleppo. There will no international action, because there is no political will, either here or in the other countries where such will is necessary.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend as anxious as I am? With Putin and Russia linked to interference in the American election, with the bombing of Syria leading to a refugee crisis in Europe and with many central European countries looking inward, like we are, Putin’s expansionist tendencies and desire for a warm port should make the Foreign Secretary think carefully about the actions from this point on onwards.
Mr Bradshaw
I completely agree. We have not even begun to wake up to Russia’s cyber-warfare. Its interference in the American presidential elections is now proven. It probably interfered in our own referendum—we do not have the evidence for that yet, but it is highly probable. It will certainly be involved in the French presidential election. There are already serious concerns in the German secret service that Russia is already interfering in the upcoming elections. We have to wake up to this, but when?
Finally, the tragedy today is the tragedy of the benighted people of Aleppo issuing desperate, and probably futile, last-minute appeals for help to the outside world. The tragedy tomorrow will be all of ours for failing to stop this happening and for the consequences. Shame on us.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
There is no doubt that the civilian atrocities taking place at the hands of Assad and Putin in Aleppo are among the worst that we have witnessed in decades. As a teenager watching the horrors of Rwanda or Srebrenica, I used to think, “Why don’t they do something?” Well, “they” are now us, and what are we doing? We have turned our face away. It is three years since this place voted not to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people. It is 15 months since little Alan Kurdi was found face down on a beach in Turkey. It is a year since we rightly voted to take action on ISIS in the east of Syria and nine months since Jo Cox was granted an urgent question on breaches of the then ceasefire. It is two weeks since we stood here and discussed aid drops and safe passage. What have we actually done to save a single civilian life in Aleppo? Nothing.
We are watching a fascist dictator, backed by a corrupt global power, use chemical weapons and barrel bombs against his own people for daring to want a better life and a better Government. Have we turned away because of more important local issues or because of the siren call to first look after our own? When we talk of “our own”, that should not stop at our constituency boundaries or, I am afraid, at the white cliffs of Dover. All humanity is “our own” and we have a responsibility and a duty to act. We are not so poor as a nation, financially or morally, that we should turn our backs on what we see on distant shores, not least because it will eventually find its way to us, whether in the form of terror on our own streets or refugee families seeking sanctuary in our estates. We cannot be frozen by the guilt surrounding well-intentioned military action of the past, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) so eloquently said. If we are left disappointed or ashamed by difficult and lengthy struggles in Iraq, we must learn the right lessons, which are there in black and white in Chilcot, that when the potential for military action arises we should not commit until it is clear that it can be achieved. We should properly prepare for what comes afterwards and work better with regional partners. Those are the lessons to learn. We should not turn our backs and leave innocent citizens to the bombs and chemicals of despots.
The world is getting smaller by the day and we must play our part in it. We must decide what that part is and what duty we owe to humanity. That duty now looks to be two things. First, as we have heard today, we must get people out immediately. Medics, children, mums—citizens—are trapped and we have to evacuate them as soon as possible. We must get humanitarian aid in as a matter of emergency. We have to urge international action to call an immediate ceasefire. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, we must identify the war crimes and bring people to account. Secondly, we must pledge never again to turn our backs, never again to be ground down or put off by the length or difficulty of the struggle, never to give in to moral equivalence between brutal fascist dictatorships and a people’s struggle for self-determination and freedom. We must pledge never to be so determinedly full of self-indulgent self-loathing for the west that we do not believe that we can play a positive role for the good of the world. Never again should we lack a sense of responsibility to humanity, wherever it is and however hard the struggle.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow a wonderful speech, but we have said “never again” so many times. We mean it when we say it, but then, a few months or years later, it comes to nothing. It is this House’s responsibility to stand up and show hope for the future, optimism and a way through the current problems, but like my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) I feel a sense of sorrow, shame and anger about where we are today.
James Morris
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. When the historians look at this situation, does he agree that it will probably represent a catastrophic failure of western policy that has significantly changed the world for the worse? It is inevitable that a distinct reckoning will come at some point for the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
John Woodcock
The hon. Gentleman is right that there will be a reckoning. The question now is about when it will come, on what grounds we will fight and whether, even at this last stage, we will be prepared to stand up for ourselves and the values that we preach in this House but are so rarely prepared to defend when push comes to shove.
Although it will in no way aid what little career I have left in my party, I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hatton—
John Woodcock
In truth, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) gave the speech that should have been made at the Opposition Dispatch Box, showing a level of understanding about the issues that makes me hope that he has a future in his party and that he will return. Although great, the problems that we face in this country pale into insignificance compared with other problems we face. There is the threat of a tyrannical regime in Russia that has effectively created a global system that has rules but no consequences. We must understand how we have enabled that to happen if we are to have any hope of being able to right this situation before it is too late.
Let us remember how moderate the 2013 proposal was. The regime had used chemical weapons and we said that there must be a red line. There was absolutely no thought-out plan, but the idea that we should—[Interruption.] I will deal with the Government side in a minute. There was the idea that we should do nothing, which is what we did, because there was no thought-through plan. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), showed modesty and frankness about the Government’s failure to get that vote through the Commons. The most lamentable and damning part of the former Prime Minister’s legacy is that he rushed into that. I still feel sick at the idea of the then Leader of the Opposition going from that vote into the Whips Office and congratulating himself and them on stopping a war. Look what is happening today and what has happened over the past three years—the slaughter shames us all, no matter on what side we sit and no matter what our actions were at the time. We are shamed as a nation by this.
We then saw the Russian move into the country, with no UN mandate and no request, yet we allowed it to happen. President Obama said, “Oh well, they’ll come to regret that.” The Russians are not regretting it, because they have been able to show through that and through the highly discriminate slaughter—I was going to say indiscriminate, but it is not—they are perpetrating on citizens that they are able to get away with pretty much anything at the moment, without any sense that there will be come-back. Of course we should talk about the need for justice, bringing people to account and to courts, but the Russians do not respect this. There is no way that they are going to give up their people to bring them to trial. So for all the talk now, rightly, about what extra aid we can bring and what, finally, we can salvage for the people who are left in Syria fearing for their lives, this will ultimately come down to whether we can restore a world with consequence or whether, as the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) suggested, we are now seeing the irretrievable breakdown of the United Nations, just as the League of Nations was destroyed in the 1930s.
The UN is broken over this. People can say, “Let’s have a UN-backed resolution”, but there is no way that Russia currently, when it fears no consequence, is going to bow to the will of the rest, so we have to restore a sense of consequence. Of course that will be difficult, and people will say, “Oh my goodness, you’re inflaming the situation. Oh look, you’re going to start world war three”. However, Russia is not a country that wants a war, but it will continue to push as long as it knows that it will meet no resistance.
Where will this happen next? Will it be a NATO nation? Will it be on our shores? Let us not forget that the Russians have redrawn, by force, the borders of a European country for the first time since the second world war—and what we have done? Not very much. I understand that the Prime Minister is focused on the UK’s exit from the European Union, and rightly so, but this is not a world where we can have one focus and we can leave the difficult decisions beyond the European borders to other people. With genuine respect to the Foreign Secretary, I say that I have seen his understanding on these issues and I have seen him nodding along, but at the moment we have understanding without the capacity to act. So I implore not simply him, but the Prime Minister to look up at what is happening, to understand the role of leadership that she has in this country and on the world stage, and to let us restore a sense of dignity, rules and consequence to the global order.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
As I stand here speaking to the House, I feel humbled but wracked with guilt: guilt that tonight I get to go home and kiss my children, while Syrian parents are burying theirs; and guilt that I am not on the front line with my medical colleagues from the Red Cross, whom I stood with for many years, shoulder to shoulder, in many a humanitarian crisis. Those colleagues are pulling bodies out of wreckage, at certain risk of murder. They are desperately fighting to save lives, without resources, using rags to stop bleeding and with eyes streaming from chlorine gas. I have guilt when I ask myself whether in Britain we on these Benches have done enough for the innocent people of Syria and I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that we have.
My guilt is tempered only by the hope that today my voice, along with those of colleagues from both sides of the House, may be heard and action will be taken. I have said it before and I will say it again: the sound of a parent losing a child is an international language. It penetrates one’s skull—it is a dagger through the heart—but it is a language that we are not hearing here in this Chamber. Why have we not heard it? Why do we sit here with inaction? We are close to a time when all we will be able to say is, “It’s too late.” But we stand here today with a last chance for the Government to be able to say, “We did something.” Something is better than nothing—to date, all we have is nothing.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I was in the House in 2013, when we voted in this House to do nothing. At that time, 2 million women and children were in camps, 5 million Syrians were displaced within Syria and Assad had slaughtered 150,000 of his own people. If we as a nation will not take action, the UN will not take action and all the most powerful nations in the world will not take action, what hope did those people have and what hope do they have today?
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. With the greatest of respect, let me say that I was not in the Chamber at that time and I am talking about what we can do now and the responsibility that we have to humanity here today. Many of us, from both sides of the House, have called again and again for humanitarian aid drops and been met with, “Air drops are a last resort”. The time for last resort has come and gone. I am calling today for a strategy from the Government on how they will protect the civilians left trapped in Aleppo, many of whom know their fate and many of whom have been begging their loved ones to kill them because they fear what will happen to them if they are captured. Today is the day when we need action. We need negotiations now for provision to be put in place for those in Aleppo to leave and get to a safe haven. That city was once thriving, just like our own, but it has been reduced to rubble and death. The only thing that separates them from us is where they were born. What makes their lives worth less than ours? What makes their children’s lives worth less than ours? We will be worth less if we just stand by. One question we need to ask ourselves is: in the twilight of our own lives, will we be able to look at ourselves in the mirror, in the privacy of our own minds, and know we really did all we could? Our choice is simple: will we be governed by fear or will we be led by our conscience?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I spoke earlier of my experience visiting Sarajevo and Srebrenica two years ago and of the exhibition that I saw, but one thing that will never leave me was entering a musty room in a mortuary where bags full of bodies and skeletons were still being examined 20 years after that crisis. These were people whose graves had been disinterred and attempts had been made to hide the evidence, and their families were still not able to get closure on the atrocities committed at that time, when the world stood by. When I hear the stories of men and boys being disappeared, of summary executions, of mass graves and of attempts to hide the evidence and to kill those who were witnessing the evidence, I have all the same fears that we will be looking in one of those mortuaries 20 years from now, wondering just what on earth we did.
That leads me to reflect on the decisions that we in this House have made. I have to reflect on whether the decision I took in 2013, with other people in this House, was the right one. I sat through that entire debate, and I did not feel that the Government came forward with a comprehensive plan or that they had clarity about where they were going, but I have to accept that our decision may well have been wrong.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) that the real question was: why did we not act in 2011? Why did we not act right at the beginning of this conflict? Why were we trying to make decisions when already hundreds of thousands of lives had been lost and when already this conflict had spiralled out of control? We have to look at not just one decision, but the collectivity of the decisions that we took over time.
Toby Perkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for the contribution that he is making. I have felt incredibly proud to listen to many of the speeches that colleagues have made during this debate. I hope and pray that the actions that follow this debate are as great as the speeches. Once this two-hour debate is finished, we will have a five-hour debate on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. Does he, like me, have a sense of how ludicrous we will look when we are discussing that?
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. I also fear that many will ask where the rest of the House is today. Where is the Prime Minister? Where is the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.] I know that the Leader of the Opposition was here, but in a such a debate, we should have senior people in our country standing up and taking part and taking responsibility for the decisions of this House.
All our hand wringing will do nothing to solve the problems that we face today and that the citizens of Aleppo face right now.
I wish to turn now to Russia. I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said about Russia. We have to end this fetishisation of Russia by both the populist right and the left and make it face up to the consequences of its action. We must stand up against what it is doing and make it recognise that there are consequences for stepping over these lines and that there will be a response. I must ask the Foreign Secretary a sincere question. We have heard the Government say that they have been doing all they can to bring action against Russia, but the EU High Representative, Federica Mogherini, said this week:
“No, we didn’t discuss at all sanctions”—
at the EU Foreign Affairs Council—
“and there was no member state asking for additional work on sanctions”—
against Russia. I would like some clarity from the Foreign Secretary on what efforts have been made on this matter. Those sanctions were having an impact. What other member states support him?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern over the incoming US Administration and some of the individuals’ relationships with Russia? Does it not highlight the need for the UK Government to press seriously on the sanctions issue?
Stephen Doughty
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, much of what the new President-elect has said about Russia is deeply worrying and should concern us all, not least whether he is willing to stand up for NATO allies and against aggression in the east of Europe.
I wonder why we have not done more to support the efforts of other countries in the United Nations. We talk about the failures of the UN Security Council, but there are other means by which we can authorise action. The “Uniting for Peace” resolution process has been used before, and Canada has been pushing it this week. The General Assembly took a vote and made a decision. Why are we not at the forefront of leading those efforts when the Security Council fails? I fear that if we do not take such action we will see the breakdown of all those systems of international agreement.
Fundamentally, we can make a difference today. I make this appeal to the Foreign Secretary: what are we doing to secure a ceasefire, even a ceasefire of a few hours, to get out the injured, the women and children, the aid workers and those others who are trapped? The UN is there and ready to assist. It can get the people out, but we need the agreement of Russia and others. If the Foreign Secretary is saying that we cannot do airdrops, what can we do with our military assets to provide air cover for UN aid convoys leaving Aleppo? UN convoys have been attacked in the past, so what can we do to provide the assurance that they will not be attacked leaving the scene of this atrocity? What can we do to provide access for neutral humanitarian monitors—those people from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other organisations—to ensure that the evidence is not destroyed and that those who are responsible for these atrocities cannot cover up what they are doing?
What can we do to ensure the evacuation of the White Helmets—people who have been responding and doing amazing work there on the ground? I have read some disgraceful things in recent days about the work of the White Helmets. I can tell Members that they are not true and that those people are helping to save lives. I am proud that we are supporting them, and that Jo Cox supported them and that her foundation supports them now. Any suggestion that those people are doing anything other than a good job is simply unacceptable.
Finally, we must look at the precedent. If we see what is happening in Aleppo today, we can see that it will happen also in Dara, Raqqa and Idlib. If this is the approach that we are going to take and we are not going to stand up at this moment, we will only see these kind of atrocities played out again and again over the weeks and months to come. We must stand up and show that we have some common humanity. We have to do the extraordinary and step outside our natural caution and our fear of these events. People are dying right now and we need to act.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing this debate and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.
The war in Syria and the slaughter of more than 450,000 innocent civilians, overwhelmingly by Assad’s barrel bombs, is without a doubt the 21st century’s most shocking and deplorable bloodletting. The carnage has been unparalleled since Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The international community’s response has been lamentable. Parliament’s reaction to events, which started in 2013, has been feeble. Assad, Russia and Iran’s response has been criminal and the repercussions and shock waves will be felt for decades.
What we need to hear from the Foreign Secretary today is this: what are the Government doing with their allies to push for a meaningful immediate ceasefire and safe passage for any remaining civilians, of which there are believed to be between 50,000 and 80,000? I have a 15-year-old son. He is nearly my size, but—he will not thank me for saying this—he is still a child. If he was leaving Aleppo, what chance would he have of getting through Assad’s soldiers and surviving that experience? There are hundreds of thousands of civilians out there who are worried about their children.
We heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his place, about his concerns with airdrops, which clearly cannot be undertaken lightly. We need to hear from the Foreign Secretary what recent acts of consideration the Government have given to airdrops and the solutions that do not involve pilots advocated by the Opposition. Are those airdrops relevant to other parts of the country? Even if they are not relevant in Aleppo, other parts of Syria are clearly still under siege and may benefit from airdrops.
The Foreign Secretary needs to tell us what the Government are doing in relation to documenting human rights abuses. From a sedentary position, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), has indicated that the Government are working on that issue. I hope that we can hear as much as possible about that. The Government, for very obvious reasons, may not want to reveal how that is being documented, but we do need to hear what work is being done.
We also need to hear what work can be done to hit the Russians where it really hurts them. Clearly, we will not engage in military action with the Russians, but what we can do—the Government will have an opportunity with the Criminal Finances Bill—is hit them in their pockets. Many Russians love to spend their money in the UK. They love to buy properties here; love to buy their cars here; and love to send their children to school here. That is an area where the Government can do something. The Magnitsky amendment that is being proposed to the Criminal Finances Bill is about seizing the assets of foreigners who have committed gross human rights abuses. I want to hear from the Foreign Secretary that the Government will support that amendment, because we know that many of the Russians involved in Syria will have assets here that we could seize.
The Government of Syria have tied themselves to Russia and Iran, which see it to their advantage to encourage Syria’s atrocious behaviour and so perpetuate Assad’s reliance on their support. Assad’s position, for the time being at least, is secure. What new initiatives can the UK, working with its allies, offer to help bring the fighting to an end. Some call for the creation of an enclave in eastern Syria, which would be free of Assad and ISIS forces and which is, as I understand it, where the Kurds and the UK and French special forces are active at the moment. Could such an enclave provide part of a solution?
Only after the violence stops will people begin to recover from the trauma of this horrible war and only then will it be possible for Syrians to think and talk productively about how to begin transforming Syria into a country in which all its people can live in security and dignity. The UK must be prepared, if it is allowed, to play its part then. Will we be ready?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
As we have heard, in the opposition areas of Aleppo, people are fearing retribution for all—men, women and children alike. There are reports of extra-judicial killings, mass detentions and arrests. Just a few minutes ago, the BBC reported that the UN’s human rights office said that it has reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians were shot on sight. We all fear that this is just one example.
All this adds horribly to the imperative for urgent international action. With hindsight, we can see that when in 2011 the peaceful Syrian democracy movement was largely ignored by the international community, it was inevitable that others, wedded neither to peace nor to democracy, would step in. The regime’s response was predictable, not least given the vicious response of the President’s late father, Hafiz al-Assad, to previous uprisings, such as the one in Hama in 1982, where reportedly 20,000 people were killed, the vast majority of them civilians, and the city was destroyed by heavy weapons.
Some years ago, a very close relative of mine spent some time in Syria, working in Damascus in the education system. She tells me that the memories of Hama were very live even at that time, 20-odd years later. Terror was being used as a deliberate part of the regime’s armoury, as it has been since the Ba’ath party seized power in 1963.
The White Helmets now report that tens of thousands of people are trapped as indiscriminate attacks, both ground and air attacks, continue with even greater ferocity, following on from the previous inhuman attacks on the very weakest points, deliberately targeting hospitals, water and food supplies, and aid convoys.
My colleagues in Plaid Cymru support the calls for an immediate ceasefire and safe passage for civilians and rebels out of Aleppo.
The international community has largely failed the people of Syria so far. One redeeming aspect is this Government’s current policy of commitment to material aid. I am happy to salute them for that. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore agree that now is not the time to cut the foreign aid budget?
I fear that the current inhuman conflict is sowing the seeds of future horrors in Syria, the middle east and western Europe, so, irrespective of the humanitarian argument, it is very much in our interest that we take action on the side of humanitarianism, democracy and eventual peace.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me. I follow on from the many excellent speeches that we have heard in today’s debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), I have visited—in my then role as chair of the all-party group on genocide prevention, alongside you, Mr Speaker—Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and, more recently, South Sudan, and I have seen there the long, painful process of rebuilding in countries where genocides have taken place.
One of the many problems when genocide and war crimes take place is that there is a fog of war around them. I remember living and working in Brussels during the Rwanda genocide and not really understanding, as I was reading the newspapers in French, what was happening between Hutu and Tutsi, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, but seeing the people fleeing from Rwanda and later from Zaire, now DRC.
In the Syrian conflict, however, there has been no lack of information. Everything has been appearing on social media. People have been live tweeting their own suffering and their own death. That is why the citizen journalists and the humanitarian workers are more feared by the regime and by the Russians than the rebel fighters. We have seen the images—images that I personally would rather not have seen—of dead children who were murdered in Homs and Hama in 2011 and 2012. We in the west, in particular the US and the UK, drew a red line by saying that we would intervene if chemical weapons were used. That fatal vote in August 2013, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) said, has had long and very significant consequences.
Our inaction created the political space for the Russians to move in and to offer to decommission the chemical weapons. We have all seen how successful that decommissioning process has been—we have watched as sarin gas, chlorine gas and napalm have been dropped on schools and hospitals in Aleppo and throughout Syria. We have seen the Russian propaganda campaign of misinformation and their pretence of being honest brokers when the west failed or stood by.
Our inaction also opened up military space—Assad released the jihadis from jail to go out and create mayhem in his country. It served as a recruiting sergeant for 30,000 jihadi fighters from more than 100 countries to go and fight for Islamic State, and it served to create the geographical space where Daesh could claim its caliphate, and groom and lure our own young people to go over there and waste their lives as jihadi brides or jihadi fighters. They now find themselves stuck there in the horror of a nihilistic death cult.
The result has been political space captured by the Russians and military space given to Islamic State-Daesh, enabling them to create mayhem in the region and to export it to Turkey and to Iraq where, let us not forget, Mosul has been under Daesh rule for two years, notwithstanding the long and painful efforts of a coalition trying to take back the space in Iraq. The export of chaos from Syria has resulted in 11 million refugees, 7 million of them in their own country, and 400,000 dead. We cannot claim that we did not know what was happening. That toll has been the result of our own political inaction.
It is a bitter irony that this country went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction which were subsequently found not to be there, possibly having gone over the border to Syria, where we see that they have been used. Now, when we see weapons of mass destruction being used in Syria, we are not prepared to take action. How weak, how diminished, how futile is the rules-based international order. We see Secretary of State Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, telling the US Secretary of State to “stop whining”. That is the contempt in which Assad and Putin hold western powers in the region.
When the Foreign Secretary replies to this debate, will he tell us how the workers of UK charities who are currently in east Aleppo will be evacuated and rescued? They have not been spoken about in the debate. When we had our first debate on Syria in October, I contacted Bana Alabed and Omar Ibrahim, who was a neurosurgeon working in east Aleppo. Bana Alabed is still alive.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically detailed and important speech. Will she say a little more about the fate of civilians who have put themselves at risk?
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. Civilians have put themselves at risk as citizen journalists, going out while the bombs are falling and filming what is happening. There is also solidarity between our national health service and Dr David Nott, whose foundation is doing excellent work, training people in Turkey to go back into the hell hole that is Aleppo or that is Idlib to perform life-saving surgery.
I have been in contact with Omar Ibrahim during this debate and I have been telling him what we are doing. He has live tweeted to us and shared what he is doing; it is only fair to live tweet back. I said that we are calling on the US and Russia to create safe corridors for humanitarians and civilians to leave. His response is, “It will take a lot more than calling.” These are people facing imminent death or torture from the pro-Assad regime. We have seen the pictures of the 100 or so civilian men and boys in that compound with the Syrian army general in front of them. We do not know their fate. We are back to Bosnia, back to Srebrenica. When we say never again, we must put force behind those words.
I would like to conclude by asking the Foreign Secretary what the Prime Minister will do at the EU Council this weekend. Will she work with our European allies and our NATO allies to make sure we get a speedy humanitarian resolution to this conflict?
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I would like to start with a quote from a constituent’s letter. Dr Amer Masri left Damascus a few years ago and now works as a researcher in Edinburgh. He says:
“It is a shame for the free world to see the massacres and mass executions happening to the civilians that are trying to flee Aleppo right now and no action is being taken.
I am very, very disappointed and heartbroken that the free world has left civilians who chanted the values the west believes in like freedom, democracy and dignity, and they are left starving and facing the Russian, Iranian and Assad regime brutality alone. We are left alone.
I urge the UK not to bomb Syria but we need aid drops. It is not too late. There are besieged areas in Damascus suburbs, besieged areas all over Syria. Use these planes to create safe corridors to protect the civilians—not to bomb them.”
I cannot add to the many comments that have been made on both sides of the House that sum up the despair and frustration that people in this country and others feel about the situation in Aleppo. However, I want to reflect on the fact that it is just over a year since we had a vote in this House on whether to join military action in Syria. Those of us on the SNP Benches opposed that motion, yet we were assured that if we voted to join that military action, we would cut off the head of ISIS, provide air support for 70,000 ground troops and be part of co-ordinated military action that would lead to and enhance a political solution. It is now terrifyingly obvious that none of those things has come to pass.
Another thing suggested was that joining that military action would give this country and this Government greater leverage in trying to influence events as they unfolded in Syria. It seems terrifyingly obvious that that is not the case either, and I am sure that there are many in this House, and many throughout the country watching their television screens, whose main feeling is one of frustration at the apparent impotence of our Government when it comes to getting involved and doing anything.
I think that some people—perhaps not those sitting on the Government Front Bench, but certainly some people in the Foreign Office—need to go on an assertiveness training course. They need to speak a lot more loudly and more emphatically than they have thus far. I would like to see this country leading, not following; not being a bystander watching the discussions of others, but getting involved, getting our hands dirty and trying to sort the problem out. After all, if this problem was not caused by France and our own country, whose problem is it? We have a responsibility to the world to show leadership, and I hope very much that we will do that.
Along with many in this House, I am very angry at, and opposed to, the actions that Russia has taken militarily in recent months. However, I would say this to the House: the way forward is not going to be to demonise President Putin, to try to move to a new cold war or to try to pretend that Russia does not have legitimate interests in the region. I would like to see firm but emphatic engagement with the Russian authorities and an insistence from this Government that they need to be part of the equation and part of the plan.
We should call Russia to account and insist that humanitarian aid is prioritised and that corridors are allowed so that it can be delivered. We should stand up and be seen to be doing that. Let us get on the planes. Let us have the shuttle diplomacy. Let us be seen to speak out for the people of this country, to lead international opinion and to put pressure on the Russians and others who are trying to make a bad situation worse.
We also need to call out the Turkish Government on their actions in this affair, because they have been none too helpful. Turkey’s support for the al-Nusra front has created a fig leaf of credibility for the Russian military’s excuse that the people of eastern Aleppo are somehow in a terrorist enclave that needs to be liquidated. That is unhelpful, as is the hostility of the Turkish Government to pretty much any sentiment expressed by the Kurdish population in the region.
So, let us take action now to deliver the humanitarian aid, to make sure there is a ceasefire that can be policed and, most of all, to make sure that war crimes, if they have been committed, will be recorded and that those responsible will be brought to book in the future.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman, whom I am about to call, needs to sit down by 3.23 pm so that I can call the Foreign Secretary, from whom I think the House will very much want to hear.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Here we are once again: once again congratulating the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on securing an emergency debate on the situation in Syria; once again hearing from both sides of the House of the atrocities and the unimaginable horror of life in the city of Aleppo; once again asking the same questions to the Government. Where is the head of the snake that our bombs were going to cut off? Why is the United Nations so powerless in the face of this disaster? Why is it that we can drop bombs, but not bread?
In the time I have, I want to reflect on the situation on the ground, on some of the practical solutions we have heard about and on the role the Government can play. We hear that the Assad forces are on the brink of seizing control of the city, but in doing so it seems they are playing out the ancient saying: they have made a desert and called it peace.
Patrick Grady
No, I have very little time.
Quite how the word “victory” could apply to the almost utter destruction of a city and to the death and displacement of so many people is beyond me and, I suspect, most of us. The destruction continues, with both sides responsible for atrocities and horror. The number of people displaced within the country and over its borders is greater than the population of Scotland and just slightly greater than the population of London.
While we recognise the humanitarian contribution the United Kingdom has made, there must be more it can do. That must extend to the welcome it provides to the Syrian refugees who make it to the United Kingdom—20,000 refugees from Syria over the lifetime of this Parliament is simply not enough. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they want to work with humanitarian organisations on the ground in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Local organisations have a much deeper reach and much better understanding of the immediate situation than multilateral or bilateral agencies.
In Aleppo itself, as many Members have said, we now surely require an urgent and specific response. We on the SNP Benches have repeatedly called for aid drops, and the Government have repeatedly said that that would be an option of last resort. Well, what is the penultimate resort? What is preventing these aid drops? No food has been delivered to Aleppo for seven months. What alternatives are the Government pursuing?
We have heard repeatedly of the risks and of the difficult logistics of aid drops, but we have also heard of the proposals from graduates at the University of Aleppo about how the United States joint precision airdrop system could be deployed. I have asked the Minister written questions about that. It would be helpful to hear from him what discussions the UK is having with the US and other allies about the applicability of that system, and whether it presents a more secure way of delivering aid by air.
The Minister might also be aware of proposals in recent days from members of the Disasters Emergency Committee and other non-governmental organisations for use of an air bridge system to deliver aid by helicopter to safe landing sites identified by the White Helmets and others. In their letter to the Prime Minister, the agencies cite the UK’s role in the 1948-49 Berlin airlift, when over 2 million tonnes of cargo were delivered to 2 million residents of west Berlin. Will the Prime Minister be responding to that letter from some of the most respected aid agencies in this country?
The agencies also make the point that UN Security Council resolution 2165 authorises the UN to undertake cross-border aid delivery without the permission of the Syrian Government. Indeed, the International Syria Support Group, of which Russia remains a member, called on the World Food Programme to use air bridges and airdrops if land access continues to be denied. So what steps are the Government taking to be ready when, or if, the situation stabilises?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Yesterday I spoke at a conference for Syrian refugees living in my constituency and across Edinburgh, and I met an accomplished artist from Aleppo, Nihad Al Turk, who berated me for the lack of action on all our parts. Has my hon. Friend just described practical steps that we could take at this stage of last resort so that perhaps the next time I meet this gentleman, and other Syrian refugees, in Edinburgh I will have something concrete to say?
Patrick Grady
I thank my hon. and learned Friend. That is the point: concrete, specific proposals are brought forward and we get told, “No, they’re not practical—they’re not possible.” So what are the alternatives? How will this aid otherwise be delivered?
As other Members have said, this situation brings into question the entire multilateral system and the role of the UN Security Council in its seeming inability to respond to the regime. The Government will be aware of statements signed by faith leaders, and a statement co-ordinated by Amnesty, supported by over 200 civil society organisations, calling for a greater role for the General Assembly of the United Nations and a special emergency session of the assembly
“to demand an end to all unlawful attacks in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria, and immediate and unhindered…access”
for humanitarian aid. Will the UK Government support this call? As I said in the previous debate, the UK’s position on the Security Council is supposed to be one of the great advantages of the Union—Britain’s force in the world—so how is that diplomacy going to be used as a force for good?
SNP Members have repeatedly said that if we can drop bombs in Syria, we should be able to drop bread. The need is great, and the technology and the solutions are there. If stability comes, irrespective of the horrific circumstances, then aid must be allowed in. The Government must be preparing now so that as soon as an opportunity arises they can show leadership and begin to help people to rebuild a city and their lives, which currently lie in ruins.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing this debate on a matter that the whole House feels so strongly about. I listened very carefully to all the speeches and found myself greatly in agreement with much that has been said by Members on both sides of the House.
After five months of siege and almost a year of bombardment, we are now reaching the end of the siege of Aleppo, and Assad’s forces are doing their utmost to stamp out the last embers of revolt. The dictator’s militias have carved paths of destruction through crowded streets destroying hospitals, severing water supplies and herding thousands of people from their homes. I will come in a minute to what we have tried to do as the UK Government, what we continue to do and what we will do in future. I will also, of course, discuss the tragic limitations that we have faced in our actions so far.
First, it is worth going back and remembering how this tragedy has unfolded. As long ago as July, the regime sealed off eastern Aleppo and then defeated two abortive efforts to break the siege. Notch by notch, Assad tightened the noose. The last UN convoy entered eastern Aleppo on 7 July. The last food rations were handed out on 10 November. The last functioning hospital was targeted by an airstrike and knocked out of action on 19 November. Some 275,000 men, women and children were then trapped in eastern Aleppo without food, medical care, or even, in many cases, electricity and water. In this piteous condition, they endured ceaseless attack from air and ground, notably by barrel bombs dropped from Syrian military helicopters.
I know that time is short, but it is worth reminding the House of exactly what a barrel bomb is and why it makes such a hideous weapon. Imagine a metal drum filled with petrol and explosives, and laced with nails and jagged shards of metal. These objects—[Interruption.] People watching and listening around the world may not know what they are. These objects are loaded on board helicopters, which then hover over civilian areas. The men on the helicopters simply light the fuses of the barrels before rolling them out of the door, leaving them to fall to the ground where they shred and incinerate any human being with range. There is no guidance system or targeting. Barrel bombs have no military purpose; they cannot be dropped near a frontline for fear of striking friendly forces. Their sole purpose is to murder civilians. Scores of these awful weapons have been used against the people of eastern Aleppo by Assad every day.
The collapse of the rebel-held districts began on 26 November and has gathered pace. In the areas recaptured by the dictator, we have already heard reports today of hundreds of young males being separated from their families and marched away to an unknown fate. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights today reported that civilians have been “killed on the spot”.
As this tragedy has unfolded, the Government have sought to reduce the suffering with every diplomatic and humanitarian lever at our command. I must tell the House that we have used every effort at the UN. Even today, we are, along with the French, calling for an emergency meeting of the Security Council. I know that our excellent ambassador, Matthew Rycroft, will be conveying at the UN many of the sentiments expressed in the House.
On 8 October, we tried to secure a UN resolution that would have urged a ceasefire. It demanded that
“all parties immediately end all aerial bombardments of…Aleppo”.
That resolution was vetoed by the Russians. On Monday of last week we tried again, throwing our weight behind a draft resolution co-sponsored by Egypt, Spain and New Zealand that urged a seven-day ceasefire in Aleppo to allow the evacuation of casualties and the delivery of aid. Once again, Russia vetoed the resolution, joined by China. I think that the House will join me in condemning those in Moscow and Beijing who would not allow the people of Aleppo even a seven-day respite. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that I have had information from Aleppo—I am sure that other Members have, too—that even today the Russians are blocking the evacuation of the injured and of medical staff from the very zones they are attacking.
Stephen Doughty
Given what the Foreign Secretary has said about Russia and China’s behaviour and their failures, what will the consequences be for Moscow and Beijing?
Boris Johnson
We are gathering all the information that we think will be necessary for the prosecution of those guilty of war crimes, but the diplomatic pressure must continue. It was asked earlier what we are doing in the EU; I can tell the House that the UK stood up at the last meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council and argued for tightening sanctions against Russia in respect of Syria as well. I wish that the rest of the EU would follow suit.
Last Saturday I broke off a visit to the middle east to fly to Paris to discuss these matters with Secretary Kerry. I pay tribute to John Kerry for his efforts, but they have not prevailed. We jointly demanded that the “regime and its backers” allowed the UN to deliver aid “with immediate effect.” Assad has doggedly refused to allow the UN to deliver supplies to hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are now starving. He is content for his own people to be reduced to starvation, even though there are UN warehouses full of food within easy reach.
Alison McGovern
What specific action to protect civilians will the Foreign Secretary tell the Prime Minister that she should propose to our European colleagues when she goes to the European Council next week?
Boris Johnson
What the Russians need to do—this is what our European colleagues should do as well—is to institute an immediate ceasefire. It is up to the Russians, and, I am afraid, to the Assad regime, to institute a ceasefire. I will come in a minute to the deficiencies and problems that our decision in 2013 left us with today. Many Members have sought to find fault with the UK Government and what we have tried to do. Given that we are contributing £2.3 billion of aid, many Members have asked an entirely legitimate question: why we do not fly in aid ourselves? Labour Members have asked that very question: why do we not drop aid on eastern Aleppo from the air? Many have spoken in favour of airdrops. In recent weeks since we last discussed this matter in the House, we have studied that option with great care. Working with my colleagues across Whitehall, and working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the RAF, I must tell the House that we have come up against some hard realities.
Mr Bradshaw
When the Foreign Secretary complains, as he repeatedly does, about Russian behaviour and Russian vetoes, does he understand that he sounds exactly like the Conservative Foreign Secretaries in the early 1990s who said exactly the same thing about the Balkans? We subsequently had a Labour Government who showed leadership, assembled a coalition and got American support to do something to stop the genocide. What is he doing?
Boris Johnson
That comes a little ill from a Labour Member because the right hon. Gentleman remembers fine well that the Labour party was whipped to oppose any action in 2013.
I want to return to the current situation because Members have asked some very reasonable questions that I think I must answer.
Boris Johnson
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make some progress, because I have very little time left.
For airdrops to be accurate, they must be conducted at low level and low speed. Russia has deployed its most advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles in Syria, which makes it impossible for us to carry out airdrops without Russian permission. Even if Russia were to give its consent, our aircraft would still have to fly over areas of Syria that are hotly contested by a multitude of armed groups, including Daesh and al-Qaeda. They would make every effort to shoot down a British plane, and a lumbering, low-flying transport aircraft would be a sitting duck. We came reluctantly to the conclusion that airdrops over Syria, under those conditions, would pose too great a risk.
When it comes to drones and other devices, we still face the problem that the Syrians and the Russians control the airspace. Of course it is possible that circumstances might change, so I will not rule out any option for delivering aid today, but nor will I give false hope. As things stand, we would be risking the lives of our aircrew if we tried to drop supplies into eastern Aleppo.
I pay tribute to those who have made brave efforts to evacuate wounded children. All those efforts depend on Russia and the Assad regime, and it is up to them to agree a truce. By far the most effective way of delivering aid would be for them to give permission to the UN to distribute the supplies that are piled high inside its warehouses. As long ago as December 2015, Russia voted in favour of UN resolution 2254, which urged all parties to
“allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria”.
Russia must now obey the very resolution that it supported and compel Assad to allow the UN to feed his people—[Interruption.] I say to Opposition Members who are objecting to this that if we take the pressure off Russia, we are serving the purposes of the Assad regime.
Boris Johnson
I am afraid I will not.
There is another inescapable reality that Members must accept. On 29 August 2013, this House voted by 13 votes not to use force against Assad, even after he had poisoned hundreds of his people with sarin nerve gas. We, as a House of Commons and as a country, vacated the space into which Russia stepped, beginning its own bombing campaign on behalf of Assad in 2015. Ever since that vote, our ability to influence events in Syria, to protect civilians or to compel the delivery of aid has been severely limited. The dictator was left to do his worst—along with his allies, Russia and Iran—and the bloodiest tragedy of the 21st century has since unfolded.
I must say—the House should listen to this—that Assad’s conquest of Aleppo will not mark the end of the war. The victory will turn to ashes in his mouth, because even if he reimposes his rule over the rubble of that city, about two thirds of Syria will remain outside his control. Millions of Syrians are viscerally hostile to the rule of a tyrant who has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands. Already Daesh has taken the opportunity created by Assad’s assault on Aleppo to surge forwards and capture again the ancient Roman city of Palmyra. Assad has repeatedly said that his aim is nothing less than the re-conquest of “every inch” of Syria. If he is allowed to pursue that goal, I fear that this war will continue for more years, and victory will still elude him.
My question to those who ask what we would do—let us turn the question around—is: do Russia and Iran want to stand behind Assad in this futile and indefinite struggle to subdue Syria? Do they want to be with him siege for siege, barrel bomb for barrel bomb and gas attack for gas attack, as the tyrant reduces his country to ashes? In the months or perhaps years ahead, does Russia still wish to be dispatching warplanes to bomb Syrian cities while casting votes in the Security Council on behalf of Assad, a man for whom it has no great regard?
Alison McGovern
The Foreign Secretary mentions the vote in 2013; I will live with that for the rest of my life. May I ask again the question that I asked him earlier? There is no pressure on Russia at the moment, so why does he not tell the Prime Minister to go to the European Council and propose action that is led by the UK and supported by our European allies?
Boris Johnson
I can tell the hon. Lady that we are doing everything that we can within the constraints we face. I have described the restrictions on military options, which I think most people in this country understand.
Boris Johnson
I am afraid that I must now wind up.
I hope that Russia will see sense and join us to secure the transition away from Assad that is the only hope for a peaceful Syria. It is up to them—the Russians and Iran—and they have the future of Syria in their hands. This is one of the darkest hours in Aleppo’s four millennia of recorded history. One day, that city will rise again, and one day, Britain will be among the countries that help to restore Aleppo to the greatness it once had. That day might seem far off now, but it will come all the faster if the Russians and the Iranians do the right thing, abandon their puppet, and promote the peaceful and political solution that is the only way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered international action to protect civilians in Aleppo and more widely across Syria.
Mr Mitchell
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the emergency debate, may I seek your advice? There has clearly been a profound re-examination of some of the arguments that led to the result of the vote in August 2013, when Parliament was recalled during a recess. Will you advise me whether there may therefore be a case for the Government to come back to the House with a substantive motion to reflect the changed circumstances since that time?
Mr Speaker
It would absolutely be open to the Government to return to the matter, and to put before the House a substantive motion for a debate and a vote. Such an opportunity most certainly exists.
Mary Creagh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During my speech, I requested that the Foreign Secretary describe the actions he has taken to evacuate the staff of UK-based humanitarian organisations. He failed to answer that point. Will you, on behalf of the House, seek answers from the Foreign Secretary on that specific point, which is of the utmost gravity and urgency? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
All I can say to the hon. Lady is that I have just heard the Foreign Secretary indicate from a sedentary position that he will write to her. Might I politely ask that the Foreign Secretary place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, because I think his answer will be of interest not only to the hon. Lady, but to many Members on both sides of the House?
Mr Speaker
I am not sure there is anything further, but I will indulge the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Speaker
He might. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and any other Member who feels that his or her point has been inadequately addressed, or not addressed at all, that I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will study what has been said by colleagues and that, if he feels there are points that are unaddressed, he will write to all such colleagues. I am quite sure that the Foreign Secretary will do that.
We have to leave it there for now. We cannot continue the debate at this time, although there is plenty of scope for doing so subsequently.
Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 10 October 2016 (Neighbourhood Planning Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
19:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Review of compulsory purchase—
“Before exercising his powers under section 35(1) the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the entire compulsory purchase order process.”
This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
New clause 12—Rates of interest and advance payments—
“Within 14 days of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill receiving Royal Assent the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must bring forward outstanding regulations relating to Clauses 192 to 198 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and Clauses 19 to 21 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill.”
The Housing and Planning Act includes measures requiring further regulations in order to come into force. This new clause requires that, once the Neighbourhood Planning Bill receives Royal Assent, these regulations should be brought into force to ensure that all farmers, business owners and landowners benefit from the Government’s commitment to improve interest rates on late payments as soon as possible.
Amendment 26, in clause 15, page 14, line 12, leave out
“as well as, or instead of, compulsory acquisition”
and insert
“or compulsory acquisition, but not both”.
This amendment would ensure that where an acquiring authority seeks temporary possession rights it cannot at the same time also seek permanent possession rights. It would not stop the acquiring authority at a later date seeking permanent acquisition rights via a fresh compulsory purchase order should it be required to complete the project.
Government amendment 21.
Amendment 27, page 25, line 36, leave out clause 28.
This would remove changes which would prevent landowners who have land compulsorily purchased for a particular purpose seeking additional compensation should the land end up being used for a different purpose. It ensures that, where the original calculation of compensation that was paid did not take into account the possibility of the development that the land is now being used for, the claimant receives the correct level of compensation.
Gavin Barwell
Government new clause 6 deals with the ability to claim compensation for temporary severance when a material detriment claim has been referred to the upper tribunal. This will arise when the acquiring authority has taken possession of the part of a claimant’s land that it wants before the tribunal has determined the claim, and the tribunal then decides that it must take more of the claimant’s land. The tribunal will be able to award compensation for any loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the temporary severance of their land while the matter is being determined.
A provision to ensure that the compensation is claimable is already contained in paragraph 28(5) of schedule 2A to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 when the acquiring authority is proceeding by notice to treat and notice of entry. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 should have included an equivalent provision in schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, but that was not spotted at the time, so new clause 6 fills the gap.
Government amendment 21 is a consequential amendment to the definition of “acquiring authority” in section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 on the power to enter land to survey it in connection with an acquisition proposal. The amendment aligns the definition of “acquiring authority” with that in clause 14, so that the power to enter and survey land can be used in connection with any proposal to take temporary possession of land under that clause. The new definition still works for authorities intending to acquire the land permanently. I commend the amendment to the House.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
New clause 3 calls for a comprehensive review of the entire compulsory purchase order process. There was clear consensus among the witnesses at the Public Bill Committee evidence sessions that the current CPO system is not fit for purpose. It is convoluted and puts people off using it, which in turn has a negative impact on the delivery of development. Colin Cottage of the Compulsory Purchase Association commented:
“The existing system is not helpful for reaching quick solutions. In fact, in many ways it encourages people to be fighting with each other from the outset.”––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q114.]
He said that ultimately that causes uncertainty and additional cost. Richard Asher of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said:
“I believe, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has always believed, that codification of the whole of the CPO rules, which go back to 1845 and are highly complex, would be a sensible way forward”.––[Official Report, Neighbourhood Planning Public Bill Committee, 18 October 2016; c. 64, Q113.]
He said that he wanted a review of the system as it stands. Labour strongly believes that the legislation should be updated to enable the greater use of CPOs as a tool to drive effective regeneration and development strategies and to work in partnership with developers to ensure that we get the new homes and development that we need.
More than 100 years of conflicting statute and case law makes up the current CPO legislation, so small changes will not have a significant effect. Indeed, in Committee the Minister reflected on the fact that the changes, welcome though they are, would not be a game changer. I therefore ask him why the Government continue to make small changes to the CPO system bit by bit, rather than bringing forward legislation to allow us to review it and make it fit for purpose.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 12 and amendments 26 and 27, which are in my name.
On new clause 12, both the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and the Bill contain welcome measures to make it clear that an acquiring authority should make payments of compensation in advance—that is the important bit—of taking possession of land. They also provide a mechanism for improving the rates of interest on late compensation payments, which is important because it will hopefully encourage acquiring authorities to pay in advance, and to pay a reasonable interest rate, rather than delaying payment.
Those measures require further regulations to bring them into force. As soon as the Bill becomes law, those regulations should be brought forward without delay to ensure that landowners and business owners benefit from the Government’s previous commitment to improve interest rates on late payments.
On amendment 26, I welcome the Bill’s provisions to allow acquiring authorities to take land on a temporary basis. That will provide much-needed flexibility within the compulsory purchase system and stop acquiring authorities having to take land on a permanent basis that is required only temporarily. However, they should not be allowed to take land on both those bases. If, having taken land on a temporary basis, an acquiring authority finds that it needs to take it on a permanent basis, that should be subject to a second notice to treat and a compulsory purchase procedure.
Finally, amendment 27 is the most important, in my view. It would remove clause 28, which repeals part 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. That repeal will prevent landowners who have had land compulsorily purchased for a particular purpose from seeking additional compensation should the land end up being used for a different, more lucrative development. I will briefly try to explain that to the House.
The general principle of compulsory purchase is that if someone’s land is being compulsorily acquired, they should be paid the same price as if that land were being acquired on a voluntary, willing-seller willing-buyer basis in the private commercial sector. Abolishing part 4 of the 1961 Act will mean that if the land subsequently has a different use—for example, if the planning zoning changes so that it suddenly becomes extremely valuable because it could be developed for housing or commercial purposes—the person having his land acquired will not get the benefit of that uplift. As a chartered surveyor—I declare that in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—if I were ever selling land that I felt was likely to have such an uplift, I would always insist on an overage clause being placed on the sale, not for 10 years but for 20 or 25 years. During that time the vendor would get 50% of the value of the uplift.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, loud and clear, that in clause 28 he is enabling acquiring authorities to acquire land on the cheap at the expense of private landowners, and I think that is unfair.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate—I was chairing a Select Committee.
Robert Neill
I am sure it was a very important and fascinating minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) was speaking—I have great regard for her.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and the amendments in our names. We put them forward in an endeavour to be constructive. They reflect areas where the Government have taken valuable and worthwhile steps. New clause 12 is built on the fact that they rightly increased the rates of interest, but it is important that there is not a lacuna between the enabling legislation and the practical application of the regulations. The Minister might say, “There is another means whereby I can achieve the same objective as the new clause,” in which case my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds and I will be perfectly happy, but it is important to flag that up, particularly because the Treasury has to deal with the regulations, although I could be wrong about that. We would not want anything to fall between the gaps and prevent the Government’s good intention from being delivered in practice.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the time limit? How long would it be before that measure comes to an end, during which time the Government would be bound to give that additional compensation?
Robert Neill
We are putting the ball in the Government’s court in that regard. We have the commencement date for the relevant provisions. It seems to my hon. Friend and I that the regulation to implement them ought to follow at the time of commencement, or as close as practically possible thereto. That is what we are seeking to achieve, so that there is a smooth transition.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend rightly points out that the Government have agreed to the provisions, and therefore that Treasury approval has presumably been given because the measure will cost a certain amount of money. It would therefore be logical that, as soon as the Bill comes into force, the provisions should come into force. That is the strength of our joint proposals.
Robert Neill
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I could not put it better and need not say more on that aspect.
The key point on amendment 26 is that the word “certainty” is fashionable in the current political climate. Businesses want certainty about a number of things, and the proposal is another example. They may well have to make contingency arrangements to relocate all or part of their operations. It is obviously much better for them to know at the earliest stage what is to be acquired on a permanent basis and what is to be acquired on a temporary basis. If it is temporary, they can plan accordingly. Nothing stops the acquiring authority from coming back for a second bite of the cherry, but businesses—it need not be a large business, and could be a small or medium-sized enterprise or a family firm—would not be left in limbo about their long-term future.
My final point is on amendment 27, and the situation is as my hon. Friend rightly says. I respect his professional expertise as a surveyor, and my experience as a lawyer leads me to the same conclusion. My experience in the local government world leads me to expect that of any local authority. My local authority is active and has a good investment fund in property in Bromley. If we acquire by private treaty, we expect to enter into overage payments. It would be the norm. We are seeking to address an equality-of-arms argument.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) are making, but are they talking about a one-way ratchet? If the “different purpose” helpfully referred to in the Member’s explanatory note to amendment 27 meant that the land was worth less than the original purpose, would the landowner get a lower compensation, or is it a one-way ratchet?
Robert Neill
It is a one-way ratchet because it is designed to prevent somebody in a monopoly bargaining position from putting unfair pressure on the owner. If somebody has compulsory acquisition powers, they are not obliged to go through the free bargaining process. That is why the ratchet deliberately goes in that direction. It would prevent what I hope responsible acquiring authorities would not generally do. However, there is a risk that instead of using compulsory acquisition as a last resort, which is what we all want, acquiring authorities have a perverse incentive to say, “We will use the compulsory powers early on in the process, because otherwise, if we acquire by private treaty, we might be forced into an overage.” We would not want that where the powers or the agencies of the state are potentially bearing down on individuals or small businesses. That is the thinking behind the amendments and new clauses.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I sounded shocked because I had not realised you were here at the beginning.
John Redwood
I was in at the beginning. I have come because this an important subject and I want to support my colleagues in saying that where land is being compulsorily acquired, the aim should be to ensure that the owner gets the open market value that they would have got had they been a voluntary seller in the private sector market without the distortion of the public sector purchaser. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) indicated, that surely means that if there is hope value in the land, it should be included in the price. It might be possible to take care of hope value with an overage, or it might be that we can express a capital value of the hope value and clean the whole thing up in one go. Either way, it needs to be sorted out, and I hope that will be confirmed by the Minister. I believe that that is the intention.
As to the Opposition argument, I think that sometimes the best is the enemy of the good. We already have 17 pages of additional legislation on compulsory purchase, and if the Opposition thought that something needed fixing or improving, this was their opportunity to table amendments to do so. The new clause is the Government’s best fix for the current legislation. I think we can do it by means of amendment to existing law. We need not redesign the whole thing. A redesign could create added hazards and complexities and bring scope for mistakes.
Rob Marris
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. This is the second time that this issue has come before the House, so the idea that we do not want additional legislation or the review process proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) looks a bit thin, given that this is our second bite of the cherry in primary legislation.
John Redwood
I think we have agreement. I am saying that this is a process of continuous review and incremental improvement. The Opposition are entitled to join in—this Bill was another opportunity for them to do so—although I am pleased that we have been spared a complete rewrite of the whole legislation, as that might not have produced extra advantages and would have brought with it all sorts of hazards. I support the Government in what I assume will be their wish not to proceed with new clause 3.
Gavin Barwell
This has been a short debate on a technical but important area of the Bill that cuts to the core of our belief in this country in the importance of people’s property rights and the rightly very clear restrictions we place on the circumstances in which the state can compulsorily acquire people’s property.
I will start by responding to the official Opposition’s new clause 3. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) explained to the House why she believed there should be a fundamental review of compulsory purchase law. A similar new clause was debated in Committee. She also made this point in the debate last week on the affirmative regulations arising from the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I suspect that compulsory purchase is one area on which it is easier to agree on the need for fundamental reform than on what that fundamental reform should be. She is right that most of the people who gave evidence to the Committee, while supporting what the Government were doing, believed that there was the potential for more far- reaching reform, but there was no consensus on what it should be.
The Law Commission looked at this issue, and what the Government did in the Housing and Planning Act, and what we are doing in the Bill, reflected its conclusions. It came up not with a complete rewrite of the law, but with a focused set of reforms. To come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), the reason we are coming back to this is that when we consulted on the previous legislation, people raised some fresh points around which there was a consensus, and that is why the Government have proceeded.
Let us see what impact the reforms in the 2016 Act, which are only just being implemented, and the reforms in the Bill will have. I hope that they will make it easier for people to use compulsory purchase when it is necessary to do so, and make the process a simpler and clearer one. We will then be in a better position to consider whether any further reform is necessary.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is nodding, and I hope he will therefore withdraw new clause 12.
My hon. Friend went on to raise one of the more difficult points in the new temporary possession regime. As he said, amendment 26 would permit either temporary possession or permanent acquisition of a particular parcel of land, but not both at the same time. A balance has to be struck between certainty for the landowner—he made that point very powerfully—and flexibility for acquiring authorities who are tasked with providing what is often vital national infrastructure.
For linear transport schemes, it is not always possible to determine the precise line of a route at the time of taking compulsory powers. The final details might not be confirmed until a late stage. The acquiring authority must always work within the lines of the limits of deviation, but it will often be necessary to occupy much of the land temporarily in order to construct the scheme, but only take permanent possession of the land that is actually built on. Where this is required, clause 15(3) currently provides flexibility for an authorising instrument to authorise temporary possession of land needed for carrying out construction works, as well as compulsory acquisition of the land needed permanently for the actual scheme, although clause 15(3) does not of course enable temporary possession or compulsory acquisition of the same land at the same time.
On the other hand, I would not wish, for the reasons my hon. Friend so eloquently set out, to give carte blanche to lazy acquiring authorities who cannot make up their minds early enough about what land they need on a permanent basis and what land they need temporarily just to carry out the scheme. I hope it will satisfy him if I say that I propose to issue guidance on what an acquiring authority would have to demonstrate before the confirming authority, which would be the relevant Secretary of State, confirmed an order that attempted to authorise both temporary and permanent acquisition of the same land. With that reassurance, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
Finally, amendment 27 seeks to ensure that part IV of the Land Compensation Act 1961 would remain in force. The majority of those who responded to the Government consultation on further reform of the compulsory purchase order system in March 2016 were in favour of repeal of part IV, as was the Law Commission. I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), that compensation under the ordinary rules already reflects the full market value of the land at the valuation date with all its present and future potential, including any hope value for future development—a point he made very forcefully.
The balance has moved more in favour of repeal since the reform of the planning assumptions for compensation in the Localism Act 2011, as these specifically take the conditions as known to the market at the time into account. I accept however that the arguments for and against repeal are finely balanced. In favour of repealing part IV is the argument that it introduces an element of uncertainty and unknown risk about liability for compensation for the acquiring authority, which leads to increased cost for the public sector, for example often through insurance premiums. The Government believe that repeal of part IV will reduce the risk and uncertainty, while maintaining the principle of fair compensation.
My hon. Friends the Members for The Cotswolds and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) have argued passionately that the repeal of part IV would create uncertainty for claimants. Under part IV, a claimant is treated as though they have retained their investment and interest in the acquired land so that they can benefit from any increase in value generated by a subsequent planning permission. My hon. Friends argued that that reflects commercial practice in that overage clauses are routinely included in land transactions.
The perceived clash between commercial practice and the compensation rules might be reconciled if after the repeal of part IV, landowners pressed for overage clauses when negotiating with acquiring authorities over the sale of their land. That might enable deals by agreement to be struck without recourse to compulsory purchase. That is what all of us should aspire to: that acquiring authorities agree deals voluntarily with those who own land.
Robert Neill
That is a helpful point. Could the Minister provide some assistance by way of guidance for acquiring authorities to press them into adopting that kind of good practice?
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to look at that. I was just about say that the Government are not at present wholly persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for The Cotswolds, so I ask them not to press their amendments on this occasion. As I said, however, the arguments are finely balanced and I look forward to them being explored further in the other place. I am certainly happy to reflect on whether we could strengthen the guidance for acquiring authorities to seek to achieve normal commercial deals in the way that my hon. Friends have described.
Robert Neill
I take it that the Minister is not ruling out returning to the matter if more evidence can be put forward.
Gavin Barwell
As I think I have made clear, we want to proceed with the maximum possible consensus on the right way of getting a set of rules on compulsory purchase that are fair to the taxpayer, the acquiring authority and landowners.
John Redwood
When the Minister drafts that guidance, he may like to include the obvious point that if those whose land is subject to compulsory purchase can reach a voluntary agreement, it will probably speed up the compensation and reduce the legal costs. There is something in it for both parties if the local authority has goodwill towards landowners. Some of our local authorities have such goodwill, but others do not. That is what the guidance must address.
Gavin Barwell
My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point on which to end this section of the debate. The point is that compulsory purchase should be a last resort. We should encourage all acquiring authorities to seek to secure land that is needed for major infrastructure projects or redevelopment schemes on commercial terms, which is quicker and cheaper and avoids all the legal costs, as he said. What we are legislating for here should be a last resort for when it is overwhelmingly in the public interest and necessary to acquire sites in order to allow projects to go ahead. With that, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments and that we can proceed to the next part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Guidance on clustering of betting offices and pay day loan shops
“(1) Before exercising his powers under section 36(1) the Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities on the granting of planning for permission change of use to betting offices and pay day loan shops.
(2) This guidance must set out the manner in which policies in neighbourhood plans and local plans about the number, density and impact of betting offices and pay day loan shops shall be taken into account when determining applications for change of use, to prevent a deleterious effect on the neighbourhood or local area.”—(Graham Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Planning Applications: award of costs—
“(1) Where a planning application for development meets the terms of subsection (2), and is—
(a) refused by a local authority, or
(b) an appeal under section 78 of the TCPA 1990 which is dismissed,
the planning authority may apply to the Secretary of State for an award of costs to reimburse the expenses incurred by individuals who submitted objections to the unsuccessful application or appeal.
(2) A planning authority may only use this power if the following conditions are met—
(a) the unsuccessful application or appeal concerned a new commercial or residential development; and
(b) the application or appeal was unsuccessful, at least in part, due to its incompatibility with the relevant approved neighbourhood development plan.”
New clause 4—Sustainable development and placemaking—
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance setting out how the principles of sustainable development and placemaking can be—
(a) reflected in neighbourhood development plans;
(b) used by local authorities to support neighbourhood planning.
(2) “Sustainable development and placemaking” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.
(3) To support this aim local planning authorities should—
(a) identify suitable land for development in line with the economic, social and environmental objectives so as to improve the quality of life, wellbeing and health of people and the community;
(b) contribute to the sustainable economic development of the community;
(c) contribute to the vibrant cultural and artistic development of the community;
(d) protect and enhance the natural and historic environment;
(e) contribute to mitigation and adaptation to climate change in line with the objectives of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(f) promote high quality and inclusive design;
(g) ensure that decision-making is open, transparent, participative and accountable; and
(h) ensure that assets are managed for long-term interest of the community.”
This new clause would clarify in statute that neighbourhood planning should be focused on the public interest and in achieving quality outcomes including placemaking.
New clause 5—Neighbourhood Planning: Payments to support production of plans—
“(1) Where a parish is designated as a neighbourhood area under the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, and where the parish council agrees to forego some or all of the relevant Community Infrastructure Ley Monies, the Local Planning Authority may make available the amounts foregone to support the parish council in the production of a Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the relevant Community Infrastructure Levy Monies are those that will be payable to the Local Planning Authority under Regulation 8 of the CIL (Amendment) Regulations 2013 if the Neighbourhood Plan or Neighbourhood Development Order, when made—
(a) provides for the number of houses specified for development in that neighbourhood area under the relevant Local Plan, and
(b) those houses are built.”
This amendment would require Local Planning Authorities to make advances available to parish councils to support the production of Neighbourhood Plan or a Neighbourhood Development Order. The advances will equal the amount of income that the parish council agrees to forego out of the CIL revenues that would otherwise be paid to them by the Local Planning Authority once the housing specified in the Plan or Order is built.
New clause 7—Planning decisions: involvement of neighbourhood planning bodies—
“In place of section 75ZB of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by section 156 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016) insert—
“75ZB Responsibilities of decision-makers in respect of Neighbourhood Development Plans in the exercise of planning functions
(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for development which affects land all or part of which is included within the area covered by a made or emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan, the local planning authority must—
(a) have regard to the desirability of upholding the policies and proposals contained in the Neighbourhood Development Plan;
(b) send a copy of the application to the relevant neighbourhood planning body;
(c) allow the relevant neighbourhood planning body a period of 21 days from receipt of the application to make recommendations about how the application should be determined; and
(d) take into account any recommendations made under paragraph (c).
(2) Where a neighbourhood planning body recommended against the application, under subsection (1), and the following conditions are met, the local planning authority may not approve the application without first consulting with the Secretary of State.
(3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are—
(a) the development is not classed as a householder development;
(b) the development is not on a site identified for the proposed development in the relevant neighbourhood development plan.
(4) Consultations with the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must follow the procedures set out in provisions 10 to 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
(5) In this section—
“emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan” means a Neighbourhood Development Plan that has been examined, is being examined, or is due to be examined, having met the public consultation requirements necessary to proceed to this stage.
“householder development” means proposals to alter or enlarge a single house, including works within the curtilage (boundary/garden) of the house.
“neighbourhood planning body” means a town or parish council or neighbourhood forum, as defined in section 61F of the 1990 Act (authorisation to act in relation to neighbourhood areas).””
This new clause would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wants to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority will be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.
New clause 8—Delivery of housing development—
“After section 74 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“74A Delivery of housing development
(1) The Secretary of State may make provision, by a development order, for regulating the manner in which applications for planning permission for housing development are to be determined by local planning authorities with regard to the assessment of a five year supply of housing land.
(2) A development order issued under subsection (1) may in particular—
(a) define a methodology to be used by local planning authorities to assess a deliverable five-year supply of housing land, including confirmation of types of sites that may be included;
(b) specify the minimum period of time after which, if a local authority has not demonstrated a five-year supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied in accordance with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework;
(c) set out the desirability of upholding policies and proposals of made or emerging neighbourhood plans, where these are positive towards housing development, notwithstanding any lack of a five-year supply of housing land in the local authority area in which the neighbourhood plan is wholly or partly situated.
(3) In this section “five year supply of housing land” means specified deliverable sites identified as sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against the area’s housing requirements (see paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework).””
The proposal would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets results in its local plan being “out of date”; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(c) it has been examined by an independent examiner who is registered with the Royal Town Planning Institute.”
This amendment ensures that the examination of a neighbourhood plan is conducted by an RTPI registered examiner.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(3C) To support Neighbourhood Plans, the Secretary of State should set out the weight that should be given to approved neighbourhood development plans at key stages in the planning process.”
This amendment gives weight to the Neighbourhood Plans at key stages along the process and not just at the post- referendum stage.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, at end insert
“after consultation with the local area involved.”
This amendment ensure that any changes to a neighbourhood development order or plan are first subject to consultation with the local area involved.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 7, at end insert
“providing that the subsequent area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.”
This amendment ensures that the size of a neighbourhood area is not smaller than a parish or town council area or local authority ward.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) reasonable payments made by local authorities for the purpose set out in paragraph (a) and (b) shall be recovered from the Secretary of State’s department.”
This amendment allows for the full recovery of costs of assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan to be recovered to the local authority.
Amendment 5, page 5, line 11, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement must include a right for members of the community to make representations.”
This amendment would give local people and communities a statutory “right to be heard”.
Amendment 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—
“(2BA) Such statements of community involvement shall include measures to enable local parish councils to be set up in a streamlined and speedy manner.”
This amendment would make it easier for new parish and town councils to be formed.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 21, after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) Section 120 of the Localism Act 2011 (Financial assistance in relation to neighbourhood planning) is amended as follows—
(a) at the end of subsection (2)(a) leave out “, and” and insert “subject to the condition that such assistance is prioritised for bodies or persons in deprived communities, and”,
(b) after subsection (3)(b), insert—
“(ba) a deprived community is defined as being any area which is among the 20 per cent most deprived Lower Layer Super Output Areas according to the most recently published English Indices of Deprivation,
(bb) prioritised financial assistance is defined to mean that no less than 50 per cent of the total value of the financial assistance provided under this section is provided to deprived communities.””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(4) To support Neighbourhood Plans, all councils should have a Local Development Plan in place by December 2017.”
This amendment ensures that Local Plans are in place so Neighbourhood Plans can be made in line with the strategic aims of Local Plans.
Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end insert
“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.
Amendment 25, page 6, line 7, after “strategy” insert
“which must consider the current and future housing needs of the whole population including older and disabled people”.
Amendment 28, page 6, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ((determination of applications for planning permission: general considerations) after subsection (4) insert—
(5) No grant or other financial assistance shall be payable by the Secretary of State in connection with development of land in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) below.
(6) The circumstances are where a development plan document includes any of the following policies—
(a) the removal of the Green Belt designation from land in order to accommodate 10 or more dwellings;
(b) the designation of land that falls within a designated National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development;
(c) the designation of land that falls within a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest to allow major housing development.
(7) The Secretary of State must by regulation set out—
(a) what constitutes “major” development for the purposes of subsection (6) (c); and
(b) any exceptions to subsection (5).””
This amendment would have the effect of preventing the Government from making payments under the New Homes Bonus scheme for developments proposed in development plan documents on land (i) where the Green Belt boundary had been redrawn or (ii) within a National Park or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where a development is considered to be “major”. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to set out exceptions to this provision within policies or guidance, which would include the NPPF.
Amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
“(c) they must set out a timetable to review the need for technical documents.”
Government amendments 17 to 19.
Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(4) Such Statements of Community Involvement must outline—
(a) the links between Neighbourhood Plans and Local Plans; and
(b) consultation arrangements for Parish and Town Councils in the drawing up of Local Plans.”
This amendment outlines the relationship between local and neighbourhood plans and the role parish and town councils would play in their development.
Government amendment 22.
Amendment 9, in schedule 2, page 42, line 15, at end insert
“must consult the relevant lower-tier planning authority.”
This amendment ensures that district councils are consulted before a county council writes a local plan for their area.
Graham Jones
I want to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of many hon. Members from across the House, and planning guidance on the clustering of betting offices and payday lenders. Fixed odds betting terminals have been described as the crack cocaine of gambling and plague our high streets. Members have witnessed innumerable issues following the explosive growth in betting shops on their constituency’s high streets. Given the number, clustering and impact of betting shops, it is high time that there was clarity in planning law on this significant problem, which my moderate new clause seeks to address.
Research by the Local Government Association reveals a clear correlation between high-density betting shop clustering and problem gambling. Betting shop loyalty cards show that 28% of people living within 400 metres of betting shop clusters are problem gamblers, compared with 22% of those who do not live near a cluster. Research from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that problem gambling, exacerbated by clustering, costs secondary mental health services and the taxpayer £100 million a year. Further academic research has revealed that clustering disproportionately affects vulnerable communities. The poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops compared with the most affluent 115 boroughs. There has been an adverse impact on our high streets. Those findings were summed up by Mary Portas, who said that
“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.
I remind some Members who might disagree that the Portas review was set up by Conservative Members when they were in the coalition Government, in the previous Parliament.
To date, deficiencies in the legislative framework have hampered efforts to address the effects of clustering on local communities. We have only to walk down any high street in a deprived area to see clusters of payday lenders and betting shops, which are affecting the vitality of our high streets.
Rob Marris
I support my hon. Friend’s excellent proposal. He, like me, will be aware that for some people gambling is an addiction. This House has repeatedly passed measures in relation to addiction to alcohol and tobacco to restrict the availability of those legal products. Surely, that is all he is seeking to do here: place restrictions, through guidance, on the availability of a legal product, to cut down on its availability and lessen its attraction to addicts.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could add that we also have planning frameworks and guidance in place for things such as supermarkets, so why not do the same for betting shops? It seems remarkable that we can pick on supermarkets—
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
There are far more pubs and fast-food takeaways per square mile in poorer areas than betting shops. Does the hon. Gentleman also want to restrict them, to protect the people in the poorest communities?
Graham Jones
I presume the hon. Gentleman has done an impact survey and a geographical study of the number of alcoholics and whether they live near pubs and of the number of people who may be obese because they live near takeaways, but he did not offer that information, so I presume that he has no argument and is just trying to make an invalid point. [Interruption.] Caring about this issue is caring about the people who go into these bookmakers and get caught by these FOBTs, because there are clusters and these things are attractive. We also have to look at the impact on the viability of our high streets, on communities and on other retailers.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Is it not also true that there is a traumatic impact on the children and families of those who spend money on these terminals? Should we not also be conscious of that?
Graham Jones
Absolutely, we should be. A societal concern about this issue is about licensing, where we have the review, but this debate is about planning, because it is about clustering. That issue is separate from licensing and whether we have a limit of £2 instead of £100, or whatever the Government’s review decides. Licensing is one aspect, but today we are here to discuss the completely different issue of the impact of clustering and density and the planning provisions, or the lack of them, in legislation that allow significant clustering on our high streets. We have all read about the situation in Newham, where bookmakers face bookmakers of the same franchise.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of how many would be a reasonable number on a high street, so that we know what he is talking about?
Graham Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes my point for me; he shows why this is a modest proposal, as it asks the Secretary of State to make that designation. It is not for the Opposition or for me to prescribe this, but for the Secretary of State to provide that clear guidance to local authorities. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making his point, because he, along with his Conservative colleagues in government, will be able to decide what the density, impact and clustering should be. I hope that he joins me in the Lobby when this is pressed to a vote.
Philip Davies
As the hon. Gentleman seems so concerned about evidence and facts, can he tell us whether the number of betting shops is going up or down?
Graham Jones
The issue is not whether the number of betting shops is going up or down, but whether ordinary people are affected by the consequences of this product. If there are 1 million smokers now but 999,999 tomorrow, the number is going down, but still, as Philip Morris said this week, this is a disease. No matter whether the number is going down or up, the people who are affected should be our primary concern.
Rob Marris
We are discussing a planning issue, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that the density is decreasing in some neighbourhoods, whereas it is increasing in others. That is precisely the sort of thing that the new clause and the pursuant guidance would address.
Graham Jones
Absolutely. The new clause asks the Government to provide clarity. It is not a prescriptive. It does not say that the number should be x, y or z. It asks the Government to produce clear guidance for local authorities.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for speaking quite a bit of sense. I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he is wrong on a few occasions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key issue is the proliferation of fixed odds betting terminals and not betting shops per se? It is quite in order for local planning authorities to bring forward supplementary planning documents to address specific issues such as antisocial behaviour; it is normal in planning law.
Graham Jones
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the licensing aspect and the planning aspect. The answer is both. What we want is licensing. The Government are reviewing that and the number of fixed odds betting terminals in a bookmakers. I do not want to prejudice the outcome of that review or the Government’s decision. What we are talking about is the failure of the planning system, because we are dealing with planning in the Bill. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I am familiar, is that it is both. It is not one or the other. It is licensing and planning.
Too often, it seems that neither central Government nor local government have the capacity or the will to take responsibility in planning law for the proliferation and concentration of betting offices and payday loan shops on the high street. I want to stress here that new clause 1 is also about payday lenders. The current planning legislation is very weak at best. Any Member knows from looking down their high street and speaking to their councillors that planning law is weak on this issue, so local councillors on planning committees often err on the side of caution and grant permission to bookmakers, because their budgets are under pressure and they do not want to lose appeals. Therefore, there is a secondary reason why clarity is really important—why the law must be tightened up.
Despite the protestations of the Government and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), article 4, which is often used by the Government as a reason in law to assist local authorities in dealing with this matter, is totally fallacious and unhelpful. Local authorities do not use it. It is not the tool that the Government say that it is. It is completely counterproductive, because it just adds to the confusion of local authority members on planning committees. They are unsure about the law and whether they can act, which is why they often grant planning permission for bookmakers.
In theory, a direction under article 4 can require bookmakers to seek planning permission, but in practice, a direction must be justified according to the strict criteria, can be overturned by the Government and is likely to be legally challenged. Its cost and complexity mean that councils are unwilling to utilise such measures. Not many local authorities use article 4. I have not made a freedom of information request recently, but when I speak to Local Government Association members and local authorities, no one tells me that they find this aspect of the law suitable for the purpose for which it was designed.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sure that the House will be aware that the reason local authorities very rarely use article 4 is that they can be involved in paying substantial sums in compensation for using that power.
Graham Jones
Absolutely. That returns to the point that I have just made, which is that we need clarity. The new clause is an opportunity to bring clarity. It is not about the Opposition trying to be prescriptive. If Members read new clause 1, they will see that it asks the Government to come forward with what they think is reasonable. It just clarifies the law and takes up the point that we do not have clarity now. It will bring clarity, so the consequences on planning committees in making decisions and compensation claims are there for all to see. That is why the LGA, the all-party group on fixed odds betting terminals and local authorities have all demanded a clearer framework for granting planning permission to these types of development, so avoiding the problem of clustering. The new clause does exactly that, and I intend to press it to a vote.
By setting out guidelines that lay down parameters for quantity, density and the impact of those businesses on the high street, central Government will assist local authorities in their efforts to ensure that proposals for new developments are approved on public interest grounds. Accordingly, this cross-party proposal seeks to address these concerns by injecting greater accountability and responsibility into planning considerations.
John Redwood
I am still trying to learn how the measure would work. Is there a danger that, if it were adopted, there would be more betting shops in other communities that currently do not have them, because there would be a spread-out effect and more people would have easier access to betting shops?
Graham Jones
I reject that argument. It does not stand up. As I said, I shall seek to divide the House on new clause 1. The nation wants action on FOBTs, betting shops and payday lenders, and this is the opportunity.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to talk about neighbourhood planning, not betting shops. I shall speak to new clauses 7 and 8, which attempt to deal with the problem of undermining a very good policy that the Government have pioneered. The good policy is that of neighbourhood planning, which embodies the spirit of localism by giving local communities control over where development takes place. People are empowered to take responsible decisions about development. It changes the terms of the conversation from communities resisting the imposition of development to one where communities ask themselves what they want in their area. Where communities have taken neighbourhood plans forward, they have produced more housing than was anticipated in local plans. Neighbourhood plans are therefore not a means by which development can be resisted. Rather, they ensure that communities have a proper say in where development should go.
The basis on which communities have been encouraged to embark on neighbourhood plans is that for a period of 15 years they will be able to allocate sites where development will take place, and sites where development will definitely not take place and which will be protected green spaces. Many hon. Members, including me, appeared before our local parish or town councils and encouraged them to take forward neighbourhood plans on the basis that they would be protecting themselves from future development if they did so.
These neighbourhood plans are a very good thing, but they are immensely burdensome on local communities. It is volunteers who draw up the plans, and the process takes years. We are probably making it unnecessarily complex, with much inspection of the plans; they have to go through many hoops. The responsible volunteers who sit on the neighbourhood planning committees to draw up the plans often face a great deal of criticism from parts of their community that may not want development on sites whose suitability the committees have to assess. The individuals concerned put a great deal of time and effort into the plans.
West Sussex was one of the earliest counties to produce neighbourhood plans. When they were submitted to referendum, support for the plans was very high among the local communities. One of the thorniest questions in planning is what happens when communities are confronted with development that they really do not want. We embarked on the policy of neighbourhood plans with confidence that they may be a means of settling that question in a way that produced local housing in the area. One small village in my constituency, Kirdford, has only 120 houses at its centre. People there actually produced a neighbourhood plan for another 50 houses—a very big number of additional houses—because that was what they wanted, and they wanted that housing to be affordable and for local people.
Rob Marris
Reading new clauses 7 and 8 carefully, I am not sure they cover the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman has adverted. Briefly, in the Tettenhall area of my constituency, the local neighbourhood plan had a more than 50% turnout on a referendum in July 2014; the local neighbourhood plan goes through; there is then an application for a site called the Clock House; the local authority refuses planning permission; the case goes to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, which, in a 17-page decision, makes two brief references to the neighbourhood plan—and allows the appeal. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that new clauses 7 and 8 would deal with the local neighbourhood plan being overturned by the Planning Inspectorate in contradistinction to the planning authority—in this case, Wolverhampton City Council, which refused the application?
Nick Herbert
It may be a weakness in these new clauses that they may not deal with a situation where the Planning Inspectorate takes such a decision. I will not be tempted down a line I have pursued in the past, which is to question whether we should have a Planning Inspectorate at all under the provisions of localism; indeed, one Conservative manifesto promise was to abolish the power of the Planning Inspectorate to rewrite local plans, but we seem to have lost sight of that.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend just expand on that point? Why is he no longer in favour of abolishing the Planning Inspectorate? In my experience in Sutton Coldfield, it adds precisely nothing to the process.
Nick Herbert
I am very glad to be pushed into a more moderate and Conservative position on this issue than the one I previously took. What I am focused on is ensuring that the Planning Inspectorate takes the right decisions should such developments be called in, and, more particularly, that local authorities take the right decisions in the first place. We should be minimising the number of appeals that have to go to the Planning Inspectorate because a wrong decision is made or because a decision appears to be in breach of national policy, and that means getting the national policy right. My contention is that national policy should give primacy to made neighbourhood plans, because these have been approved in local referendums.
John Redwood
Has my right hon. Friend also come across cases, which I am now seeing, where the local plan clearly has a five-year supply of land, but because it is concentrated in a major settlement—to concentrate the infrastructure and the development gain—an appeal can still be lost in another village, which naturally wants to protect itself because the development the local community agreed to was going to be concentrated in a new settlement?
Nick Herbert
Yes, my right hon. Friend makes the point very well.
The first way in which neighbourhood plans can be vulnerable to speculative development—even when it was thought that they would protect areas—is when there is not a sufficient five-year land supply in the local authority. The problem with that is that the five-year supply is not always properly in the hands of the local authority, but depends on the ability and willingness of local developers to build. Developers are undoubtedly gaming the system so as to secure speculative development applications and planning permissions, in a way that is deeply cynical and that is undermining the principles of localism and community control.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is very good to give way on this matter. Does he agree that in mid-Sussex, which he and I both represent, we have seen some extraordinarily unscrupulous behaviour by the house builders, who have been gaming the situation and abusing the plans, and thus have done something very bad for Government policy by undermining the credibility of a really good idea?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. The actions and behaviour of developers in mid-Sussex have also caused a delay of the plan, which has delayed the building of essential new housing as well as undermining neighbourhood plans.
There is a problem with the measure of the five-year land supply, which should be assessed in an accurate and honest way and not in a way that is capable of being gamed by the developers.
The second way in which neighbourhood plans can be overridden is when local authorities do not have a plan. Clearly, that is not a satisfactory situation, and the Government are seeking to address it. The problem is that this allows for a free-for-all in the area. Apparently that free-for-all can include neighbourhood plans, in the sense that when the local authority is drawing up its plan, it can override the neighbourhood plans not just with the allocation of strategic levels of housing, as was always envisaged, but with the requirement that neighbourhood plans wholesale are rewritten, as has been suggested to some communities in my area. Neighbourhood plans can also be overridden because the needs of a local plan, which often now have to provide far more housing than was originally intended, are said to come first. Those are problems for the principle of responsible neighbourhood plan making and local democracy.
Mr Jackson
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in its call for evidence in October 2015, the Local Government Association invited the Government to look again at the methodology for five-year land supply in local planning authorities? Does he not think that it might be considered potentially quite draconian to put a de facto moratorium into this Bill?
Nick Herbert
I am not proposing a moratorium, because I think it is essential that we build houses in this country and, as I have said, neighbourhood planning has produced more housing than was expected.
There is a real danger that if we undermine public support for neighbourhood planning we will undermine the principles of localism and will not get people to participate in neighbourhood planning in future. As I have seen in my constituency, neighbourhood planning, about which people were slightly cynical in the first place but became enthusiastic, is now being described in a very detrimental way, and some communities are saying that they will not go ahead with neighbourhood plans.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, as he knows, and he is making an impeccable defence of the position, but may I urge him to correct one tiny point? It was never envisaged in the first place that there would be a sequence that involved a neighbourhood plan first and a local plan second. It was, on the contrary, envisaged that all local authorities would proceed immediately towards the new-style local plans. It is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of those that have not thus proceeded. He is therefore right, and my hon. Friend the Minister is right, to press forward with new-style local plans everywhere without delay.
Nick Herbert
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. The authorities should come forward with the plans. It is also true, though, that sometimes the plans have not come forward, as in mid-Sussex and in Arun, because they have been sent back by the inspector, and the inspector, in causing delay, has allowed a situation where the housing number increases. That then puts at risk all the areas that created neighbourhood plans with an allocation that they thought was accurate according to the original assessment in the draft plan, but now is not so. It is not just the fault of local authorities that plans have been delayed, and it is undesirable that we have a situation where the cart has come before the horse.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) is absolutely right that it is a gross dereliction of duty. My local authority is in that category, and the net result is that we do not have a single neighbourhood plan, despite the fact that I have written to every single clerk and every single town and parish councillor in my constituency. We need to put powers in the Bill to make sure that every local authority has a local plan, so that the good people in our constituencies can go forward with their local plans in the confidence that they will not be derailed by speculative developers.
Nick Herbert
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that if the Government are willing to listen to this argument, as I believe they are, and come forward with proposals to deal with the situation—should the measures I have tabled not be the right way to do so—we will rebuild confidence in neighbourhood planning and it will proceed.
The measures I have tabled work as follows. New clause 7 addresses the first problem I set out. It would require planning authorities to consult neighbourhood planning bodies on decisions to grant planning permission. Where a planning authority wanted to approve a major development against the wishes of a neighbourhood planning body, the planning authority would be required to consult the Secretary of State before granting permission.
The five-year land supply is dealt with by new clause 8, which would empower the Secretary of State to issue a development order to: clarify the means by which housing land supply is assessed; define the minimum amount of time before a local planning authority’s failure to meet its housing targets would result in its local plan being out of date; and specify that neighbourhood plans should be taken into account, notwithstanding the lack of a five-year supply of housing land.
I very much hope that the Minister will respond to the new clauses in the spirit in which I have tabled them. There is a genuine problem here, but it is capable of being addressed without undermining the need to build more houses in this country. We must respect local communities that do the right thing and embark on the plans, because there is a real danger of undermining localism and communities if we do not act to ensure both that the principles of neighbourhood plans are upheld and that made neighbourhood plans that have been approved by the local population in a democratic vote cannot be overturned by speculative developers.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is being most generous in allowing interventions. Does he have the problem that I have in my constituency, namely that the district council has very nearly, but not quite, given sufficient permissions for the set number of dwellings for the planning period, but the developers given the permissions do not make the building starts, so when the next scheming developer comes along, the district authority says no, but the planning inspector says yes, because the area has not built up to the number? Building is in the control of the developers, but the permissions are in the hands of the council.
Nick Herbert
My right hon. and learned Friend puts the point incredibly well. That is exactly how developers are able to game the system and why the way in which we calculate the five-year land supply is fundamentally flawed and is giving rise to this injustice. The loophole has to be closed, and I very much hope that the Government will do so.
Mr Mitchell
I apologise for troubling the House twice in one day, not least since I only very rarely intervene in this area of public policy, but in Sutton Coldfield we are absolutely astonished and mystified by the Secretary of State’s unwise and illogical decision to lift the stop imposed by his predecessor on the plans from Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council to build 6,000 new houses on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt. I should make it clear that we are strongly in favour of building more homes in Sutton Coldfield. My excellent local councillors—11 out of 12 of them are Conservative—have consistently sought to ensure that, where appropriate, we build new homes, because we are conscious that we want our children and grandchildren to benefit in the same way as my generation has, but those homes have to be built in the right places.
Mr Jackson
I am fully supportive of, and sympathetic to, my right hon. Friend’s concerns about the 2016 Birmingham local plan. Nevertheless, as of March 2016, 216,000 homes have already been allocated in emerging and existing approved local plans.
Mr Mitchell
I am coming directly to that point, but let me go back to parsing, for the benefit of the House, what the Secretary of State said at the developers’ lunch. First, he said that this was a local decision. It is not a local decision; it is made by Birmingham City Council, which is one of the largest authorities in Europe, and the views of my constituents—100,000 residents of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield—have been completely blocked out. Our 2015 manifesto stated that we would
“ensure local people have more control over planning and protect the Green Belt”.
The action that the Secretary of State has allowed flies absolutely and categorically in the face of that. Entirely ignored are the 100,000 citizens of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, virtually all of whom are totally opposed to the development. They have marched in their hundreds and protested in their thousands, and 11 out of 12 Conservative councillors have opposed the process.
We have the largest town council in the country. It is totally and unanimously opposed to the development, but it has not even been consulted. Will the junior Minister commit to going back to Birmingham City Council and suggesting—I do not think he has the power to force the council to do this—that common decency expects it to go back to the 24 elected members of the largest town council in the country, formally consult them and listen to what they have to say?
Labour has been trying to build around and emasculate the royal town of Sutton Coldfield for 30 years—it refers to us as “North Birmingham”—and, thanks to the Secretary of State, it now might well succeed. My 100,000 constituents have been totally and completely disfranchised. That is the very definition of the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and the Department and the Secretary of State have now made themselves complicit in this.
On the second point that the Secretary of State raised, neither the council nor the Department, and certainly not the inspector, has looked at the patently obvious alternatives. There could be a much more comprehensive regional approach, which the excellent Conservative mayoral candidate for the west midlands, Andy Street, has spoken up for. There are superb plans to build a Wolverhampton garden city, almost all of which would be on brownfield land, to provide 45,000 houses. There are small brownfield sites in Birmingham that have specifically not been included for consideration. We in Sutton Coldfield came up with the very reasonable proposal that there should be an eight-year moratorium on building 6,000 homes on the green belt while the other 45,000-plus were built on brownfield sites. That approach would enable the Government and the council to review the extent to which building on the green belt might be needed or acceptable. However, the proposal was rejected, without even any consideration by the inspector.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England made an excellent submission in February, which I sent to the Minister on 16 August. It made many excellent points that have not been addressed. I point out that when Birmingham was controlled by a coalition of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, Tory councillors had plans to build the same number of houses as are now proposed by Labour-controlled Birmingham City Council, but without needing to encroach on the green belt. By definition, there are not even exceptional circumstances for building on the green belt, let alone “very exceptional circumstances”, which were the words used by the Secretary of State.
I accept of course that these are Labour plans, but Sutton Coldfield has been grievously let down. I believe that we were and are entitled to expect the protection of the Government, based on their manifesto commitment, and I am deeply disappointed that we have not been able to rely on that. The transport problems on our side of the Birmingham conurbation that will be caused by the development will be acute and horrific. There is no guarantee that the Labour council will spend the necessary money on infrastructure for these new builds. There was no proper consultation with the relevant health services and authorities, although the council was obliged to carry that out.
The Government have got themselves into a mess on the green belt by trying to face both ways at the same time. With this decision, they have massively shot themselves in the foot. My right hon. and hon. Friends will not trust the Department on issues involving the green belt, about which many of them are extremely sensitive, because of the ludicrous nature of this decision. Building more homes, which we all want, will therefore be much more difficult for the Department.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making a very cogent case. Does he accept that the reason the green belt has a high designation is that such areas are very special—they are green lungs in and around our great cities? Once they are built over, they are very difficult to recreate.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend puts the argument eloquently. That is exactly what my constituents feel. The west midlands has less green-belt land than many parts of the country, which is another reason why there should have been a much more holistic and imaginative approach, rather than this appalling scheme.
Amendments 28 and 29 offer the Government a chance to show good faith with regard to our 2015 election manifesto. I do not propose to trouble the House by pressing them to a Division, but I warn the Government that if they do not accept the principle behind what I am saying, if not the amendments, not only will they have great difficulty on house building, because they will not be trusted on the green belt, but I have no doubt that the other place, which has a strong history of looking at these matters, will oblige this House to think again.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I rise with three purposes, the first of which is to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), whose new clauses I have put my name to. The purport of what he said is clearly right. Those of us who were in on the birth of neighbourhood planning and believe in it are troubled by things that have happened more recently, among which are those that he described. Clearly some remedy is needed.
The only thing that I want to add to what my right hon. Friend said so clearly and well is that the written ministerial statement that we have now seen is an admirable way to deal with those issues. Clearly we will want to ensure that the statement is observed in the observance and not in the breach.
Gavin Barwell
It may help the House and my right hon. Friend if I let him know that I have written today to the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate and to chief planning officers across the country to draw their attention to the guidance.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted to hear that. I wish I could be absolutely confident that the inspectorate will always listen to the guidance it receives from Ministers, but I hope that it will on this occasion. If it does, I believe that the written ministerial statement will do the trick that we were trying to perform with the new clauses. If it does not, I am sure the Minister will come back with further evolutions of planning policy, of which, effectively, the written ministerial statement is a part.
Secondly, I want to refer briefly to the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on new clause 1, which relates to clusters. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), I usually do disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), amiable and enthusiastic though he is, and this is one of the many occasions on which I disagree with him profoundly. It is a very sad spectacle to see our fellow citizens—I have watched them do this—moving from payday lending shops directly into betting places. Nothing could be more deleterious to the things that this Government hold dear and that my party has fought for over many years—since the days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) first brought out “Breakdown Britain” and “Breakthrough Britain” to try to restore the stability of family life and workfulness in households that suffer all too often from a desperate effort, as part of a chaotic lifestyle, to improve their lot through betting, which is a snare and a delusion.
It is extremely reprehensible that there has been a focus on building payday lending and betting shops right by each other. It is also extremely reprehensible that betting shops have been built in the poorest areas. If they were built in the middle of the richest areas of our cities, one would object to them much less, because people there can afford to bet. I am therefore very much on the side of the hon. Member for Hyndburn and those, including hon. Friends of mine, who have signed his new clause to try to ensure that the Government come forward with measures to limit such clustering. The reason I shall not join him in the Lobby this afternoon is solely that the new clause would require the Government to do so before going forward with the rest of the Bill, and I cannot accept that. I hope that Ministers will respond by taking forward the spirit of the new clause without that caveat.
Graham Jones
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s generous comments. The Government are taking forward licensing, but this is probably the last chance to deal with the planning element, which is not part of the Government’s review—those are two separate entities. I wondered whether that was the point he was raising.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not think this is the last chance anybody will have to reflect on the planning element, partly because the Bill will be considered in another place and partly because history shows that there is roughly one planning Bill a Session. As we can never get these things right, there is a process of continuous revision. It is also partly because I hope that, as part of the licensing review, the Government will look at the issue of clustering—it might be possible to approach it in that way—and partly because it is open to the Minister to produce the kind of guidance that the new clause seeks without turning that into a precondition for moving forward with the rest of the Bill.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I see the Minister nodding and hope that, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, we can move by consensus in that direction.
The third reason—the main reason—why I rose was to speak to new clause 5, which I tabled. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me and talking through the proposition. I tabled the new clause in the hope not that it would be accepted immediately, but that it would induce the Department to bring forward an array of policies—I doubt it can be just one—to solve a particular problem. The new clause would help to solve it in a particular way, and I hope that the measure might come back in some form as a Government amendment in the other place.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I am listening intently to the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend and neighbour. Does he agree that the planning process is often not clear, especially regarding the points that he mentions? In my area—the Purbeck District Council area—people have a lot of different views about how many houses there should be. Two numbers have been suggested, but we cannot find anyone who can agree on a number without fear of going to the planning inspector. The lack of clarity, or the lack of guidelines or of regulation—I do not know what it is the lack of—leads to chaos, anger and confusion.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend illustrates very well the point I am trying to make. There is actually perfect clarity on that subject in the local plan that his local authority and mine have jointly drawn up, but an expert is needed to interpret it for the neighbourhood. We cannot expect the parish council to know the answers to the questions, and if it asks inexpert people, it will get conflicting answers—very possibly more than two wrong answers if it consults more than two inexpert experts. A certain amount of money is required so that the parish council can employ a genuine expert who can give it good, clear answers to questions. As I have said, a second person is also needed—quite a different sort of person who can imagine for the neighbourhood what things could look like. By putting those together, we can overcome the obstacles to neighbourhood planning.
Unfortunately, those people do not come for free; they have to be paid for. Over the years, the Department has rightly produced funds to enable parish and town councils and neighbourhood forums to employ people, but unfortunately the funds were based on the presumption, which is now mercifully falsified, that neighbourhood planning would be slow to take off, and that very few plans would be produced at any given moment.
I am delighted that the number of neighbourhood plans is very great, and I hope it will be much greater—I hope that they become the norm and that tens of thousands arise in our country in the coming years. However, I very much doubt that the Chancellor of Exchequer, who faces one of the most difficult fiscal situations in our history, will come up with the funds required to meet that need, given the other priorities he faces. New clause 5 would find a solution to that problem and provide the money to employ experts on behalf of neighbourhood planners in parish and town councils. It would do so by using an existing pool of funds, as there is already a provision to share the community infrastructure levy that arises from each house built. Under the law, 25% is due to the parish or town council in the area where the neighbourhood plan is drawn up.
One problem is that the CIL money comes in after the houses are built, whereas the money is needed before—it is needed even before the neighbourhood plan is in place so that experts can be employed to help its production. The question is how we advance those funds. The new clause suggests that we could, through the Bill, put beyond doubt a local planning authority’s lawful ability to advance sums that would accrue to the neighbourhood when the neighbourhood plan is up and running and the houses are built for the purpose of employing experts to assist in the production of the neighbourhood plan. In that way, the houses could be built and the money could come in from the community infrastructure levy, meaning that the local planning authority could be repaid.
Despite the helpful way in which the Minister has engaged in the discussion, I do not say that the mechanics of the proposal are perfect. I hope he is willing to look at it in detail as part of a range of options for solving the problem to which I allude. I hope that, when the matter is considered in the other place, the Government will come forward with their own vastly superior, rock-solid measure to solve the problem. Otherwise, neighbourhood planning could be stymied not just by the problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs cited, but by an inability to pay for the expertise required.
Rob Marris
I know you have kindly expressed an interest in my occupational history previously, Mr Speaker. At one point very briefly many years ago, I practised planning law. I remember two things about it. First, it is incredibly technical. Secondly, as adverted to by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), it seems to change. Like criminal law, we seem to have an annual Bill on planning or matters relating thereto before Parliament. This year we have had a bumper year and two Bills, one of which is now the Housing and Planning Act 2016.
I hope we can have a brief discussion at least on amendments 24 and 25, which are part of this group, and which urge planners to take into account the needs of older people and people with disabilities. That is important anyway in terms of equalities, but it is relevant to planning matters when we have a changing population. The population is getting older. With that, but not just because of it, it also has a higher rate of disabilities, some of which are susceptible to being accommodated, in both senses of the word, within the planning system.
I cannot resist making some brief remarks about the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I remember, as he might or might not, that before 1974, when I was a lad, Sutton Coldfield was not part of Birmingham. It was subsumed within Birmingham—against its wishes, I suspect, but I was not that old, so I do not recall—in 1974 and now has the town council. I was not clear—I might have nodded during his speech when he referred to the 6,000 houses—whether Sutton Coldfield has a local neighbourhood plan. He rightly referred to the concerns of Sutton Coldfield residents—concerns shared by residents elsewhere, I am sure, including in my natal city, Wolverhampton, which I represent and where I live—that there should be sufficient housing for coming generations.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 45,000 houses and Wolverhampton garden city. Wolverhampton is already a garden city, of course, having as it does more trees than almost any city in Europe, relative to its size, but we welcome more gardens and more people, and we are trying to build. As he might know, however, and as I know from visiting relatives in Sutton Coldfield, it is an awfully long journey, temporally, from Wolverhampton to Sutton Coldfield, so it cannot be a Sutton Coldfield overspill. On a more serious note, however, I find it strange that he berates Birmingham City Council for its spending on transport infrastructure, when Governments of which he was a member and which he continues to support—broadly—have cut its total income in the last six years by over 40%. He is right that there are transport infrastructure problems in the urban west midlands and within the city of Birmingham, as administratively constituted, including in Sutton Coldfield, but some of those problems—not all of them, but some of them—come from the huge Government cuts that he broadly supported.
Mr Mitchell
None of what the hon. Gentleman says detracts from my central argument. The important point about Wolverhampton garden city, which the Conservative mayoral candidate in the west midlands, Andy Street, makes so eloquently, is that we need a much more holistic, regional approach to ensure that the needs of his constituents and mine are met in a sensible way.
Rob Marris
I agree. I suspect that all candidates, including the Labour candidate, for the West Midlands Combined Authority mayoralty agree with the holistic approach and devolution, but we always have problems, in the House and in our constituencies, when trying to agree on what local means, as the right hon. Gentleman has eloquently set out. Someone from Bromsgrove, for example, might see Birmingham as all one place, whereas those of us who grew up in the region know that there are districts within Birmingham, and then there is the royal town, which is now part of the administrative sub-region of Birmingham City Council, many of whose 100,000 residents would not I suspect—he can correct me if I am wrong—consider themselves as Brummies, just as those of us from the black country would not consider ourselves Brummies, although we are in administratively different areas.
On the speech by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), I have sympathy with new clauses 7 and 8, and I hope that if the Government want to take them forward, they will address the issue—one that I do not think they currently address but which I suspect he would support—that I raised when he kindly allowed me to intervene. Tettenhall district, in my constituency, was a separate entity until 1966, when it was folded into Wolverhampton, which in the millennium itself became a city but which before had been a metropolitan district borough. Tettenhall district, which I have the honour to represent, had a local neighbourhood plan. People, including close friends of mine, worked incredibly hard on it and knocked on an awful lot of doors, and in July 2014, the turnout—from memory—was over 50% in the referendum on whether to adopt that plan, and it was overwhelmingly adopted.
I do not expect the Minister to comment on a particular application, but I use this as an example. I have raised it in the House before, because I and the residents of Tettenhall have a real beef about it. The local neighbourhood plan set out certain parameters for how housing might be incorporated. The good people of Tettenhall are not opposed to new housing, just as the good people of Sutton Coldfield are not opposed to new housing—it just depends on where it is. Labour-controlled Wolverhampton City Council acceded to the demands of the local neighbourhood plan and the two wards in Tettenhall, which have between them six Conservative councillors, and to the surprise of some agreed that the planning application for the site known as the Clock House should not be given planning permission. It was refused by the city council. The developers, McCarthy & Stone—many Members will have come across them, with their retirement home juggernaut—then put in an appeal to Bristol. I am speaking now as a lay person, because I have not practised planning law for a very long time, but the planning inspector in Bristol totally ignored the local neighbourhood plan. He did not say, “We disagree with the local neighbourhood plan” or that “other factors override what is in the local neighbourhood plan.” The long written decision, which overturned the city council’s decision to reject and allowed the application to proceed, made almost no reference to the local neighbourhood plan.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend mentions that the Minister has said that a Bill is coming down the track, so I would like to draw attention to new clause 1. There is a Bill coming down the track, and we have an opportunity to include new clause 1 in it.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that segues me nicely into the next and final section of my speech, which is about new clause 1. I hope that the Government will accept it, but if not, it looks as if we will have a Division tonight. I believe that new clause 1 is quite mildly worded, and the Minister may say that he accepts its spirit. As for the possible restriction on the rest of the Bill coming into force—that this provision might be a block, which was raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—if the Minister says to my hon. Friend that he agrees with the spirit of the provision and wants the guidance, but fears that it will act as a block, that would be great. In that case, I suspect that we will not have a Division. The Minister will guide us on that.
The content of new clause 1 seeks to have the Secretary of State “issue guidance”, not to make detailed rules about whether a betting shop or payday loan shop should be open in a given high street. If the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) visited his salad days again, having been to school in the west midlands, and went back to Dudley borough, he would see the transformation there as in other black country boroughs in respect of clusters of payday loan shops and betting shops. Those clusters are not helpful to community cohesion, or to some of the most disadvantaged people in our society.
My hon. Friend and I have made it clear that, in asking the Government to issue guidance, we are not seeking to ban payday loan shops or betting shops, but to restrict the density of them. What seems to be happening—this is anecdotal; I have no statistical evidence to present—is that we are getting a clustering of such outlets in different areas, which is often, but not always, deleterious to those areas. We have an over-concentration of them. The same thing was happening, until the law was changed, with off-licences. Older Members might remember when getting a licence to sell alcohol was quite difficult because there was an unofficial density system operated by planning authorities. That went out the window, and every place—including petrol stations, for goodness’ sake—seemed to get licences to sell alcohol. We saw the same over-concentration with attendant social problems in some places, and we are rightly rowing back from that.
My hon. Friend wants guidance—I fully support him—so that we can row back from over-concentration of payday loan shops and betting shops. Part of this problem comes from a mistake made by the Labour Government, and some Back Benchers pointed out to them at the time that fixed odds betting terminals were bad news and should not be encouraged. I have to say, to my chagrin, that my own Government did not listen, just as they only partially listened—some longer-standing Members and you, Mr Speaker, will remember this—when there were proposals for 16 super-casinos. There was a lot of to do on the Labour Back Benches at the time, and we got it down to two super-casinos. On fixed-odds betting terminals, we made a mistake.
Graham Jones
I take my hon. Friend’s point that the Labour Government were responsible for bringing in the Gambling Act 2005. In trying to be responsible about the problem we face, does he agree that the Government should accept that their own 2011 Portas review talked about clustering and density as being a problem? We are now five years on from that; time has passed and mistakes have been made. We need to tackle those mistakes today, not tomorrow, next week or next year.
Rob Marris
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to learn from our mistakes, just as I hope any Labour Members who were on the Front Bench in 2005 when they were pushing fixed odds betting terminals have now done their mea culpas and recognised that they made a mistake then, because it is still rebounding on many urban constituencies around the country, including mine. We need to row back from that, but part of the mechanism, which is being reviewed, for doing so is not, and cannot be, the subject of this Bill. We can address another part of it, however: the over-concentration and the guidance which this Government ought responsibly to be issuing. They ought to have the statutory authority to do so within primary legislation, which is the very reasonable measure put forward by my hon. Friend in new clause 1. I hope that the Minister can support the spirit of it, if not the exact wording.
Mr Jackson
I begin by declaring an interest: for six years I have been honorary vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I hope his amendment finds success in the other place. I also want to mention the doughty champion, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), has been very much at the sharp end of this important debate, as indeed I was at one time with my “stop the FOBTs” campaign in Peterborough city centre.
I ask the House to look at the wider context of the practical implications of new clauses 7 and 8, and also amendment 28 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). We were all elected on a manifesto commitment to increase the supply of housing, and we all, I think, agree with the national consensus that we are in the middle of a housing crisis at present. We also need to look at this Bill within the wider context of generational fairness and social equity between those who own capital and those who wish to acquire capital. That is an important issue. I strongly welcome the likely publication in January of the housing White Paper and I hope that this important debate and Bill feed into that.
In that context, I draw the attention of the House to a useful paper published today by Daniel Bentley for the Civitas think-tank, “Housing supply and household growth, national and local”. It examines housing supply projections and puts a nominal figure on the real impact of the housing crisis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) put his case in his usual erudite and well thought-through way, but my challenge to him and others is this: will their new clauses and amendments improve the position? The projected housing supply for the county of Sussex in 2015-16 did not even meet 50% of the figure for projected annual household formations from 2014 to 2039. Few local authorities are meeting those targets. Even the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has used the conservative figure of 220,000 new homes being needed to keep pace with population change over the period to 2039. Some estimates, including those in the paper, suggest that the figure may be as high 330,000. I will not proceed down the path of discussing immigration, but, according to the Local Government Association, 49% of household formation over that period will come from net migration, so it is a big issue.
In 2015-16, we physically built only 163,940 new homes, although more were created through 5,000 conversions and 35,000 changes of use. In the 30 fastest-growing non-London local authorities only five managed to outstrip the difference between housing supply and housing growth by percentage increase: Dartford; Uttlesford; Aylesbury Vale; Slough; and Ashford. Of the 30 non-London local authorities with the highest population growth, in nominal terms only eight built enough houses to meet long-term need. While not perfect, the national planning policy framework has helped in some respects. Oxford, for example, has produced only 66% of its need based on population growth, but thanks to its duty to co-operate with other local authorities, such as South Oxfordshire District Council or Vale of White Horse District Council, it is meeting its targets on a sub-regional strategic housing level, which is good.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and I have crossed swords before on the NPPF way back in 2012, but we must not put in the Bill a potentially wide-ranging and draconian measure that would effectively stymie the building and development of appropriate homes. We all have horror stories about the Planning Inspectorate. For example, the village of Eye near Peterborough was grossly overprovisioned with residential accommodation, with the inspectorate completely ignoring the hundreds of petition signatures, public meetings and so on, but we are where we are with the current system. Nevertheless, the NPPF already sets out the appropriate weight to be given to relevant policies between neighbourhood plans and the adoption and development of local plans, structure plans and site allocation plans.
New clause 7 would discriminate against local planning authorities that produce timely, robust local plans and that have adhered to the correct procedure for consultation, public inquiries and the Planning Inspectorate. We must bear it in mind that there might be an inadvertent consequence.
Nick Herbert
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, and I do not want him to traduce the intention of the new clause, which is not to prevent house building, but to ensure that neighbourhood plans are protected. I repeat my earlier point: neighbourhood plans have produced more housing than was anticipated. As he took such an interest in Sussex, I should point out that many district councils in West Sussex, including in my constituency, are producing housing far in excess of the south-east plan to meet local demand.
Mr Jackson
I pay tribute to the neighbourhood plans being produced by volunteers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and throughout our country. They do an excellent job and I support the policy four-square. My point is about opportunity cost: is this approach going to have a detrimental effect on the Government’s strategic housing objective, which is to deliver large-scale housing for people who need it? When we look at the age of people buying their first house and at the availability or otherwise of affordable housing across the country, we see that this proposal has the potential to undermine the authority of the local planning authority to meet wider, long-term strategic housing and planning objectives. These things are already in place via the emerging or adopted local plan. The proposal will inevitably give rise to conflict between the local planning authority and the neighbourhood planning bodies, with the possible perverse consequence that we will see the establishment of neighbourhood planning bodies merely in order to thwart development.
Let me move on to deal quickly with new clause 8. I used the correct word “moratorium” in respect of the use by the Minister of development orders. On the specific issue of five-year land supply, again, this proposal seeks to put a draconian policy in the Bill, rather than, as I suggested in my intervention—my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs was generous in accepting interventions—waiting for a response from Government, by means other than primary legislation, to do as the LGA has suggested, which is to review the policy and look for a more consistent and better understood methodology for both developers and local authorities in respect of the policy under the current auspices of the national planning policy framework.
At the moment, we still have a robust system that tests the efficacy of five-year land supply through planning appeals and local plans. We should encourage greater incentives from local planning authorities. It is as well to make the point that, in some parts of the country, they lack the appropriate resources to carry out the proper work in that respect.
My final point is about amendment 28, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. I can understand the anger, passion and resentment that he articulated in his usual powerful way, but this is probably the most inappropriate amendment, because preventing payment of the new homes bonus when we already have strong protections in place for the green belt and other designated areas to prevent inappropriate development will have consequences.
Mr Mitchell
This may be my lack of understanding of planning matters, but can my hon. Friend explain how a Government who say they are committed to protecting the green belt then pay people a subsidy to build on the green belt, rather than paying them a bigger subsidy to build on brownfield sites, while protecting the green belt? Perhaps he can explain that conundrum.
Mr Jackson
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am saying that we have less than benign financial circumstances and, were his policy to be followed, the city of Birmingham might lose £54 million in income through the new homes bonus. There are other ways in which we can toughen protections for the green belt, while allowing discretion for some exceptional sites. I made the point in my intervention that 216,000 homes had already been placed in emerging and completed local plans in the green belt by March. I accept that there is a problem, but I am not convinced that this amendment will sort the issue out.
In reducing the income stream and funding to local planning authorities, the perverse ramification may well be that those hard-pressed authorities cannot therefore put in the effort to properly manage well-funded speculative developers with their land grabs. There might also be an impact on rural housing schemes, which are very important and necessary for many of my hon. Friends.
For those reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends—I think they have already acceded to my request—not to push these matters to a vote. Ministers will have heard the points that have been raised on both sides of the House and will correctly identify methods to ameliorate the problems that have been raised.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 2 tabled in my name and to support new clauses 7 and 8 tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).
The aim of new clause 2 is to permit the Secretary of State to impose what would in effect be penalty costs on appeal. My constituency of Eddisbury has a wealth of picturesque villages, located in the most beautiful settings and with excellent schools. These villages are now finding that they are the target of a large number of planning applications, which are often totally against the emerging or adopted neighbourhood plan.
In Cheshire West and Chester, which has a five-year land supply, the council has rightly turned down those applications as being against the neighbourhood plan, yet developers persist in appealing. Local councils and the Planning Inspectorate have to spend valuable resources dealing with appeals that fall squarely against the ambitions and the principles of the neighbourhood plan.
My local parish councils, just like those in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs, have embraced neighbourhood planning. They have committed months of work—sometimes even years of work—to this and have relished the fact that they can bring forward a mix of housing that includes, for example, first-time starter homes as well as executive homes. They want to see starter homes, so that people can get on to the housing ladder and live in the community in which they have grown up, and they want to see smaller homes—bungalow-style homes—for the older people in my constituency who want to downsize. Given the part of Cheshire in which we live, developers invariably build five-bedroom executive homes. My local parish councils have relished the fact that they can plan for a mix of homes that allows for a varied community and enables people to remain in the community in which they have lived and grown up.
Like Arundel and South Downs, we have seen an increased offer and an increased acceptance of housing coming forward. None the less, we still see attempts by developers to drive a coach and horses through those neighbourhood plans. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that there is a financial disincentive in respect of appeals. It raises the prospect of a serious financial penalty for those developers seeking to have a go, as it was described in earlier contributions.
Constituents feel that their rural villages are under siege and that, at every point, their wishes as expressed and adopted in neighbourhood plan are being ignored. The new clause seeks to allow the full recovery of costs, with an additional punitive element, where it is clear that the refusal has been on the basis of the application being against the local neighbourhood plan. These speculative appeals impact on local council resources, and developers constantly feel that they can effectively try to push and break the plan, and it is deeply frustrating.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is speaking for many of us whose councils are constantly abused by the disgraceful behaviour of house builders. In my constituency—I intend to deal with the matter at some length—they have spent a very great deal of time and money trying to undermine the local plan.
Antoinette Sandbach
It becomes almost a war of attrition. The behaviour of developers appears to be designed to break local neighbourhood plans, so that they can drive through their ambitions, which ignore the wishes of local people and go against the commitment shown by local communities in producing those plans.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour. As we are in the same part of Cheshire, I can confirm everything that she is saying. Does she share my concerns that, as things stand, planning law is stacked far too much in favour of the developers and that there are not enough tools in the armoury of local authorities and neighbourhood plans to resist them?
Antoinette Sandbach
That is the very reason that I tabled new clause 2. I wanted to give the Secretary of State an additional power in relation to costs when developers try to drive a coach and horses through neighbourhood plans. That is also why I support new clauses 7 and 8 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. When she drew up her new clause, did she think about encouraging the planning inspector to award costs to the local authority where the developer was turned down at appeal and the conditions in her new clause were met? I have one case in my constituency where the council had to pay the developer’s costs, even though the council had won.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. That seems a very strange case indeed. I am aware that councils often do not apply for costs and, when they do, they get only a proportion of their costs back, not their full costs. By tabling the new clause, I hope to give additional powers to rectify that position and to discourage developers from such behaviour.
The Minister will be aware that I have campaigned long on this issue because of the actions of developers in my constituency. I know that there are issues affecting the Cheshire East half of my constituency, which does not have a local plan. Where communities have worked hard and put in place their neighbourhood plans, it is deeply frustrating for them to be put at risk because the methodology for calculating the five-year housing land supply was not correct. It seems ironic that Cheshire East used exactly the same methodology as Cheshire West and Chester, whose five-year land supply was accepted, yet that of Cheshire East was not. I can only assume that that is because there was no build-out of the housing that was described in earlier contributions.
I support new clause 8 because where a defect in the five-year supply is caused by the failure of developers to build out that causes the problem. The council has granted planning permission, but the developments are not being started. For those reasons, I support these new clauses.
Philip Davies
I should say in passing that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on her new clause 2, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on new clause 7. I particularly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on amendment 29. He is absolutely right and he may or may not know that I faced exactly the same situation in Bradford as he did in Sutton Coldfield. The Minister has put a stop on the core strategy plan of Bradford Council, but I hope for a much more favourable outcome from those deliberations than my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield received. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I will feel equally aggrieved should the decision be as it was in Birmingham.
I want to speak about new clause 1, and in doing so I should begin by referring people to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) made it clear once again that he is the biggest devotee in the House of Donald Trump. He quoted him, as he usually does, when he referred to fixed odds betting terminals as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. Anybody who knows anything about this subject knows that the term was first used by Donald Trump in the 1980s to refer to video keno games, which he saw as a threat to his casino businesses. Ever since he first used the phrase, any new form of gambling—in fact, every new form of gambling—has been referred to at various times as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. That has included casinos themselves at certain points and lottery scratchcards—name any form of gambling, and I can point to somebody who has called it the crack cocaine of gambling. So, of course, fixed odds betting terminals have been called the same—not because they are considered to be that, but just because the same old phrase is trotted out every time we have a new form of gambling.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Philip Davies
No, I am going to press on. I will take some interventions in a bit, but I will press on, because other people wish to speak.
In his briefing notes on the new clause, the hon. Gentleman said he wanted to deal with the proliferation of betting shops. I know he would not want to mislead the House deliberately, so I will say charitably that he does not understand the meaning of the word proliferation. I will try to help him out. The dictionary defines proliferation as the rapid increase in the number of something. The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that we have a proliferation of betting shops. Well, the facts are the exact opposite.
The number of betting shops in the UK peaked in the mid-1970s, at about 16,000, and it has dropped since then. It was 9,128 in 2012. There are 8,709 this year. I suspect—in fact, I can virtually guarantee—that there will be fewer next year and fewer the year after that. There is not a proliferation of betting shops in this country; there is a reduction in the number of betting shops, and that reduction is getting steeper and steeper every year. These firms employ people, including lots of younger people and lots of women. I know that the Labour party no longer cares about working-class people, but when it did, these firms were an essential part of a working-class community.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend prefer the word “clustering”? I know he did when he was an esteemed member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. In its report of 2012, it recognised the consequences of encouraging the clustering of betting shops and said that it was
“a local problem which calls for a local solution.”
Does new clause 1 not want to empower people to use that local solution?
Philip Davies
No, the new clause is all about being against betting shops. It is a solution looking for a problem.
The reason there is concern about fixed odds betting terminals is a chap called Mr Derek Webb. The hon. Member for Hyndburn knows him very well, but for those who do not know him, he made millions—tens of millions and maybe even hundreds of millions—out of making gambling machines. When the Labour party allowed bookmakers in 2005 to introduce fixed odds betting terminals, Mr Derek Webb was so concerned that he wanted his machines to be installed in betting shops, and the bookmakers turned him down—probably the biggest mistake they have ever made in their business. So he has made it his business ever since to make sure that his machines cannot be in betting shops and people have to go to casinos where they are installed. That is basically what all this is about. It is, in effect, a rich man’s grudge match. He has spent millions trying to get these machines out of betting shops for no other reason than vindictiveness; that is the long and short of it. He set up the Campaign for Fairer Gambling on the back of this issue. He has spent millions. He gave half a million pounds to the Lib Dems in the previous Parliament, trying to buy their support, and he has now started giving a great deal of money to the Labour party in the hope of buying some influence with it.
Graham Jones
What would be the hon. Gentleman’s comments on Channel 4’s exposés on “Dispatches” and on the BBC’s “Panorama” where people just made up fake news?
Philip Davies
That bears no relation to the facts. We all know that people can make a hour-long TV programme and portray anything in any way they want to if they are so determined.
Philip Davies
I am going to press on if my hon. Friend does not mind.
These are the facts, whether people like them or not. The average time that somebody spends on a fixed odds betting terminal is about 10 minutes. Their average loss in that time is about £7. These machines make a profit of about £11 an hour; people may say that that is excessive, but I do not believe it is. The rate of problem gambling in the UK has not altered one jot since fixed odds betting terminals were introduced—it is still about 0.6% of the population, as it was before. The biggest problem-gambling charity in the UK, the Gordon Moody Association, was established in 1971, 30-odd years before fixed odds betting terminals were even introduced in the UK. The idea that we will eliminate problem gambling by getting rid of fixed odds betting terminals is for the birds. People who have a gambling addiction will bet on two flies going up a wall if they get half a chance. The answer is to solve their addiction, not just to ban a particular product in a way that will make not one blind bit of difference.
In this House we have an awful lot of upper-class and middle-class people who like to tell working-class people how they should spend their money and how they should not spend their money.
Graham Jones
I came here from a factory where I was on £10 an hour. I went straight from the factory into Parliament. I am not one of the middle-class or upper-class people the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Unlike him, I am one of the normal working-class people.
Philip Davies
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has become so detached from his roots, along with the rest of his party. Perhaps Labour would not be in such a mess if it stuck a bit more closely to its working-class roots.
I was astonished to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) talk about all those people in West Dorset going from payday loan companies into betting shops. It is a while since I have been in West Dorset, but it has clearly changed an awful lot since the last time I was there.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend misunderstood me. My point was that I do not have this problem in leafy West Dorset: the places I have seen people go directly from payday lenders into betting shops are in inner-city areas, where there are people far harder pressed than most, though not all, of my constituents. That is the worry.
Philip Davies
I will be interested to find out about my right hon. Friend’s habit of spending lots of time in inner-city areas where he watches people’s activities going between betting shops and payday lending companies, but we can discuss that later.
Philip Davies
No, I will not.
I did not come into Parliament to ban people from doing all the things that I do not happen to like myself. I think that our duty in this House is to try to protect people’s freedoms, even the freedom to do things that we do not choose to do ourselves. Unfortunately, there are lots of people in this House who do nothing other than try to ban people from doing all the things that they personally do not happen to like themselves. Many people in this House do not like gambling and betting, and want to stop anyone else doing it.
As I made clear in an intervention, there are far more pubs in poorer communities, per square mile, than betting shops. How many Members of this House want to restrict the number of pubs so that poor working-class people do not waste their money down at the pub? None, or hardly any. Why? Because MPs like a drink themselves, and they do not want to ban anybody from doing anything that they happen to like themselves. There are far more takeaway food outlets per square mile in poor working-class areas than there are betting shops. How many Members want to ban all those takeaways? None. Why? Look at everyone—we all like a good takeaway ourselves, and do not want to do ourselves out of it. This is all about people in this House telling other people what they should and should not be doing in a rather patronising way that does not give a very good image of this place. They do not want to stop people doing things that they themselves like doing—only the things that they do not happen to like.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is putting a very sincere argument. I know he holds these views sincerely and his integrity is beyond question. I do not want him to ban anything he does not want to ban, but on this occasion I am happy to do it for him.
Philip Davies
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
If people are not allowed to bet on a fixed odds betting terminal, the idea that they will all of a sudden not bet at all is for the birds. What will they do? I will tell the House. They will go from the roulette machine in a betting shop, where staff are keeping an eye on them and intervening when they show concerning behaviours and referring them to problem-gambling charities for help, but they will not just stop gambling. They will go on to the internet, and play exactly the same roulette game, but for unlimited stakes and unlimited prizes. Why on earth do people in this House want people to go from a product that has a stake limit and a prize limit, in a place where there are people keeping an eye on them, on to the internet, where there are unlimited stakes and prizes? That is complete nonsense.
Rob Marris
I caution the hon. Gentleman on that point. I do not know what he did, but I remember that when I voted for the ban on smoking in workplaces, one argument put forward by opponents was that people would still continue to consume tobacco, and just do so in a different venue. That is manifestly not the case. The number of people giving up smoking or smoking less has increased very considerably because of that legislation. I am not saying that it is entirely due to the legislation, but the consensus among medical experts is that the legislation has been a major contributory factor in people’s abandoning or lessening personally harmful behaviour.
Philip Davies
The problem with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that smoking has gone down in this country every single year, without fail, since 1975—every single year, without fail, whether before or after the smoking ban. It was therefore inevitable that after a ban on smoking it would go down, because it would have gone down if there had been no ban. That cause and effect argument does not wash with me, I am afraid. People who bet will go on to the internet.
To give another argument, The Times had an article based on information from the Gambling Commission showing that 16% of under-16s were gambling every week. What were they gambling on? It was not fixed odds betting terminals—they were not going into betting shops. They were gambling on fruit machines, and largely on national lottery scratchcards. People can purchase those scratchcards at 16. They can gamble at 16 on the national lottery.
Who argues against that in this House—who argues against young people getting into gambling at the age of 16 like that? I do. I think it is an absolute outrage that people can play the national lottery at 16. If we believe that gambling should be allowed only at 18, that should be the case for all gambling. But who is arguing against playing the lottery at 16? No one. Even though young people are getting into gambling on scratchcards, people do not complain. That is not because they care about the people losing money; it is because they are concerned about the people winning the money. The money from the lottery goes to good causes, so people think it is fine for others to get an addiction to scratchcards. Although they do not like to say so, and so dress it up by saying they are concerned about problem gamblers, the fact is that what lies behind measures such as the new clause is that people do not like the people who are winning the money. They do not give a stuff about the people who are losing the money. That is the sad thing.
How much did Derek Webb give to problem-gambling charities when he was accumulating his hundreds of millions of pounds? Perhaps he did give some money, but I am not aware of anything. The bookmakers give millions and millions—about £6 million a year—to problem-gambling charities to help people with their treatment, and that would be under threat if we did away with these betting shops.
Fiona Bruce
Is it not correct to say that betting shop managers have an obligation to stop a gambler if they think that that person is gambling irresponsibly, and therefore there is a reason why we should stop the proliferation of betting shops in the same locality?
Philip Davies
The problem with that is something that used to be called competition, which the Conservative party used to be in favour of, many moons ago. I know that it is an old-fashioned view in the Conservative party to believe in competition, but some of us still do. Self-exclusion for people who have a problem now applies across different betting shops. If someone self-excludes in one shop, it will apply in every shop in the locality, so I think my hon. Friend’s concern has been allayed.
The point I want to make before I finish is that if the choice was between having a betting shop in a town centre—in Bradford or in Shipley, for example—or having Marks & Spencer or Next, I would say every single time that the local authority should look to give planning permission to Marks & Spencer or Next, because it would do much more to regenerate the high street in Shipley than another betting shop would. Absolutely—I would be with the hon. Member for Hyndburn, every single day of the week. But the reason why betting shops have gone from the side streets to the main street is that retailers have been abandoning the high street—they have been walking away from it. The choice is now whether we have a betting shop or a closed-down, boarded-up shop down the high street. It is not a choice between a betting shop and a wonderful retailer that will do this, that and the other to the local community; it is often a choice between a betting shop and no shop whatsoever.
I would say that in a local community it is far better to have a betting shop employing people, and looking out for people who are gambling to make sure that they do not bet with a problem, than to have a boarded-up shop, which is the alternative. The Government should be very wary about doing something that will further reduce the number of betting shops when it is already going down, even without any intervention. I hope that the House will support my hon. Friends with their new clauses but reject new clause 1.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Members might be relieved to know that I shall be extremely brief. I rise to speak to my amendments 24 and 25, although I should say that there is not a new clause or an amendment that we have heard about today that I disagree with. I thank the many Members on both sides of the House who have supported my amendments.
My hon. Friends will know that I am a passionate champion of the vulnerable. I have often spoken about disability and social care issues, and today is no exception. I doubt that anyone in the House would disagree that safe, secure, affordable and appropriate housing is a basic requirement for everyone. I also doubt that many would disagree that we face an unprecedented housing challenge. When the supply of housing is tight, some in society must make do with seriously inappropriate housing. I am pleased to report that 90% of all new housing developments in London must meet building standards category 2, which concerns accessible standards, and that the remaining 10% must be totally wheelchair-friendly. That is fantastic and exactly as it should be, but no similar requirement applies outside London.
My amendments would require local planning authorities to consider the needs of elderly and disabled people when identifying strategic priorities for the development and use of land. They would support the national policy guidance on new developments outlined in the national planning policy framework. They would also, by enabling independent living, support the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap. Furthermore, they would reduce pressure on the social care sector and the NHS by providing more suitable accommodation for elderly people and keeping them safe in their homes for longer. In itself, achieving that is one of the biggest challenges that this country faces, and we have talked an awful lot about it recently.
The Government are tackling the housing challenge head-on. I look forward to the imminent White Paper, but as we rise to this challenge, we must not inadvertently replace it with a different kind of challenge by failing to recognise the need for accessible housing. My amendments purely seek to safeguard against that.
With an ageing population and more people living longer, with complex needs, the demand for accessible homes is set to increase rapidly. By 2030, the number of people aged 65 and over will have increased by 50%. In the next 20 years, the number of disabled people is set to increase from 11 million to 15 million. Estimates —conservative estimates at that—show that 3 million more accessible homes will be needed by 2035. Today, we have 11.9 million disabled people in the UK, yet only 6% of the housing stock currently provides the four bare-minimum standards needed to allow a disabled person to visit, let alone live there. The number of people aged 85 and over is expected to double in the next 23 years to more than 3.4 million.
Older people should be able to live safely and with dignity in good-quality, warm and safe housing. We know that most older people want to retain their independence and to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Not only should we actively support that, but if we want to tackle the crisis in social care—it is a crisis—we must do so. The cost of hospitalisation and social care for older people, such as those who have suffered hip fractures, most of which are caused by falls but could be prevented if there was more suitable housing, is £2 billion a year.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Most older people live outside London, and the demographics of local authority areas show that a higher proportion of older people live outside the metropolitan areas, which is particularly important in relation to her amendments. The preventive measures she mentions are an important aspect of social care. Will she elaborate a bit more about how early intervention could save money for the NHS and the social care system?
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. I see that particularly in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, which has one of the fastest growing elderly populations. We are spending money hand over fist by acting after the event. If we can keep people safe in their homes, it does not take a genius to see, given the pressures on the NHS at the moment—hip fractures alone cost us £2 billion a year—that there are hundreds of ways in which the money could be better spent.
The amendments could have a far-reaching impact. Research by charities such as the Papworth Trust and Habinteg shows that disabled people who have a home that works for them are four times more likely to be in paid employment. If we are as serious as I believe we are about halving the disability employment gap, we need to get serious about these amendments.
I have highlighted the issues that every Member of this House knows we face and the impact that the lack of accessible housing is having and will continue to have on our economy and, more importantly, on our society. My amendments would impose no additional cost on the Government. Indeed, they would save the Government, and thus the taxpayer, a huge sum. All they ask is that we put into law the guidance already provided in the NPPF.
All I am asking is that planning authorities must consider the needs of the whole population. What arguments against the amendments could there possibly be? I do not accept that they will place an additional burden on developers, and thus a cost on the consumer. The additional cost of making a home accessible from the outset is absolutely minimal. Having run my own manufacturing business, I know how powerful competitive necessity can be to drive costs down.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the affordability and accessibility of a property in which people are to live. Will she include the energy efficiency of homes in what she is encouraging developers and local authorities to consider so that elderly people can live in homes that are warm as well as accessible?
Heidi Allen
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. This is all about thinking about things before we have to fit them retrospectively. It is vital that we have warm and efficient homes that save money for elderly people.
Some might argue that if central Government agreed to legislate through my amendments, that would take power away from local authorities. However, the amendments would not remove any local power at all; if anything, they would bolster it.
National demographic changes are happening now. We need more accessible housing and I believe that we have an opportunity to act now. This is about how we make this country one that truly works for everyone.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I have been bullied by the Whips into making only a very short intervention, so I am not able to expand on the extensive views that I wished to favour the House with. However, I thought that I should not let the moment pass without my thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his immensely touching description of betting shops, which, as we all know, are havens of peace, tranquillity, excitement and—
Sir Nicholas Soames
Yes, virtue. They are great places to be, and they make a tremendous and important contribution to the money-lending business. I say to my hon. Friend that he was extremely patronising about my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) who, like myself, has probably spent many, many happy hours in gambling shops, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows I have. I have nothing but the very highest opinion of them. My hon. Friend gave us a particularly touching exposition and I hope the House will pay no attention to it.
I thank my hon. Friend the Housing and Planning Minister for his courtesy, kindness and consideration, and for the immense efforts he makes on behalf of all of us to try to ensure that we have a fair planning system in this country.
I, of course, support amendment 28, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for the imperial town of Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I am delighted that he will not pressing it to a Division, but I am completely on his side and thought he made a powerful case. The decision that his constituents have had to cope with is certainly very unpleasant.
I am really speaking to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who is my close friend and parliamentary neighbour. He and I are currently struggling as Mid Sussex District Council is undergoing an examination in public. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, Mid Sussex has made 14 parish and town council plans, which is something of a record. That is an extraordinary achievement. The local communities have worked immensely hard, with great credibility and integrity, only to find that all their efforts are constantly undermined and challenged by the most unscrupulous building lobby it has ever been my pleasure to have to deal with.
At the examination in public, at which my right hon. Friend and I appeared on the second day, I was astonished to see the range of what the builders produced. They had bogus development forums that had been rushed together to try to present them as reputable. Their lobbying is aggressive and, in my view, totally unacceptable. Even our local enterprise partnership is chaired by a builder. They seek to interfere, very unhelpfully, in the work of the planning authorities.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows of the infamous application by Mayfield Market Towns to build a completely unwanted new settlement to the south of my constituency and partially in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs. It has been turned down time after time. No one wants it and it is not in any plan, yet the builders continue to chip away at the fabric, integrity and credibility of the plans.
In supporting the very sound and sensible new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend, all I wish to say to the Minister is that I hope he understands that councils such as Mid Sussex are fighting a losing battle. There need to be clear rules and a clear understanding that there is a spirit that is entered into, because at the moment the house builders act quite outside the spirit and intention of the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said in her excellent speech, it is quite unacceptable that all this hard work is undone by some completely unacceptable lobbying.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I rise to support the provisions in the Bill that will identify and build the houses that the country and my constituents badly need, and to speak in support of new clause 7.
The Bill addresses many key areas to help to deliver the home building agenda. However, speeding up the delivery of homes and increasing their number should not inevitably come at the cost of valuable green-belt land. Unfortunately, the draft Greater Manchester spatial framework, which is currently under consultation, relies heavily on the release of green-belt land, particularly in my constituency, with more than 8,000 houses planned on Cheadle’s green belt. My residents, especially in areas where neighbourhood plans are in progress, are extremely concerned about that. We have ambitious home building targets, but when delivering new homes, we must look at the long-term sustainability of development, rather than offering up our green spaces for easy wins for developers. We must be ambitious, direct development strategically and with a coherent vision, and value local community involvement.
Thousands of people have contacted me to raise their concerns about this issue, and I will be presenting a petition to the House later today that shows the strength of feeling in my constituency about protecting the green belt for the next generation while demonstrating the importance of local voices being heard.
It is evident that people care about their local communities. They want to see urban areas regenerated, and they love their open and rural spaces, and recognise their value for physical and mental health and wellbeing. People in Cheadle not only care about the place where they live, but want to help to shape it and to have their views heard. They want to have their say not only as individuals but in groups, such as Save Heald Green Green Belt and the Woodford Neighbourhood Forum. I want to make sure that they have their voices heard, too.
We should be proud of our record of encouraging and enabling community engagement through our localism agenda. The opportunity to help to shape the village of Woodford was taken up wholeheartedly by residents, who set up their neighbourhood forum in October 2013. Since then, the members and residents have raised funds and spent thousands of hours working on their local plan. Getting a local plan together is no mean feat. Over the past three years, they have put together a residents questionnaire and a neighbourhood plan scoping report, and they have held a neighbourhood plan exhibition. They have produced an interim analysis of data for 2015, an annual progress report, a landscape and environment studies report, a housing needs assessment, a movement study, and a heritage and character assessment. They have worked tremendously hard and know every inch of their area. They are now consulting village residents on the plan and reaching the pre-submission phase, which is a critical point in the plan’s progress.
I want to encourage more residents to get involved in that way. However, an obstacle to the uptake of the opportunity for groups to put together neighbourhood plans is the perception that plans can be overturned by local planning authorities, especially if they have not reached the final stage or if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply. Communities need reassurance that neighbourhood plans are given due weight in planning considerations, and that all the hard work that goes into them will be rewarded and given proper consideration.
The Bill gives us an opportunity to give our green belt further protection for years to come, and to encourage more people to get involved in neighbourhood forums to develop and shape their area. I look forward to the publication of the Government’s White Paper in due course. On my Christmas card this year, I have featured the green belt at Woodford, which I look out over. I hope that, in future years, I will be able to include it on my card again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a few more speakers and there is another group to get through after this one. The quicker we can move on, the better.
Fiona Bruce
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 7 and 8, to which I have added my name, but I am spurred by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to put on record my support for the tenor of new clause 1.
It is imperative that Ministers act to restore the confidence of my Congleton constituents in the status of neighbourhood plans specifically and in localism more widely. My constituents consider that the status and application of neighbourhood plans is confusing, contradictory, inconsistent and unfair. The area has no local plan and no agreed five-year planned supply. For years, local communities in my constituency have been bombarded with a barrage of inappropriate planning applications by developers gobbling up green spaces, including prime agricultural land, and putting pressure on local schools, health services, roads and other services. It is essential that Ministers take action to give neighbourhood plans the full weight in practice that the Government say they have in theory. It is for that reason that residents in my constituency have in some cases taken years to prepare neighbourhood plans. I respect the Government’s good intentions, but they are not being carried out.
The Government factsheet on the Bill states:
“Neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. For the first time communities can produce plans that have real statutory weight in the planning system.”
That is the theory, but let me tell hon. Members about the practice. The parish of Brereton was the first area in my constituency to produce a neighbourhood plan. It is a rural farming area mainly—just 470 houses are dotted about it. It developed a neighbourhood plan over many years, and it was voted in with a huge 96% majority vote on a 51% turnout. It is a very intelligent document. It has no blanket objection to development, but does say that development should be appropriate in scale, design and character of the rural area of Brereton, and that it should not distort that character. It says that small groups of one or two properties built over time would be appropriate, supporting the rural economy and providing accommodation for those with local livelihoods, which seems reasonable.
I warmly welcomed the plan when it was produced and when it was adopted. However, the Brereton example is one of several in which planning applications that are contradictory to the best intentions of local residents have been approved by the inspectorate. Brereton is a parish of 470 houses. Within the last month, one development of no fewer than 190 houses has been allowed on appeal. Another application for 49 houses is coming down the track. That is more than half the size again of the parish.
Brereton has very few facilities—for example, it does not have a doctors’ surgery—so nearby Holmes Chapel will be pressurised further. That village already has hundreds of recently built properties or properties for which permission has been given. The health centre is full, the schools are under pressure and traffic pressures render roads dangerous. Unlike Brereton, Holmes Chapel has not yet completed its local neighbourhood plan, but people there are now asking whether it is worth the time and effort of completing one.
The position is the same in Goostrey, another nearby village that is in the process of developing its neighbourhood plan. A resident and member of the Goostrey parish council neighbourhood plan team wrote to me. He says that such decisions are demotivating when it comes to creating neighbourhood plans, and that they make encouraging people to get involved in the Goostrey plan much harder—he refers not only to the Brereton decision, but to the inconsistency of two recent decisions down the road in Sandbach, where one application for a substantial housing development was dismissed based on the neighbourhood plan, and another, cheek-by-jowl down the road, was approved with the neighbourhood plan carrying little or no weight, even though there was no five-year housing supply in both cases.
I have been told by local residents that what really offended people in Brereton was the fact that
“at the public examination of the Brereton Neighbourhood Plan in November 2015 at Sandbach Town Hall, the Examiner insisted our Plan and its policies were sufficiently robust to counteract mass housing development and protect the rural character of the Parish. He asserted publicly that Brereton, as a rural Parish, did not have a responsibility to provide mass housing towards the wider strategic housing target—yet, the Appeal Inspectorate essentially has argued the complete opposite. Why are Government representatives involved in planning matters holding completely opposing and inconsistent views?”
Another resident in yet another parish who has worked for almost two years with neighbours to develop a neighbourhood plan area designation has now resigned from the steering group, in what the constituent calls “total disillusionment”, saying:
“I do not understand how this decision is either fair or reasonable…I conclude that the Neighbourhood Planning Process is a Government-sponsored confidence trick”.
Those are strong words, but they express how many of my constituents feel. Another said that
“there seems little point in producing a neighbourhood plan if it is considered irrelevant.”
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that consultation is meaningless if the people consulted are then ignored?
Fiona Bruce
That is what I am saying. Time and again, our constituents are being encouraged to produce neighbourhood plans. About two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), then a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, came at my invitation to Sandbach town hall to talk to residents concerned about the barrage of applications by developers to build thousands of houses across my constituency. He said that the way to protect our local communities was by developing neighbourhood plans. That galvanised communities such as those that I have mentioned into working towards neighbourhood plans. As others have said, some residents have put hundreds of hours into doing so.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend describes a situation that I am sure we all recognise well. In my experience, many local communities engage positively with their neighbourhood and local plans to identify the housing need in their area, and then plan accordingly. Does she share my frustration, however, that because of the robust protections afforded to the Bristol and Bath green belt to the north of my constituency, despite my communities having made plans in Somerset, much of the former’s housing demand is being displaced southwards, so we end up having to absorb that as well, outwith our planning?
Fiona Bruce
I do very much empathise with my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Another resident says that unless neighbourhood plans are given significant weight—that is what I and many colleagues have asked the Minister to ensure—their community
“would advise others not to put the time and effort into what is increasingly looking like a futile and wasteful exercise”.
Another resident pointed out that the factsheet I referred to states, in response to the question,
“should a community produce a neighbourhood plan where the Local Plan may not be up-to-date?”,
that through
“a neighbourhood plan, communities can have a real say about local development…and protect important local green spaces”.
It also states that
“the NPPF is very clear that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted (NPPF para. 198)”.
Contradictorily, in the case of Brereton, the inspector’s report allowing the appeal for these 190 houses stated:
“Reference was made to paragraph 198 of the Framework, which provides that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan (as in this case)”—
he acknowledged that—
“that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted”.
So far, so good. It goes on to say:
“However, the position is not ‘normal’ in that as NP policy HOU01 is clearly a relevant policy for the supply of housing, and is in conformity with LP policies which are themselves out of date”—
meaning there is no current neighbourhood plan—
“only limited weight can be afforded to the policy”.
Richard Drax
It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, and, with a mainly rural constituency, I felt I must. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) on their contributions. I entirely concur with them and share their concerns on this important issue.
Let me touch briefly—I, too, have been got at by the Whips, which is unusual for me; I have not been got at in six years, but I have been today, so I shall not be long—on regionalism, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield brought up, and localism. As I am addressing my remarks to the planning Minister, for whom I have a huge amount of respect and who is doing a wonderful job, I would also like to touch briefly on housing density.
To look at this from a more macro point of view, my concern is that we will be here for many years to come, because planning has always been a complicated issue. With the pressures on immigration—no one should get me wrong; I am all for controlled immigration—and with a net immigration of 340,000, that means that something comparable to the population of the city of Leeds, with a population of 750,000, is settling in the country about every two years.
There are pressures on us all in this House, and they are going to increase—not just in our urban areas, but in our beautiful rural areas such as South Dorset. I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that we must look at planning, and housing in particular, in a far more regional and holistic way. Local people entirely support the neighbourhood plans, which I think are a very good idea—as long as they are going to work, of course. Local plans must be respected and must have some statutory weight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said. A reasonable holistic approach is going to be far more pragmatic and sensible if, for example, a region with an urban and a rural area can decide where the jobs, the hospitals, the roads and all the different parts of infrastructure are. All too often, these do not come with proposals by developers because, of course, that costs money. Moving on briefly to localism, the opinion of local people must, of course, be sought, because that is going to be crucial.
Conservative Members must be very careful. I remember cursing Labour’s regional spatial strategy until I was blue in the face, but I think we are in danger of not listening to local people who have genuine concerns. This is nowhere more appropriate than in my part of the world in Purbeck. As I hinted to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), I think we need more clarity on the rules and regulations governing where houses should be built. Quite apart from all the local people, who are consulted, we have the officers, who in many cases do not seem to understand what the planning regulations mean or interpret them wrongly. There are the over-enthusiastic officers who get it completely wrong, and vice versa. Then of course there are our dear councillors on all sides of the political divide, who are doing their best, but they are human beings and often make mistakes. They may make decisions for political reasons. There are all kinds of factors that we in this House know lead councillors to make decisions, and they might not always be the right ones.
Local people in Langton Matravers in my constituency know exactly who needs to have a house: it must be affordable—and I mean affordable—and they know best where to place it. They do not need to be told by planning inspectors, whom everyone is terrified of, that they must have hundreds of homes on the edge of their beautiful village, which in effect almost turns it into a sort of ghetto and ruins the reason millions of people come to our beautiful constituencies. This clearly is absolute madness.
I know other Members wish to speak and the Government want to move on, but finally I wish to make a plea on density and style of housing. I have a friend in north Yorkshire who is a landowner and who has developed truly affordable proper homes—affordable homes for rent, which is equally important as homes to buy. The following point is crucial. In too many housing developments, particularly in rural areas, there is no area for children: the cars are parked on the street, the dustbins are at the front doors, there are no green fields to run out and have fun on.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. One of the things I have been horrified by in following this examination in public is that here are these builders proposing building hundreds of houses over what is already a very substantial target, which the council has agreed to, and they have made no mention at all of infrastructure. How can anyone accept that?
Richard Drax
My right hon. Friend represents a beautiful constituency like mine and speaks eloquently, and I entirely concur with him, as I am sure we all do. I make a plea to the Government to look at some form of legislation to ensure that developers have a duty to develop responsibly and in ways whereby they treat people and families as human beings, not animals trapped in a cage where they cannot go outside and children cannot roam without annoying the neighbours. This will lead to social breakdown, as we have seen across the country in many areas, and the worst examples lead to more social incohesion, which is the last thing we need.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to speak briefly to new clause 1 and amendments 24 and 25, which are both moderate amendments.
We have had a debate about betting shops and FOBTs, but Mr Deputy Speaker is giving great latitude to the discussion on new clause 1, because FOBTs and betting are the responsibility of another Department. This is essentially about the tools in relation to licensing and the welcome review. We have heard the warm-up act from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). His speech can be rehearsed again when we come to the outcome, which hopefully will show evidence of the significant harm that is being done, particularly to the most vulnerable people.
I am not so concerned about the Derek Webbs of this world or the motivations of hon. Members or hon. Friends; I am concerned about the vulnerable people who are certainly being preyed upon, particularly in deprived communities, and especially as a result of the clustering of betting shops. There is good evidence from the Local Government Association that in areas of clustering there is increased problem gambling. We cannot avoid that evidence. New clause 1 seeks to deal with clustering.
It is just one tool. The number of betting shops, the number of those betting, and indeed those going to payday loan companies, are thankfully being reduced because of other regulatory measures. The 2015 regulatory interventions on payday loans were very welcome, and have had an impact. The additional taxation of gaming machines has also had an impact on the number of betting shops.
These are all tools at the Government’s disposal, but we are discussing planning tools and whether they are fit for purpose. In London there are local plans in Enfield and elsewhere—the borough plans that take account of impact on amenity, concentration of similar uses, security, locality and proximity to sensitive uses. That is all welcome. The previous Mayor of London also focused in his plan on the over-concentration of betting shops and prepared and issued the 2014 supplementary planning guidance. It recognised the urgent need to enable local planning authorities to control the proliferation of betting shops and to address implications of retaining the viability and vitality of town centres while protecting amenity and safety.
Governments, local councils and neighbourhood plans are all on this journey, but all of us in this place may not be on the same journey. There has been good cross-party support for the concerns about clustering, but is that adequate? Control, not least of clustering, is insufficient across the board and across the country, and we must consider the available opportunities. That is what new clause 1 is about. It provides for an assessment when an increase in the number of betting shops or payday lenders is proposed to ensure that deleterious impacts of clustering are prevented.
In many ways, the new clause pulls together the elements of the journey that the Government are on, and I look forward to hearing the Minister welcome the principles behind it. If he is unwilling to support it this time around, taking account of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) about blocking, I hope he recognises that there are good intentions across the House. When the review of fixed odds betting terminals is published, if there is evidence of significant harm, I hope the Government will do what is already within their power and issue appropriate guidance. It matters that betting shops are sadly disproportionately affecting vulnerable people. There is something in the fact that the poorest 55 boroughs have more than twice as many betting shops as the most affluent 115 boroughs. There needs to be an appropriate local dimension so that those poorer boroughs have the Government behind them, backing them up with local plans. I am supportive of new clause 1, but I will not join the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) in the Lobby tonight. I want the Government to be true to their word and take appropriate action and issue guidance at the appropriate time, such as when we hear back from the licensing review.
I support amendments 24 and 25—two welcome and moderate amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). She is somewhat radical on occasions, but they are moderate and simply state what we all no doubt want to ensure. When we consider new building and the current and future projections in our areas, we must take account of the entire population, older and disabled people in particular. The amendments make sense and fit with the Government’s agenda of integrating social care and with the Green Paper about integration across Departments. It is projected that over-65 households will represent almost half of all household growth up to 2026, so getting housing right for older people will have immense benefits for society and the economy. When we ask our local authorities about new higher accessibility standards, the number of retirement housing developments, easy access to public transport and other local services and facilities, home adaptations, disabled facilities grants, and proper and appropriate housing support services in sheltered housing, these amendments will give that real teeth and ensure that what we all want does happen. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful for catching your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. So troublesome am I that three Whips, including one who is sitting next to me, have encouraged me to be brief, so I will do just that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
It is in my hands. The Whips will see whether their spell has worked.
I start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Planning Minister. He has been incredibly generous in listening to Back-Bench concerns about planning. Having practised in it as a chartered surveyor, I know that it is an incredibly difficult area. The Bill is important, because neighbourhood plans were introduced by the Localism Act 2011—the clue is in the name—and if we can devolve planning down as far as possible, many people will feel that they have ownership of the planning system and be much happier about what is being done to them. In contrast to some Members who have spoken in this debate, I warmly welcome such plans, and the Bill is a good step forward. New clauses 7 and 8 and amendments 19 and 28, which are in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), all represent improvements to the Bill.
We must ensure that neighbourhood plans work, and we need three things to do that. I represent two local authorities, Stroud District Council, which has a local district plan, and Cotswold District Council, which does not, and I have been pretty strong in my words about the latter. The net result in the Cotswold District Council area is that we do not have a single neighbourhood plan in operation.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Given the lateness of the hour, even though we have a number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to amendments 7 and 8, and to confirm our support for a few others. Amendment 7 would allow the full recovery of costs by local authorities for assisting with the development of a neighbourhood plan. We know that planning departments are massively under-resourced and that they are hugely important in getting the housing that we so desperately need built. I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that if we want to build the housing we need, we must make sure that planning departments are adequately resourced. I therefore hope he will bring forward something beyond simply allowing local authorities to charge higher fees to resource planning departments properly.
Amendment 8 requires the Secretary of State to prioritise deprived communities when making available financial assistance to support the development of neighbourhood plans. Again, we discussed this in Committee, and if we are really serious about ensuring that all communities across the country are able to produce neighbourhood plans, deprived communities need to be supported in that endeavour and funded properly to produce such a plan. I wish also to put on the record the fact that we support amendments 24, 25 and 29 and new clauses 7 and 1, the latter having been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones).
Gavin Barwell
In contrast with the first group of amendments, where we had a short debate on technical issues, this group has cut to the heart of our planning system, and I hope the House will bear with me, as I have a large number of amendments to respond to. Of the official Opposition amendments, I will respond only to the ones the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) spoke to, as I know the Opposition are keen for us to get on to the third group.
I start very quickly with four Government amendments. Three minor and technical amendments, 17, 18 and 19, are required to remove unnecessary duplication between clauses 10 and 11. Amendment 22 to clause 40 amends the commencement provision so that it no longer refers to the duplicated Bill in clause 11. If the House will take me at my word on that, I will move on to the more substantive issues. I will take them in the order in which they were raised in the debate.
Speaking to new clause 1, the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke movingly about problems caused by the proliferation—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) begged to differ on that word—or clustering of betting shops in their communities. Their concerns are not just limited to the planning system, but they rightly looked to the planning system to protect their communities.
In responding, I remind the House of important recent changes to the planning system, which specifically require planning applications to be made for additional betting shops or payday loan shops. Before April 2015, under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, a new betting shop or payday loan shop could be opened in any premises used for financial or professional services in the A2 use class. In addition, an A3 restaurant, A4 pub and A5 hot food takeaway could all change use to a betting shop or a payday loan shop under permitted development rights without the need for a planning application.
Recognising the concerns that people have expressed about that, the Government changed the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order: betting shops and payday loan shops were made a use class of their own and now require a planning application, allowing proper consideration of the issues that a change of use may raise. As with any planning application, the local planning authority must determine that application in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Those planning authorities that have concerns about the clustering of such uses should therefore ensure that they have an up-to-date plan in place with relevant policies. As with any policy, that plan should be based on evidence and tailored to meet the needs of the local area.
Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear—local planning authorities should recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality and to promote a mix of uses. Betting shops and payday loan shops are not an issue everywhere. Where the ongoing clustering of them is an issue, and where that has an adverse impact on the character or balance of uses on the high street, planning authorities can ensure that they have policies in place. We have given them the tools they need to manage the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said that this is a local problem that requires local solutions, and the Government agree with that. We do not see the need for national guidance that sets out what every authority should do, partly because the situation is by no means uniform across the country, and partly because there are very different opinions within this House and within local authorities about the right response to these issues. The Government’s view therefore is that this is a matter that is best left to individual local authorities, as they know their circumstances.
Gavin Barwell
I will not take an intervention now, as I am conscious of the time. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman, who clearly has a real passion for this issue, is that I am prepared to talk to colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and see, as part of its wider review of these issues, whether it would be helpful to issue guidance to local authorities so that they are aware of the powers that they have and how the NPPF works in this area.
Let me move on now to the main issue of the debate, which was in relation to neighbourhood planning. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to new clause 7 for the opportunity to debate an issue in which so many people in this House have a strong interest. I am talking about the role of neighbourhood planning groups in our planning system.
There are many champions of neighbourhood planning in all parts of the House. As the planning Minister, I am very grateful for that support. The encouragement and support of a trusted local MP can undoubtedly help with many aspects of the neighbourhood planning process.
It is worth taking a quick moment to say why neighbourhood planning is so important. Research tells us that 42% of people say that they would be more supportive of proposed developments if local people had a say in them. There is strong evidence that those plans that have included housing allocations have increased, on average, the allocation above what their local planning authority was putting in place. To put that simply, where we give people control of the planning system, they plan for more housing. It is therefore crucial that the plans that people have worked so hard to produce are given proper consideration when local planning decisions are made.
In responding to new clause 7, I want to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that measures in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 that were commenced only on 1 October, the measures in this Bill, and in particular the written ministerial statement, which he referred to in his remarks, that I made yesterday, will address the concerns that he has raised. The national planning policy framework already says clearly that, where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton pointed out, the issue here is that, where a local planning authority does not have a five-year land supply, that is not a normal circumstance and the presumption in favour of development in some cases—not all—overrides neighbourhood plans.
In the written ministerial statement, I made it clear that from yesterday, where communities plan for housing in their area in a neighbourhood plan, those plans should not be deemed out of date unless there is a significant lack of land supply—that is, under three years. That applies to all plans for the next two years, and for the first two years of any plan that is put into place. That will give a degree of protection that has not been available. The message needs to go out clearly from this House that local authorities must get up-to-date plans in place to provide that protection for neighbourhood plans. I hope that that reassures people. As I said, I have written both to the Planning Inspectorate and to local councils on that issue.
I hope that my right hon. Friend feels that what I have said is part of the solution. I was attracted to part of his new clause 7. It refers to the idea that parish councils and neighbourhood forums should be told if there is a planning application in their area. At present, they have a right to request information, but they are not necessarily told. If he does not press new clause 7 and with his permission, I will take that proposal away and seek to insert it into the Bill in the Lords.
On new clause 8, which deals with the five-year land supply, the written ministerial statement partly addresses that concern, but the other issue that my right hon. Friend touched on was whether, once a five-year land supply has been established, there should be a period that it holds for. The local plans expert group made some very interesting recommendations in that area. We will look at them as part of the White Paper, so I can reassure him that the Government are actively considering that issue and will return to it. I hope that he feels that with the changes in the 2016 Act that have just been brought into force, the changes that we are making in this Bill, the written ministerial statement, the fact that I will accept part of his amendment and what is going to come in the White Paper, there is a package that underlines this Government’s commitment to neighbourhood planning. I thank him on a personal level for the priority that he has given to the issue. I found my discussions with him very useful.
On amendments 28 and 29 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), I should say that I am always grateful for his advice and suggestions. He is a champion for his constituency and the whole House understands how passionately he feels about the green belt in his constituency. As someone with green belt in my constituency, I both understand and share that passion. The green belt has been a feature of planning policy throughout the post-war period, and although its boundaries have changed over time, the underlying objective of preventing urban sprawl remains as relevant as ever.
I make it clear to the House that the Government’s policy on protecting the green belt and national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest remains unchanged. The national planning policy framework is very clear that it is for local authorities to decide whether to review green-belt boundaries but that they should do so only in exceptional circumstances. There needs to be public consultation and independent examination of their proposals. In relation to applications to build homes on green-belt land, again there is very strong protection. The NPPF says that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Mr Mitchell
Given the Minister’s eloquent defence of the green belt from the Dispatch Box, can he explain to the House how on earth he reached such a ludicrous position in respect of the decision to lift the delay on Birmingham City Council?
Gavin Barwell
As I said, there is independent examination whenever a local authority seeks to review green-belt boundaries. The inspector looked at whether Birmingham City Council’s decision passed the test of exceptional circumstances, and his judgment was that the council’s proposals on density and its work with neighbouring local authorities under the duty to co-operate passed that test. As my right hon. Friend is aware, the previous Secretary of State issued the holding direction, and we looked at the inspector’s decision to see whether there was any reason we might feel he had misdirected himself, and we decided there were no grounds for us to overturn the decision. I understand that my right hon. Friend does not agree with that decision and feels very angry about it, but that is a factual account of what happened.
Mr Mitchell
Nevertheless, there was no consultation of the 100,000 people in Sutton Coldfield—at least, the consultation was completely ignored. We are the largest town council in the country, and every single town councillor is opposed to this plan. Will my hon. Friend at least suggest to Birmingham City Council that, before it proceeds to ratify the plan, it should consult the largest town council in the country and listen to its views?
Gavin Barwell
I was going to come to that issue when I came to my right hon. Friend’s second new clause. Since he has raised it with me directly, I am happy to say that I would expect local authorities to consult their parish and town councils. I have no power to direct them to do so, as he alluded to in his speech, but there should clearly be consultation with large town councils and local communities should be consulted as part of the local plan process. I suspect that part of his frustration with this decision is about the fact that he does not necessarily accept the legitimacy of Birmingham imposing it on Sutton Coldfield and that perhaps speaks to his views about local governance in the area. However, the whole House will have heard his passion for this issue.
I am conscious of the time, Mr Speaker, so let me briefly reassure the House on the Government’s efforts to ensure that we have a policy of brownfield first. We are introducing statutory brownfield registers. Our estate regeneration strategy, which has just been published, is looking at how we can redevelop our estates. Permitted development is about bringing old buildings back into use. There is the release of surplus public land. The £3 billion home building fund is aimed at getting brownfield sites back into use. There are also the £1.2 billion starter home land fund and the changes to the NPPF that we are consulting on to put an even stronger emphasis on brownfield. I just want to reassure the House on that issue.
Let me turn to my right hon. Friend’s second amendment, on the relationship between neighbourhood plans and local plans and on the roles of parish and town councils. He referred to Sutton Coldfield Town Council, which was recently set up under the reforms the Government brought in to allow new town and parish councils to be established. The Government have a lot of sympathy with the argument he is advancing in this amendment. There are already powers in legislation in relation to the statements of community involvement that local authorities have to produce, but I think he has found an issue where we can strengthen the statutory protections. With his leave, and if he were not to press his amendment, I would like to discuss the issue with him and come back in the Lords to see whether we can make the kind of changes he suggests.
Let me turn briefly to new clause 5 from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which is about the resourcing of the neighbourhood planning process. The neighbourhood share of the community infrastructure levy was introduced by this Government in 2013—I suspect that he had a hand in that—to give local people a real say over infrastructure priorities in their area. Communities without a neighbourhood plan already benefit from using 15% of CIL receipts. The money is passed directly to parish and town councils, and Government guidance makes it clear that it can be used to develop a neighbourhood plan.
New clause 5 sets out that a local planning authority may make available funds where a parish agrees to forgo some of the CIL levy it expects to get over time. If communities wish to do that, they are already able to do so, because regulation 59A of the CIL regulations allows them to. However, I think that the wider point my right hon. Friend was trying to probe was about the resourcing for neighbourhood planning. We have a budget of £22.5 million for 2015 to 2018. Nearly £10 million of that has been spent so far. Clearly, if we get an acceleration in the number of neighbourhood plans, we will need to find additional resources, and I am happy to discuss further with him how we might go about doing so.
In new clause 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) seeks to encourage developers to comply with existing local and, particularly, neighbourhood plans. At appeal, an award of costs may be made if there has been unreasonable behaviour by a party that has caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expenses. It is worth pointing out that Government guidance includes as an example of unreasonable behaviour a development that is clearly not in accordance with the development plan and where no other material considerations indicate that a decision should be made against the development plan. So this ability is already there. An award of costs does not determine the actual amount but states the broad extent of the expense that can be recovered, and the matter then has to be settled between the parties or in the courts.
My hon. Friend’s new clause raises issues that it may be of interest to explore further. We need to think about whether we can do more to ensure that the collective vision of a community as set out in its neighbourhood plan is not regularly overridden. I cannot agree with the part of the new clause that refers to initial applications to the local authority. However, in relation to award of costs in the appeals system, we can look at what more we can do to ensure that only appeals that have a legitimate chance of success go forward to the inspectorate. If she is happy not to press her new clause, I am happy to look further at that matter.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) for her two amendments raising the important issue of homes for older and disabled people. The Government want to see new homes and places that stand the test of time. We therefore want to ensure that buildings and spaces work well for everyone and will adapt to the needs of future generations. Her proposal tackles a very important issue. Older and disabled people have a wide range of housing needs. As she implied, we are already seeking to address that in the NPPF. I fully understand why she wanted to further emphasise the importance of this issue by putting it into primary legislation. We need to guard against attempts to put all national planning policy into primary legislation, but she has alighted on a particularly important issue. Given that we support the spirit of her amendments, if she is happy not to press them, I am minded to accept their thrust and work with her to come back in the Lords with amendments approved by parliamentary counsel that take forward the principle of what she has been trying to achieve. I thank her for her interest in this issue.
I turn finally to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. I will deal with just the two proposed by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). On amendment 7, the Secretary of State and I have been clear that the resourcing of local authority planning departments is an issue very close to our hearts. As I set out in Committee, in the specific case of funding for neighbourhood planning duties, we believe that adequate funding is already available. Planning authorities can claim £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood areas they designate and, where there is no parish council, a further £5,000 for each of the first five neighbourhood forums. They can claim an additional £20,000 once they have set the date for a referendum. In addition, where a second referendum must be held, a further £10,000 is available. I know that the House is very interested in second referendums at the moment. I should stress that this relates to areas where there are businesses and local residents; it is not an attempt to rerun the argument. In total, £13 million has been paid out since 2012 to help local planning authorities to meet their responsibilities. We are committed to continuing to review the costs incurred by councils delivering neighbourhood planning as take-up increases, and we will continue to fund them. This should not be conflated with the wider issue of the funding of local planning departments. As the hon. Lady knows, we will include proposals in the White Paper to try to address that issue.
Amendment 8 raises the important issue of neighbourhood planning in deprived communities. As I said in Committee, we recognise the issues that those communities face. Neighbourhood planning groups in these areas can apply for a grant of up to £15,000—£6,000 more than the usual limit—and, in addition, get significant technical support. I am reluctant to put specific spending requirements into primary legislation because we cannot predict the balance of schemes that will come forward, and it could mean that we could not then fund some neighbourhood planning groups in other areas. However, I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to making sure that deprived communities get the funding they need. This should not just be a policy for wealthy rural areas. We are putting specific effort into encouraging groups in deprived urban areas to apply for neighbourhood planning.
The House has been very patient with me as I have had to deal with a large number of new clauses and amendments in a short period. I hope that Members will not press their new clauses and amendments and are happy with what I have said.
Question put and negatived.
New Clause 9
Permitted development: use clauses and demolition of drinking establishments
“(1) The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (SI/1987/764) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 3(6) insert—
“(p) drinking establishment.”
(3) In the Schedule, leave out the paragraph starting “Class A4. Drinking Establishments”
(4) The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (SI1995/418) is amended as follows.
(5) In Part 3 of Schedule 2—
(a) in Class A: Permitted development, leave out “A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(b) In Class AA: Permitted development, leave out “Class A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(c) in Class C: Permitted development, leave out “Class A4 (drinking establishments)”.
(6) In Part 31 of Schedule 2 under A.1 at end insert—
“() the building subject to demolition is classed as a drinking establishment”.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any proposed demolition of or change of use to public houses and other drinking establishments would be subject to planning permission. Currently such buildings, unless they have been listed as Assets of Community Value with the local authority, can be demolished or have their use changed without such permission being granted.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Funding for local authority planning functions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult local planning authorities prior to the commencement of any new statutory duties to ensure that they are—
(a) adequately resourced; and
(b) adequately funded
so that they are able to undertake the additional work.
(2) In any instance where that is not the case, an independent review of additional cost must be conducted to set out the level of resource required to allow planning authorities to fulfil any new statutory duties.”
This new clause would ensure that the costs of new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded.
New clause 11—Planning obligations—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 106 (planning obligations) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) requiring that information submitted as part of, and in support of, a viability assessment be made available to the public.””
This new clause would ensure that viability assessments are public documents with no commercial confidentiality restrictions, except in cases where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
Amendment 14, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 12.
This amendment would remove from the Bill completely the changes to planning conditions.
Amendment 11, in clause 12, page 11, line 18, leave out subsection (2)(a).
This amendment would ensure that “acceptable in planning terms” does not mean that conditions can be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 27, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
This amendment would ensure that local authorities are still able to make necessary pre-commencement conditions on developers.
Amendment 13, page 11, line 34, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State should provide guidance for appeal routes where an agreement cannot be reached on pre-commencement conditions, along guidance on pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.”
This amendment ensures that there is clarity on appeal routes, pre-completion and pre-occupation conditions.
Amendment 15, in clause 13, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(e) information on the number of permitted demolition of offices for residential use to a similar scale including—
(i) the impact on a local plan;
(ii) an estimate as to how many homes the development will deliver; and
(iii) a consultation with the local authority regarding the effect of the change of use on any urban regeneration plans.”
This amendment would ensure monitoring of the impact of permitted right of demolition on offices on urban regeneration that requires office space and on the provision of housing.
Government amendment 20.
Amendment 16, page 13, line 21, at end insert—
“(9) The cost of compiling a register and gathering the information to underpin it should be met by the Secretary of State.”
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will speak to new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), because I have added my name to it. It would require the demolition or change of use of pubs to be subject to planning permission. That seems very sensible. It is something that I feel very strongly about. As a shadow Minister, I was at the forefront of the fight against the changes to permitted development rights that the Government started to force through two years ago. I have spoken on pubs and permitted development many times. It is very important, as a pub can often be a real central point for a local community, and so it is right that local residents are given the chance to have their say over what happens to it.
Although pubs can be protected if they are designated an asset of community value, the process for that can be very cumbersome. I believe it is much more appropriate to return the decision on whether a pub can be demolished or converted to the local community, where it belongs, rather than dealing with it through permitted development.
I will move straight on to—
Dr Blackman-Woods
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not, as I am very short of time. I might a bit later, once I have made a bit of progress.
I also want to speak to new clause 11, on the need for the viability assessments to be transparent to the public. Labour has consistently raised this issue, and we continue to believe it is of huge importance. If the public are to accept development in their area, they have to be absolutely certain that viability arrangements for site—in particular, safety integrity level requirements and section 106 requirements—are all that they should be.
As things stand, a viability assessment lays bare to council officers the economics of a project, providing detailed financial evidence for a developer’s claim that a particular scheme would not be viable without reducing the number of affordable homes. The problem is that the assessments are not available for public scrutiny. Labour has commented that despite planning practice guidance encouraging transparency, developers may opt not to disclose their viability assessments to the public on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is widely accepted that that is sometimes done so that they can negotiate down their section 106 obligations without public scrutiny. As a consequence, affordable housing may be reduced and the quality of the built environment may suffer. We need a uniform approach to transparency, across the country—I am sure the Minister supports that—so that developers know that they will be open to public scrutiny wherever they decide to operate.
I move on to amendment 14. This Bill is the Government’s sixth measure on the planning system in six years. I hope that the current Minister will not continue what we saw in the past, namely the Government blaming the planning system, or various elements of it, for their failure to build enough homes. On this occasion, pre-commencement planning conditions are in the firing line. But as the Minister well knows from our time in Committee, there is a distinct lack of evidence that pre-commencement planning conditions slow up development. In fact, we heard a lot of evidence that they often make a development acceptable for a local community.
Pre-commencement conditions are also advantageous for a number of different stakeholders in the house building industry. They have certain advantages to developers, who may not be in a position to finalise details for a scheme but wish to secure planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages for local authorities, because councils may, in practice, have limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is under way. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general, because they make it possible to permit schemes that might otherwise have to be refused.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. My question goes back to her first amendment on pubs. Does she not accept that there are some cases in which no one can run a commercial pub, and no one wants to? In such cases, surely, action has to be taken.
Dr Blackman-Woods
We are not against a change of use for a pub; we are against the fact that that change goes through permitted development, taking away local people’s right to have a say over what happens to the pub. The new clause is designed to remove those changes from permitted development and put them back into the planning system, which is exactly where they should be.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will give way very briefly to the hon. Gentleman; he spoke for a long time earlier.
Philip Davies
I am very sympathetic to pubs, and always voted on what we might call the pub side of the argument, including over the tenancy issue—the tied pubs issue—during the previous Parliament. I am concerned that if we say to a struggling pub that it has to get planning permission, the bank might pull the plug on it much more quickly, because there will be no guarantee that the bank will be able to get its money back—as it can at the moment—if it keeps lending the pub money. I wonder what the hon. Lady makes of the idea that the proposal could be inadvertently counterproductive for pubs that are struggling.
Dr Blackman-Woods
When we are considering the future of a pub, it is really important that the local community has a say in that. In the totality of the scheme, it is rarely the case that the cost of a planning application will make the whole scheme viable or unviable in the long term.
I want to speak briefly to new clause 10, which is designed to press the Minister when it comes to ensuring that planning departments are adequately resourced, not only to undertake their current work but to deal with any new burdens that the Minister places on them. I will leave it there, to allow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) to come in on new clause 9.
Philip Davies
I do not intend to trouble the House for long, but I want to focus on new clause 9. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) is in his place, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done over many years to support pubs. Just to show that I do not want to ban things that I do not do myself, I remind the House that I do not drink. I am a teetotaller, but I still believe in pubs and their importance in the local community, and in people’s freedom to do as they please.
The hon. Gentleman has done a fantastic job of supporting the pub industry. As I made clear in my intervention, during the previous Parliament I voted on the side of pubs on the question of whether they should be tied. I felt that too many pubs were tied to unfair conditions that affected their viability, and I was pleased that the Government lost that vote. My instinct is to want to support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 9, because I support pubs and the work that he does.
I will not blame the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), who is very impressive, but I clearly did not explain myself very well when I raised my concern. It was not her lack of understanding; it was clearly the fault of my explanation. I apologise for putting her in the difficult position of trying to make sense of something that did not make any sense at all.
I would be very pleased to hear how the hon. Member for Leeds North West can address my concern about new clause 9. If a struggling pub needs support from the bank to keep it going and the bank knows that the site of the closed pub can easily be changed to an alternative use without going through a bureaucratic planning process that may end up with the plans being rejected, my fear is that the bank—it knows that if all goes wrong, it can get its money back by changing the pub’s use or building something else on the site—will pull the plug on the pub much earlier in the process, instead of investing more money in the pub to help it to keep going and to turn it around. The bank might think, “If this goes on, we’re not going to get our money back. If we can’t get planning permission on this land, we’ll be left with a debt we’re never going to be able to recover. We do not want to get ourselves into that mess in the first place, so we will pull the plug on the pub.”
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for making that point—I also thank him for his support on pub issues in the past—but his concerns are entirely misplaced. I may not have the time to convince him of that today. The reality is that profitable pubs are being closed up and down the country, but that is nothing to do with the banks. No one is saying that, when a pub is not viable and no one wants to buy it to run it as a pub, it should not be given planning permission. However, because of these absurd loopholes at the moment, people are deliberately targeting profitable pubs because they will make a good supermarket. Surely as someone who believes in localism, he cannot support that.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good case, although as someone who worked for a supermarket chain for 13 years, I am not sure that was the best example he could have given to try to persuade me. I take on board his point, which is a good one.
I will not go on for much longer, because I want to listen to what other Members have to say. I am genuinely in a difficult position because I can see both sides of the argument. I will, however, reiterate my fear about a new clause that has the best of intentions. It aims to do what I think we would all want, which is to help the pubs sector to flourish. Pubs are important to our local communities, and I am all for them. In some instances—perhaps not in every instance, and perhaps not even in the majority of instances—new clause 9 may have the unintended consequence of leading to the closure of pubs much sooner and much more often than would otherwise be the case.
I will listen to the cases that other Members make. I will do a rare thing in this House: I will listen to the debate before deciding how to vote.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my colleagues on the save the pub all-party group, particularly the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who are vice-chairs of it. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) for very kindly opening the debate for me. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being present at that time, but I was wandering over to the Chamber expecting a vote and suddenly saw that the debate on new clause 9 had begun. I also thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their consistent support on this issue. Above all, I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for having the courage to add her name to the new clause. She will be toasted by many groups around the country.
I thank Protect Pubs for its excellent campaigning. It is now the leading organisation in the country for standing up for and protecting our pubs. I also thank the British Pub Confederation, which represents 14 pub sector organisations in the UK. I declare an interest as I am its chair.
Today we are campaigning on exactly the same issue that the hon. Lady’s colleague and great friend of pubs, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), set out in an amendment in February 2015 as vice-chair of the save the pub group. Too many pubs are still closing. The statistics go up and down slightly, but in excess of 20 pubs are closing a week.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has missed the point. The new clause is not about stopping pubs that are not viable from being converted into other things. Pubs are being converted into other things all the time. Some pubs might be unviable, but a considerable number of them are viable and profitable. Unfortunately, they are closing because of permitted development rights. Surely it cannot be right that a wanted, profitable business can be closed without local people having any say.
I will not go into the detail, because I know there is limited time, but I think that people are aware of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which allows people to turn pubs into shops, supermarkets and offices, or to demolish them, without planning permission. May I ask how long I have to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the debate has to finish in just over 20 minutes and that several other Members wish to speak. Of course, if the House does not wish to hear the Minister, that is up to the House. I would like to hear the Minister, but I cannot insist upon it.
Greg Mulholland
Of course we must hear from the Minister, but we need to hear the argument or people will not know what the new clause is about, as is clear from the comments made by the hon. Member for Shipley.
The new clause is about the simple principle that if someone wants to demolish a pub or to convert it into anything, the proposal should go through the planning process to allow residents to have their say on whether they oppose or support it. That is all we are talking about. This simple, common-sense change would mean that—as is the case, strangely, for theatres and launderettes—proposals for pubs would have to go through the planning process.
Let me quote a Conservative councillor. Councillor Michael Iszatt of Cheshunt North ward in Hertfordshire was quoted in The Guardian in 2014, talking about the closure of the Victoria. He said:
“It wasn’t a quiet pub”.
He clearly knew that it was not a failing pub, as did the planning authority, but it could do nothing. Councillor Iszatt said:
“Localism doesn’t apply here… Localism’s got to be a little village where the big supermarkets aren’t interested, because there aren’t thousands of people to buy things. We’re not allowed to have a community. But the reality is, we do.”
That profitable and wanted pub became a Morrisons. It was the victim of the sort of predatory purchasing that we see all the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I was mistaken and have misled him. There are only 11 minutes left in the debate.
Greg Mulholland
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak for no more than a minute to conclude, because otherwise people will not have heard any of the arguments for the new clause.
The Victoria was a profitable, wanted pub. It was closed in 2014 and turned into a Morrisons. And guess what? Because people did not want that and did not have the chance to comment, the Morrisons has closed. Permitted development rights have doubly failed that community, because a profitable business was closed and a supermarket that was not wanted has also closed, meaning that the building is empty.
I know that the Government will not listen and make a concession; frankly, they have not had the chance to hear the arguments properly. However, I urge Ministers to sit down with me and the save the pub group, with the hon. Member for Eddisbury and with Councillor Michael Iszatt to discuss how the Government can address the problem. While communities up and down the country—and councillors, including Conservative ones—are in uproar about the situation, it cannot continue.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I rise as a member of the Campaign for Real Ale and one of the vice-chairmen of the all-party group on beer and brewing.
Given what we hear about the number of pubs closing each week, a proposal such as new clause 9 has a superficial attraction. After all, pubs are at the heart of our communities not only as a place for people to come together, with all the social and health benefits that that brings, but increasingly as community hubs, as more and more services are operating out of licensed premises.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mike Wood
I am afraid that I must continue.
Unfortunately, the new clause smacks a little of, “Something needs to be done. This is something, so it must be done.” What we really need is thriving pubs, but the new clause would do little to support them. Removing permitted development rights for change of use would put many more pubs at risk because those rights are a genuine asset that pubs can borrow against. They have a real value and mean not only that pubs can invest in development, but that they have a little more leeway when times are tough, knowing that should they fail they will still have value because a change of use is available under permitted development. Although the mind is drawn more immediately to the 21 pubs a week that close than to the many more that are just about managing to stay open, the latter would be hit the hardest by the removal of permitted development rights.
We have heard a number of examples of successful pubs being converted into supermarkets, and addressing that is the purpose of the new clause. However, where there are successful pubs at the heart of our communities, they can already be added to the register of assets of community value so that permitted development rights are suspended, or councils can use article 4 directions to suspend those rights. The new clause is therefore not necessary, which is why I shall vote against it this evening.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I can be brief: I hope the Minister will resist amendment 14 entirely; clause 12 is an excellent clause.
Gavin Barwell
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on one of the finest speeches I have heard in this Chamber.
First, I will briefly address Government amendment 20. This minor technical amendment clarifies the fact that the Secretary of State is able to require only certain kinds of application or notification to be placed on a planning register.
In the short time available, I will do as much justice as I can to the new clauses and amendments that have been spoken to. On new clause 9, I start by saying to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that I would be very happy to sit down with him and other colleagues who feel strongly about the issue. I do not think that we have had the time tonight to air the issues involved properly, but I will briefly say two things to him so that he at least knows where I start from.
First, the hon. Gentleman will know that the current Government, and the coalition Government whom he supported, have done a lot to try to help our pub industry. There is the community pub business support programme, which is providing more than £3.5 million of funding for people to buy their local pub. There is the community right to bid, and people can list their local as an asset of community value, with more than 1,280 pubs listed to date. There has been the scrapping of the beer duty escalator—appropriately, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is in his place as the Whip on the Government Front Bench. Beer duty was frozen in the 2016 Budget, having been reduced in each of the three preceding Budgets.
The Government’s starting point on the detail of the new clause—I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman—is that, from 6 April 2015, permitted development rights for the change of use or demolition of a pub were removed for those pubs that a community has demonstrated it values by nominating them as assets of community value. It is not only the Government who believe that that strikes the right balance. A briefing note from the British Beer and Pub Association makes the point that removing permitted development would not only stop the conversion of pubs to supermarkets and whatever else we would want to stop, but might prevent pubs from doing improvement works to their premises, which we clearly would not want.
Greg Mulholland
Surely the Minister knows what the so-called British Beer and Pub Association is—it is the representative body for the large property companies called pubcos, which are selling off pubs. Of course it wants its members to be able to continue this appalling asset-stripping and to continue doing deals with supermarkets.
Gavin Barwell
I am well aware of what the BBPA is, but I tend to take the approach that, when I see briefings, I look at the points they make. If they make a sensible point, they are worth looking at. The BBPA makes a serious point. As I have said, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues further.
We discussed viability assessments, which are the subject of new clause 11, in Committee. There is existing legislation in the form of the Freedom of Information Act and environmental information regulations. The Government release information, and local authorities are free to make viability assessments publicly available.
In the time available, I shall make one simple point. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) said that she wants a uniform approach across the country. I am interested in seeing councils trial different approaches to see what works most effectively. The Mayor of London is not a Conservative politician, but I was interested to see the policy that he announced recently. That policy is a different way of tackling the problem—a tariff is set, and if developers meet the requirements, they do not need to go through a viability assessment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The point I was making was that people should have access to viability assessments no matter where they live.
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady is entitled to hold that view, but I take a slightly more localist one. Local authorities should decide whether they want to publish that information. Commercial confidentiality makes that difficult in some cases. To a degree, her proposal recognises that, because it would not mean access in every single case. However, I am not persuaded of the need to legislate.
In the two or three minutes available, I want to address planning conditions, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset mentioned in his excellent brief speech. It is not the Government’s approach to blame the planning system or anybody else for the housing problems the country faces. For 30 or 40 years, we have not built enough homes, and a range of people are responsible for that. Governments of different political colours have not done enough on infrastructure funding. There are problems in our planning system, but that is not a personal attack on planners. We need to reform that system to make it easier to release land and to speed up the process of building homes. We need to change the local house building politics in our communities. To a degree, that is what neighbourhood planning is all about. We need to diversify the market so that a far bigger range of people build our homes.
The Prime Minister has given me a very clear brief, however. We should look at anything that makes it more difficult to build the homes that we desperately need in this country. There is very clear evidence about this, and that is not just from developers—hon. Members might say, “Developers would say that wouldn’t they”—but from the District Councils Network. In its evidence, it acknowledges that an overuse of planning conditions means that it takes longer to move from the point at which we get planning approval for housing to the point at which spades go into the ground.
In the year to June 2016, the planning reforms that the coalition Government and this Conservative Government have enacted led to the granting of a record number of planning applications for housing in this country—for 277,000 homes. Rather than being complacent about that, I take the opposite attitude. People cannot live in a planning application. It is all very well reforming the planning system and getting consent for more homes, but we need to turn those planning consents into built homes around the country. That involves looking at a range of issues, one of which, as the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly said, is the resourcing of planning departments, and their ability to deal with this work and to conclude section 106 agreements quickly. We will do something about that. Another problem is the performance of our utility companies in some parts of the country, and we will do something about that. Another is the performance sometimes of our major developers, which are too slow to build out, and we will address that.
There is clear and compelling evidence, however, that one of the factors that leads to this problem is the overuse of planning conditions and, in particular, the use of pre-commencement conditions—when a local authority essentially says, “Before you can even get a spade in the ground, here is a long list of things that need to be done.” In some cases, such conditions are justified, such as for archaeological works, when things need to be done before building starts, but there is plenty of evidence, as presented to the Public Bill Committee, that such conditions are being misused in many cases, and the Government are determined to put a stop to it. We are determined to get the homes that we desperately need in this country built, and the Bill is a first step in that process.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified clauses 14 to 30 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, including the amendment made on Report and new clause 6 added on Report, as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence. Under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 83L, I have also certified clauses 1 to 13 and 31 and 32 of, and schedules 1 to 3 to, the Bill, including the amendments made on Report, as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
Gavin Barwell
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)).
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill:
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 14 to 30 and 33 to 35 of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, including the amendment made on Report, and new clause 6 added on Report.—(Gavin Barwell).
Question agreed to.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 13 and 31 and 32 of, and Schedules 1 to 3 to, the Bill (Bill 83), including the Amendments made on Report.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A lot of people across Westminster, Whitehall and the country have worked very hard to get the Neighbourhood Planning Bill this far, so I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, for their attention to detail and for sharing the views and concerns of their constituents. Over the past few months, we have seen parliamentary scrutiny at its best, and as a result we have a better Bill. Special thanks should go to members of the Public Bill Committee—in particular, its two chairmen, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
I am extremely grateful to everyone who took the time to contribute to public consultations or who provided written or oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee. We would not have a Bill at all if it were not for the expert skill and the guidance of the Clerks of the House, and the excellent work done by the officials in my Department. Particular thanks should go to the Bill team and my extremely dedicated private office. Finally, I cannot praise highly enough the work of my hon. Friend the Housing and Planning Minister. He should be very proud of his excellent work.
Everyone involved has worked so hard because we all want to see the housing market working for everyone, not just the privileged few. We will not have that without a much greater supply of homes in the right places, and we will not have that greater supply without a planning system that supports faster, more efficient construction.
Over the past six and a half years we have laid the groundwork for that. Our reforms have seen planning policy radically streamlined, and local people have been given much greater ability to determine the scale, nature and location of developments in their area. As a result, we have seen planning permissions go up, building starts go up and new home completions go up, with almost 900,000 new homes delivered in England since 2010.
This Bill furthers that progress. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill contains measures that will help us identify more land that is suitable for development, while continuing to protect the areas that we value most, including, of course, the green belt. It further strengthens neighbourhood planning and ensures communities have a stronger say in developments that affect them. It also supports the local plan process so that all communities in England can benefit from having one.
The Bill reforms the use of pre-commencement planning conditions so that they are proportionate and effective and do not act as an unnecessary barrier to construction. It improves transparency, making it easier to understand the number of homes being created under permitted development rights. Finally, while compulsory purchase is always used as a last resort, the Bill will make the process clearer, faster and, above all, fairer for all parties.
The Government want a better housing market. All parties, including the Labour party, want a better housing market, and the public demand a better housing market. They want a planning system that is seen as fair and effective and that gives them greater control over the decisions that affect their lives. That is exactly what the Neighbourhood Planning Bill will deliver. It is not a magic bullet or a one-stop solution for the housing shortage our country faces, but it is an important step in the right direction. It makes our planning system faster and fairer, and it will help us build more homes. I commend the Bill to the House.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
At this relatively late hour, I do not wish to delay the House for long.
Our position on Third Reading reflects much of what has been said about the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. We believe that there are wasted opportunities to get legislation in place that would see an uplift not only in the number of houses that we build but the quality of those homes and the services and infrastructure that are necessary for communities to work well. I am particularly disappointed with the lack of measures to strongly promote new settlements via garden villages, cities or new towns.
Labour Members welcome the measures in the Bill to further strengthen neighbourhood planning and the inclusion of changes to local plan making to enable planning to take place across more than one local authority where this is necessary. We also welcome the changes to CPOs as far as they go, but the Minister will know that we believe that a full-scale review of CPO legislation is overdue. We were pleased to hear his remarks regarding this, and look forward to debating proposals on it in future.
Other measures, we feel, could actually slow down development. I think the Secretary of State is wrong to weaken regulation of pre-commencement planning conditions, as that takes away important protections from the community—the very conditions that might make a development work for local people—with no obvious benefits or speeding up of the process. All it is likely to deliver is poorer-quality development, the very last thing we all need. Local dissent could lead to further delay in the planning process. We believe that there is also a missed opportunity to reverse the Government’s permitted development policies, which prevent proper planning on our high streets and produce poor-quality housing, often at the expense of much-needed office accommodation. I very much hope that the other place will take a close look at the pre-commencement conditions and permitted development clauses and ask the Government to reconsider.
Mostly, I am disappointed that our amendment on making information on the viability on sites more publicly available was not accepted. The Government should be aspiring to make our planning system more transparent. The Secretary of State knows that the amendment would help to deliver more affordable housing and supportive infrastructure, and where that is not the case we would have a better understanding of the reasons for non-delivery.
The Minister has said many times during the passage of this Bill that we will have to wait for the housing White Paper for new policies to address the housing crisis. According to what has been said, the White Paper will cover these areas: objectively assessed need, how it is calculated, and its implications for strategic housing market areas and strategic housing land availability assessments; changes to community infrastructure levy appraisals; amendments to the NPPF; measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises; policies to support home ownership; innovative housing design; permitted development changes; measures to free up land; resourcing of planning departments; right to be heard; and urban regeneration—plus a few other issues that he mentioned earlier. That looks like quite a White Paper. However, despite the number of things already in it, I hope it will deliver more on infrastructure too, because that is absolutely needed to underpin more housing output. It was taken out of the Bill, which is a pity, and the Government must now say what they are going to do to rectify the deepening lack of appropriate infrastructure. We are going to press the Government on this in the coming months because we definitely want more homes to be built, but we also want these homes to be part of thriving communities delivering the jobs, environment and services people want—in short, places where people want to live and can thrive.
I warmly thank all my hon. Friends for their hard work on this Bill, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods), and thank members of the Committee and those who have contributed in this place. I wish those in the other place well in their scrutiny of this Bill and look forward to its returning here.
John Redwood
I wish Ministers well with their Bill. One of its central purposes is one I strongly support—the idea that we need to build more homes. It has been a tragedy that in this century there has been a big reduction in the proportion of people in our country who can afford to own their own home and feel that they can get access to home ownership—something that previous generations thought was more normal and easier to achieve. One of things we must do is build more. Like the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), I look forward to the housing White Paper, because many of the things that we need to do have nothing to do with legislation but are about money, permissions, and using what law we already have to ensure that our industry can serve the needs of all the people.
I also support the Bill’s second big aim, which has to be balanced against the priority of creating many more affordable homes for sale and, where needed, for rent— namely the priority that local communities must be part of the process. We are asking local communities to go to a great deal of effort, to work on the local plan as a principal planning authority and to work on neighbourhood plans village by village. They will do so willingly only if they feel their work will be taken seriously.
I represent parts of two local authority areas, West Berkshire and Wokingham Borough. Both have had a very good record over the past few decades on making sure that a lot of new housing is built in the area to help with the national need. In particular, at the moment Wokingham has four very large sites, with between 2,500 and 3,500 new homes on each, as its contribution to the national effort. Wokingham wants to make sure that the Minister’s fine words earlier will be taken into account and be part of the system—that when the local community has done the decent thing and made sure there is plenty of land available for building, an inspector does not come along and say that more homes will be built somewhere else, because some developer is gaming the system. I was very reassured that the Minister is well aware of that problem.
Where local authorities co-operate, and local communities are prepared to take responsibility and make those judgments, Ministers, their officials and the inspectors must understand that those authorities and communities should be taken seriously and, in most cases, their views should be upheld. I hope that as the Bill progresses Ministers will take on board the fact that there is huge support on the Government Benches for more homes and for local planning, but that we sometimes think inspectors still do not get it and developers are very clever, meaning that we end up with homes in places where we do not want them, which gives the whole policy a bad name.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I hope the Front-Bench team will forgive me, but I could not pass up the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. The Bill really matters to me and my constituents. Local development and the lack of local and neighbourhood plans have a real impact on people’s daily lives. I am very grateful that the Secretary of State and the Minister have taken that on board—I can attest to that from the amount of letters we have exchanged and conversations we have had.
One reason I came to this House is that I strongly believe in localism. I absolutely believe in new and appropriate housing, but I do not believe in planning permissions that do not come forward or come forward in the wrong places, flying in the face of local communities. It is therefore an enormous pleasure to speak on Third Reading of a Bill about something that dominates my mailbag every single day of the week.
As a councillor, I have been involved in the planning system in one form or another for many years, helping to develop a local plan and being part of one that moved forward to a neighbourhood plan. I heard earlier about developers gaming the system. My concern is about councils gaming the system and playing with their residents, believing that homes are being forced upon them by central Government or being indolent and not taking forward the powers that they have.
As a parish councillor and district councillor I know that planning is the bread and butter of local government. I was very proud to play a part in the early days of the neighbourhood plan in Haywards Heath. I note with delight that 230 neighbourhood plans are now in force, with many more in preparation. In my role as a councillor I have seen a plan go to a referendum. That is very exciting. I am no longer involved in that specific community, but I know that the plan matters and has taken a number of hours and a lot of hard work to prepare. It saw a community come together—at the start of a planning process people very often do not want houses, and come to the plan from the position that they can somehow plan for the area’s future without thinking about how the housing and communities work. I therefore believe that neighbourhood plans are a strong endorsement of an area’s future, and I believe in the referendum process. I believe in the duty of councils and parishes to co-operate. The problem in my constituency is that the local council is not making a local plan, because it is not co-operating with the parishes. There are no policies for neighbourhood plans to hang on.
As we have heard, the strongest protection that an area can have is a good, locally adopted local plan alongside neighbourhood plans. As I have tried to explain to my constituents, it is like a jigsaw puzzle. In Eastleigh, it seems to be an impossible one, and my constituents find it daunting and frustrating. I thank members of Botley Parish Council, who have shown great interest in advancing a neighbourhood plan in their community. That gives councillors and the community the opportunity to feed into a strategic vision for the area, endorsing opportunities to create new housing sites and considering new local priorities. Housing and planning are not things that should be done to people, and this Bill and the Localism Act 2011 are important in ensuring that that does not happen.
My constituency suffers from a dire planning situation, where the local council is letting down residents by not producing a timely local plan that protects the community. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for all the work that he has done with me to make my local council get its act together, so that everybody can come forward and be part of the neighbourhood planning process. Work on the local plan is slow and arduous, and large areas of ancient woodland are under threat as a result of it. We must form a strong, united front against bad planning from the council, bringing together Ministers and the local MPs—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) in his place.
At the moment, the situation is like the wild west; it is a free-for-all for developers. Neighbourhood plans are important because they give communities a real say in the planning process. The plans give us a chance to see whether there are any cosy relationships with developers—to see whether people are linked to local developers of choice—and whether particular developments are right for our communities.
Communities strongly support the principle of neighbourhood planning. Since 2013 each of the 200 plans that has gone to a referendum has been approved; 340,000 votes were cast, 89% of which were in favour of the plans. We need to make sure that neighbourhood plans go from strength to strength, because of the large amount of time that communities and councillors invest in their production. We also need to pressure local authorities into working with parishes. As I have said, it is not possible to produce a neighbourhood plan if there are no local policies to hang it on. In Botley and Boorley Green, there are no clear policies to work with.
National planning policy makes it clear that if a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, permission should not be granted. It is absolutely right that communities have that certainty. In Velmore community centre, in Chandlers Ford, I was delighted to have conversations about older people’s accommodation and appropriate housing for our disabled people. People spoke to me about what matters to them in local planning, which is that they should have somewhere to move to within the community.
I am a strong advocate of neighbourhood planning, and I would like the Planning Inspectorate to show a more consistent approach to neighbourhood plans. I am delighted to hear from the Secretary of State that that is what he is looking for. We continually hear in this Chamber about examples of conflicting judgments. The policy is right, and it is powerful, and I hope that at planning inspectorate level, neighbourhood plans will be given enough weight.
Botley and Boorley Green parishes are producing their neighbourhood plan, but sadly they are doing so without enough local support. There has been a slapdash, cowboy approach to local housing, and it is right that communities have the opportunity to take planning into their own hands. The situation should not be like this, and we should use the Bill to create a better dialogue and a better relationship.
It will be very interesting to see how the Bill helps local communities to focus their local authority on producing a local plan by the end of 2017. There is a danger that indolent councils will just rely on the Government to enforce the rules and will fly in the face of localism. That is why so many residents feel that they may be excluded from the process, and do not now intend to take part in the neighbourhood planning process. I believe in this Bill, which as the Secretary of State said, aims to support green spaces, to make housing and planning less adversarial, and to ensure some consistency in developing local areas.
One of the strongest parts of neighbourhood plans is their agility. They give communities an opportunity to look at brownfield sites first. They offer a variety of features, such as local jobs and housing numbers. They also provide a chance to be protective and sensitive in planning. For example, the area of Stoke Park woods in my constituency is threatened by local plan options B and C, but I believe that when an entire community is opposed to vandalism in the local environment, the neighbourhood planning process gives residents in the community the chance to voice their opinions and shine a light on sites that are not truly viable.
I want neighbourhood plans to be extended and enhanced and to grow in number. They give our communities power and they give us a chance to look at the future of an area. However, we need the planning process at both local and Government level to be seen to be fair and reasonable. The Bill continues to build on the Government’s outstanding legacy in giving communities a voice, and I wish it well on its way.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5 and 6, and 7 and 8 together.
Delegated Legislation
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Consumer Protection
That the draft Consumer Rights (Enforcement and Amendments) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.
Rating and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.
European Union Documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
EU Emissions Trading System: 2021-2030
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11065/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/87/EC to enhance cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments; welcomes the European Commission’s intention to reform the EU Emissions Trading System in line with the conclusions of the October 2014 European Council; and calls on the Government to continue to negotiate, in line with Cabinet-cleared positions, with the aim of agreeing a well-functioning and balanced System that is environmentally robust and supports cost-effective emissions reductions while preserving industrial competitiveness and promoting a level playing-field.
EU Asylum Reform Package (Opt-in Decisions)
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11316/16 and addendum, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for the qualification of third country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection and for the content of the protection granted and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long term residents; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11317/16 and addenda 1 to 2, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11313/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a Union Resettlement Framework amending Regulation (EU) No. 516/2014; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11318/16, a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast); endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in to the above proposals under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; notes that the Government is able to opt-in post-adoption; and supports the Government’s intention to continue to support other Member States on asylum matters.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition of over 200 residents of the Airdrie and Shotts constituency, which I represent, on the subject of the Women Against State Pension Inequality.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Airdrie and Shotts,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001997]
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of my Southampton, Itchen constituency, particularly those who live on the junction of Station Road and Spring Road. Even as I was with the Clerks yesterday to signal my intention to present this petition today, there was another accident at that junction. It is now imperative that Southampton City Council do something about it before there is another serious injury or, God forbid, fatality.
The petition reads:
The petition of residents of Southampton Itchen,
Declares that there should be road safety measures introduced at the junction of Spring Road and Station Road in Southampton, after a series of road traffic accidents that have occurred in recent months.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Southampton City Council to review the safety at the Spring Road and Station Road junction and outline what actions it plans to undertake to ensure the safety of road and pedestrian users; and further that the council confirm the timeframe for implementing those changes.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001996]
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise on behalf of 3,500 of my constituents and local residents who have signed this and similar local petitions to present a petition relating to the Greater Manchester spatial framework and its potential effects on the green belt in my constituency.
While of course we need to provide new developments to fill the housing shortage, it should be done in a way that is sensitive to the local environment and the wishes of local communities. The green belt is a vital barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people. The framework proposes the building of 4,000 new homes on green-belt land, effectively doubling the size of the village of High Lane.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to avoid including large-scale residential development on the greenbelt in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, as well as prioritising brownfield land for residential developments.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid large-scale residential development on the greenbelt, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people; and further declares that brownfield land should be prioritised for residential development provided that proper infrastructure is in place.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to avoid including large-scale residential development on the greenbelt in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, as well as prioritising brownfield land for residential developments.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001993]
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), on behalf of more than 2,400 local residents who have signed this and similar paper and online petitions. Those residents are representative of many thousands of others in my constituency who are concerned that valuable green-belt land will be built on as a result of the proposals in the Greater Manchester spatial framework.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid large-scale residential development on the greenbelt, which is a valuable barrier to urban sprawl and is hugely valued by local people; and further declares that brownfield land should be prioritised for residential development provided that proper infrastructure is in place.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Department for Communities and Local Government to make such provisions in the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001994]
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to join my colleagues from Greater Manchester in presenting a petition to the House on the Greater Manchester spatial framework. I rise to present the petition on behalf of residents of the United Kingdom. This and similar petitions in the constituency have attracted more than 2,600 signatures from concerned residents. I thank all those across Cheadle who have signed the petitions.
If this scale of development goes ahead, it will not only devastate our countryside, but place unprecedented pressure on local infrastructure and undermine our local communities. Instead, I call for the development of brownfield sites so that communities can enjoy the additional investment from regeneration projects and avoid the loss of our natural landscape and precious green belt.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework should avoid development on the green belt; further that Cheadle could lose much of its precious and much valued land if development is permitted on green belt land; and further that action should be taken to prioritise development on suitable brownfield sites to protect our green space.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and the Department for Communities and Local Government to agree a Greater Manchester Spatial Framework that prohibits development on green belt land and prioritises development on brownfield sites.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001995]
International Human Rights Day
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Before I start my speech on International Human Rights Day, I would like to a quote a tweet that has just been received from Matthew Rycroft, our excellent UN ambassador in New York. He says:
“For every barrel bomb dropped
For every chemical weapon deployed
For every bullet fired on innocents
There will be accountability.”
I am sure the Minister will support that, because throughout the war in Syria and Aleppo we have constantly asked questions about who is collecting evidence.
I apologise for my croak. I will have a drink of lemonade every so often and see whether I can get through my speech.
I am here to mark International Human Rights Day, which was on Saturday 10 December. I will provide a brief overview of the countries and issues of the most concern. The fact is that although most countries have signed and ratified the main international human rights conventions, many people in the world—far too many—continue to be the victims of serious and systematic human rights violations such as torture, extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detention, disappearance, slavery and overt discrimination. State officials, who are meant to serve their fellow citizens, often use their powers to terrorise and subjugate them, whether in the name of national security or counter-terrorism; to uphold a kleptocratic regime in which they have a vested interest, because they are tainted by society’s prejudices; or even just because they can get away with it.
Sadly, human rights are too often referred to in a disparaging or dismissive way in the UK. I believe that disregard may stem at least in part from complacency, misunderstanding and possibly even incredulity. It is all too easy to take rights for granted when, by and large, we benefit from them, although of course I am aware that we are all far from perfect, have deficiencies that need to be addressed and must remain vigilant to ensure that our rights are not eroded. It can be challenging to imagine the real suffering endured by the many millions who have their rights violated, and it can be distressing to believe that people can still treat others with such disdain and cruelty. However, as most of us here know, terrible things happen every day, everywhere. Many of us have had the privilege and honour of meeting victims of human rights violations all over the world, who have given us detailed testimony and whose courage and dignity are simply astounding.
I am concerned that, post-Brexit, we are heading for even more challenging times. I fear that we will become so consumed by “Project UK” that, whether deliberately or inadvertently, the importance of the international human rights framework and the promotion and protection of universal values throughout the world will be downgraded at the expense of more short-term prosperity and security considerations. In addition, I fear that the UK leaving the EU could make it more difficult, not less, to speak out and act when serious and systematic violations occur. In the first instance, we are bound to have less leverage acting on our own, and in the second, how often will the UK put its head above the parapet on its own? I would be grateful if the Minister reassured me on those points.
I turn to specifics. I know that there was a very good debate this afternoon on Aleppo. Unfortunately I was in the Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, where we were debating, among other things, arms exports from our own country and how we continue to police them. There can be no doubt that Syria has long been a repressive state with a virtual absence of outlets for non-violent dissent.
I remember going to Syria some time ago, on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union committee on the human rights of parliamentarians, to visit two imprisoned Syrian MPs. Let us say that I was left in no doubt during my visit about the Syrian Government’s utter lack of respect for their human rights obligations, and for the fundamental political rights of their citizens. Understandably, the people of Syria became tired of being subjugated and tried to break free. The Government instituted a brutal crackdown, from which a civil war followed, resulting in mass atrocities, carried out in the main by the Syrian and Russian Governments, although they are not the only perpetrators. Schools and hospitals have been deliberately targeted; thousands have been detained and tortured; hundreds of thousands have been killed; and millions have been forced to flee their homes.
Earlier this year, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded in a report that the Assad regime had killed so many detainees in Syria that it had committed the crime against humanity of extermination. More recently, in late November, the UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, our former colleague and former UK MP Stephen O’Brien, said that residents of Aleppo were at risk of extermination. I fear that the news we hear tonight gives us no cause for optimism.
This is a complex conflict with many different actors with differing agendas, but let us not forget that it started because the Syrian people wanted their fundamental rights to be respected. Let us not forget either that no Syrian civilian should be deliberately targeted in the fighting or starved to death in besieged areas of the country. Given that we aired many of those issues earlier today, I will not elaborate further except to ask the UK Government yet again to let us know how they will work with their partners in the international community as a matter of extreme urgency to get the vulnerable—the children, the elderly and the injured, and doctors and nurses—out and get aid in, particularly to besieged areas, and to protect those left behind, particularly to prevent and avoid mass executions.
Yemen is another complex conflict in which mass atrocities are being committed by all sides, including as a result of Saudi-led coalition air strikes. Earlier this year, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights accused the Saudi-led coalition of causing twice as many civilian casualties as all the other forces fighting in Yemen. Since the breakdown of peace talks in early August, the fighting has intensified and continues to take an unacceptable toll on civilians, as we have seen on television recently, so why does the UK continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia for use in the conflict in Yemen? I do not want to hear the standard responses, which include that the UK has one of the world’s most robust arms exports licensing committees. Obviously in this case, it is either not robust enough or it is not being properly applied.
Countries in which the human rights situation is a serious concern are Turkey, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, Sudan, North Korea and Burma.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady for her indomitable spirit and for speaking out for human rights. Does she agree that, some 98 years after the 1948 convention was passed, throughout the world there is persecution of those with Christian and other religious beliefs on a level and with a significance that has never before happened? Does she agree that hon. Members must do everything we can to protect the most basic human right—the right to life and freedom, and the right to have a religious belief, whatever it may be? Does she also agree that we should use any and every possibility to exert influence in the world? This debate is an example of doing just that.
Ann Clwyd
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Over the past 30 years, from among my friends in Iraq, I have seen minorities having to flee from where they live. My oldest Iraqi friend is a Mandaean; there are very few of them left in Iraq now. The last conference I went to in Kurdistan, held by the former President of Iraq, was called to discuss how to protect minorities. Sadly, of course, the persecution of minorities is happening in many countries in the world, but at least we are, I hope, having some influence in Iraq.
I am aware that we cannot do everything, but conversely that does not mean we should not be doing more. First, we should be more vocal and confident in defence of human rights in UK foreign policy. I know that the UK Government, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raise human rights concerns with foreign Governments, but I contend that more needs to be done to convince state-sanctioned human rights violators that abuses are counterproductive, particularly in the longer term, because fair and tolerant societies are more prosperous and stable and because ultimately violators may be held to account and have to pay for their crimes. The UK must also promote a universal rights agenda, and not tout human rights as British values, which simply plays into the hands of those dictators positioning themselves as protectors against western infiltration and domination. Everyone is entitled to fundamental rights by virtue of our common humanity, no matter who they are or where they come from.
Secondly, we need to push back a lot harder against the worrying spread of the adoption of legislation that seeks to clamp down on civil society and non-governmental organisation activity by restricting freedoms of speech, assembly and association, and/or by imposing unduly burdensome administrative requirements. Civil society and NGO representatives, such as lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders, are vital to checking the abuse of power, promoting good governance, monitoring compliance with international human rights standards and obtaining justice.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I commend my right hon. Friend for securing this debate and for her sterling work as chair of the all-party group on human rights. Is she concerned that there appears to be an increasing attitude on the part of the Government to treat human rights in other parts of the world as though they were circumstantial considerations and concessions to be granted, rather than to insist on a consistent, linear approach to the advocacy of human rights? There should be no mute button on the UK’s advocacy of human rights and no dimmer switch on the spotlight it seeks to put on human rights abuses.
Ann Clwyd
I totally agree, of course, with my hon. Friend. One of my concerns is that, with the increased emphasis on trade, human rights is moving to the bottom of the pile; they are certainly lower down the pecking order of concerns than they have been for many years.
Civil society and NGO representatives, such as lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders, are vital to checking the abuse of power, promoting good governance, monitoring compliance with international human rights standards and obtaining justice. It is not surprising, then, that they are resisted, obstructed and persecuted by those who intend to exercise their authority for personal advantage. The UK and the wider international community must continue and do more to support these courageous activists and to challenge such destructive legislation.
I would like to draw attention to Amnesty International UK’s Write for Rights campaign, which this year features cases from, among other places, China, Iran, Egypt, Malawi and the UK. Last weekend, I had the pleasure to co-host with Mr Speaker and Amnesty International UK a parliamentary reception to encourage MPs and peers to take action in support of those whose fundamental rights are at risk of being violated. It means so much to those receiving messages of solidarity; it keeps their hopes alive for a better future. A letter to the authorities can also spur them into action; when they know that the eyes of the world are watching, they may be moved to do the right thing.
Let me take the opportunity to highlight the case of dual British-Iranian national, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has been detained in Iran since April. The legal process to which Nazanin has been subjected has been so flawed that it is nonsensical to make reference to it, or to the outcome of any such process. Kamal Foroughi is another dual national who has been imprisoned on spurious charges on the basis once again of a highly deficient process. These are arbitrary detentions. Indeed, I would go further and say that these individuals are, in effect, being held hostage. I therefore ask the Government publicly and unequivocally to call for their release.
As for specific country situations, it is important to mention the current plight of Government critics and the Kurds in Turkey. I know that the Turkish Government have had to deal with a savage coup attempt this summer, but I fear that their current repressive response will serve only further to alienate large swathes of the population and result in further bloodshed. Thousands of alleged coup sympathisers are in jail, and tens thousands of them, including soldiers, judges and teachers are being forced out of their jobs. According to the latest annual survey compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Turkey is currently the top jailer of journalists in the world. In a two-month period, the Turkish Government, led by President Erdogan, detained more than 100 journalists and closed down at least 100 news outlets. As of 1 December, at least 81 journalists were in detention in Turkey.
Although the crackdown against journalists has been exacerbated by the coup, media freedom was already under siege earlier in 2016. As the Committee to Protect Journalists points out, authorities are arresting, harassing and expelling journalists and shutting down or taking over news outlets. In a report in December, Amnesty International highlighted that an estimated half a million people are being forced out of their homes in the south-east of Turkey as a result of a brutal crackdown by the Turkish authorities over the past year, which might amount to collective punishment.
To compound the situation, the targeting of Kurdish opposition voices, including leaders and MPs of the opposition HDP party who have been arrested and detained following the coup attempt, has meant that NGOs providing vital support for poor and displaced people have now been shut down. Displaced residents have rejected Government claims that the ongoing curfew and house demolitions are being done in the interests of security, given that the clashes finished over eight months ago. Instead, they are seen as a calculated plan to redevelop their neighbourhoods and resettle them elsewhere.
I would like to take this opportunity to relay my concerns about Egypt. Since 2013, when al-Sisi led the military overthrow of President Morsi, the authorities have prosecuted and jailed thousands for peaceful opposition to the Government. Under al- Sisi, a wide range of activities protected under the Egyptian constitution and international law have been interpreted as threats to national security. In the CPJ report, Egypt is ranked third in the world in terms of the number of jailed journalists.
Human Rights Watch has also highlighted the possible introduction of an NGO law, which would effectively prohibit independent NGOs in the country, by subjecting their work and funding to control by Government authorities, including powerful security agencies.
Jim Shannon
We all know of the horrific recent attack on a Coptic church in Cairo. Islamic terrorists attacked people because of their religious beliefs. Does the right hon. Lady join me and others in this House in supporting the Egyptian Government’s efforts to contain ISIS terrorists in Egypt?
Ann Clwyd
I agree that it was a dreadful attack, and we deplore any attacks on people because of their religion.
Human Rights Watch has also highlighted the possible introduction of an NGO law, which would effectively prohibit independent NGOs in the country in question, by subjecting their work and funding to control by Government authorities, including powerful security agencies.
There are also continuing concerns about Eritrea.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the difficulties in Eritrea, but I remind her that we are very time-limited. The House must adjourn at 9.14 pm, which is only eight minutes away, and I am sure she wants to hear what the Minister has to say.
Ann Clwyd
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I would certainly like to hear what the Minister has to say, but Eritrea is a matter of continuing concern, and I would like to mention the case of the G11, which I and others have been campaigning on for many years, including in connection with the Inter-Parliamentary Union Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians.
In September 2001, 11 Eritrean MPs were arrested after calling publicly for democratic reforms. They have not been heard of since. I would again ask the UK and the international community to do more to help establish the fate of the G11, as well as to convince the Eritrean Government to end indefinite military conscription once and for all.
Finally—very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker—I would like to highlight the work of the all-party group on human rights, which I chair, and whose members include hon. Members present tonight. It has worked since its inception in 1976 to raise greater awareness of international human rights violations. I thank MPs and peers who are members for their continued commitment to, and support for, our work and our aims.
As my parting shot, I will end by reminding the Minister and my colleagues that we often pay the price for our lack of action, our indecision, or even our indifference. As Syria so graphically illustrates, a repressive country, even if seemingly far away, can ultimately affect us all, whether we like it or not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing the debate and pay tribute as others have, to her long-standing contribution to this House’s work on human rights, not least in her present capacity as chair of the all-party group on human rights and as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members.
The defence of human rights is a fundamental building block of British foreign policy. There are three reasons for this: first, respect for human rights is embedded in our national DNA; secondly, it is enshrined in international law; and, finally, it is firmly in our national interest.
This debate coincides with the week in which International Human Rights Day falls. I am pleased to inform the House that in the run-up to that day and on the day itself, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s network of embassies and high commissions organised, and took part in, a wide range of activities that illustrate the importance we attach to human rights.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) asked whether there was a mute button on human rights. I assure him that is not the case. Our human rights work is not just about celebrating International Human Rights Day. For Her Majesty’s Government, there are 365 human rights days every year, and in a leap year 366.
FCO Ministers regularly raise human rights issues with our international partners in private and in public. I could cite a whole range of examples of that, but I recently took part in the latest meeting of the UK-China bilateral dialogue on human rights. All our diplomatic missions are alive to the importance of human rights, and every desk officer in London follows the human rights situation in their particular country. To those who suggest that we have downgraded the importance of human rights, I say that that is simply not the case. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley raised the question of whether we view trade as somehow more important than human rights, but trade and human rights are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are mutually supportive.
Human rights are broad and complex. Each country is at a different stage in its journey towards fulfilling them. Unfortunately, some are patently travelling in the wrong direction. Time does not permit me to enumerate all the different violations that concern us, but let me mention just two areas to which we are currently paying considerable attention. The first relates to civil society and pressures from autocratic Governments, and the other is modern slavery. A vibrant civil society helps countries to become more stable and prosperous than would otherwise be the case. When countries restrict civil society by clamping down on media freedom, stifling dissent or making it impossible for NGOs to operate, they are self-harming. As a country and as a Government, we do an enormous amount to support NGOs around the world. The right hon. Lady mentioned Amnesty International’s “Write for Rights” campaign, and Amnesty International’s long-standing pre-eminence as one of the world’s leading human rights organisations is built on dedication and hard work over decades.
As for modern slavery, this Government are committed to taking a leading global role in the eradication of slavery by 2030, as set out in the UN sustainable development goals. The Prime Minister is leading this effort from the front, and all relevant Departments are co-ordinating their efforts to increase urgency in tackling the evils of trafficking and exploitation around the world.
Returning to the right hon. Lady’s point about Brexit and whether it will somehow undermine our human rights approach, let me be clear that it absolutely will not. The values that we share with our EU partners are universal, and we will remain human rights allies with our neighbours. As a global Britain, we have the opportunity to forge new partnerships for human rights.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted issues around the protection of minorities. Let me be clear that we continue to raise concerns about such protection, including of religious minorities, at a senior level with Governments around the world.
International Human Rights Day commemorates the signing of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. That declaration remains an inspiring statement of shared values and pledges. It is a pleasure for us all to live in a country that espouses those values. Sadly, the world is still far from respecting all of them, and that is why we must continue to work for human rights through our foreign policy. Commemorating International Human Rights Day reminds us of the declaration that we made 68 years ago. It is a moment when we renew our determination to help to achieve the universal implementation of the pledges contained in that declaration.
Time has been limited in this debate, but I invite the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley and any Members in the Chamber to write to me and other colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We will be happy to take on any issues that they have raised that I have not been able to deal with today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and amendment) Order 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2016.
The draft order was laid before the House on 21 November. If approved and made, it will provide Greater Manchester with new, devolved powers on planning, land acquisition and housing; transport; education and skills; and cultural events and entertainment. It also provides for supporting constitutional and funding arrangements.
This is a further significant milestone in fulfilling our manifesto pledge to implement the historic devolution deal between the Government and Greater Manchester and to devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to places that choose to have an elected Mayor. To put this matter in its wider context, I recall that we have now reached four historic devolution deals with Greater Manchester. This is the third order implementing devolution in Greater Manchester. Previously we legislated by order for an interim Mayor, and in March 2016 we legislated to establish the position of an elected Mayor who would take over the police and crime commissioner functions too.
With this order, we are for the first time conferring significant new powers on Greater Manchester. Some powers will be exercised by the Mayor, and others corporately by the combined authority. I can tell the Committee that there are more orders to come, conferring further powers on Greater Manchester, as devolution becomes an increasing reality for the area. This is the first time that we are using the powers that Parliament has given us in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. They enable the Secretary of State to confer, by order, wider powers on public authorities, including powers exercised by public authorities in other areas, and other powers exercised by the Secretary of State. As required by the 2016 Act, we have in parallel with this order laid a report before Parliament that sets out the details of the public authority powers that we are conferring on Greater Manchester through the order.
In short, the order is a further step for Greater Manchester down the devolution highway. Councils in Greater Manchester have worked together closely for decades—they have a long history of co-operation—and since 2011 the combined authority has enabled Greater Manchester to work formally on the interconnected issues of transport, economic development and regeneration. Manchester’s experience and example is one to hold up for other parts of the country: that co-operation is very important.
In November 2014, the Government and Greater Manchester agreed a groundbreaking devolution deal, which has been followed by three others, as I stated. Under these arrangements, Greater Manchester will receive a devolved transport budget to help to provide a more modern and better connected network; new planning and housing powers and a £300 million housing fund to provide an extra 15,000 new homes over 10 years; extra funding, incentives and support to get up to 50,000 people back into work; and an infrastructure fund of £30 million a year for 30 years.
The statutory origin of this order is in the governance review and scheme prepared by Greater Manchester in accordance with the requirement in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Greater Manchester’s scheme set out proposals for powers to be conferred on Greater Manchester and for associated changes to the combined authority’s governance and funding arrangements. As provided for in the 2009 Act, the combined authority consulted on the proposals in the scheme. The consultation ran from March to May 2016, and the combined authority provided to the Secretary of State, as is required under the statute, a summary of the consultation responses in June.
Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements of the 2009 Act. He considers that conferring these functions on the Greater Manchester combined authority is likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions. In considering it appropriate to confer local authority powers on the combined authority and make constitutional changes, he has also had regard for the impact on local government and communities, as we would all wish. As required by statute, the 10 constituent councils and the combined authority have each consented to the making of this order, and it now gives effect to many of the proposals in Greater Manchester’s March scheme.
I will briefly outline, in a little more detail, the powers that will be conferred. If approved, the order will place a duty on the Mayor to prepare a Greater Manchester spatial development strategy, enabling an integrated approach to spatial planning. It will confer land acquisition, disposal and housing powers, including a compulsory purchase power, on the Mayor. Those are the same powers as the Homes and Communities Agency and the councils have. They will enable Greater Manchester to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth, support effective use of the £300 million devolved budget and to deliver the 15,000 new homes. It will also build on current transport functions. The draft order provides powers over road safety promotion, as well as road improvement and maintenance powers that are to be devolved, and for the Mayor to pay grants to bus operators. That is in advance of the proposals for bus franchising envisaged in the Bus Services Bill, which is currently before Parliament.
The draft order also confers new powers to reshape and restructure skills provision—I know the Greater Manchester combined authority is passionate about that—with the aim of tackling the authority’s most important labour market challenge: youth unemployment. It also builds on the combined authority’s education powers. It will support young people participating in education and training, and also enable the combined authority to take strategic leadership of the former Connexions service. The order will allow the combined authority and the Mayor to promote cultural events and entertainment, and also provides for constitutional and funding arrangements.
In conclusion—you will be pleased to hear, Mr Turner—the Government are making great progress in implementing devolution to Greater Manchester. The draft order that we are considering is a further significant milestone, and as a Government we hope, as does the combined authority, that it will contribute to greater prosperity for Greater Manchester, open the door to a more balanced economy and ensure economic success across Greater Manchester, more broadly across the northern powerhouse and across the country. As a northerner, I am very proud that we are a Government who are devolving more powers to be determined by northerners, because I for one know that when we make these decisions ourselves, we make them a lot better. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
May I refer you, Mr Turner, to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I am a serving member of Oldham Council, which is part of the Greater Manchester city region.
First, this is a welcome step if people believe in devolution and in taking power away from the centre and giving it to communities. The order is quite an important step for that. It will establish an enhanced city region with a directly elected Mayor and the additional powers that come with that. We could spend time talking about where the gaps are, but most of us accept that devolution has never been, and will never be, a big bang in England; it is about making incremental gains in that journey.
I will refer to the consultation that has taken place. In a conurbation of 2.7 million people, we would expect that devolving power from the centre into the hands of the many among those 2.7 million people would elicit some kind of response. The fact that just over 200 people responded perhaps exposes a fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach. This is very much devolution being done to people, rather than devolution being done with people co-producing the answers for their local areas. Interestingly, of the people who responded to the question, the majority did not support the idea of a directly elected Mayor, which is part of the requirement in this statutory instrument. That is not to say that this is the wrong thing to do, but sometimes we can do the right thing in the wrong way and not bring people with us. It is really important, for Greater Manchester and for other areas, that we start to involve the public in the debate about where power sits, particularly here in England.
On the funding of the combined authority, Greater Manchester has a number of precepts and levies in place to fund the activity of its outside bodies. For instance, the police and fire services are both funded through a precept, while the transport and waste disposal authorities are funded through a levy that is passed on to each local authority in that area. It is proposed that the combined authorities should be funded jointly by the 10 authorities through a fee distributed per head of population.
In the spirit of democracy and holding authority to account, so that local people can see what the Mayor is doing and spending, it makes sense to look in a more active way at rolling up the precepts and levies that are already being charged and passed on to Greater Manchester taxpayers, and seeing which can be better used to fund the Mayor’s activities across Greater Manchester. In that way, local people will see the charges on their council tax bill, they will know exactly what the mayoral function in Greater Manchester is costing, and when they go to the ballot box they will make a judgment on whether that money is being spent to the best effect.
The Minister commented on the exercise of skills powers, which is absolutely welcome because we have seen a fragmentation of skills in Greater Manchester. However, there is real concern about the review of post-16 education and the funding of local colleges. Although the Government have been pushing the agenda of a review of the colleges in each of the localities, there are still well over 300 skills providers in Greater Manchester that have not been subject to review and that are spending public money with questionable outcomes. It would be far better to give full power to Greater Manchester, rather than simply getting it to enact the cuts that are coming through the system.
That brings me to some of the other consultation responses about academies and education. It is absolutely right that we devolve power for post-16 education, because it is better that local people determine how that money is spent. However, it feels contradictory to tell the very councils that we are trusting with additional money for skills, employment and infrastructure that they are not up to the job of running local schools or dealing with education provision. We are giving skills powers away with one hand and taking education responsibilities away from local schools with the other. At the same time, we are telling councils that they do not have a role to play in running those schools or even in giving leadership to those localities. If devolution in Greater Manchester is to mean anything, the Government should move forward with devolving education responsibilities to the combined authority and the component councils.
On health and social care, this is absolutely where the country needs to go. We understand that the fragmentation of health and social care does not give a good service to the people who need it most; it is also a very expensive way of doing it. The devolution package for Greater Manchester is welcome, but we need to put on record our concern about the £2 billion funding gap in health and social care predicted between now and 2020. We also question how much is being devolved. For instance, a number of weeks ago, we debated community pharmacy funding, which is being cut in local areas. For the Oldham area, that means a potential loss of 16 pharmacies. We asked whether that power would be devolved to Greater Manchester, since all the health services are being devolved and the social care system is being brought in. The Government’s answer was that that service and responsibility were not being devolved. I question whether they intend genuine devolution on health if the 10 authorities cannot even stop the community pharmacies closing in those areas.
The biggest challenge for a Government who are trying to demonstrate that they are letting go is the small print. The small print in this case does not say that the Government are letting go; it says that they are commissioning at local level responsibilities to deliver services, but that they want to do so in a tightly defined framework. For instance, for the Government to impose a requirement in a statutory instrument that restricts the Mayor of Greater Manchester to one political adviser must be almost unique. That is not devolution and it is not localism. We will not have an empowered Mayor if they are told by the Secretary of State how many people they can employ in particular posts.
We welcome the order with caution and concern about the framework for devolution and the funding that is being devolved, but we accept that this is another step on the journey of devolution in England.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I have a few brief comments about the spatial framework, which may be too much detail for the Minister, although not from a Greater Manchester point of view. I am in favour of devolving power to the people, but the measure says that the decision must be unanimous among all 10 leaders of the Greater Manchester authority. There seems to be some doubt about whether the spatial framework needs to be discussed at all by the relevant councils in the area, so where there are huge numbers of objections to certain parts of the spatial framework, how will local councillors representing their constituents be able to comment? Do they even have a voice, or will it be solely the leaders of the combined authority, who might not even have to go to cabinet on the issue?
Another problem with the spatial framework is that although Greater Manchester is one place with 10 constituent authorities, we in the outer boroughs are also affected by what our neighbours in other regions do: in my case, for example, St Helens. Will the duty to consult in the spatial framework be rigorously examined? I fear that the localisation of business rates, which leaves some councils net losers, will lead to a race to the bottom, with all the areas next to the motorways covered in large warehouses.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I have two or three questions. Greater Manchester is being provided with a great opportunity for better commissioning. At the moment, commissioning social care places in adult, care or children’s homes is done by individual authorities, and across the conurbation, we have ended up with an oversupply of places in children’s homes and an undersupply of provision in adult social care homes, which has led to a great deal of the problems that we are experiencing in adult social care.
What planning powers will be devolved to Greater Manchester? If we are to have effective commissioning, we need planning powers that consider applications for children’s homes in our areas, for example. Over the years, there has been a lot of debate, but no clarity, about whether an application for change of use to a children’s home must go before a local council and whether it constitutes C1 or C2 use. With the devolution of planning powers, will more power be given to the Greater Manchester combined authority to make planning decisions in respect of children’s home applications in the area? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.
I agree entirely with my colleague the hon. Member for Makerfield about who makes the decisions. The question of whether powers are vested in the leader of the council, the executive of the council or the council when it meets in its entirety is an important one. The Minister will be aware that in Stockport, we have no overall control in the council, so it is important to know who will make those decisions.
On the greenbelt, if a council, leader or whoever decides that they will not agree to the spatial strategy or to the designation of that amount of land in their council area as part of the offer to developers, what will happen if the council refuses and the developer then comes along and applies for houses to be built in that greenbelt area? Does the council still have the current level of protection offered to us through greenbelt policies, or will the fact that it has not agreed to the spatial strategy mean that developers are more likely than they are at the moment to get permission for development in the greenbelt area?
Andrew Percy
There are a few issues to address. Not all of them relate directly to the order, but I will try my best to answer anyway.
I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, on his appointment. This is the first time that we have faced one another across the aisle since his elevation, and it is good to see him here.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned gaps in the measures, but we have to accept that the process of devolution is incremental. We have been clear about that from the beginning. The fact that Greater Manchester has been through so many rounds of devolution and is so much further down the road than anywhere else in England is something we should recognise, accepting that this is a substantial devolution of powers and cash from Westminster to local people. Manchester is lot further on than other parts of the country—sadly, in the case of some.
Consultation was a matter for the combined authority, which tried hard to engage people in the process. I have to be honest with the hon. Gentleman: local governance structures do not always excite people. I do not doubt that when people in Manchester and across the north of England are asked whether they want more powers and decisions to be exercised locally rather than at Westminster, they express strong support for that, but we should not delude ourselves that people will rush out in their thousands to take part in a consultation about the governance structures of combined authorities and mayoralties. It can be a challenge to engage people on such subjects.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his feeling that devolution was being done to people in Greater Manchester. I do not share that view. I have met Greater Manchester’s interim Mayor and various members of the combined authority and I find that they are quite proud of what they have negotiated. The process has been very bespoke, which is why Manchester has been able to negotiate things that other areas have not. Only the other week, Sir Richard Leese was in to talk to me about some of his exciting ideas about further devolution of education. I am not promising anything on that, because it is a challenging area given the complexities of having a local approach as well as a national approach, but that indicates that the devolution has been delivered very much from the bottom up, in line with demands on and requests from those in Manchester. Each devolution deal—Tees Valley, Sheffield city region, Liverpool or Manchester—is different, which demonstrates that the process is bottom up rather than top down.
I thought long and hard about the elected mayor requirement over the summer. As I have said in previous debates, the fact is that when someone is exercising powers over a large geographical area from which no one else involved in the decision making has a mandate, we have to have someone whom the public throughout that entire region can hold accountable. No individual council leader, MP or anyone else has been elected across that area, but someone has to be accountable to the public for making decisions and spending cash across the area. That is why an elected mayoralty is the best option and the best way to deliver direct accountability. I have thought about other ways in which it could be done, but I have not been able to come up with one that gives such direct accountability.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton also talked about the area-based reviews for his local colleges, but I cannot go into any detail because they do not form part of my policy area. I am aware of what is going on in my own area, of course. He also mentioned academies, but they do not form part of the draft order either. I merely state that many people would argue that academies are anyway a devolution of power to the local level, in a policy introduced by his party. Admittedly his party has gone through a few different guises since the glory days of the Blair years, but it was a Labour policy.
Similarly, health and social care are not part of the draft order, but we continue to work closely with Greater Manchester to implement what we think is quite an imaginative devolution of health—the first in England. From the outset, we have always been clear with Manchester that we expect future health decisions to be taken with Greater Manchester’s input—in partnership, rather than against it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about precepts. The mayoral precept will be treated as are all major precepts, so people will be able to see the amount of it when they receive their council tax bill. The police element will be different and accounted for separately.
Jim McMahon
May I have clarity on that? As the Minister knows, a precept is an amount of money added on top of the council tax bill. The draft order reads as though the precept is a levy that forms part of the council tax, but is not separated out in the council tax bill.
Andrew Percy
The mayoral precept will be treated in the same way and should be identifiable on the bill in the same way as the policing element, but I will check on the wording to be clear with the hon. Gentleman.
As I said, the Government are well aware of the challenges in health and social care at the moment, which is why we have pumped in extra money, but that is not a matter for this order so I will not say anything more about it. The hon. Member for Stockport also mentioned health and social care—
Andrew Percy
I will come on to planning in a moment.
On the point that the hon. Member for Makerfield made about the spatial framework, we are very clear in the order, which was drafted in agreement with the combined authority, that the spatial framework must be agreed by the Mayor and have the unanimous agreement of the combined authority. Combined authority representatives are all democratically elected in their local area. Local planning decisions will remain a matter for each local planning authority. The council’s local plans will still sit beneath the spatial framework, and they must align with the mayoral spatial framework in the same way as they do in London. Local decision making will still be for each local planning authority.
Ann Coffey
May I have some clarity on this? When the Minister says that the decision is going to be taken by the combined authority, will it be taken by the leader of the council, the executive of the council or the council as a whole? That is a really important question and I would welcome an answer on it.
Andrew Percy
It is for each local authority that is represented at the combined authority to determine its decision making behind that representation. If they wish it to be a vote of the full council or a decision of the council’s executive, that is a matter for them. When they are at the combined authority, they must act in unanimity. They are there representing their local authority. It is the same for any other decisions they take at a combined authority level. Decisions taken at the combined authority are not referred back to the local council for a vote on every single occasion. It is for each local authority to determine its processes.
Jim McMahon
This is a really important point. For the 10 local authorities in Greater Manchester, the policy framework is a full council decision; it is not devolved to the executive or the council leader. The difference here is that the component councils, not the combined authority, are the decision maker. If it is not in the order, will the Minister at least give us comfort that a letter will go out to the 10 authorities setting out very clearly that the expectation is that each of them will, at their full council meeting, have a vote on the spatial framework? That is really important to give local people confidence in the process.
Andrew Percy
On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is telling me that the Government should not be telling local authorities in the combined authority what to do, and on the other he is telling me that I should be telling the combined authority members what they should do. We believe in local decision making, so it is for each local constituent council member at the combined authority to determine what its arrangements are for involving the broader council on that matter. The leader of the council is there as the elected leader of the council. Behind their individual authority, it is for them to determine their own process. It is certainly not for me to write to each of the constituent councils telling them that they should exercise this function in a particular way in their authority. It is for each council to determine that.
I think I have dealt with most of the points about where the spatial framework sits. It does not supplant the local plan; the local plan must conform to it, in the same way as it has to in London. This is very much about trying to provide a system in which people are collaborating across a broader geographical area so we can make good on the pledge and deliver more homes for people in Manchester, which we all agree about, and a more integrated approach to planning across this strategic area.
Ann Coffey
I would be grateful if the Minister answered the questions that I have asked specifically about planning powers, which are in the remit of this order. I am sorry the Minister is sighing, but this is an important issue. For example, in relation to children’s homes, the National Planning Act used category C1 and C2 which has created a lot of confusion over what children’s homes applications can be accepted or not. Will that devolution of planning powers continue under the present Planning Act?
The second question I asked, which the Minister has not answered—
Andrew Percy
I thank the hon. Lady for intervening before I sat down. I have been absolutely clear in responding to her. This is a strategic framework. It is the model we are broadly operating in London. Local planning decisions of the nature to which the hon. Lady refers will be taken by the local council in the same way as they are taken at the moment. The local plan, which has the particular detail in it below that strategic overarching level, will set out the framework for each individual borough. The decision will be the same as it is now, with the example the hon. Lady has highlighted.
Andrew Percy
Because I am such a generous young man, I will give way one more time.
Ann Coffey
It is not a matter of generosity on the part of the Minister. These Committees are quite important in enabling the scrutiny of secondary legislation, so it is not a question of generosity.
In relation to the green belt, I asked a very simple question. We have a green belt strategy nationally. For example, a developer applied to build on green belt in Stockport and the council refused permission. If that developer then appealed against the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, it would not be granted permission because of the local plan. Is that going to be altered by the devolution of powers to Greater Manchester, and if not what is the point of a Greater Manchester strategy?
The Chair
Order. The Minister is quite generous, but the hon. Member for Stockport went on a bit.
Andrew Percy
I have answered the hon. Lady’s point a couple of times already. It is set out in the explanatory notes with this order that the issue of local planning decisions is unaffected and the devolution policy, as is also very clear in any of the background papers, makes no change to green belt policy. The protections that exist today will remain, and they are very high protections, as the hon. Lady will be aware.
If the strategic plan wishes to make any changes, as the emerging plan appears to do so, it is, of course, a matter for the local decision makers in Manchester to determine that. However, the protections that exist across the rest of the country will remain unchanged by this order. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2016.
draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (fees) (amendment) regulations 2017
(7 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies? I notice that you are wearing a Cubs scarf and woggle. I believe that that is in honour of the 50th anniversary of the Cubs—
Sir Oliver Heald
The 100th anniversary, which as a Cubs ambassador I should have known. Anyway, I thought it was right to mention that, in the Christmas spirit.
As background to the regulations, the Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) Regulations 2014 allowed the Lord Chancellor to charge fees to regulated claims management companies to recoup the costs of the legal ombudsman’s work handling complaints from consumers about claims management companies. It is right that the costs of handling such complaints fall on the claims management services sector, not the taxpayer.
The 2017 regulations will amend the level of fees set out in the 2014 regulations for the financial year beginning 1 April 2017 and for subsequent years. Revising the level of fees will ensure that the Lord Chancellor can accurately recover the costs of the legal ombudsman dealing with complaints about the claims management services industry in the 2017-18 financial year. In addition to the legal ombudsman’s expected costs for that year, we need to take into account an over-recovery by the end of 2016-17. Taking both elements into account, the total cost of approximately £1.6 million—the exact figure is in the regulations—to be recovered from the market for 2017-18 is lower than last year’s figure of £2.3 million. There has been a reduction in the size of the market since last year, but the assumptions about future market change that are used in our fee model are still valid. Taking into account the total to be recovered and the current market, the fees need to be reduced.
Hon. Members will be aware that we intend to move the regulation of the claims management services sector to the Financial Conduct Authority. In tandem, we intend to transfer complaints handling to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Until that happens, it remains appropriate for the legal ombudsman to deal with complaints in the sector. Hon. Members will welcome the fact that the legal ombudsman’s costs related to complaints about regulated claims management companies continue to be met by the claims management services sector, in the same way that the costs related to complaints about legal services are met by the legal sector. However, fees need to be reduced where appropriate, to ensure that the fees charged mirror the actual cost of the legal ombudsman handling the complaints as closely as possible.
I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. May I say how splendid you look?
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I confirm that we do not oppose them, but I should like to make some observations and ask some questions. As he said and as the explanatory notes state, the Legal Services Act 2007 extended the complaints handling remit of the legal ombudsman to claims management companies. There is currently no designated claims management companies regulator, so under section 5(9) of the Compensation Act 2006, that role falls to the Secretary of State for Justice. The 2007 Act treats the designated regulator as an approved regulator.
Last year, the then Chancellor announced an independent review of claims management regulation. It was published in March this year, and it was announced that the Financial Conduct Authority would assume regulatory responsibilities. Will the Minister indicate when that will be done? The Brady report said:
“Despite incremental reforms and improvements to the regulator’s powers and rules since its creation, there is a widely held perception among stakeholders and government that there is widespread misconduct among Claims Management Companies (CMCs).”
The report found that many stakeholders felt that the current arrangements lacked the powers and resources to supervise CMCs properly. They believed that many CMCs took speculative cases. Many ordinary consumers did not understand precisely what CMCs offered; they did not know what alternatives existed. There is a lack of transparency in the way in which CMCs conduct their business and market themselves to people. Many people who contacted them or were contacted by CMCs were concerned about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, and consumers were left confused about the PPI complaints process.
The Brady report also said:
“CMCs deterred many potential future complainants from pursuing complaints…through their persistent phone calls and encouragement to complain.”
Nuisance calls and text messages were common conduct complaints identified by the review, and were the result of unenforced data protection breaches. That is the type of behaviour that other professionals in the industry have called to be banned.
In June this year, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers launched its “Can the Spam” campaign. As it pointed out, solicitors are not allowed to cold call, but CMCs are allowed to do so, within the rules and guidelines that apply. APIL says that the rules are difficult to navigate, and it has called on the Government to ban cold calling and spam texting for personal injury claims. I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that issue again.
What is the difference between authorised and non-authorised CMCs, and what is the incentive to become an authorised CMC? I am concerned that the claims management regulator cannot pay compensation, nor order a CMC to compensate a claimant if they have had poor service. Does that apply both to authorised and to unauthorised CMCs? The claims management regulator report for July to September 2016 states that for April and June 2016 it started 12 investigations into authorised CMCs and 13 into unauthorised businesses. Are those businesses all CMCs? It cancelled 74 licences, issued two financial penalties and 50 warnings, and conducted 100 audits and 245 visits. Will the Minister confirm whether those enforcements apply to authorised or unauthorised CMCs or unauthorised businesses?
The claims management regulator found that when the ban on referral fees came into effect in April 2013, the number of CMCs fell from 1,900 to 803 by the end of September 2016. Are those authorised or unauthorised CMCs, or unauthorised businesses? During the last quarter, the claims management regulator issued non-compliance notices to 53 CMCs and 13 warnings to CMCs continuing to operate the referral fee practice. Will the Minister confirm what further action the claims management regulator can take to stop that practice?
The 2013 inquiry by the Select Committee on Transport argued that an increase in the small claims limit could create a bigger gap in the market for CMCs to operate in. The November 2016 consultation document entitled “Reforming the Soft Tissue (Whiplash) Claims Process” is mindful of this risk at paragraph 103:
“The government is considering the issue of the potential for claims management companies (CMC) and paid McKenzie Friends to re-enter the PI market in response to these reforms in general, and the increase in the small claims limit in particular. These types of organisation can offer services to claimants whilst operating with lower overheads than many PI lawyers.”
Elsewhere in the consultation document, option 3, which raises the small claims limit to £5,000 from £1,000, with the total settlement remaining at £10,000, for all personal injury claims and all road traffic accident claims, is deemed to have a positive impact on CMCs. Paragraph 2.135 of the consultation’s impact assessment states:
“There may be the potential for a rise in CMCs seeking to enter the market to support LIPs”—
—litigants in person. Has the Minister taken into account the potential rise in CMCs and in complaints against CMCs, following the introduction of the increase of the small claims limit, which may happen before the 2017-18 fees are due to be recovered on 31 March 2017?
Based on the latest data from the claims management regulation unit, it is estimated that a total of about 1,450 CMCs will be authorised at the time of renewal of authorisation in February 2017 and that about 20% will exit the market before paying their regulatory fees and fees related to the complaints handling function of the legal ombudsman. There is a risk that the Lord Chancellor will be unable to recover the full costs incurred if additional CMCs fail to pay the annual fee. If that occurred, the Lord Chancellor would have to meet the shortfall.
What action can the claims management regulator take to enforce recovery of annual fees for CMCs and unauthorised businesses? What was the percentage of unrecovered fees in 2015-16? Was that taken into account when the calculation of over-recovered fees was made? I thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instrument to the Committee and look forward to his response.
Sir Oliver Heald
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech and will certainly try to answer all her points. I will examine the record, and if I have missed any I will write to her.
The regulations apply to authorised CMCs. Unauthorised CMCs can be tackled in other ways, and there are even criminal sanctions for not being authorised. We are talking today about the authorised ones. Companies left the market last year, so there was an under-recovery of £500,000 in 2015-16. This year, we have made an adjustment that takes account of the under-recovery and therefore in 2016-17 there has been an over-recovery. In essence, each year an adjustment is made to ensure that if there is an under-recovery, it is recovered in the next year, and if there is an over-recovery, the fees go down. That is what we are doing today.
We aim to transfer complaints from the legal ombudsman to the Financial Ombudsman Service because the transfer of the regulation of claims management companies from the claims management regulation unit to the Financial Conduct Authority means it would be better placed there. The transfer will not take place before April 2018, and we are currently working with the legal ombudsman, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority on the detail of the transfer, which may require some legislation.
The hon. Lady asked how the claims management regulation unit has been getting on. Overall, it has done a good job. The unit has made concerted efforts to crack down on rogue behaviour. Some 1,400 licences have been removed. Fines of more than £2 million have been issued since obtaining the power to impose financial penalties at the beginning of 2015. Proposals are being developed to cap the fees that regulated claims management companies providing financial claims services can charge to consumers. All that action is designed to better protect consumers, to deter CMCs from predatory marketing and to help organisations that are on the receiving end of unsubstantiated claims.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I am interested to hear those numbers. Is it the Minister’s understanding that that is what has led to the unexpected amount of activity from claims management companies, or does that just that happen year to year anyway?
Sir Oliver Heald
It does happen year to year, but there is no doubt that the market is changing and seems to be contracting. That is the overall picture, but there are yearly fluctuations.
It is obvious that regulation should be moved to the FCA. The idea is to have a more effective regime that drives out bad practice. As I mentioned, we have consulted on proposals to cap the level of fees; this is another step to help consumers. The Government aim to establish a tougher regulatory regime by transferring the responsibility to the FCA, re-authorising all the CMCs under the new regime and holding their managers to account for the actions of their businesses. That will mean more individual responsibility in the system, but it will take a little time to work through the issues.
On whiplash reform, which the hon. Member for Neath mentioned, the fee model considered whether the proposed changes to whiplash would have a material impact on the market for 2017. We are still consulting on that and we are not yet entirely clear that we have taken all views on board, but the proposed changes may not be in force for that year and we have gauged that they are likely to have minimal effect. Clearly there is the power every year to go through the exercise of seeing whether there is an over or an under-recovery, so there should be no question of the taxpayer losing out. In fact, that is a very important part of this scheme: the payments should come from the sector, not from the taxpayer.
I hope that I have covered all the hon. Lady’s points, but I will check the record and write to her if I have missed any. I hope that that is acceptable.
Question put and agreed to.
Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin line-by-line consideration, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the recording of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 8.55 am on Tuesday 13 December) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 December;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 December;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 January;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 January;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 January;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 32; Schedule 1; Clause 33; Schedule 2; Clauses 34 to 50; Schedule 3; Clauses 51 and 57; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 58 to 64; and remaining proceedings on the Bill; and
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 January.—(Edward Timpson.)
The Chair
The deadline for amendments to be considered at Thursday’s sitting of the Committee was rise of the House yesterday. The next deadline will be 4.30 pm on Thursday 5 January, for the Committee’s first sitting after Christmas, on Tuesday 10 January. The Clerks will circulate an email about arrangements for tabling amendments during the recess.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Edward Timpson.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. As a general rule, my fellow Chair and I do not intend to call starred amendments. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days, so amendments should have been tabled by rise of the House yesterday for consideration on Thursday. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the website. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or similar issues. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before the Member sits down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision on it. If a Member wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments that are tabled.
Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper; in other words, debate occurs according to the selection and grouping list. Decisions are taken when we come to the clause affected by the amendment.
In line with the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, new clauses will be decided after we have finished with clause 57 and before we move on to clause 58 and subsequent clauses. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debate on the relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Corporate parenting principles
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out “have regard to the need”.
Amendments 18 to 25 impose a duty on a local authority in respect of how it carries out functions in relation to children and young people.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 19, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, at beginning insert “have regard”.
See amendment 18.
Amendment 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at beginning leave out “to”.
See amendment 18.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I welcome all Committee members to this sitting. As this is my first time on the Front Bench in a Bill Committee, I ask everyone to bear with me. I am happy to take any guidance from those in the room who are more experienced than I am.
First, I would like briefly to echo some comments made in the other place about the rushed pace and hurried nature of the Bill. Noble Lords expressed concern that the Bill had not been carefully thought out; they were right, of course, because thanks to their diligent work the Bill before us is markedly different from the one that was introduced. The legislation appears not to have been made in response to any particular burning issues or needs—nor, despite its being a Bill about children and social workers, does it appear to be built on extensive consultation with children or social workers.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend commented on how extensively the Bill has changed; my understanding is that we are on more or less the fourth version. If there was extensive consultation, how come the Minister brought the Bill before Parliament in a condition so inadequate that it needed to be changed so substantially before it got here?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
That is a question that the Minister might answer. I hope that the Bill will be changed again after our deliberations in Committee—so there may well be a sixth or seventh version.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that part of the reason for a Bill Committee, whether in the Lords or the Commons, is scrutiny, and that if that results in change it shows the strength of the system, rather than weakness?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It shows strength on the part of the Lords who made the amendments, but weakness in the Government who introduced a Bill in need of so many changes.
Since Second Reading last week, I have been inundated with expressions of concern that the Bill has progressed so rapidly to Committee without any sittings to take evidence from the sector or agencies that work closely with vulnerable children. Neither the Opposition nor the sector and the agencies working in the field feel particularly comfortable about the Bill’s passage through Parliament. My amendments would strengthen the wording, in expectation of the local authority’s having an active duty to make the provision in question, and remove the weaker, passive expression, “have regard to”.
Of course, when Labour was last in government, it introduced the first ever statutory framework for care leavers, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and followed that with the Children and Young Persons Act 2008. It is clear that the party is committed to children who are leaving care. We welcome any measures that make improvements for the thousands of care leavers, whose numbers are due to grow—bearing in mind that the March figures for looked-after children were the highest since 1985, at 70,440. It is more vital than ever to get support for care leavers right.
We also welcome the spirit of the corporate parenting principles, with the clear definition of expectations about how the local authority should fulfil its role in relation to looked-after children and care leavers. We feel, however, that the principles are totally undermined by the fact that the provision will require local authorities only to “have regard” to them rather than have a duty to fulfil them, as is the case in Scotland, for example.
In another place, Lord Nash said the principles are
“about changing and spreading good practice, and making sure that the local authorities’ task in loco parentis does not burden them with a tick-box approach and extra duties.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 1558.]
I have sympathy with that approach, but I fear that, as it stands, it is too woolly and open to interpretation. There is a clear need for the emphasis to shift from the reactive to the proactive. Unless the principles are worded more robustly, local authorities, which may strive to do their best as corporate parents, may nevertheless be obliged to cut corners, especially in these times of stretched budgets. We cannot just rely on culture change or assume that, if there is no duty, new principles will be put into practice just because they exist in theory.
There is already far too much variation in levels of care, because different local authorities have different numbers of looked-after children and children leaving care. All too often, because of the Government’s disproportionate approach to local government cuts, it is the local authorities in the most deprived areas whose budgets have been cut the most. The Government’s misguided idea that they can deliver the outcomes they seek through culture change, without looking at any of the underlying challenges that face councils around the country, is absurd.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady take it from me that reductions in local government expenditure have happened across the country? This myth that it is the more deprived, northern towns that have been hit hardest is just that—a myth.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Unfortunately, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The most deprived local authorities have received the biggest cuts.
Steve McCabe
If the hon. Member for North Dorset is right, perhaps he can tell us how it is that some Tory-controlled authorities up and down the country have seen an 8% increase in their funding, while other parts of the country have seen an 8% reduction.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The fact is that local authority budgets have faced swingeing cuts since the Tories first took office in 2010. The Bill simply passes more roles on to local authorities without ensuring that they have the necessary resources. That reflects the very worst of this Government’s approach to local government: to cut budgets first and to devolve power and responsibility later, without ensuring that the local authorities can properly deliver the services.
I do not wish local authorities to take on their corporate parenting responsibilities as a tick-box exercise. If they did, I fear that that would indicate that they had fallen at the very first hurdle in terms of good practice. I do think, however, that it is important to give the principles the weight that they deserve by ensuring that they are as robust as possible.
Flexibility in practice is important, but strengthening the wording in no way prohibits local authorities from carrying out their functions as they see fit. If a new system is to become embedded in a nationally uniform way and not to become another postcode lottery, it is crucial that local authorities know from the outset that the corporate parenting principles are a priority and not an option. Too often, the services that children most in need of state help receive are reduced to a postcode lottery. That can be seen in the funding for children in need of help and protection: the local authority with the highest funding has available more than 13 times the funding per child than the most poorly funded authority.
We are concerned that the corporate parenting principles as drafted will amount to another postcode lottery. Simply requiring local authorities to “have regard to” the principles of corporate parenting, rather than there being a statutory duty, will add to the risk. When local authorities must only have regard to principles, the serious risk is that only those local authorities with the resources that others do not have will be able to deliver. To address that, the Government should guarantee a legal duty to abide by the corporate parenting principles to deal with the underlying challenges facing local government—challenges of the Government’s own making.
Corporate parenting is one of the most important roles that a local authority has. Local councillors take the responsibility extremely seriously. It is important that the role is not diluted and remains closely linked to democratic accountability. However, the principle of corporate parenting cannot simply end with local authorities. All agencies working closely with looked-after children and care leavers, although they are not corporate parents, should co-operate in support.
Children who rely on the corporate parenting principles will often have complex needs. Local authorities alone will not always be able to meet those needs. A full range of agencies, despite not being corporate parents themselves, will need to work in co-operation to support those young people’s complex needs. In particular, health and education have a vital role in ensuring the best possible outcomes for children in care. Once again, however, the Government have not gone far enough with the principles to ensure that young people in the care of the state will get the support that they need.
We welcome and support the principles of corporate parenting, but the Government seem to be simply hoping that new responsibilities for local authorities “to have regard” will be enough. In reality, unless the principles are a duty, they will for some children remain meaningless—empty words in an Act of Parliament, without any real impact on their lives. Those children need actions and not words, and “having regard to” something rarely translates into real action.
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, both this side of Christmas and in the new year. In the run-up to Christmas, I am looking forward to a cracker of a Committee, full of joy and, I hope, understanding.
I know the hon. Member for South Shields will be wondering what present I have brought for her this year, but I will wait to hear what she wants first. I apologise in advance if what she asks for is either out of stock or outside my budget range. I will listen carefully to the case she makes and do my best to try and fulfil her wishes.
I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for this opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of clause 1, which in many ways is the beating heart of this Bill. The intention behind amendments 18 to 25 is to ensure that the corporate parenting principles cannot be ignored and are meaningful. I am equally determined to ensure that. That is why the clause states that a local authority “must…have regard to” the needs identified in the clause as the corporate parenting principles, rather than simply “may” have regard to them. A local authority must take account of the needs articulated in subsection (1)(a) to (g) whenever they carry out any local authority function in relation to looked-after children and care leavers.
Framing the duty in terms of “having regard to” is the right approach. Local authorities already have a range of statutory duties in relation to looked-after children and care leavers that derive from the Children Act 1989 and its associated regulation, which set out a long list of statutory duties that underpin our current child protection system and also create a strong and robust system within which the corporate parenting principles may be operated.
Steve McCabe
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. If the principles are the beating heart of the Bill, will the Minister take some time to explain the major distinction between the seven principles and the duties in the 1989 Act? On the one hand we have clear duties imposed on the local authority, and on the other we have a new piece of legislation setting out new principles that local authorities must only “have regard to”. The implication is that one is an obligation and the other is simply something that they should have regard to. What is the distinction between the duties and the principles that made it necessary for the Minister to bring these principles forward?
Edward Timpson
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it is important that local authorities understand how this sits within their wider duties as the corporate parent for children in their care.
The principles do not sit in isolation. Clause 1 ensures that existing local authority duties and responsibilities for looked-after children and care leavers are carried out with these principles in mind. It requires local authorities to consider how they carry out all their functions in relation to looked-after children and care leavers. The principles sit above the local authority’s substantial current duties towards looked-after children and care leavers within existing legislation. Those duties remain unchanged; the corporate parenting principles are intended to inform how local authorities fulfil those duties and promote a culture in which all parts of the local authority contribute to their role as corporate parent.
The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do from his period shadowing me and the time he has spent talking to local authorities and children in care that we are trying to ensure that the responsibility for children in a local authority’s care does not just sit at the door of social workers; it should be the responsibility of the whole council under the seven principles we have set out. The principles give lead members for children’s services and independent reviewing officers a lever to help to achieve just that, both at a strategic level and for individual young people. It is important that the Committee knows that statutory guidance—we have provided a draft—will underpin the principles to make them as clear as possible.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend mentioned local authorities on a number of occasions in relation to the clause. Subsection (3)(a) to (f) sets out what local authorities are, but are county borough councils, such as Cheltenham Borough Council, also included? It mentions district councils and London borough councils, but there is no reference to shire boroughs.
Edward Timpson
My understanding is that it is relevant to borough councils such as the one my hon. Friend mentions, but I will ensure that I have complete clarity on that point, because it is imperative that this proposal covers the whole of local government where it has responsibility for the children in its care.
Removing “have regard to” would constrain local authority discretion, which is not the outcome we are looking for. Instead, we want to achieve a culture change so that the corporate parenting principles genuinely inform how existing duties are carried out. For example, if the local authority is fulfilling a refuse collection function to a care leaver, the need to promote high aspirations may not be entirely relevant to that function—I think we can all see that. It is something that the authority must have regard to, but it can take the view that it is not possible to do anything towards meeting that need when exercising a particular function, hence the need for local discretion and proportionality. On the other hand, when fulfilling housing functions it may be relevant to have regard to the need to secure the best outcomes for care leavers. To that end, the needs identified in the clause must work in a way that is proportionate, meaningful and pragmatic.
The clause articulates for the first time the guiding principles that will change local authorities’ culture and practice when they discharge their responsibilities as corporate parents. That approach is supported by Dave Hill, the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. We want to encapsulate in the corporate parenting principles a set of clear and helpful priority needs for this group of children and young people. We want them to be reference points for the local authority to take into account across the discharge of all its functions. That means that everyone in the authority—not only front-line staff in children’s social care and leaving care services, but all local authority services—will have regard to those needs when carrying out functions in relation to care leavers and looked-after children.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking about how the whole local authority must take responsibility for care leavers. Does he anticipate that the principles will mean that local authorities are far less likely to place children out of their local area and put them into care in other local authorities, and that they will place children outside their boundaries only in exceptional circumstances?
Edward Timpson
My hon. Friend is right to raise what is still an ongoing issue in many parts of the country. I know that many children, often from central London, are placed out of area in Kent, where her constituency is. Although in a small number of cases there is a clear justification for doing so relating to the young person’s needs, we hope that the corporate parenting principles will bind the local authority’s decision making together, so that when a final view is taken on where the child is best placed to meet their needs the local authority will look at how it can improve its local provision, set against the corporate parenting principles, which include housing and the wishes and feelings of the young person. I anticipate that the corporate parenting principles will provide a better mechanism for ensuring that those who are charged with the responsibility of finding the right path for those young people do so in a way that enables them to find a placement that is in keeping not just with their wishes but their needs, which more often than not means being much closer to home than in some cases currently.
Steve McCabe
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, would not the receiving authority also be bound by the corporate principles, so that if a child were placed outside the borough, the receiving authority would be subject to all these principles in the way it looked after the young person in exactly the same way as if they were placed in borough?
Edward Timpson
That is a helpful clarification. For any child who is placed in a local authority’s area, the corporate parenting principles will apply to that local authority. That duty to act on their behalf in their best interests does not end or not start because the child is moving around the system.
One thing we want to get away from are the artificial boundaries that have been put up by virtue of local government lines that do not always serve children well, although it may be more comfortable for those who are carrying out those function not to think about what happens beyond their borders. That is an issue that is becoming more prevalent, with children being moved around the system, losing track of where they are living and their circumstances. We know that makes them extremely vulnerable. The strong message that comes out of this Committee, having heard both sides, is that these principles should be seen as a national cause, not just a local one, so that every local authority and all its officers ensure that they fulfil its responsibilities as a corporate parent.
Steve McCabe
I want to ensure that I have understood this. That was a very helpful contribution from the Minister and I understand exactly what he is trying to achieve, but I am curious about what would happen in a situation where a child is placed out of borough and the child or their advocate argues that one of the authorities is acting in accordance with some of the corporate principles but the other one is not and is therefore obstructing the quality of their care. How would that situation be resolved, given that the object of the exercise is to ensure the best care and to make this a national set of principles?
Edward Timpson
In some respects, in what I hope are very limited cases, that situation already arises, where a child or young person has been moved out of their host local authority and they are not content with the arrangements that have been set up in the new local authority. [Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman bear with me? They may want to pursue that through the advocacy that they are entitled to. We are seeking to ensure that when that situation arises, though we hope it does not in the vast majority of cases, if at all, there is whole local authority ownership of that issue and that transcends local authority boundaries. That would ensure greater consistency of approach, not just from social workers but those who are responsible for housing and other functions of that local authority.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at some of the changes that we have already made to the residential care system for children, if a child moves out of area, that has to be signed off by the director of children’s services of the host local authority and there has to be a proper level of consultation and agreement between the local authorities as to what the arrangements will be. The aim is to ensure a good and consistent level of service provided by both the local authorities, irrespective of where the child happens to be between the two of them—in some cases it is more than two.
It is important to recognise that these seven principles and the areas they cover are designed to touch every aspect of that child’s time in care. By having to have regard to those principles, we will end up in a situation in which local authorities more widely are taking account of their responsibilities more seriously, irrespective of the type of placement that child or young person is in, their age, their background, or the sort of placement that is best suited to their needs. The whole point of having statutory guidance is to try to assist local authorities in coming up with practical ways, as well as engendering the culture change we want to see, to make sure that we get the improvements that we want to be part of.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson; this is my first Bill Committee, so please bear with me if I ask questions that seem obvious. I understand that someone could be moved out of their local host borough. If they move to another borough, who has the primary responsibility for the child and where is their assigned social worker: in the host borough or the new borough?
Edward Timpson
The original local authority where that child was taken into care continues to have overall responsibility for their care. That is why it is important that they co-ordinate very closely with the receiving local authority to ensure that the child is cared for as well as they possibly can be. When that breaks down, it is often a consequence of the host local authority not having that real sense of responsibility and, in a sense, passing that responsibility on to the receiving local authority. That should never be the case.
In my previous life as a family law barrister, I was involved in cases where local authorities were unaware of where a child was living in the local authority to which they had been transferred. That is unacceptable, and it is exactly the sort of issue that Ofsted would be interested in when inspecting a local authority. What we are really trying to push for with these principles is to ensure that we get that continued level of interest, responsibility and determination, with local authorities still seeing those children as a high priority when fulfilling their role as corporate parent. That should never be diluted because the child happens to be moving around the system geographically.
Having grown up with foster siblings, I also know how important it is to demonstrate consistently that someone cares for and supports these children and young people; that someone worries about their safety, their relationships and their aspirations, and that they will help them realise their ambitions. Most children and young people are fortunate to have families who do that for them, but I want that for looked-after children and care leavers, too. As the local authority stands in place of these children’s parents, it is important that they should seek to act as any good parent would, as I said a few moments ago. If we take an examination of Ofsted reports that tell us where that is done well—Trafford, Hackney, Hertfordshire and Lincolnshire—we see that that is where corporate parenting is at its strongest. That is what this clause is designed to do, and what I believe it will achieve.
As was the case in the other place, this group of amendments seeks to ensure that corporate parenting principles are meaningful and practical. I believe that they are. Ofsted already has corporate parenting firmly on its radar. The inspection framework refers to corporate parents nine times, and I have no doubt that inspectors will have these principles clearly in their sights when they assess how well a local authority fulfils its corporate parent role. I have already had the pleasure of discussing this clause with Ofsted’s lead on social care, Eleanor Schooling, and I am confident that they will understand and want to test how local authorities are responding to these new principles.
As well as the wording of the clause, local authorities and Ofsted will have the statutory guidance that will be made available under this clause. As I have alluded to, that will include more detail on how the principles will work in practice, and the importance of embedding them within the culture of the organisation, driven by strong leadership from the top, as well as examples of how each principle could be applied on the ground. We plan to consult formally on draft guidance in the new year.
Steve McCabe
I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time. Having listened to the Minister, I am in no doubt about his aspirations. I also had the benefit of shadowing his post in the previous Parliament, and I have no doubt that his actions are well intentioned. However, I wonder whether he will be able to achieve his ambitions with this set of proposals, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is of such significance. The danger here is that we have a set of words but no guarantee that they will translate into action.
I would have liked the Minister to explain to the Committee why there are seven principles in the first place. There were three others suggested in the House of Lords, but they were rejected out of hand. The Minister has made no reference to those whatsoever, and we have been left almost short-changed in terms of the information we have. The danger of not making this a duty is that although the Minister might think that this is the heartbeat of his legislation, to other people it looks like window dressing. The statute books are littered with children’s legislation that has been nothing more than window dressing.
That is why we should take advantage of this opportunity to probe exactly what these principles will do. If they are that important, why is the Minister not prepared to insist that local authorities should act on them? It is hard to find fault with their general wording, but I wonder whether in fact they give local authorities a great many opportunities to dance around the issues.
I note that the Minister spoke of his desire not to straitjacket local authorities, which was his reason for saying that they must “have regard to” the principles, rather than imposing them as duties. He took as his example clause 1(1)(e), about having high aspirations. I want to probe that a little further to see what he really has in mind. Are those aspirations governed by the local authority’s view of what might be high aspirations?
Once a child comes into care, their health is likely to deteriorate, particularly their mental health, which has a 50% greater chance of resulting in some kind of episode. Their education is likely to deteriorate, which is why we have created the post of virtual school head. That is why there was so much emphasis in what the Minister did in the previous Parliament on trying to raise children’s educational aspirations. Whose aspirations are we talking about: the local authority’s, the child’s, their natural parents’ or their advocate’s? Who will determine what is a high enough standard for that child? The rest of us would determine for our own children, and we would want the absolute best for them. But when the Minister talks about aspirations, whose decision will be the determining factor?
The Minister talks about not wanting to straitjacket the local authority. He gave an interesting example about refuse collection not necessarily being an area where one would want to tie the local authority into aspiration. On the surface, I would agree with him. He went on to say that in the case of housing that might be different. What about the quality of housing that a young person is placed in? Does that not affect aspiration? What about the level of the repair service they receive, if the place is in a difficult, high-rise block with mould and water running down the walls? What about the local environment that the young person is placed in? If the local authority deems it all right to put them in a run-down block of flats in a difficult part of town, where the walls are littered with graffiti and there are needles, syringes and broken bottles everywhere, does that not affect a young person’s aspiration? Should that not be something the Minister is telling us about?
Actually, clause 1(1)(e) has a huge impact on how that young person is affected. If these principles mean anything at all, should we not be leaving the Committee absolutely certain that the Minister for Children and Families is saying that the principle of aspiration, as defined in clause 1(1)(e), means that no longer will any local authority be allowed to place a child in the appalling environmental conditions that can do nothing but diminish their aspiration and affect their overall wellbeing and health?
I want to check on one other thing. In the other place, Lord Nash referred to the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families. Has the Minister had a change of role? Has something been slightly altered? If these principles apply specifically to vulnerable young people, I wonder what that distinction is. We all know that many kinds of young people come into care, driven by many different factors, but often those who have suffered the worst neglect and abuse are the most vulnerable. If he is saying that an additional level of consideration should be applied to them, it would be good to know that.
I understand the Minister’s point—this was raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent—about a young person received into care by one authority who then lives in another authority. He will know as well as I do the tragedy of that. It is probably best exemplified by events in Rotherham and Rochdale. When these children, often from the south of England, are transferred to authorities in the north of England, they are completely forgotten. That is why it was possible for some of the terrible things that happened there to take place and go unnoticed. The Minister said that both authorities would have responsibility. When I pursued him on the question of conflict between authorities, he assured us that the present system is designed to cater for that. I want to raise that question once more, in relation to the point his hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset made at the outset of the Committee about the different levels of cuts and finance available to local authorities.
If a child is received into care by one local authority and then sent to live in the care of a different local authority, and if there is a set of proposals for their welfare—their education, for example, or perhaps they need counselling because of trauma they have suffered, or particular needs that were identified through an assessment following their placement—and it is deemed that they should receive a particular kind of formal support, what would happen if the local authority that received them then refused on the basis that its budget situation had since changed substantially, to the extent that it could no longer afford that service? Who would be responsible for ensuring that these principles were applied? Would it be the local authority where the child is now residing, which would undoubtedly argue that the bill had to be picked up by the local authority that had received the child into care?
I raise that point because, as the Minister said at the outset, these principles are the heartbeat of his legislation. The principles are worthless unless we know exactly how they will be applied and how they will directly affect the interests of a particular child. If the Minister cannot give us a graphic description of how that would work, these are empty principles; they are not principles that underpin a better future for children. Otherwise, this is empty legislation and these are empty words on paper that will litter the walls and shelves of social work offices up and down the country and contribute nothing to the welfare of the young people we are concerned about.
The Minister should therefore consider once again whether his principles are so essential to his legislation that they should be applied as a duty to the local authority, which should have no wriggle room from addressing them. That is the only way he will ensure that he gets the outcomes that I am sure he wants to achieve.
Tulip Siddiq
I note what the Minister said about a holistic approach to looking after these children. He mentioned front-line staff and the council working together as a whole, which I agree with. I was a councillor for many years in a council that is rated in the top three boroughs in the country, and I was also a cabinet member. We faced a £80 million shortfall overall and I had to make a 30% cut to the services that I was in charge of. Although I appreciate the sentiment behind these principles and I think they are very timely and needed, will the Minister comment on the fact that councils are stretched? Front-line staff are disappearing because they cannot afford to keep them on, and councils are struggling to provide even the basic services because of the lack of funding.
This is not a political point. Councils across the country are struggling with what I saw first-hand. I appreciate the sentiment that there should be an holistic approach to looking after these children—and I agree that that should happen, because they are the most vulnerable in society—can we carry that out at a time when councils are struggling with their funding because of the cuts to local government budgets from national Government?
Edward Timpson
This debate has been helpful in teasing out a little more understanding of the purpose of the principles. I accept that the principles in themselves are not going to transform the life of every child in care. However, as I have set out, we seek to provide a strong and comprehensive set of principles that will apply to all local authority officers, irrespective of their role, and which will engender a shared sense of responsibility and push to the forefront of their mind the impact of their decisions on children in care and care leavers placed with them.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who thinks about these things very deeply and cares about making sure that we come up with an approach that will have a positive impact, that the principles are not set in isolation. All the underlying responsibilities of local authorities remain in place.
Steve McCabe
I am not sure whether I have misunderstood; perhaps the Minister can help me. He is quite right to identify all those duties, but am I not right in thinking that in later clauses that deal with innovation, he plans to allow local authorities to opt out of these very duties and responsibilities? He talks about safeguards being applied to children, but he will later tell us he plans to let local authorities give those responsibilities up.
Edward Timpson
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he looks at the provisions we have introduced, he will see that the sections I referred to are explicitly removed from that ability in relation to the power to innovate. He will also want to familiarise himself with the guidance, which will set out in a more practical and meaningful way how we want local authorities to behave in relation to the principles. At present, many local authorities are fulfilling those duties in a way that is very much aligned with the principles. We do not want to overlay further legislation that puts additional duties on local authorities, when they are already able to do this within the framework that is in place. This is about a shift in approach, not creating new burdens on local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman talked about aspirations. All of us have the highest possible aspirations for any child growing up in the care system, and local authorities must have those high aspirations too. That is what the clause is all about. He gave an example of a young person being placed in housing in an area of deep deprivation, with syringes lying on the floor of alleyways and so on. That, in anyone’s reading, would be wholly inappropriate. I do not think anyone would dispute that someone placing a child in that area clearly does not have high aspirations for them. There is still, as seen in too many Ofsted reports, an acceptance of an unfulfilled level of aspiration for children and young people in that local authority’s care.
We want to put front and centre of the Bill a very clear message, backed up by the statutory guidance, to every local authority: “Whether you are a social worker, a housing officer or working in the finance department, you should have high aspirations for this young person. You shouldn’t accept second best for them, because you are fulfilling the role of corporate parent, and that should drive you on to ensure you do your very best.”
Steve McCabe
As I said, I have great respect for the Minister. There is nothing personal in what I am saying, but he knows as well as I do that there are young people around the country being put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local authorities, alongside alcoholics and junkies—it is happening now. If his aspiration is to put an end to that, why does not he legislate for it, rather than giving us principles that local authorities will be able to opt out of, as it suits them?
Edward Timpson
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that we have already tightened the rules on the use of bed and breakfast—local government welcomed that—to try to get the right placement for each young person, depending on their circumstances. I do not want him to give the impression that the principles are the only thing the Government have introduced to try to improve experiences and outcomes for children in the care system.
I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on his point about the health and education of children in care deteriorating during their time in care. That is not what the evidence suggests. He will have seen the report from the Rees centre, whose research showed that care has an overall positive impact on children. Those in care do better than children in need, in terms of educational improvement. There is no evidence that their health deteriorates, although of course there are individual cases where that does happen. They are more likely to have health checks while they are in care than when they are not.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my job title, Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, does not affect my other responsibilities; in fact, I have even more responsibilities than I did when the name of my portfolio did not include the word “vulnerable”. Part of my mission involves the clear and consistent approach that the Government have set out in the “Putting Children First” policy paper, which the hon. Gentleman will have read. That sets out our ambition to improve services in every way, for children in care and for care leavers. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman has the paper in front of him—he has made my Christmas.
The paper sets out a clear and comprehensive strategy for the period from now to 2020, across the system, for the people working in children’s social care, the practice system that they work in, and the governance and accountability that will ensure we know what works and what does not. As a consequence, we will have the opportunity to see more children, with the principles in place, being looked after by those charged with the responsibility. That is the right approach.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn raised the issue of how local authorities will be able to do what we envisage, at a time when local government funding is falling overall. The amount that local authorities have been spending on child protection has risen in recent years. That is partly because the number of children in care has gone up, but also because local authorities are taking the responsibility seriously. I welcome her support for the principles, but as for the impact of funding on the quality of children’s social care services, she will have seen that there is no correlation that can be determined between the amount that a local authority spends on services, and their quality and the outcomes for children. Some of the lowest-spending authorities have the highest outcomes for children in their care, and some of the highest-spending have some of the worst outcomes.
I suggest that the hon. Lady look at Hackney, not all that far from her constituency, to see how it turned around children’s services to the extent of being able to bear down on the overall cost. The services there work earlier and better with families, reducing the number of children who come into care, which means they can spend the money they have on improving services for the children who are in their care. I challenge the presumption that if we spend more money we get better services. That is clearly not the case. Of course we need to ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding to carry out their functions, but there is also room for them to ensure that they get the best possible value for the children in their care.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister has said that spend has increased and that is not related to quality in some local authorities. How does he explain that? Does he agree with the National Audit Office conclusion that that indicates that none of his Government’s reforms since 2010 have yielded the desired results?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady is right to reference the NAO report, because the NAO was the proponent of the suggestion that there was not a correlation between spend and quality of service. We need to understand better why some local authorities are able to deliver better services for less money. As she will appreciate, this is a complex area, and there is still work to do to get under the skin of why the looked-after population is still rising in some local authorities but falling in others. That is partly to do with greater awareness and earlier intervention in families. In the past, particularly in cases of neglect, children were left in the care of their parents for too long.
Edward Timpson
I am trying to give the hon. Lady a full explanation. Different circumstances in different local authorities drive decisions about funding and the outcomes that that funding achieves. We have recently signed a formal agreement with Ofsted so that we can more effectively share our data with one another—the NAO report asked for that—and have much more contemporaneous read-outs of how local authorities are performing, help them make better decisions about how to spend money and understand better as a Department what baseline funding local authorities need to carry out an efficient and effective service.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He touched briefly on early intervention. Does he accept that one of the reasons why more children are coming into care is perhaps that his Government’s cuts have led to a lack of early intervention services, family support work and Sure Start centres? I know from practice that those things can keep families together and prevent children from going into care.
Edward Timpson
It will be no surprise to the hon. Lady that I do not accept that proposition. As I say, this arena is more complex than that. It is worth reminding the Committee that not every child who comes into contact with a children’s centre inevitably ends up in the care system. Only a small proportion do so and have some support off the back of that. We want to capture those children as early as possible—I agree with her about that—but we must also provide targeted support for children in need who are on the edge of care so that their families get the support they need to keep them together, as Hackney has done successfully, rather those children slipping into and sometimes bouncing in and out of the care system, which is often the worst of all worlds for them.
I pray in aid the work that we have done through the innovation programme to try to improve local authorities’ response to this difficult and complex issue. I accept that there is more work to be done, but the programme that we set out in the “Putting children first” policy paper is a good and strong response to that challenge. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The key thing he said, which sticks in my mind, is that these principles should be those of all good parents. Any good parent would therefore see these principles as a duty, not something to “have regard to” or ignore at will. They would not do that, and neither should any of us. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 2, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Secretary of State must publish a national minimum standard for a “local offer for care leavers”.
(6B) When developing a national minimum standard for the purpose of subsection 6A the Secretary of State must consult relevant agencies responsible for the provision of services under subsection (2).’
This amendment would introduce a national minimum standard for a local offer for care leavers, which is to be developed in consultation with relevant parties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
‘(e) unaccompanied asylum seeking children up to the point that they leave the United Kingdom.’
This amendment introduces an additional definition for “care leavers”.
New clause 13—Review of access to education for care leavers—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an annual review on access for care leavers to—
(a) apprenticeships,
(b) further education, and
(c) higher education.
(2) The first review must take place by the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) A report produced following a review under sub-section (1) must include, in particular, an assessment of the impact of—
(a) fee waivers,
(b) grants, and
(c) reduced costs of accommodation.
The report must be made publicly available.’
New clause 16—National offer for care leavers—
‘(1) The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 102(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”;
(b) in regulation 103(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”;
(c) in regulation 104(2) after “18 or over” insert “and section (3) does not apply”.
(d) in regulation 104(3) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”.
(2) The Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 4(1), Second Condition, after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) is aged at least 18 and is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016, and is under the age of 25, and undertakes not less than 30 hours work per week.”
(3) The Housing Benefit Regulations 2009 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 2, in the definition of “young individual”, in each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), for “22 years” substitute “25 years”.
(4) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows—
(a) in section 6(4) (persons liable to pay council tax), after “etc)” insert “or 10A (care leavers)”;
(b) in Schedule 1 (persons disregarded for purposes of discount), after paragraph 10 insert—
“Care leavers
10A (1) A person shall be disregarded for the purposes of discount on a particular day if on the day the person is—
(a) a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016; and
(b) under the age of 25.”
(5) The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 is amended as follows—
(a) in Article 3, Class N, after paragraph 1(b) insert—
“(c) occupied only by one or more care leavers within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 who are under the age of 25.”
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Amendment 26 and new clauses 13 and 16, which I shall speak to, also stand in my name.
A child’s transition from being in care to becoming a care leaver is a notoriously difficult process. Supporting care leavers by offering them the relevant information about services they can access is welcome. That, however, will not address the need for proactive support for all care leavers or ensure that they all have the advice and information they need. Without setting a national minimum standard for the local offer, the very real risk is of a patchwork of provision across the country, where children in one area are offered a different level of service from that offered in another.
The Minister knows what happened with his Department’s implementation of a local offer for children with special educational needs and disabilities, introduced under the Children and Families Act 2014; I hope he will tell us why he thinks that the offer for children leaving care will not develop in the same haphazard way. If an idea has failed once and is not working as it should, surely duplicating it is not the best way to proceed.
At the time, we welcomed the principle of the local offer for learners with special educational needs and disabilities. As we recognised, it is important that those learners and their families receive the information necessary to achieve the best possible outcomes. However, two years later we have seen the local offer in practice, and it has not achieved all that it should have. Frankly, because of the lack of a national framework, we have ended up with a postcode lottery—an inconsistent and sadly often inadequate provision has therefore developed across the country.
The fact that the Government have not looked at those issues and taken steps to ensure that the local offer for care leavers operates in a high-quality national framework simply suggests, perhaps, that they are willing to repeat the same old mistakes. I am in full agreement with the noble Lord Watson, who pushed for the amendment in another place. Having no common policy throughout the country is unacceptable. I argue again that the amendment is necessary. A minimum standard for the offer is needed, to serve as a framework, an undertaking, about the availability of services throughout the country.
The Minister will argue against the amendment, perhaps on the premise that the Government feel that they should not be deciding what is best for care leavers in their local area—that the local authorities and care leavers should decide themselves. That, however, is a straw-man argument. What we are asking for is simply a minimum standard so that whatever else is decided, there is a minimum level of protection for our most vulnerable children who are leaving care.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the Committee; I am afraid the Victoria line was not my friend this morning. I arrived as the shadow Minister was talking about corporate parenting and how the Bill is about what we should want for our own children. Surely my hon. Friend’s argument for a national minimum standard is exactly that; it is about the very basics that we would want for every single child because we would want it for our own child.
The risk of the Government’s approach is that, although there may be examples of good practice, there are also examples of poor practice. A national minimum standard would guard against that and protect every child as we would wish our own child to be protected.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have seen that the implementation of the local offer for special educational needs and disabilities is just that: an inconsistent approach and a patchwork model across the country.
A minimum level would be a benchmark that could never be lowered but could always be built on and improved. Surely that is the gold standard that we would want for all our care leavers. There is no evidence that introducing a set of minimum standards limits innovation and creativity; it is a simply a failsafe level of care. It would give clarity to both the local authority and the care leaver on what they can and cannot expect.
Care leavers often say that they struggle with what they are or are not entitled to. This would give them absolute clarity and help them plan better for independence. In practice, I lost track of the number of times when I dealt with parents who were themselves former care leavers. I went through everything and told them what they had been entitled to and they did not have a clue. This would be a good way to avoid such situations at the outset. Children should know what they are entitled to. If there is a minimum standard, they will always know what to expect.
A minimum standard would ensure that services offered would not be withdrawn when budgets are further cut by central Government and would let the people we are discussing know that their local authority and other agencies in their area really do care about their future and are committed to it wholeheartedly. Leaving the local offer to each local authority would not achieve that. The Minister must agree that we cannot justify a single child leaving care failing to receive the information that they need.
Will the Minister explain how he will ensure that the local offer will be accessible to all care leavers, whatever their circumstances when they leave care? How will he ensure that every single local authority will provide a local offer that meets the standard necessary to ensure the best possible outcomes for care leavers? Will he be taking any additional steps to ensure that there is not simply another postcode lottery that will leave a vast number of vulnerable young people unable to access the resources and support that they need? We cannot allow discrepancies in the level of care of the scale that I spoke about earlier to continue. There is no other practical way to achieve that in a timely manner.
I move on to amendment 26. As I have said, leaving care is a difficult process. Care leavers are faced with a set of difficulties that other children their age simply do not face. Is that in part why the Government introduced the local offer for care leavers that I referred to?
It is astonishing that the Bill is devoid of any mention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There are more than 3,000 such children in the UK care system. According to analysis of Home Office data, nearly all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under 16 are fostered at some point. I assume that the Committee and others would think that when those children leave care they are entitled to the same support and assistance with their transition to independence as their peers—but they are not, despite being the most vulnerable of care leavers, having fled conflicts and horrors that most us can hardly begin to imagine.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. I agree with her: when we talk about unaccompanied asylum seekers and children, we are talking about the most vulnerable in society. My local authorities, Camden and Brent, have taken in asylum seekers and are looking after children. Does she agree that putting a duty on local authorities across the country to do that would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we are acting as a leading country and taking charge of a situation where we should be doing more?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I welcome what is happening in my hon. Friend’s area. I agree completely with her comments. Once children who are unaccompanied asylum seekers reach 18, they are treated differently from other care leavers.
I recall working with many children who had escaped from conflict. Like children who have suffered abuse, their skin was grey and their eyes were emotionless. There was a look of permanent fear etched on their faces and they had an intense wariness of adults around them, which was reflected in their every movement and word. I have seen children slowly lose that look after being in placement for a while. The terror and sadness lift from their overall demeanour, because that is what feeling safe and being fed, clothed, cared for and away from a traumatic and ever-changing volatile environment can do for a child.
Steve McCabe
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office is conducting some inquiries into what happens to unaccompanied children who enter this country. The system has not been terribly well supervised over recent years. There is a lot of concern.
Topically, there is a lot of concern about what happens with unaccompanied children who enter this country to attend sports schools and sports colleges—whether those arrangements are properly supervised and whether they could lead to abuse. In view of that situation, is it reasonable to assume that we may see further activity to receive some of those children into care as those inquiries reach fruition? In those circumstances, would it not be wise of the Minister to prepare for that eventuality in the Bill?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I shall come on to the absolute hash that the Home Office has made of the situation later in my comments.
After the children have been settled in placement for however long they have been in the UK, the rug is ripped out from underneath them as they reach 18 years old, when they must apply for extended leave to remain in the UK. The majority are turned down, so the place they understood to be their home is no longer their home. Worse still, the Home Office often does not get its act together and remove them, despite turning them down, so they disappear and are off the radar. The Government do not know how many care leavers are in that situation or where they have disappeared to, but it does not take long to guess that if someone is here illegally and is facing the fear of returning to their country of origin, they will go underground and be susceptible to exploitation, whether emotional, financial or sexual.
Stella Creasy
In our discussions of the Bill, we are going to come on to a number of conversations about how we treat child refugees, but the point my hon. Friend is making is simple: at the stroke of midnight on someone’s 18th birthday, they do not stop being a vulnerable young person. These are young people who we have accepted are vulnerable and should be cared for. The idea that we simply cut off all support at 18 simply does not accord with the principles behind much of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will listen to the case and think again about how we treat these young people. Someone’s turning 18 does not stop them from being a vulnerable young person.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
That is why a lot of support targeted at care leavers lasts until they are 25 years old. Someone does not stop being vulnerable simply because they have turned 18.
I was a member of the Immigration Bill Committee. I do not recall the experience with much fondness. In the consideration of that Bill, which is now an Act, those on the Labour Benches argued against what I am describing. We argued that the provisions in that Act that limit the support for care leavers subject to immigration control undermined children and leaving care legislation, and gave immigration control greater prominence over young people’s welfare.
Steve McCabe
I am listening with interest to the figures that my hon. Friend is quoting. Was she as surprised as I was to hear the Minister tell us that we should not be that concerned about the educational attainment of young people in care, because they are doing quite well?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am astonished that I had not picked up on what the Minister said. I hope that he will clarify.
Edward Timpson
Dear oh dear, Mr Wilson; we were all getting on so well. I am afraid that what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, has said is not a fair representation of the point that I made. I ask the hon. Member for South Shields to take in good faith the point that I made, which is that children who are in care do better educationally, in terms of improvement, than children who are on the edge of care with child protection plans. It is wrong to suggest that being in care holds back the child’s education. If we compare children in care with the most closely aligned group—those on the edge of care—they do better. That was the point that I made, and I hope that is the point that the hon. Lady will take away.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am sure that Hansard will show us all exactly what he said.
Tulip Siddiq
Does the shadow Minister think that the situation that the Minister described in his comparison is one that we should strive for, or should we have different standards?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I think we should all have the highest possible standards for all our children, whether they are care leavers or not. That is something we should always strive towards.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the unemployment statistics. I am chairman of the all-party group for youth employment. Each month we look at the statistics; we will have a new set of figures tomorrow. She is right to say that the figures are too high. In fact, they are too high across the board at just under 14%. Does she recognise that, under the clause, the local plan that points towards education and employment will help in that regard?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
No, it is not; it is a “time will tell.”
I will not spend much longer on this new clause; it is quite straightforward. It asks that the Secretary of State carries out an annual review on access to apprenticeships and further and higher education, and takes into account some of the barriers that care leavers face around fees, grants and accommodation. We know that such problems have existed for care leavers for a very long time, so it is about time we got on, looked at that, and made policies around it.
New clause 16 seeks to improve care leavers’ transition to independence by proposing various changes to welfare and benefits that would offer much needed financial support at a critical juncture. Without financial support, it is likely that a lot of the Government’s intentions towards care leavers will not amount to any real tangible changes for children leaving care. The national offer for care leavers that I am proposing will ensure that the maximum sanction for care leavers under the age of 25 will be four weeks, in line with the current sanction regime for 16 and 17-year-olds. It will allow working care leavers under the age of 25 to claim working tax credit. It will extend the higher rate of the local housing allowance single room rate to care leavers up to the age of 25, delaying the transition to the lower shared accommodation rate that applies at 22 years. It will also amend the council tax regulations to exempt care leavers from that tax until the age of 25.
The Government’s document, “Keep On Caring”, which was published in July, states:
“Most care leavers who spoke to us talked about the problems they had making ends meet. Paying rent, Council Tax, household bills and transport costs meant that many care leavers had difficulty managing their finances and they had often experienced debt and arrears.”
Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that more than half of young people leaving care have difficulty managing their budgets and avoiding debt. Yet almost half of local authorities in England fail to offer adequate financial support and advice for care leavers. If local authorities are not able to help when a young care leaver needs help, where on earth are they supposed to go? Unlike many of us in this room, they have never had the option of turning to their parents, wider family, or family friends. Often, if the local authority does not help them, nobody does.
The way that the Government have applied sanctions has had a devastating effect on not only the sick and disabled, but care leavers. Between October 2013 and September 2015, 4,000 sanctions were imposed on care leavers. They are more likely to receive sanctions, and less likely to know where to go or how to appeal a decision made against them.
Stella Creasy
It is worth reflecting on that statistic in the context of my hon. Friend’s amendment. We are talking about care leavers being three times as likely to be sanctioned. If we go back to the principles she was talking about of corporate parenting and wanting the same—the best—for every child in care as we want for our own children, that suggests that those children are not getting the help that they need, and that they are also not getting financial education. There is clearly a particular issue about care leavers and the benefit system that we must address. The Bill is the ideal opportunity to do that and her amendment would fit into that metric. I hope that Government Members will think about that. Care leavers are three times more likely to be sanctioned, so clearly something is not working. We need to act.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend is right. When I have spoken to care leavers who have been sanctioned, often they have not known that they have been sanctioned. What they will say is, “My money has been stopped.” They do not know where to go and they do not know what to do for help. They will sometimes bury their head in the sand, not realising that they could appeal the decision. It is therefore vital that we get it right for them.
For those who were able to get help, 60% of sanctions were overturned, which means that a high proportion of care leavers are having sanctions misapplied. I note Lord Nash’s wish in the other place for sanctions to be reduced, but I was alarmed when he showed concern that a reduction is sanctions towards care leavers might “unintentionally lower our aspirations” for them. When a care leaver has sanctions imposed through no fault of their own—often those sanctions are misapplied—I assure the Minister that their aspirations will not be anything if they cannot afford to heat their home or feed themselves, or if they end up without a roof over their head.
We also wish to make an amendment to extend working tax credit to care leavers under the age of 25. It is right that care leavers should be encouraged to engage in high-quality employment and training opportunities. However, they must be given better support to get into work and to be able to afford to work. Under the current system, only those with children or those who are disabled under the age of 25 can claim working tax credit. An assumption is built into the system that those under 25 on low incomes will be living at home with their family, where they will have access to the extra financial support that they need.
As we are all acutely aware, for care leavers, that it not the situation. It appears that the system penalises—some would even say it discriminates against—care leavers under the age of 25. Currently, care leavers in their first year of an apprenticeship could be earning as little as £3.40 an hour. I am interested to know why the Minister thinks that a young care leaver can manage to pay rent, council tax contributions and utility bills—let alone clothe and feed themselves—on such a meagre income.
For non-care leavers, restricting higher levels of support until 25 has some rationale, as under-25s often have a support network to help them. However, care leavers do not have that support network. It is not right that, when they fall into financial hardship, they suffer a shortfall in support compared with equivalent older workers, especially considering their ineligibility to receive the national living wage until they are 25.
It is estimated that the extension of working tax credit to care leavers under the age of 25 would cost a total of £27.8 million a year. Does the Minister recognise the huge strain of being liable for the full cost of running a household at a young age and the pressure that imposes on the finances of young care leavers? The payment of working tax credit to care leavers under 25 would be a significant step in closing that gap in provision.
Michael Tomlinson
I have the privilege of serving on the Homelessness Reduction Bill Committee, which meets for the fourth time tomorrow. That measure is a private Member’s Bill, as the hon. Lady will know, but it has Government backing. Care leavers are a prescribed group within that Bill, and will be specifically looked after in relation to homelessness advice. The Bill states:
“The service must be designed to meet the needs of persons in the authority’s district including…care leavers.”
Surely the hon. Lady welcomes that, and the fact that the Government are supporting that Bill?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for my amendment. I hope that he will vote with us. I am proposing a comprehensive package of support for care leavers, and this Bill is exactly the right measure for that. We should not have piecemeal legislation for care leavers; the package should be in this Bill.
Steve McCabe
I, too, welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. Has my hon. Friend seen the comments of the Birmingham Social Housing Partnership, which warned that very good ambitions of the Homelessness Reduction Bill are likely to be undermined by the wiping out of the supporting people revenue grant, which will mean that we will apply new duties to local authorities and give them fewer resources to manage this issue?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It is a classic tale of this Government: give with one hand, take with the other, and we still end up in a worse situation.
Simon Hoare
We all have to accept that local government budgets are under pressure, which presents challenges. Does the hon. Lady accept that she is striking at the heart of the Localism Act 2011 and, in particular, the general power of competence? If local authorities such as Birmingham and Wolverhampton decide to set those sorts of priorities, they can do so. That is what localism and local decision making is all about. We do not need the great dead hand of the state and central diktat to allow local authorities to do it.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset for his contribution and his support for the shadow Minister’s amendment. I spoke in the debates on the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I commend many of the suggestions in that Bill. Is the shadow Minister aware of the Barnardo’s report, which outlines that young people leaving the care system are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they cannot find appropriate accommodation when they leave?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I am aware of that report, which makes heart-breaking reading. There are lots of reports out there about care leavers. Following up on the intervention by the hon. Member for North Dorset, I agree that some local authorities have done good things in this area, but there should not be a piecemeal approach; support should be offered to all care leavers across the board. Why should one care leaver in one authority have a different service from another one? Care leavers do not care about localism; they want their local authority to give them the same thing as their friends and other care leavers next door.
Stella Creasy
Dare I suggest that, if we are going to have a discussion about the core principles of our political movements, one of the core principles for me as a proud socialist is value for money? One of the concerns behind the amendment is exactly that. The hon. Member for North Dorset talks about localism, the cuts to local authorities budgets and the need to be parsimonious—some of us might use a different term—but we must recognise that if 60% of sanctions on care leavers are overturned on appeal, the system is not cost-effective. If we are looking at how we might make savings, treating those young people as we wish our own children to be treated, which is a common theme this morning and perhaps for the entire Bill, is not only the right thing to do morally but the most cost effective and therefore—dare I say it?—socialist thing to do.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. She touches on an important point: elsewhere, if we want to save money, we have to invest. Investing in care leavers prevents them from entering the justice system and from being homeless, which costs more in the long term.
I suspect that the Minister will reiterate what Government peers said in the other place: it is not for the Government to set in statute what local authorities should be doing, and I expect he will get a cheer from the hon. Member for North Dorset—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We are not asking the Government to tell our local authorities what they should be doing; we are just asking for a minimum standard for care leavers. These amendments seek that new minimum. Care leavers surely deserve safe, secure, affordable accommodation, but under the current proposals I do not see how they can be expected to make their way in life and deal with the issues of having lived in care with the extra burden of financial difficulty. Does the Minister agree that council tax enforcement undertaken by local authorities completely undermines the principles in this Bill? Does he therefore agree that care leavers should be exempt from council tax until the age of 25?
The Minister is well versed regarding the many challenges that young care leavers face, particularly those of a financial nature. I am sure, deep down, he wants to make sure that the state plays a greater part in supporting care leavers, but the current plans just do not hit it. Last year, almost 11,000 left the care of their local authority and began the difficult process into adulthood. The Government have a duty to those 11,000 vulnerable young people to say that they are not forgotten and that they do not just become another poverty or homelessness statistic on our streets.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I want to speak to new clause 16, which seeks to make provision for care leavers to help them avoid financial difficulty. We are grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing it forward. Although it would apply to Scotland only in part, I wish to put on the record the views of the Scottish National party.
The Children’s Society points out that young people leaving care struggle with their finances and are at an increased risk of falling into financial difficulty. Our First Minister in Scotland has already acknowledged that we have a duty to protect and help our young people most in need and that those who have experienced the care system will be the driving force of the recently announced independent review of how Scotland treats its looked-after children. Our First Minister has committed to listen to 1,000 people with experience of the care system over the next two years. I hope that some of these concerns will be raised during that review. In making that commitment, our First Minister said:
“If we are to live up to our ambition to be a truly inclusive country, we have a particular duty to those most in need. We have to get it right for every child.”
I think that should apply across the UK.
The part of new clause 16 that would apply to Scotland includes the limit to sanctions, the extension of the working tax credit benefit and the exemption from the shared accommodation rate of housing benefit. Given the barriers to employment for care leavers, providing adequate support and safeguards in the system via these changes would seem to be appropriate. As the Centre for Social Justice outlined in its report, “Survival of the Fittest”:
“Current labour market conditions, such as unreliable hours due to zero hour contracts and low pay for entry level jobs, mean that most 18-25 year olds rely financially, at least to some extent, on either their parents or the benefit system for support. As care leavers are unlikely to have substantial family support, they are much more likely to rely on the benefit system”.
As the shadow Minister outlined, the new clause will apply a limit to sanctions under universal credit, including a higher level, medium level and lower level of sanction. The Children’s Society found that 4,000 benefit sanctions were applied to care leavers between October 2013 and September 2015. As we found out with the National Audit Office report only a few weeks ago, sanctions are not rare and they are not working.
Protecting young care leavers from sanctions is a welcome move, particularly as they would lead to further hardship for those possibly already facing financial difficulty of the kind outlined by the shadow Minister. Although the new clause would not remove sanctioning from care leavers under 25, it would place them in the same regime as 16 and 17-year-olds, meaning that the maximum sanction period under these proposals would be four weeks. The second part of the new clause seeks to extend working tax credit eligibility to all care leavers in full-time work of more than 30 hours per week.
The risk of falling into debt due to the cost of living, which many of these people are unable to cover in full, is a bad and sad reflection on our society. The current system of working tax credit assumes that many of those under 25 and on low incomes live at home and are supported by a family. However, that does not apply to care leavers, so additional support should be given to help these young people face independent lives. Surely the whole purpose of the care system is to enable our most vulnerable young people to go out there and stand on their own two feet equitably with those children who are brought up in caring and loving homes.
Stella Creasy
I support the core principles of the amendments that Labour Members have tabled this morning, and I recognise that some Government Members do share those principles; the difference is in how we achieve those outcomes. Let me be clear about the aspirations that I think we all share. They are, as I have already said: to treat all children in care as we would treat our own children, to do so in a fair and equitable manner, and to do so in a way that is possible to implement. The difference is in recognising how we get implementation right.
As the shadow Minister has said, it is the difference between having a minimum standard—a base below which we will allow nobody to fall—and recognising that there may be variation at a local level. The treatment of particular groups of care leavers, particularly young asylum seekers, is important, as is the recognition that there is a particular challenge when it comes to care leavers and financial management. It is right that we should seek to address those three core principles in a Bill such as this.
The amendments proposing a basic minimum standard are not intended to be restrictive; they are intended to help our young people know their rights. When dealing with care leavers in our casework, I think that we all recognise young people struggling to understand what will happen to them next. A national minimum standard is about being able to answer that question with certainty, without necessarily saying that the outcomes will therefore be the same universally, but recognising that there will be a basic standard and a basic principle about how we treat these young people. That does not mean that things cannot be personalised; it simply means that we can all be confident that every young vulnerable person is helped. As I have said before, just because someone turns 18 does not stop them being vulnerable; it simply means that they are moving into a new phase in their life. We must address that.
If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendments, he must tell us how he can have confidence that, across the country, those young children who we accept responsibility for through corporate parenting will get those services. I say that because I think that all of us have seen in our surgeries the consequences when there is not that support.
The shadow Minister talked about special educational needs. I think that all of us have dealt with cases of parents trying to argue for their children to have the rights that they should have. Even if there is a statement to that effect, it provides a basic standard for what that child should get. It does not mean that there is not then further work to be done about how things are enacted, but it does mean that the parents can be confident about what the child will receive. We are talking about the same principle here. It is about recognising that these young people need to know what will happen next. Having a national minimum standard would mean that we in this place could be confident that these policies will be implemented on the ground to a level that all of us would want as a starting point for those children.
On the second principle, particularly with regard to children who are asylum seekers, the discussion is a complicated and sensitive one to have in the UK right now. Other amendments, especially those that I have tabled—I am pleased that my hon. Friend the shadow Minister also has two—deal with how we would treat young children, the guidance and the principles to do with basic rights in the UN convention on the rights of the child. Those amendments continue in the same spirit, recognising that when we stand up as a country to support those young people, that support must be consistent with how we treat every young person.
That is the right thing to do morally, and legally internationally. I worry for the Minister—I am interested to hear his take on this—because if he has not included young asylum seekers in the principle, what are the legal ramifications, given that we treat them similarly under the age of 18? What might such a child have seen? Today we are having an emergency debate on Syria, where children will have seen horrors in their lifetime that many of us cannot even begin to contemplate.
How do such children end up here? One of the questions all of us have is about safe and legal routes. When children do end up here, however, and we take responsibility for them, in our hearts are we suggesting that at the age of 18 we stop caring about what happens to their outcomes? If we do not stop caring, we have to recognise that at the age of 18 they again need our help, just as we recognise that children born in the UK who come from troubled backgrounds might need our help past the age of 18. If children are to be excluded from the very provisions that we would like to see apply to other children we recognise as vulnerable, I ask Government Members to think about why they feel it is okay to discriminate on the basis of nationality—in essence, that is what excluding young refugees from the amendment will do.
The third issue is debt. Young people in care are disproportionately more likely to be in debt. Again, all of us recognise the myriad reasons for that, but the outcome is the same: a group of young people in our society for whom we have taken corporate responsibility have a particular problem, and one of the consequent problems manifests itself in how they deal with our benefits system. The amendments are designed to address that. All of us can see at first hand in our constituencies and when we deal with such children that they might not have backgrounds that give them the best understanding of budgeting. The hon. Member for a Scottish constituency, the name of which has completely slipped my mind—
Stella Creasy
It was on the tip of my tongue. The hon. Lady put it very well when she argued that our benefits system, especially when dealing with young people, is designed on the principle that even if they do not live at home, they probably have a home relationship on which they are able to draw; that they can draw not only on financial support, but on support to be able to budget and to manage at that point in life when we start to get our own rent and bills. That group of young people do not have such support as a background, so we have to make specific arrangements for them. That is what the amendment would do.
As I said to the hon. Member for North Dorset, in places we do not do that, which costs us more as a result, so again I ask the Minister to do something, even if not in this legislation. I completely take the point of the other hon. Gentleman for—I am doing terribly this morning at remembering constituency names—
Stella Creasy
How could I forget Mid Dorset! What a wonderful community. The hon. Gentleman will have seen even in Mid Dorset, as I see in Walthamstow, young people struggling to make sense of what rights and entitlements they have as they take that first step. They struggle even when they have their mum and dad with them to help, yet we are talking about young people who do not have that support. He is right to point to the Homelessness Reduction Bill as having such provision, but his case is to marry that with what we do in this Bill—that is exactly what the amendment would do. It simply states that we have to continue thinking about that group of young people needing a particular level of support because we can see their problems. The two are not contradictory; in fact, they are complementary.
I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to think about that. Perhaps in the lunch break he will make the case to the Minister that we should be looking at the financial support we give to our young people. The evidence tells us that our benefits system is not working for them, which is costing us money, and it is not joining up with other pieces of legislation. As a result, very vulnerable young people are being left at risk.
There are ways in which we can save money in the system and get a better outcome. The amendments are trying to get us there. I think that Government Members share the same objective. The question is this: if they will not accept the amendments on those three core principles, what would the standards be beyond which we will never let a young person fall? If we accept that a younger person is vulnerable, how do we ensure that we do not discriminate against them on the basis of nationality? How are we addressing the clear and obvious problems that our young people in care have with financial management, which manifests in how they deal with the benefits system, and comes from not having the safety net of mum and dad?
Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children and Social Work Act 2017 View all Children and Social Work Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 December 2016 - (13 Dec 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 26, in clause 2, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(e) unaccompanied asylum seeking children up to the point that they leave the United Kingdom”
This amendment introduces an additional definition for “care leavers”.
New clause 13—Review of access to education for care leavers
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an annual review on access for care leavers to—
(a) apprenticeships,
(b) further education, and
(c) higher education.
(2) The first review must take place by the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) A report produced following a review under sub-section (1) must include, in particular, an assessment of the impact of—
(a) fee waivers,
(b) grants, and
(c) reduced costs of accommodation.
The report must be made publicly available.”
New clause 16—National offer for care leavers
“(1) The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 102(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”;
(b) in regulation 103(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”;
(c) in regulation 104(2) after “18 or over” insert “and section (3) does not apply”.
(d) in regulation 104(3) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 and is under the age of 25”.
(2) The Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 4(1), Second Condition, after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) is aged at least 18 and is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016, and is under the age of 25, and undertakes not less than 30 hours work per week.”
(3) The Housing Benefit Regulations 2009 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 2, in the definition of “young individual”, in each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), for “22 years” substitute “25 years”.
(4) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows—
(a) in section 6(4) (persons liable to pay council tax), after “etc)” insert “or 10A (care leavers)”;
(b) in Schedule 1 (persons disregarded for purposes of discount), after paragraph 10 insert—
“Care leavers
10A (1) A person shall be disregarded for the purposes of discount on a particular day if on the day the person is—
(a) a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016; and
(b) under the age of 25.”
(5) The Council Tax (Exempt Dwellings) Order 1992 is amended as follows—
(a) in Article 3, Class N, after paragraph 1(b) insert—
“(c) occupied only by one or more care leavers within the meaning given by section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2016 who are under the age of 25.”
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief; I am sure that over lunch Government Members have had a chance to contemplate the argument that I made. I am conscious that Opposition Members who have joined us might want to be reminded of them. There are three points that I want the Government to come back on if they are not going to accept our amendments. First, the idea of a basic minimum standard for care leavers. If we are not to have a minimum standard, how does the Minister intend to ensure that all care leavers are given a level of service that we can be proud of?
Secondly, on the Minister’s approach to dealing with young asylum seekers who are not part of this legislation at the moment, the amendment seeks to bring them in scope to make sure that they are given equal protection. As I said earlier, turning 18 does not stop someone being vulnerable overnight. Finally, how do we deal with the specific issue of financial management problems that many care leavers face, particularly the problems that are well documented in the benefits system? If the Minister does not intend to accept our amendments to support care leavers through the benefits system and to make sure that we recognise those problems and the cost to us of not recognising those problems, what plan does he have to address those issues? At this point, I shall let others take the debate forward.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for her passionate speech. Even though she was interrupted mid-flow, she has summed up very well. It will not come as a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly endorse her speech and the amendment on the national minimum standard for care leavers. I want to point out that we cannot just rely on local authorities to make specific decisions, because there are different standards across the country for different local authorities, as I saw as a councillor before entering Parliament.
Various policy concerns can be addressed by introducing a national minimum standard, but I want to focus specifically on people’s mental health, especially that of vulnerable people leaving the care system. One early study of care leavers in England that I found interesting found evidence of a range of mental health problems for care leavers. One in five care leavers reported long-term mental health problems. Everyone here will be aware of the stigma surrounding mental health. One in five is probably not a true reflection of how many mental health problems there really were among care leavers, because some of them would not want to report problems for fear of being stigmatised.
The mental health problems that the care leavers spoke about included eating disorders, bipolar issues, depression and serious phobias that haunted them later in life. In addition, there were shocking statistics: a quarter of care leavers reported heavy drinking on a regular basis and two thirds admitted that they used drugs regularly. It is no surprise that many of the care leavers who spoke about their experiences said that their mental health problems originated in the life that they led before they, in a sense, entered adulthood. They said that a lot of their mental health problems came from the poor housing that they had experienced and the lack of finance and intimate relationships in their life.
The NSPCC rightly pointed out in its 2014 report that leaving care is an extended process rather than a single event, which I wholeheartedly agree with and which speaks to our amendment. Care leavers face the significant challenge of psychologically moving forward towards adulthood, often trying to make sense of their past life experiences. With the withdrawal of care services, support services and care placements, they have to test out the reliability of their network of friends and family. The shadow Minister has made the point over and over again that we should not have a postcode lottery when it comes to care and the future of care leavers. Nor should we have a lottery of personal circumstances, where those who are lucky have a network of family and friends to rely on, but those who are not often fall into either depression or a life they would not have wanted to lead.
The Opposition acknowledge that multiple changes to someone’s living circumstances will affect them, but change cuts across every aspect of the lives of care leavers; we need to be aware of that, because we are dealing with the most vulnerable people in society. Those changes relate to their finances, access to housing and search for jobs, and care leavers confront those challenges while experiencing a withdrawal of care placements and social support services as they turn 18.
I point to a few stats from the Children’s Society that I thought were particularly striking: 63% of care leavers entered the care system because of abuse or neglect, which is a figure that should put us all to shame; 50% of children in care had emotional and behavioural health that was considered normal, while 13% were borderline and 37% gave cause for concern. I am sure that everyone agrees that those statistics are worrying. They should trouble us all, and they should compel us to act in the interests of the nation.
National minimum standards will allow for a fairer system overall, for which the cost will be wholly outweighed by the benefit of ensuring that the most vulnerable people across the country are treated equally. I trust that Members across the House and from different parties will agree with that after hearing some of the shocking statistics that I have outlined.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I will briefly comment on the part of clause 2 that relates to the local offer, before turning to the amendments and new clauses. I will try not to detain you for too long, Mr Wilson.
I am not really clear on the local offer. The Minister has a great deal of experience of the local offer; he pioneered the approach in the Children and Families Act 2014. I am not entirely sure how different what he proposes in the Bill is from the offer in that Act. I took the trouble during the lunch break to look at the rather helpful report from the Children’s Services Development Group entitled “The Local Offer, Children and Parental Rights”. It has a nice foreword by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. You will be delighted to know that I will not read the report to you, Mr Wilson, but there are some things in it that are worth noting.
The offer, as it exists in the Children and Families Act, was intended to help local authorities to identify gaps in provision and to make sure that they were addressed, and the report assesses how successful that has been. It found that there are significant variations in the offers made across the country, with some quite good examples in east midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, and some very poor examples in the west midlands and the south-west. It also found that less than 4% of local authorities have a named person whom anyone trying to understand the local offer can contact, while less than half of all local authorities listed independent specialist schools on their website, despite that being a requirement that the Minister set out in the Act. There is also a significant variation in the information that is provided on those websites. The Children’s Services Development Group says that a best practice guide for local authorities and a mandated template for the local offer would be helpful.
I draw the Committee’s attention to that because the Opposition suggest that it would be helpful to the local offer in the Bill if there were minimum standards by which we could judge the progress of the Minister’s proposals. I asked him to look again at the experience of the local offer in the Children and Families Act and to check whether there is a risk that local authorities will simply seek to replicate that kind of approach in this piece of legislation. I am not saying that that approach is useless, but I am sure the Minister will share my disappointment that it has not been as successful as anticipated in its operation so far.
I turn to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn has just been tackling about the needs of children leaving care. The Minister and I obviously got into the wrong place before lunch when I thought that he was telling me that I should not be too concerned about the educational and mental health outcomes for children leaving care. If that is not what the Minister was saying, I am more than happy to accept that.
However, I took the trouble to go back and have a quick look over lunch at some of the things that we know. I looked at the report by Saunders and Broad which examined long-term mental health conditions—the very things that my hon. Friend has just been talking about—with a greater propensity among children in care and leaving care, who suffer from depression, eating disorders and phobias.
I looked at the mental health and wellbeing report produced by the Select Committee on Education in the fourth Session of Parliament. The first line of that report says:
“The mental health of looked-after children is significantly poorer than that of their peers, with almost half of children and young people in care meeting the criteria for a psychiatric disorder”.
That report, as the Minister knows, went on to recommend that child and adolescent mental health services should be made available for all looked-after young people up to the age of 25, in recognition of the distinct issues which this vulnerable group of young people experience as they attempt to leave the care system.
I also looked at the situation on employment. As I understand it, these are the Government’s figures: three-quarters of care leavers are inclined to leave schooling without any formal qualifications. Of the Government’s study of 26,340 former care leavers aged 19, 20 and 21, 40%—nearly 10,500 young people—were not in employment, education or training, compared with 14% of all 19 to 21-year-olds. The percentage of care leavers who could be described as NEETs has risen by 1% in the past two years.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to join the Committee, Mr Wilson; I was unable to attend the sitting this morning.
I shall speak particularly to new clause 16 and the proposals on social security support for young care leavers. I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields introduced the new clause this morning, the Committee discussed how the need for special arrangements for young care leavers arises from the likelihood that they will not have family resources to fall back on in the way that other young people leaving the family home would. It is particularly difficult for young care leavers to find appropriate accommodation in areas such as my own, where accommodation costs are especially high. I am keen to reinforce the points made about the need to review the application of housing benefit rules for such people.
First, it is important to recognise the need for stable accommodation for young care leavers as they move into adulthood. If they do not have the resources to be sure that they can undertake a secure tenancy arrangement, all the other attempts to route them into a secure future will be undermined.
Secondly, if such young people—who may have considerable emotional and interpersonal difficulties, and difficulties with relationships with others—have to share accommodation with people whom they do not know very well, perhaps with complete strangers, they may find that an exceptionally difficult situation in which to adapt to adult life. It is therefore of all the greater importance that they should be able to have their own accommodation or property: we should take this opportunity to exempt young care leavers from the more restricted housing support available to young people more generally. Such support requires them to share accommodation, which would not be appropriate for young care leavers.
Although progress has been made over recent years, in many local authorities it has been necessary to place care leavers outside their home borough. The new clause offers the opportunity to ensure that, when successful attempts have been made to bring young people back in-borough, as has been the case in Trafford, which I represent, and housing costs are high in that borough, which they most certainly are in mine, young people, having been brought back into their home borough, are financially able to sustain accommodation so that they can remain in a community where they have relationships and contacts.
We must also recognise the importance to both education and employment of ensuring an adequate source of income for young care leavers. As I said, they do not have access to family resources to bail them out from unexpected expenditure or debt, so it is right that we should have a social security system that is sufficiently generous to ensure that they are not put in a position in which financial unsustainability undermines the achievement of the social outcomes the Bill envisages promoting for young people.
If the Minister is not able to take our suggestions for a generous interpretation for social security on board in his answer today, I hope that Ministers from the Department will be willing to explore the issue further with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister give us an indication? We all know that these are not imagined problems for these young people; they are very real.
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
I thank the hon. Member for South Shields for her amendments on clause 2, particularly about the local offer and care leavers. I am also grateful to her and to the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for Birmingham, Selly Oak for being generous in their reading of the motivation and spirit behind the clause.
Far from being relaxed about the outcomes for care leavers, I am as determined today as I was the first moment I set foot in this place to do all I can to improve their prospects. That is reflected in the fact that we have the Bill before us, as a product of what can be a difficult bargaining arena, with many other Departments wanting to get legislation before Parliament. Through that renewed effort—as well as the cajoling and persuasion needed—we managed to make this a key priority for the Government, which is why it has now come before the House for the necessary scrutiny.
This group of amendments would seek to provide additional support to care leavers. I do not hesitate to agree that these young people do need help and support, but I do not consider the amendments to be the best way to provide that additional support. I will respond to each amendment in turn to explain why.
Amendment 26 would extend the definition of care leavers to cover all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children up to the point when they leave the UK, in the event that their asylum application is not granted. I recognise that the amendment seeks to safeguard a particularly vulnerable group of young people. I assure the Committee that I appreciate the sentiment and desire behind that. We know that local authorities are now looking after increasing numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and supporting more care leavers who were formerly asylum-seeking children.
Bearing those points in mind, I want to make an important clarification. Most care leavers who were formerly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have refugee status, humanitarian protection or another form of leave to remain or an outstanding human rights application or appeal. That means that they qualify, like any other care leaver, for the support under the Children Act 2004 care leaver provisions, to assist their transition into adulthood. In addition, they will benefit in the same way as other care leavers from the improvements to the framework contained in the Bill, including the local offer for care leavers.
It is only those leaving care whom the courts have determined do not need humanitarian protection, who have exhausted all appeal routes and rights and subsequently have no lawful basis to remain in the UK, with the court having said there is no barrier to their removal, who will need, in those circumstances, to be supported to return to their home country, where they can embark on building their lives and futures, with assistance from the Home Office in the form of financial and practical support. The Government believe that that is the right approach for that specific and clearly defined group, whose long-term future is not in this country but who need support and assistance before they leave.
Edward Timpson
The hon. Member for Walthamstow wants to intervene. I know she will be disappointed that that is the Government’s position, as it was on the Immigration Act 2016, but it is important to set out the very clear difference between the much larger group of care leavers who have not exhausted their appeal rights and those who have.
Stella Creasy
I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify the difference between the description that he has just given and that in amendment 26, which states
“unaccompanied asylum seeking children up to the point that they leave the United Kingdom”.
That is exactly the group he is talking about. He seems to be making the same case as we are—these young people should get the relevant support and help that we are talking about.
Edward Timpson
I am explaining the current situation. As the law stands, the local authority will continue to provide the same care-leaving service for those children and young people until all their appeal rights have been exhausted. There will be a period following a decision during which every effort will be made to repatriate them to their country of origin. Of course, that will not happen immediately after the courts have made a final decision.
The local authority can, of course, continue to provide ongoing and further support in such circumstances, which may include the continuation of a foster placement or continuing support from a personal adviser, where it considers that appropriate. The Department for Education and the Home Office will continue to work with local authorities and relevant non-governmental organisations on the development of the regulations and guidance required to implement the new arrangements for support set out in the Immigration Act 2016. Those regulations will be made under provisions that will be subject, in due course, to debate and approval in both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative procedure, which I suspect will be the forum for Opposition Members to continue pressing on the issue. I have set out the Government’s position and the rationale behind it.
New clause 13 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an annual review of care leavers’ access to education. I reassure the Committee that we already publish such information, and I will set out the measures we have already taken to better support care leavers into education, employment and training. As the hon. Member for South Shields said, the high proportion of care leavers who are not in education, employment or training is a long-standing problem.
Of course, there are many reasons for the NEET rate being higher for care leavers than for young people in the general population, not least the impact of pre-care experiences. That is why, earlier this year, we published “Keep on Caring,” our new cross-Government care leaver strategy. One of the five outcomes we set out in the strategy is to improve care leavers’
“access to education, training and employment”.
A number of new measures were announced in the strategy that are designed to turn that ambition into reality, including: a commitment to provide funding for a new approach to helping care leavers into education, employment and training by using social investments to fund “payment by results” contracts that reward providers only when care leavers achieve positive outcomes; and a pilot work placement programme to provide care leavers with opportunities to work in central Government Departments.
Care leavers have already been recruited to work in the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, a new member of my private office is a care leaver, and she has been a fantastic acquisition for the team. Through our new care leaver covenant, we are also encouraging organisations from across society to offer work opportunities to care leavers and to work specifically with FE and HE providers to set out a clear offer of support for care leavers studying in further and higher education.
Financial support is also already provided to care leavers in education. Where care leavers are in higher education, there is a duty on local authorities to provide a £2,000 bursary to help with the cost of studies and a requirement to provide accommodation during university holidays. Care leavers in further education can also receive financial support through the 16-to-19 bursary, for which care leavers are a priority group. The bursary provides up to £1,200 a year to support the cost of their studies. Through DWP’s second chance learning initiative, care leavers are able to claim benefits while studying full time up until the age of 21.
The Government also publish data on the activity of care leavers aged 17 to 21, which previously were not available. The data identify the proportion of care leavers at each age point who are in higher education, other non-advanced education, employment or training, and those who are NEET, which provides the information necessary to track progress over time and will be a key way of ensuring that we can tell whether our changes are having the desired impact.
Steve McCabe
The Minister is describing the various things that the Department is doing to try to improve the situation. Does he recognise that a problem that young people themselves regularly identify is the number of school changes they experience as a direct result of being received into care? The Barnardo’s study says that care leavers are saying that they have experienced five changes of school, which makes life difficult for them. Does he have any plans to encourage or persuade local authorities to seek to restrict those movements between schools, which is clearly impairing these young people’s education?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. About 11% of children in care still have three placements—that is placements, rather than schools—or more per year. We already have priority school admissions for children in care, so there is no excuse for their not getting the right school.
I want to ensure that as part of the fostering stocktake we are now undertaking, which is a fundamental review of how fostering is working, we also look at stability—an issue raised by Opposition Members—and, specifically, its impact on children’s ability to form close and strong attachments, to build a social network around themselves and to have a strong and stable education, so that they can achieve what they are capable of in that environment. Part of that will be being clearer about what local authorities can do better, so that they can enhance the prospects of creating the stability that we know is a core ingredient of successful time in care.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the direction of the fostering stocktake and at how we can better ingrain stability in decision making, particularly at the very start of when a child enters care. Often, that first decision on the school or placement has a consequential fall-out for the child or young person if turns out not to be the right one.
Amendment 27 would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a national minimum standard for the local offer for care leavers. Although I fully appreciate the intention behind the amendment, I should point out that there is already a set of statutory duties in the Children Act 1989 that defines a minimum level of support for care leavers. Under those provisions, local authorities must provide a personal adviser for care leavers until the age of 21, and the Bill extends that support to the age of 25.
Local authorities must develop a pathway plan for their care leavers and provide assistance, both in general and specifically, to support them with education, training and employment. Care leavers are also entitled to request support from an advocate. The local offer is designed to include care leavers’ legal entitlements and additional discretionary services and support that the local authority may offer, with the legal entitlements being the minimum offer that must be provided. Beyond that—the hon. Member for South Shields will have anticipated my saying this—producing a prescribed local offer runs the risk of stifling creativity and creating a race to the bottom.
The issue gets to the nub of where we part company on the right approach. A prescribed local offer would not take account of local needs or circumstances—we want the opposite to happen, with local authorities actively providing the best possible offer and tailoring that to their local situation. We have already seen, in the likes of North Somerset and Trafford, that one outstanding care leaving service is a key beacon of good practice. To that end, local authorities will be required to consult care leavers, as well as other persons or bodies who represent care leavers, before publishing their local offer. That will ensure the offer is informed by the views of those who will use the services set out, as well as those providing the services and supporting implementation.
The risk with minimum standards is that everyone does the minimum and no more. To ensure local authorities are encouraged and helped to go beyond the minimum standards required by the law, officials at the Department have developed a prototype local offer that sets out the kinds of things local authorities can consider when designing their local offer, rather than specifying exactly what it should include. A copy of that prototype was sent to Committee members, and the intention is to publish it.
That in part answers the questions from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about practice guidance or a template from which local authorities can start to craft their own local offer. I am happy to share the prototype with him if he does not have a copy. It gives a clear direction of the areas local authorities need to cover, as a baseline for the development of their own local offer, but it does not prevent them from ensuring they provide one that meets the specific needs of their own population.
Some hon. Members asked how the SEND local offer may be different. I should say at the start that I disagree with the characterisation of the impact of the local offer for special educational needs and disabilities. That came out of a very substantial process involving young people and parents to identify what they were looking for from the new system. That was during the heady days of the coalition, when Sarah Teather was in this position, so it has a lot of history behind it. I do not know whether that reassures the Committee but, be that as it may, over the last two years of implementation we have seen the SEND local offer starting to embed and develop. We now have inspections of the new SEND system by Ofsted and the CQC. One example is a 2016 report on Enfield, in which Ofsted and CQC found:
“The local offer is informative and very helpful to parents and young people. It includes a wide range of information to help them identify where to get support and how to access available services. Over the last six months, increasing numbers of people have used the local offer to gather information.”
Representatives from parent-carer forums and SEND organisations
“are actively engaged in further improvements such as improving the local offer and making it more accessible to users.”
Brian Lamb, author of the 2010 Lamb inquiry, looking at parent-carer forums as the formal conduit for parents’ engagement, reported that around two-thirds of those surveyed were fully engaged in general strategic planning or in developing the local offer and that that was leading to significant changes in local authority practice in some areas. I accept that the measure has yet to achieve the desired effect right across the country, but the roots have been planted and we are getting evidence from those inspections of the difference that it is making in the engagement between families and services.
Finally, I turn to new clause 16. It seeks to introduce a national offer for care leavers that would include reducing the length of benefit sanctions under universal credit; making care leavers eligible for working tax credit; extending the exemption from the shared accommodation rate of housing benefit up to the age of 25; and exempting care leavers under the age of 25 from paying council tax.
I am familiar with the issues raised under the national offer and have had a number of meetings with the Earl of Listowel, who raised this issue in the other place. I have also had detailed conversations with the Minister for Employment, and I understand the concerns that have been raised around benefit sanctions.
Just last week, jobcentre staff were reminded about the challenges that care leavers can face. An article was featured on the DWP intranet, available to all staff, explaining the specific circumstances that care leavers can face and reminding work coaches—the interface between care leavers and the benefits system—to take account of any relevant circumstances and flexibilities when deciding whether a sanction was appropriate. What happens at that moment between the work coach and the care leaver could make the difference between that young person progressing towards employment and a retrograde step: it being more difficult for them to gain employment because of how a sanction has been applied.
The article also tells staff about the ambitions we have for care leavers as set out in “Keep On Caring”, the refreshed cross-government care leaver strategy, and clearly lists all the DWP support available to care leavers. I thank the Minister for Employment for taking this action. We will continue to work together to reassure the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that we want to see what more we can do, so that the experience of the care leaver in that situation is much better.
At the heart of that is identification. If those who first see a care leaver coming into a jobcentre are blissfully unaware that they have come from the care system, inevitably, they will potentially miss taking a very different approach from the one they end up taking. Although we have a flagging system in the jobcentre computer network, it is based on self-identification. We want to do more work to see how we can ensure that, before a care leaver comes into contact with the benefits system, that is already flagged, so that we can get more consistency in the approach taken by jobcentres. Of course, we want to work towards no care leaver having to move straight into the benefits system. That is why the work to improve their opportunities for education and training and the expansion of the role of the personal adviser are all going to be important. However, these flexibilities can only be considered if Jobcentre Plus staff are made aware of a care leaver’s status in the first place. We will work hard to make sure that the situation improves on the ground.
On eligibility for working tax credit, I remind the Committee that we are currently rolling out universal credit—in case anyone had forgotten. That will replace the current system of means-tested working age benefits, including tax credits; it will replace tax credits for all new claims by October 2018. It is designed to simplify the benefit system and to provide in-work support and incentives to work for all claimants aged 18 or over. However, it is important to note that the requirement for workers to be aged 25 or over will not apply with universal credit. Care leavers aged 18 and over in low-paid work, who are currently unable to claim working tax credit, will be able to claim universal credit, subject to the normal rules on taking account of earnings. I have a case study, which I am happy to share outside the Committee, of a 19-year-old care leaver, which demonstrates the impact that will have. Those people will receive uplifts in the new system that they do not get in the system we have at present.
On the exemption from the shared accommodation rate, I have real sympathy with the hon. Lady’s arguments. I reassure her that this is something that we are looking at. As she said, we are exploring the evidence regarding the need for this change and have asked the Children’s Society to provide examples of how the current rules impact on care leavers, in the hope we can make some progress.
Kate Green
I want to return to what the Minister said about the different treatment, under universal credit, of care leavers under 25, compared with working tax credit. Can he say how many care leavers are currently in receipt of working tax credit? Presumably, as they come to adult age and as new claimants, they are predominantly being moved straight on to universal credit at the end of the benefits system. A small number may remain in the situation where they would be eligible only for working tax credit. Can the Minister say how quickly they can be migrated to universal credit?
Edward Timpson
I do not have those figures to hand. One of the issues I raised earlier is around identification and knowing who is accessing benefits and is also a care leaver. We need to improve that information, hence the additional data we are now collecting as a Department. That will give us a more granular understanding of who these young people are and how they have come into contact with the benefits system. I will write to the hon. Lady with more details about that, so she has as much information as we can give.
It is important we start to understand where this leads, what the destination inevitably is and what we could have done in the intervening period to make the direction in which a young person goes different. I am happy to give the hon. Lady further information about that.
Steve McCabe
This is a minor point on the same sort of area. As I understand universal credit, where that applies to the youth obligation, that obligation will be available to young people only in areas where universal credit is fully operational. In those circumstances, what will be the provision for youngsters leaving care? We could end up in a situation where youngsters leaving care in some parts of the country will be entitled to a different set of opportunities from those in areas where universal credit is fully operational. Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at that, or will he look at that and come back to us? It has not been presented quite like that, from my understanding.
Edward Timpson
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Any roll-out as wide and as significant as universal credit is going to have various knock-on effects, depending on what other initiatives fall off the back of those changes. I will take that away and talk to my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to see whether that has been factored in as part of the roll-out through to 2018.
I want to reiterate that care leavers cannot currently claim working tax credit. Anyone over 18 on universal credit will be able to claim in-work benefits. We want to ensure that care leavers are aware of that and that they get the necessary support that falls off the back of that change.
I turn to the issue of paying council tax. We believe, as a long-standing position, that local council tax support is and should be a matter for local authorities, hence the Government giving councils wide powers to design council tax support schemes that protect the most vulnerable. We know that authorities such as Birmingham and Wolverhampton have already taken the decision to exempt care leavers from council tax and I applaud them for doing so.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I will be brief in my closing comments. With regard to new clause 13, it appears that the Government are taking some steps in the correct direction with their “Keep On Caring” document. It looks like endeavours are in place to get some action on these long-standing issues, so I am happy not to press new clause 13. However, I would like to put the rest of my amendments to a vote.
With regard to amendment 27 and new clause 16, the fact remains that every care leaver deserves the same provision across the board. They deserve to know what that provision is and financial support is key to that. I acknowledge that the Minister has worked with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I have a strange feeling that the DWP perhaps does not share his sentiments or drive for these issues.
On amendment 26, on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, I do not feel that the Minister has addressed or acknowledged that those children are being treated differently from other children. Therefore, I would like to press those three to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 3, page 4, line 10, after “the” insert—
“physical and mental health, emotional well-being and”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, after “child” insert—
“, including their needs as a young parent where applicable,”.
Amendment 29, in clause 3, page 4, line 16, at end insert—
“(5A) The assessment of the former relevant child’s mental health and emotional well-being under subsection (5) must be carried out by a qualified mental health professional.”
Amendment 31, in clause 3, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(9) In this section “young parent” means—
(a) an expectant parent,
(b) a parent who has their child or children in care, or
(c) a parent who had a child removed to kinship care, local authority care, or adoption.”
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Wilson.
Amendment 28 would extend the duty on local authorities set out in clause 3 to include access to a mental health assessment for care leavers. When a care leaver requests support from their local authority and the local authority conducts an assessment of their needs, it must include an assessment of mental health and emotional wellbeing that is carried out by a qualified mental health professional. The corporate parenting principles set out in clause 1 make it clear that local authorities should promote the mental health and wellbeing of care leavers. Currently, there is huge amount of unmet need in the area due to squeezed budgets, high thresholds and the lack of relevant specialism in adult mental health services.
Tulip Siddiq
Is my hon. Friend aware that there are now 5,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were in 2010, and 1,500 fewer mental health beds? The amendment is more important than ever to ensure that mental health does not slip even further down the agenda.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I was not aware of those statistics. I knew the situation was dire, but I did not realise how bad it had actually become.
Young people leaving care are much more likely to have mental health problems than other young people: they are five times more likely to attempt suicide; many have suffered abuse or neglect before coming into care; and they may have moved around several placements, making it hard to form stable relationships with carers, professionals or even friends.
The Government have committed to piloting mental health assessments for children in care, but there was no mention of young people over 18 who have left care. We all know that turning 18 does not mean that people stop being vulnerable and stop needing support. In fact, mental health problems often manifest at the challenging time of transition into adulthood. At 18, young people can no longer access child and adolescent mental health services; they have to rely on adult services—but only if they are lucky enough not to slip through the net in transition. The reality is that if young people with mental health needs are not getting help, it is unlikely that they will be able to make the most of other opportunities such as education, training or employment, because mental health problems can have a debilitating effect on all other areas of their life.
On Second Reading in the House of Lords, Lord Nash acknowledged that:
“All the evidence shows that care leavers are among the most vulnerable young people in our society. Many are still struggling to overcome the impact of the trauma they faced in childhood and, in most cases, they are expected to make the transition into adulthood without the unconditional love and support of a family or close circle of friends. As a consequence, they are far more likely to end up NEET, more likely to experience homelessness or mental health issues, and more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. However, with good, stable care and a more personalised and supported transition into adulthood, those stark facts need not be the culmination of their time in and leaving care.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 112.]
Clearly the Government know what the problem is, yet they have still failed to provide a full solution.
If the mental health and emotional wellbeing of every child leaving care is not professionally assessed, how will we know whether they are ready to cope in the adult environment? We cannot just expect them to leave care and cope in a vacuum, without some appraisal of their wellbeing. We would not allow that for a physical problem so we should not allow it for a mental health one. We must put in place measures to prevent care leavers from falling off the cliff edge of care. Assessments would provide a basis for care leavers to address their future needs, albeit under a different system.
Given the vulnerability of the young people in question and the likelihood that they will face challenges relating to mental health or emotional wellbeing coupled with the difficulty of accessing those services, it would be good if the Minister took the opportunity to extend the duty in clause 3 to include mental health. Amendment 29 would extend the duty on local authorities to include access to a mental health assessment for care leavers; and it would ensure that if amendment 28 is agreed, the assessment will be carried out by a qualified mental health professional.
The Conservative-led Select Committee on Education rightly recommended that a dedicated mental health assessment by a qualified mental health professional be completed for all looked-after children, so healthcare professionals and local authorities have a solid and consistent foundation on which to plan the best care for a child. The recommendation was based on an extensive body of evidence from experts that clearly showed why more action and less talk are needed.
The Government’s response to the Select Committee report on mental health acknowledged the vulnerability of looked-after children and the need for timely and effective mental health diagnosis and treatment. The Chair of the Committee said of the Government’s response:
“We are pleased that the Government have set up an expert working group for looked-after children’s mental health and wellbeing; however, having conducted a lengthy and detailed inquiry on the issue, we are disappointed that so many of our recommendations have simply been referred to that group.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 496WH.]
I was similarly dismayed to observe that the Government’s response to the report deflected many answers to the new expert working group on the mental health of looked-after and care-leaving children. Although I make no criticism of the experts appointed to the group, both chairs of the expert panel had already submitted evidence to the Committee, so further consultation seems a somewhat unnecessary duplication. The consultation will serve only to cause further delays, meaning that more children will suffer unnecessarily.
Services are inconsistent across the country, and initial mental health assessments are highly variable. Many local authorities are not meeting their statutory requirements to ensure that all children are properly assessed even when they enter care, so it is important that we get the basics right. We can do so only with professional assessment as children enter and leave care.
It is astonishing that currently children entering care are asked to fill in strengths and difficulties questionnaires, from which it is decided by people who are most likely not medically trained whether the child qualifies for mental health intervention. Administration of the forms from local authority to local authority is patchy, with great variations in timeliness of completing the form. It is not uncommon for the questionnaire not to be completed at all. Only a trained mental health practitioner should be able to assess a patient’s needs; such needs cannot be determined simply from ticked boxes on a form.
It is not enough just to say that help is out there. There are difficulties with the availability of mental health provision for all children, including difficulties accessing and navigating the system. Accessing mental health care, asking for help and overcoming stigma are hard enough for any young person, even those with strong, supportive families; we must acknowledge that. A mental health assessment is one step in ensuring that children get the care and support they need for healing to take place and for them to be integrated into society and feel part of it. That is why they must be assessed on leaving care as well. The whole point is to ensure that care leavers are robust enough to leave care as independent adults who can go out and find work, start families and participate in society fully, like everyone else.
Amendments 30 and 31 strengthen support for care leavers who are also parents. Despite their extreme vulnerability, the particular needs and circumstances of young parents who are looked-after children or care leavers and whose own children are subject to child protection inquiries are not sufficiently identified, recognised or addressed in care planning regulations and guidance. These amendments seek to establish a duty on local authorities to ensure that advice, assistance and support are offered to all looked-after children and care leavers who are young parents. It will help ensure that important information is not overlooked when plans for such young people are made by expressly identifying critical sources of information which should be drawn upon in formulating plans to keep the young parent’s child safely in their care.
Kate Green
Some people leaving care do become young parents very quickly, but that is not always a recipe for problems for themselves or for their children—indeed, those young parents can be very enthusiastic and committed parents, determined to do the best for their child. However, many lack family support. Does my hon. Friend agree that they need help to be good parents, but also encouragement and family assistance of the kind that other parents perhaps draw from their own family members?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Many children who have left care go on to be fantastic parents, but those who need an extra bit of support should be recognised in the legislation. This amendment seeks to achieve that.
While the Government have suggested that existing statutory guidance makes some reference to young people who are young parents, we need to recognise and respond more robustly to the additional vulnerabilities of this group of care leavers in a way which is not presently provided for in primary or secondary legislation. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice in 2015 based on data provided by 93 local authorities revealed that 22% of female care leavers became teenage mothers. That is three times the national average. The same report identified that one in 10 care leavers aged 16 to 21 have had their own children taken into care. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable to early pregnancy, early parenthood and losing their child to the care system.
A recent research project carried out by Professor Broadhurst based on national records from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service between 2007 and 2014 examined cases relating to 43,541 birth mothers involved in care proceedings. The study estimated that around a quarter of these mothers who had a child subject to care proceedings will have sequential care proceedings about another of their children. The study found that young women aged 16 to 19 years were most at risk of experiencing repeat proceedings, with almost one in every three women in this age group estimated to reappear. Provisional results from the study’s further in-depth analysis of court files indicate that more than six out of 10 others who had children sequentially removed were teenagers when they had their first child. Of those mothers, 40% were in care or had been looked after in the care system for some of their own childhood.
Like most parents who are subject to the child protection system, young parents often feel lost, angry and scared. However, many of these young parents, particularly care leavers, also have multiple challenges. Some of them are alienated by prior negative experiences of state services in their childhood, making it difficult for them to engage with professionals. At times, this lack of parental co-operation can be a trigger for the issuing of care proceedings. Young parents often feel judged by their youth and background rather than by their parenting abilities. That is particularly the case for care leavers, who often feel that being in care itself counts as a negative against them. Previous childhood experiences including suffering abuse, mental health problems and exclusion from school may adversely impact on their resilience, their resources, their support networks and their ability to deal with both the challenges of transitioning to adulthood and being a parent. Young parents who are care leavers also identify that even where support has been provided to them in their capacity as young people leaving care, the support often ignores their role as parents or fails to assist them in safely raising and keeping their child.
As referred to in new clause 16, a national offer for care leavers would go some way to mitigate the financial challenges that care leavers face, which are only exacerbated when they become parents themselves. Our amendments would ensure that their needs as parents were fully taken into account.
Edward Timpson
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling amendments 28 to 31, which would provide that when a local authority assesses care leavers’ needs, they must take account of that young person’s requirements in relation to their physical and mental health, their emotional wellbeing and their needs as a young parent if that applies. Amendment 29 would require that any mental health assessment should be conducted by a qualified professional. I recognise that these issues are important, and that they could impact significantly on the lives of care leavers, whose health and wellbeing outcomes tend to be worse than for young people who have never been in care. The likelihood of care leavers becoming teenage parents is also much greater than for their peers, for the reasons set out by the hon. Lady in her speech.
There are, however, many other wider issues, such as health and development, education, training and employment, and financial and accommodation needs, which are also vital to care leavers’ transition to independent life and adulthood. All these issues— it would not be practical to list them all—are arguably of equal importance and will be different for every child, so I do not agree with giving some more weight than others. It is also unnecessary because these and other issues are already comprehensively covered in volume 3 of “The Children Act 1989 guidance and regulations”. The statutory guidance is clear that local authorities must produce for each care leaver a comprehensive pathway plan, which must be based on an up-to-date and thorough needs assessment taking into account how to support their health and development and their physical, emotional and mental health needs. I shall read a small extract from that guidance, which states that pathway plans must address the
“young person’s health and development building on the information included in the young person’s health plan established within their care plan when they were looked after”
and that personal advisers, who, under the clause, will cover all care leavers up to the age of 25,
“should work closely with doctors and nurses involved in health assessments and would benefit from training in how to promote both physical and mental health.”
I reiterate that the Government have established the expert group on the mental health of looked-after children and care leavers, and we have asked them to recommend the most appropriate way to deliver the care. The group have already met twice, and I have met them, and they are free to make recommendations during the period of their work. Their remit is substantial and wider than that which they had in relation to the Education Committee, albeit that that also had worth.
On the initial assessment when a child comes into care, it is not just a strengths and difficulties questionnaire, as regulations already require the responsible authority to ensure that all looked-after children have an initial health assessment by a registered medical practitioner, who should cover their emotional and mental health as well as their physical health needs. The reason we wanted the expert group to consider the matter is that there will be circumstances where it is not appropriate for a child coming into care to have a mental health assessment at that specific moment, either because they have suffered trauma at the moment of coming into care, or because they are a newborn baby, or because other elements in their circumstances might require it to be done in a more individually appropriate way. That will ensure that the right decisions are made about how to get to the bottom of what may be underlying issues due to pre-care experiences. We do not want to set a single process that restricts those who are charged with responsibilities to ensure that they take the appropriate action for that child.
Steve McCabe
I understand the Minister’s point about a relatively young child or a baby not necessarily having a mental health assessment, but who would make the decision whether it was appropriate for a child to have a mental health assessment? Would it be a qualified mental health practitioner who would have the ability to make that judgment, or would it be a member of the local authority, or a member of the residential home, or the social worker? There is clearly a temptation for people to say, “Well, it is not appropriate at the moment.” Given what we now know about the longer-term effect on the mental health of many of these children, who is the most appropriate person to make that judgment, and at what stage?
Edward Timpson
As I set out a few moments ago, the regulations make it clear that the health assessment is carried out by a registered medical practitioner.
Edward Timpson
The hon. Gentleman asked who makes the decision, and the regulations are clear about who carries out the assessment. He knows as well as I do that local authorities have a responsibility to triage cases according to the law and the regulations that apply. If he is suggesting that it should or should not be a certain person, I would be interested to hear his views.
Steve McCabe
That is not quite what I asked. It is all very well to say that, at the moment, a child coming into care has a regular health assessment, but the Minister then told us why it would not be appropriate at certain stages or certain ages for children to have a mental health assessment. He is making that judgment at the moment. I am asking who is entitled to make a judgment about a child’s mental health, given what we now know about the long-term consequences for many of these children.
Edward Timpson
I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the process is clearly set out in law. I am not making that judgment; I am reflecting on the evidence provided by others about the experience of children who are brought into the care system. The whole point of the expert group is to try to ensure that the care pathway that is created for each child coming into care will ensure that they get the right support based on the right diagnosis at the right time. We want to avoid ending up with a process at the inception of a child’s time in care that does not enable that pathway to be created in a way that meets their individual needs.
The hon. Member for South Shields spoke about the most vulnerable mothers who have had multiple children taken into care. As we know, that group includes a disproportionate number of care leavers. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Pause programme, which seeks to break the intergenerational cycle of care, which the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned. Pause has been operating in Hackney for some time and has now been extended to six other local authority areas, with funding from my Department’s innovation programme.
Last month, the Secretary of State announced funding to roll out the Pause programme in a further nine areas, bringing Government funding support to more than £6.4 million in the next four years. The programme works intensively with young women to prevent repeat pregnancies and the subsequent removal of their children into care. The initial findings are extremely encouraging and, by extending the programme, we want to reach out to more parts of the country so that more mothers who find themselves in that situation get the support they need so that they can make good life choices and have a future that is not just about turning up at court once every few years to fight for custody of their own child.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Notwithstanding the good work being done through the Pause programme, does the Minister accept that the work is rather piecemeal? It is not happening in every local authority. As I said earlier, we should be offering such services to everyone across the board, not just to some people who live in certain local authority areas. What happens when this innovation money runs out? Do we just go back to where we were?
Edward Timpson
I will answer that question in two parts. First, interested parties always ask for evidence when we try something new. Before we roll out a programme nationally, we want to be able to demonstrate that it will be effective in tackling the issue that it was set up to try to resolve.
Secondly, of course we want to ensure that we get uniformity right throughout the country, but the only way we can establish whether the care leaving services work well is by having a strong legal framework backed up by strong accountability. When services work well—we now have four or five councils with an outstanding care leaving service—we need to get better at spreading that good practice. The new What Works centre is going to be a good way of achieving that. We must ensure that we find out where local authorities are falling short. That may be in the transitional work they are doing on the care pathway that is put in place to plan for the young person’s future, including the need to secure their emotional and mental health needs.
I do not disagree with the hon. Member for South Shields about the concerns she has expressed, which is why we are trying to tackle the problem through the innovation programme and the extension of the role of the personal adviser, who has an important part to play in providing mentoring support and engaging young people in the services they need, pushing their elbows out on their behalf so that by the time they reach 25 they are in a much stronger emotional, mental, physical and financial state than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think the approach the hon. Lady is suggesting would help in the way that she would hope. For the reasons I have set out, the Government are taking this approach because we want to try to tackle the problem that we both acknowledge remains long-standing. We are determined to do more than ever to put it right.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The other part of my previous question was what happens in the areas we are discussing when the innovation money runs out? I am assuming that each programme is time-limited.
Edward Timpson
Every innovation programme, of which we have more than 50 throughout the country and in every region, is provided with funding for the duration of the programme only if it can show how it will be sustainable in the long term. That is done through an independent panel that makes decisions about which programmes should be supported and which should not. The panel will feed directly into the What Works centre so that other parts of the country can learn from projects that have already demonstrated a discernible impact in the area that they hoped to help through their initial proposal.
Take the example of North Yorkshire, where the No Wrong Door project to support care leavers has been hugely successful in improving support for care leavers. That model is now being shared and replicated—albeit crafted to meet individual need—based on the fact that it is showing benefits not only in North Yorkshire but in other parts of the country. The model is one of creating the evidence base, having the ability to spread best practice, and then ensuring that the sustainability proposed in the original programme is there. On that basis, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
If I withdrew the amendments, would the Minister consider updating some of the guidance on mental health assessments? In the pathway plans I have seen in the past they are not given the prominence they should have.
Tulip Siddiq
I echo the shadow Minister’s comments on pathways. In the past three years, the number of female teenagers who have been admitted to hospital with eating disorders has more than doubled. That is particularly relevant for female care leavers who suffer eating disorders such as bulimia, anorexia and binge eating. A lot of these disorders were not reflected in the past and were not at the forefront of the minds of the people assessing not only care leavers but teenagers in general, especially female teenagers. The Mental Health Foundation clearly labels eating disorders as mental health problems. Will the shadow Minister comment on the fact that when we make legislation and take into account society’s problems, we need to be aware that things are changing? Things that did not previously have the prominence they have now must be acknowledged by authorities, especially with the rise of social media—
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I will withdraw the amendment, but perhaps will return to the matter at a later date. However, I wish to press to a vote the amendments on recognising care-leaving parents, who have particular vulnerabilities. The Minister has not satisfied me that they are being provided for in a holistic way, as it seems to depend on which local authority area people live in. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 30, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, after “child” insert “, including their needs as a young parent where applicable,”—(Mrs Lewell-Buck.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Amendment 31 is consequential upon amendment 30, which has just been defeated. It follows that it will not be called for a separate Division.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Duty of local authority in relation to previously looked after children
Edward Timpson
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 4, page 5, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 6 and insert—
‘(6) In this section—
“relevant child” means—
(a) a child who was looked after by the local authority or another local authority in England or Wales but ceased to be so looked after as a result of—
(b) a child who appears to the local authority—’
This amendment, together with amendment 2, would extend the duty of a local authority under clause 4 (duty to provide information and advice for promoting educational achievement) to children who were adopted from state care outside England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 32, in clause 4, page 6, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) returning home to the care of a parent.”
This amendment, together with amendments 33 and 34, would ensure children returning home after a period in care are afforded the same promotion of their educational attainment as those children who have ceased to be in care as a result of adoption, special guardianship orders or child arrangements orders.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 33, in clause 5, page 6, line 36, at end insert—
“(d) returning home to the care of a parent.”
See explanatory statement for amendment 32.
Government amendments 4 to 6.
Amendment 34, in clause 6, page 7, line 46, at end insert—
“(c) was looked after by a local authority but has ceased to be so looked after as a result of returning home to the care of a parent.”
See explanatory statement for amendment 32.
Government amendments 7 and 8.
Edward Timpson
Government amendments 1 to 8 would extend the remit of clauses 4 to 6 to include children adopted from the equivalent of state care in countries outside England and Wales. Clause 4 requires local authorities, through the virtual school head, to make advice and information available to parents and designated teachers in maintained schools and academies, for the purpose of promoting the educational achievement of children who ceased to be looked after by the local authority as a result of a permanence order. Clauses 5 and 6 place a duty on maintained schools and academies to appoint a designated teacher to promote the educational achievement of pupils. These amendments will extend these entitlements to children from other countries who are now in education in England and who were adopted from a form of care equivalent to being looked after by a local authority in England and Wales.
While it remains the Government’s top priority to continue to focus on support for children who are looked after by our care system, we understand that children adopted from similar circumstances in other countries are likely to face many of the same issues. In addition, they are living in a new country with a different culture and so they, too, are vulnerable. The Government acknowledged this earlier this year, when we opened up the Adoption Support Fund to these children and their families, giving them access to much-needed therapeutic services. So far there have been 40 applications to the fund from this group. The amendments acknowledge that, like children adopted in this country, children adopted overseas will often be coping with the emotional impact of trauma suffered in their early lives and that that can act as a barrier to their progress at school.
We know that there is an attainment gap for previously looked-after children in this country. It is, therefore, reasonable to deduce that that might also be the case for children adopted from elsewhere. There is, of course, much variation between the care systems in other countries so it is important that we ensure as much parity as possible with the eligibility criteria for children in this country who are eligible for the entitlements in clauses 4 to 6. I believe the amendments achieve just that.
A child who is cared for by a public authority, a religious organisation or charitable type of organisation before being adopted will now be able to access this support in school. The Government will set out in statutory guidance more detail on eligibility and the process for confirming such eligibility, so I hope hon. Members will support the amendments.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields for amendments 32 to 34, which would extend the duty of the virtual school head and designated teacher to promote the educational achievement of children who cease to be looked after because they returned home to the care of their birth parent or parents. I agree that children taken into care who later return to their birth parent or parents may also be vulnerable and need extra support in education. Many come from disadvantaged backgrounds and it is important that they and their families are given the support that they need.
Where a child ceases to be looked after because they return home, a child will be a child in need and a plan must be drawn up to identify the support and services that will be needed by the child and family to ensure that the return home is successful. That should take into account the child’s needs, the parenting capacity of those with parental responsibility and the wider context of family and environmental factors reflecting the child’s changed status. That would include how the parents can support the child to attend and do well at school and the virtual school head would be involved in those transitional arrangements.
Like other children who are disadvantaged, these children’s needs should be met by mainstream education services. Many will be eligible for additional educational entitlement such as free early education from the age of two and the pupil premium, which provides extra help and support through additional funding for early years settings and schools. Most importantly, these children will continue to have their birth parent or parents who, with the encouragement of schools, should play a full part in their child’s education.
Children who are looked after who cannot return to their birth parents face very different challenges. They are among the most vulnerable in our society because of the neglect and abuse suffered in their early years but also because they have to build new relationships and attachments with new carers. Leaving care through, for example, adoption means children have to start again to begin a new life with new parents or carers. We owe it to the child and the child’s new parents or carers to continue to provide support, whether in education by retaining access to the virtual school head or in other areas to give them the best chance of building a new life that is happy and fulfilling.
We must take care not to dilute the virtual school head’s role as the corporate parent for looked-after children in education to the extent that they are spread so thinly that they have little impact. Virtual school heads want to build their capacity to ensure that they can do justice to their role and ensure that every child under their wing gets the support they need through the pupil premium plus and the work of the virtual school head. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Lady will not press her amendments.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I welcome the Government amendments—something I hope to do again during the passage of the Bill. We welcome the fact that, when the Government see that the Bill is incomplete or that there are obvious or indefensible omissions, they take necessary steps to rectify them, and we will always support them in that. I hope that we will be able to support the Government at other points during the passage of the Bill.
Extending the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 to apply to children who were previously in state care outside England and Wales is a welcome move. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that all children, whatever their background, who either need or are leaving care deserve the best opportunities available. Ensuring that those who were previously in care in other countries will receive some of the support outlined in the Bill is a good first step towards ensuring that all looked-after and previously looked-after children get the care that they need. I am sure that the Minister has seen that colleagues and I tabled a number of amendments to the Bill based on those principles, including amendments that would ensure that services provided were in keeping with the UN convention on the rights of the child, and that unaccompanied refugee children were given the support that they need.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 4 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
Accelerated Access Review
(7 years, 4 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
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the implications of the Accelerated Access Review for cystic fibrosis and other conditions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I start by thanking three Dudley residents—Carly Jeavons, Samantha Carrier, and Samantha’s fiancé Rob Evans—for contacting me about accessing new treatments, and for what they have taught me about cystic fibrosis. I also thank Ed Owen, the brilliant former chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Darren O’Keefe and all of the staff at the trust for all their help and advice in organising the debate. Finally, I thank all of the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the trouble to come here today to speak up on behalf of their constituents who have cystic fibrosis and other long-term conditions.
Just over a year ago, I was contacted by Carly about her work with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to push for new treatments, such as Orkambi, to be offered on the NHS. She has continued to campaign, and I had the pleasure of joining her, her father Robert and her son Corey to deliver a 15,000-name petition to Downing Street earlier this year. Carly said to me:
“Before, I was always exhausted, I couldn’t work the hours I was contracted to and I had a little boy, Corey, to look after. I couldn’t do everything I needed to do and keep on top of my health, but this drug has given me some control back. I can now do everyday things and walk to the park with my five-year-old, which I could never do before. I personally feel like I have got better and better the longer I have been on it. I have a new way of living.”
Thanks to a clinical trial of Orkambi, Carly now needs to visit a cystic fibrosis clinic less than half as frequently as she used to. That allows her to carry on working, to go on holiday with her family and to do the things that the rest of us take for granted. She continues to benefit from Orkambi, but only thanks to a compassionate use scheme offered by the drugs manufacturer, Vertex. She and other users of Orkambi need the certainty that they will be able to benefit from the drug well into the future with NHS support, which is why we are here today.
I also thank Samantha Carrier, another Dudley resident, who is campaigning to raise awareness and raise funding after her young daughter, Daisy, was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Samantha has seen the difference that drugs such as Orkambi can make, and she wants her own daughter to have access to them as soon as possible, so that she can live as full a life as possible. She has told me about the hours of care and support that her daughter needs every day—which makes work so much more difficult for many parents of children with cystic fibrosis.
Samantha said to me:
“I am not ashamed to say I didn’t know how to cope with it all. But one day you wake up and you realise ‘This is it now’. All we can do as a family is try to do our best by her and give her the best life we can.”
I have been very moved by Carly, Samantha and Rob’s determination for something positive to come out of these diagnoses. I think their fundraising and campaigning for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust is nothing short of inspirational.
Personalised medicines can transform life for people with cystic fibrosis and a range of diseases, including muscular dystrophy and Alzheimer’s, but without a process for appraising these medicines that is fit for purpose, patients are unable to access these innovative medicines. That is why we called for today’s debate.
Cystic fibrosis is a life-shortening inherited disease that affects more than 10,000 people in the UK. It causes the lungs and digestive system to become clogged with mucus, making it hard to breathe and digest food. The damage that cystic fibrosis causes to the lungs means that many people eventually need a lung transplant. There is no cure for cystic fibrosis but many treatments are available to manage it, including physiotherapy, exercise and nutrition. The median survival age is just 28. What people like Carly, Sam and countless other families across the country need to hear today is the hope that a way forward can be found that will bring an end to an agonising and unnecessary wait that has gone on for well over a year now.
Orkambi was licensed in November 2015. It is a first-of-a-kind personalised medicine that treats the cause, not just the symptoms, of those with a particular mutation of the genetic defect that causes cystic fibrosis. Around half of the people with cystic fibrosis in England stand to benefit. Personalised medicines offer a revolution in cystic fibrosis care. People in countries such as France, Germany and America who have been on the drug for some time are beginning to report total transformations in their health, with some improving enough to come off the lung transplant waiting list—on which one in three people with cystic fibrosis die. Clinicians in England are desperate to prescribe Orkambi. Those who are prescribing it, on compassionate grounds, report that the drug, which halves hospital admissions—that lasts for months—for people with cystic fibrosis, could help ease the severe and worsening shortage of beds on cystic fibrosis wards.
I stood in this Chamber a year ago to raise concerns that the appraisal process for Orkambi was not suited to an innovation of this kind. The existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal system makes decisions on the efficacy of a drug based on 24 weeks of clinical trials data, but fails to take into account the long-term benefit to sufferers’ quality and length of life. The focus on measuring the benefits of a treatment in terms of quality-adjusted life years does not work for genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, because it massively underestimates the impact that the drugs have on quality of life over the long term. It also fails to take account of the wider benefits for society of these medicines, such as the way that they can help sufferers or their carers get into work. In short, the existing system cannot provide an accurate assessment of new treatments that offer long-term, preventive stabilisation of cystic fibrosis.
I highlighted that, due to those concerns, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust was proposing an innovative solution under which real-world, long-term data could be gathered using the UK cystic fibrosis registry. The registry already provides real-world data to health commissioners and pharmaceutical companies, so that they can monitor the efficacy of treatments.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important point. I congratulate him on securing this debate, which will give hope to the many people out there who suffer with cystic fibrosis. Is he aware of new 96-week data that have recently been published that show that Orkambi slows decline in lung function by around 42%? Those data were not available to NICE when it made its appraisal. Do those data alone not make the case for a further accelerated review process on this absolutely compelling?
Ian Austin
My right hon. Friend is completely right; he raises a point I will make shortly. It is good that he is here to support people with cystic fibrosis in his constituency, and to bring his knowledge and experience of the national health service to bear in the debate.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust’s proposal would provide foundations for a managed access scheme for the drug. That was in line with the interim findings of the accelerated access review, which recommended the merits of such an approach and referred to the UK cystic fibrosis registry as an exemplar. I will say more about the accelerated access review in a few moments.
As expected, seven months later NICE referred to a lack of long-term data in rejecting Orkambi for use in the NHS. That was despite Orkambi’s being proven to halve hospitalisations and NICE’s recognising it as a
“valuable new therapy for managing cystic fibrosis”
with significant clinical benefits, as well as
“wider benefits to society for people with cystic fibrosis and carers of people with cystic fibrosis.”
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He correctly points out that this is not just about the way in which Orkambi improves quality of life, which I know is extremely important, but about cutting hospital admissions. That has to be taken into account when we look at the wider cost implications of the drug. What we need is time for the drug to be given the chance to prove its worth.
Ian Austin
The hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that Orkambi could reduce hospital admissions, and could shorten the amount of time people spend in hospital when they have been admitted.
In its statement, NICE referred directly to the trust’s proposal as a potential solution to the shortage of long-term data. With the NICE process exhausted and seven months wasted, we hoped that the way would be clear for direct negotiations between the drug manufacturer Vertex and NHS England, which would allow for a speedy resolution to the situation. However, Department of Health officials then demanded that the drug be put through a rapid review process, which, at 16 weeks, is anything but.That process is based on exactly the same criteria that had just seen Orkambi denied to those who need it. Vertex has declined to enter the process, because of the certainty that it will come to nothing.
New data published in October at the North American cystic fibrosis conference, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned, are based on 96 weeks of trials and show that Orkambi slows the decline in lung health by up to 42%. That is comparable with the 47% slow in decline caused by the transformational treatment Kalydeco, which is widely available in the UK for a less common mutation of cystic fibrosis. Those data were unavailable to NICE but clearly illustrate that drugs such as Orkambi need the chance to prove their worth in the long term. That also underlines the fact that we now have a situation where people with cystic fibrosis face discrimination by genotype, because they are being denied the same level of treatment that people with a different genetic mutation of cystic fibrosis receive.
Twelve months after licensing, negotiations are at a standstill. I understand that Vertex is keen to offer a substantial discount, but for commercial reasons would need to do so confidentially. It would like to take up the trust’s offer of monitoring the effectiveness of Orkambi for a trial period. That could build on the American data and allow NHS England to conduct final negotiations based on an accurate reflection of the drug’s effectiveness.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for securing such an important debate. One of the beauties of cystic fibrosis data is that they capture 99% of all people with the disease, so could truly be used as an exemplar. The accelerated access review calls for accurate monitoring via data, and this offers an ideal chance to do that.
Ian Austin
The hon. Lady is completely correct. It is good that she is here in the Chamber, making these important points.
Vertex is also keen to explore flexible reimbursement schemes, which would allow the NHS to manage the overall budget impact of the treatment. However, the inflexible current system insists that any offer has to be made public, rejects the trust’s solutions and offers no scope for flexible reimbursement schemes. That brings me to the accelerated access review, which was commissioned to speed up access to innovative new drugs and treatments such as Orkambi. The review was finally published in October, after a long delay, and recommends that NICE reviews its processes. It calls directly for the current system to change, to include more emphasis on the confidential commercial arrangements, flexible reimbursement arrangements and collection of real-world data that I and other Members have referred to. Those recommendations could be the key to reaching a deal that delivers Orkambi to those desperate to receive it.
When the review was commissioned last year by the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), he spoke of how accelerating the uptake of transformational technologies in the 21st century would attract investment in research and innovation to help us earn the prosperity we need as an advanced economy. When the review was published in October, NHS England’s chief executive, Simon Stevens, said that creating headroom for faster and wider uptake of important new patient treatments would create opportunities for the UK’s globally successful life sciences sector. The failure to deliver Orkambi undermines that vision.
We have a rigid and inflexible system, and warnings that it is not fit for purpose have been ignored throughout the process. Instead of embracing the opportunity for an innovative solution, we have been offered further negotiations based on criteria that have already failed once. That is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money and sends completely the wrong signal to a global life sciences industry currently questioning future investments here in the UK. Hugh Taylor, the review’s chair, set out the need for commitment and collaboration across Government, the NHS and the life sciences industry to make the review’s proposals a reality.
The review sets out criteria for transformational treatments that should be fast-tracked for access. Orkambi meets those criteria. It presents the perfect opportunity to put many of the review’s proposals to the test, to illustrate the commitment and collaboration needed and to demonstrate how we can come together and adapt in the light of new information. It is predicted that 95% of people with cystic fibrosis could benefit from a personalised medicine within five years. Coming up with a solution for Orkambi—one that makes sense to the NHS as well as reflecting the investment that goes into these treatments—will give us a genuine opportunity to beat this condition.
I am sure people will benefit from the review’s proposals in the years to come, but that must not be at the cost of Orkambi, which is available now. Many people with cystic fibrosis, as well as their families and carers, such as my constituents Carly Jeavons and Samantha Carrier, are watching this debate. Many of them are forced to spend weeks and months of each year in hospital, and most of all they want a chance to be able to do the everyday things we all take for granted, such as raising a family, planning a holiday or breathing without struggling. They have already endured needless delays, and as time goes on those delays present an obstacle to investment in future treatments to beat cystic fibrosis. That is not the vision set out by the accelerated access review.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Muscular Dystrophy UK is calling, among other things, for ring-fenced, protected funding for rare diseases. That was not included in the review to which my hon. Friend refers. Does he feel that that possibility should at least be considered as a way forward at some point?
Ian Austin
That is a really good point, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised it. I am sure the Minister will want to respond to that.
Tragically, we have to face the fact that many people are dying now. They do not have time to wait for the Government to respond to the review or for NICE to enter a lengthy consultation on its processes. They want to see the Government get on with exploring how Orkambi can reach those who need it without delay. If the Government create the conditions for constructive negotiations, the manufacturers will play their part, just as the Government themselves need to be flexible in order to deliver transformational treatments such as Orkambi.
I would like to ask the Minister the following questions. Does he think it is right that people in this country are considering moving to France or Germany in order to save their children’s lives by giving them Orkambi, which is now proven to halt the progression of their children’s decline? What does that say about a Britain trying to project its place as being at the cutting edge of the life sciences sector? Will the Minister provide assurances to people watching today that the Government are listening, and that everything possible will be done to explore progressing the negotiations on Orkambi in 2017? Will he reassure them that we are capable of finding a solution next year that will bring an end to this cruel and unnecessary wait?
Will the Minister seek guidance from Government, NICE and NHS England on how the recommendations in the accelerated access review can be used to break the deadlock in negotiations? Will he meet Vertex and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to discuss that? Samantha Carrier points out that in the 1970s, the life expectancy of cystic fibrosis sufferers was only five years old. Thankfully, that has increased greatly, but the rules for free prescriptions have not moved. When people become 18, they have to pay for their medication, despite the fact that they need these drugs to stay alive. Will the Minister look at that issue?
This is exactly how Parliament and politics in our country should work. It is our job to listen to our constituents and come here to stand up and speak out on their behalf. People like Carly Jeavons struggle to work or spend time with their family and do other things that the rest of us take for granted because they have to undergo hours and hours of treatment. New treatments have helped Carly, but others are missing out on these new drugs at the moment. People like Sam and Rob are having to come to terms with what this condition means for their newborn child, at the same time as having to care for her. All three of them—Sam, Rob and Carly—are devoting hours to raising funds or campaigning for better treatments for people with cystic fibrosis. They are an inspiration to us all; will the Minister meet Carly Jeavons, Samantha Carrier and Rob Evans and listen to them directly?
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Six Members have made written requests to speak. Our plan, under the guidelines, is to bring in the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.30 am, so we have little time left. If speakers and anyone making interventions are very succinct, we will get in as many Members as possible in this important debate.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The accelerated access review is important because it is designed
“to speed up and simplify the process for getting the most promising new treatments and diagnostics safely…to patients.”
That is good news for all Members of Parliament who have in their constituencies people who need access to innovative treatments. Sir John Bell states that the review
“addresses one of the most important issues the National Health Service is confronting; how best to access innovation for the benefit of patients and to improve health care efficiency.”
It should therefore be welcomed and receive support from both the Government and the NHS.
The report has the dual intentions of improving NHS productivity through better use of technology and of promoting the UK as a destination for life sciences. It is clear about the areas that need to be addressed: horizon scanning, data collection, regulatory decision making, clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment and commercial decision and uptake support.
I shall focus briefly on the data collection element of the report because that is what will enable treatments to come forward and help patients. The accelerated access review sets out a mechanism for collecting data on “strategically important medical technologies”. There is a clear need to collect data on technologies and their impact on the healthcare system. The review suggests that one approach should be a “commissioning through evaluation” system, whereby
“complex medical technologies or diagnostic products that significantly change clinical pathways are rolled out in a number of specialist providers who are well-placed to collect impact data and build expertise around pathway change. Following this period, should the technology prove its value after assessment by NICE, it should enter routine commissioning and benefit from supported uptake”.
In a recent debate that I secured on diabetes, I referred to commissioning through evaluation because I fully support the intent of that objective and believe that collecting data in that manner is an effective means of developing real-world data to support the uptake and use of modern treatments across the NHS. That type of evidence development is currently under way in the NHS, and I would like to look at one current commissioning through evaluation programme, which has been in operation since 2013. The programme launched for several technologies, covering a range of conditions. It included procedures to prevent strokes, improve the mobility of children with cerebral palsy, help patients with heart failure and improve radiotherapy for lung and liver cancer. I recognise that this debate is about cystic fibrosis in particular, but I am trying to make the point that as we collect data and bring forward the treatments, we need to ensure that they get to the people who most need them, including those whom we are talking about today.
The programme to which I have referred was structured in two phases. First was the evidence development phase, in which patients would receive the treatments and data would be collected. Second was the evidence assessment phase, in which data would be analysed and a routine commissioning policy developed. We have now reached the point in the process at which the number of procedures originally commissioned has been reached and patients will no longer be given the procedures until a formal commissioning decision has been made.
However, in answer to a parliamentary question in July, the Department of Health said it would take between one and two years to carry out the analysis. Recently, NHS England has stated that formal commissioning policies will not be in place until 2019. Those patients who would benefit from the procedures face the prospect of a two-year wait.
If we focus on just one procedure, we can see the impact that that will have on patients. Selective dorsal rhizotomy is a procedure that supports children with cerebral palsy to have increased mobility in later life. There is a narrow window in a child’s development in which they can receive the treatment. A two-year gap in commissioning will mean that some children never benefit from the procedure.
This debate was initiated by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), whom I thank for giving me the opportunity to speak. Its title on the Order Paper is “Implications of the Accelerated Access Review for cystic fibrosis and other conditions”. I have referred to other conditions, but I want to finish my speech by reading out a letter from a constituent, Christine Edwards, relating to cystic fibrosis. I need add nothing to what she writes:
“Dear Mr Thomas…My niece’s boyfriend, Taylor, has cystic fibrosis. He is a lovely young man and I think it is tragic that his life expectancy is so short. At the moment he is doing pretty well and his health is strong enough to support him going off to University…he did so this year.
The reality is though he can expect his health to decline and with it, his quality of life. Drugs like Orkambi offer such tremendous hope as slowing lung health decline not only offers him the potential to increase his life span directly but also allow him more opportunity to benefit from future treatment development.”
Christine Edwards also writes:
“The 2,700 people with cystic fibrosis in England desperate to access Orkambi do not have the time to wait for the development of a Strategic Commercial Unit to consider a wide range of commercial arrangements. Nor do they have the time to wait for NICE and NHS England to consult on their processes.”
That letter sums up why the Government must intervene and accelerate access to these transforming medical treatments. As Mrs Edwards states, patients cannot wait.
I therefore call on my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene and ask NHS England to give patients access to these innovations by ensuring a rapid and transparent decision-making process for all the innovative treatments currently undergoing commissioning through evaluation. That process should be supported by examining all available evidence and delaying while a small sample of data is analysed. I also call on the Minister to ensure patient access throughout the assessment phase by continuing to fund the procedures until a routine commissioning policy is in place, and to look at the operation of the system in the future and ensure that the design of any programme delivers continued patient access from the start of the programme through to a routine commissioning policy being in place. Finally, I call on the Minister—this is extremely important and will help large numbers of patients with cystic fibrosis and other conditions—to support wider stakeholder input into the system from those who have experience. That would include working with patient groups and industry representatives and would ensure that the NHS had the most accurate information.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for securing this very important debate.
The recommendations in the accelerated access review have been a cause of hope for many families throughout the UK. I welcome those recommendations and hope that the Minister today will reiterate the Government’s commitment to their implementation. I hope that he will also give consideration to a number of possible areas of clarification that I and, I am sure, other hon. Members will raise. However, the priority is to secure the most advanced and best medicine and technology for patients much more quickly than at present. Early access to new drugs can enhance and extend lives. It is vital not only that the UK keeps pace with other countries in approving new treatments, but that there is a consistent standard within the UK. I recognise that today’s debate focuses on NHS England, but I hope that a strong precedent is set for patients in Northern Ireland.
A few days ago, I received a letter from a constituent who feels that there is now hope. She has a four-year-old child with cystic fibrosis, which affects many of the organs in his body. She says that his life expectancy is 37, but it would be much better if there were access to Orkambi, that necessary drug. There was sadness on her part that NICE did not see fit to license the drug because of cost and a lack of necessary data. I hope that a change can take place to enable the drug to be made available.
Time limits mean that I cannot touch on every condition relevant to the accelerated access review, so I echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North and will focus on another condition to which the review relates and which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—muscular dystrophy. The effects of that condition are also progressive and can range from mild to severe disability. There is a serious impact on the lives of those with the condition and their families. Sadly, it can also result in premature death, typically in childhood or early adulthood. Accelerating access to new and effective medicines and treatments is clearly vital for those affected by muscle-wasting conditions.
The recommendations around faster assessments by NICE, the flexible approval arrangement and enabling NHS England to negotiate price and flexible commercial deals at the early stages have been welcomed by Muscular Dystrophy UK. The charity has also pressed for funding to be attached to the early access to medicines scheme, so I was pleased to see its inclusion in the recommendations. However, I would draw the Minister’s attention to one recommendation in particular that I ask him to consider carefully. The accelerated access review has recommended a transformation designation and an accelerated pathway for some drugs. For some conditions that is wholly the right approach; however, in the case of muscular dystrophy the aim is to slow down muscle wastage as opposed to transforming or stopping the progression of the disease, and the medicines for muscular dystrophy are therefore incremental. I am sure that the disadvantage of incremental drugs is by no means the aim here, so I ask the Minister to take account of that and to ensure that treatments and medicines for muscular dystrophy are not overlooked.
Finally, Sir Alan, we are talking about treatments that can prolong a child’s ability to walk and to live, having profound effects on their quality of life and that of their family and carers. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on this issue, and to an acceleration by NICE of the licensing of the drug Orkambi for cystic fibrosis sufferers.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in today’s debate and join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on securing it. I join him in congratulating the Cystic Fibrosis Trust on its work, as well as other cystic fibrosis organisations and charities across the rest of the UK on theirs. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, I take a particular interest in this subject and in particular how the approach taken by NICE when deciding on funding for drugs is unsuitable for drugs aimed at rare or genetic conditions.
As other Members have said, Orkambi is a particularly interesting development and is part of a new wave of gene-specific precision medicine. It tackles the underlying causes of cystic fibrosis—in this case, the defective CFTR gene—rather than simply treating the symptoms. We should be embracing this new technology and creating appropriate ways for these drugs to be approved and funded, so as not to discriminate against those with a rare or genetic disease. There may be fewer people who suffer from a rare or genetic condition, but I urge the Minister to do all he can to improve their chances. I know that he is a passionate advocate for that particular case.
The NICE process of recommendation understandably relies on data to commission the use of drugs on the NHS. However, the process is currently very rigid, which works against new, often life-changing drugs that only have trial data as evidence. That is exactly what happened with Orkambi, which only had data from a 24-week clinical trial when making its application—similar to a range of other drugs available on the market at the moment—yet evidence shows that it brings significant clinical benefits, as well as wider benefits to society, for people with cystic fibrosis and their carers.
It is not just the lack of available data that discriminates against drugs aimed at genetic and rare conditions. The NICE single technology appraisal process does not adequately reflect the potential benefits of the medicine in protecting future health deterioration or the wider holistic and societal benefits. Its thresholds for cost-effectiveness also work against those with a rare disease. Fundamentally, the diseases are rare by nature and therefore there are only a small number of eligible patients. That should not be a barrier, and we all agree that we need a system that can help those patients.
In short, the accelerated access review, which was brought about after the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), potentially holds the answers to the problems that currently beset the NICE system. It recognises that the innovative nature of new medicines means that they are unlikely to be approved through the current methods and proposes new guidelines. The new approach will help to ensure that the UK sets itself up as the best possible place to develop new drugs and, I hope, for Orkambi. The Minister might not be able to give me the answer now, but I would like him to write to me on the predicted result of the reduction of the drug spend through NHS England—as we recently heard in a series of evidence sessions held by the APPG for rare diseases—from 7% to about 3.5%, and on how the accelerated access review budget will be increased to compensate.
The Government are set to respond to the recommendations shortly. I hope that their proposal will benefit drugs such as Orkambi that are at the forefront of life science innovation because they treat the underlying causes of the disease, not just the symptoms, thus resulting in a lifetime of health and wellbeing benefits and savings.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on the development of these drugs. My concern is not just that patients are denied access to life-changing drugs, but that our pharmaceutical industry finds this a frustrating country in which to develop new drugs and to ensure that they are available to people such as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin).
Ben Howlett
The right hon. Lady is quite right that pharmaceutical companies, in the rare diseases space in particular, find this country a very frustrating place to come to. The message that we are going to support the industry to bring drugs to market here is not loud and clear, and there have been a range of delays and process errors. I know that the Minister and previous Ministers have tried to address this issue, but it has been a very slow, difficult and arduous process, because the message has not been heard loudly and clearly enough.
The difficulty that Orkambi is currently facing in getting funded perfectly displays the problems faced by many other innovative drugs that aim to treat rare or genetic diseases. As chair of the APPG, I get contacted by many people across the country who are desperate to see potentially life-changing drugs approved by NICE. There is a clear deficiency in the process for this type of drug, so I hope that the Minister can today announce a pilot process to show that the UK is committed to leading in this field and providing hope for all those sufferers of rare and genetic diseases.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Before we proceed, I say to Members that we are running very close to the line now. A number of Members have taken the trouble to write in and I need to try to call them all, so I ask each Member to restrict whatever they bring up to a maximum of five minutes, or hopefully less.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on bringing it forward. One of the major issues that I seek to raise with Government, as the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, is the treatment of rare diseases and cancers.
Cystic fibrosis is a most debilitating life-limiting disease. It is believed that one in every 2,500 babies in the UK is born with cystic fibrosis. It is a disease that affects too many households in our nation and as such one that we must address to the fullest degree and in the best way possible. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on cystic fibrosis, I have a great interest in this work and noted, with a small amount of hope, what was being labelled as a wonder drug—Orkambi, which was touted as having significantly reduced hospital admissions and slowing the decline in lung function in people with the genetic mutations that it targets. However, we all know that this year NICE was unable to recommend Orkambi, despite acknowledging the drug as an effective treatment for the management of cystic fibrosis. Since then, negotiations between the manufacturer Vertex, the Government and NHS England have reached a deadlock. Orkambi is a precision medicine that treats the underlying genetic cause of cystic fibrosis rather than just the symptoms, and is therefore very important.
Like the hon. Member for Dudley North and others, I would like to quote people from my constituency and from Northern Ireland—one is from my constituency and one is not. I was emailed by a man from Castlederg, the hometown of my mother’s family, regarding the failure of the NHS and NICE to recommend this drug for the prescription list. Although I had read much about the drug, the human aspect was made so clear in his letter:
“With the power to lift so many of the limits cystic fibrosis can place on people with the condition, it’s vital that access is granted without delay.”
I believe that many of us in this Chamber are here to highlight and draw attention to the plight of our constituents who are crying out for the hope that this drug could bring—the difference of quality years of life for someone suffering from cystic fibrosis. My friend from Castlederg also wrote about this example of a young lady who quite clearly needs help:
“I have first hand knowledge of this drug Orkambi because my daughter Rachel who suffers from cystic fibrosis has been on it for over three years now. Rachel took part in clinical trials for two and a half years and it has transformed her life. Her lung functions have risen by 19%”.
These are more than stats—this is about her life and how Orkambi has changed it.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
A constituent of mine, Charlene Barr, passed away at the age of 20, just days before she was due to visit this House to campaign for cystic fibrosis drugs. I ask the House to pay tribute to her and her family for the fantastic work they do in Northern Ireland to raise awareness of this issue and of cystic fibrosis.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend has put his constituent’s name in Hansard as part of this debate, and I believe that is a fitting tribute to her.
My friend from Castlederg also wrote of Rachel:
“Her lung functions have risen by 19%, she has gained a stone in weight and has had very little coughs or colds in this period of time. In CF terms this is massive.”
He said that Rachel was 25 years of age last January and that she
“is currently doing a PhD at University and Orkambi has really given her so much energy and strength to be able to carry out such a big undertaking. Rachel has been very fortunate as Vertex have kept her on Orkambi after the trials because I suppose it would be bad looking on their part if they took her off it...I think that its only right that people that are eligible for this drug should be given the chance to receive it and to prolong their lives for many, many years and maybe even save their lives. The problem is that NICE have told the NHS that it’s too expensive at around £104,000 per year. What price do you put on a person’s life?”
I understand the way things work and I understand well the arguments regarding the likes of pancreatic cancer drugs that could add an extra year to someone’s life versus more money for the research to find a cure, but this drug could make a life such as Rachel’s much better and could help her. The new 96-week data published recently show that Orkambi slows decline in lung function, which is the main cause of death among people with cystic fibrosis, by 42%. The data were unavailable to the NHS, as others have said, but they are available now. We look to the Minister to ensure that the opportunity is available for people to have Orkambi. People who are on Orkambi through the compassionate use programme are beginning to report total transformations in their health, including enough improvement to come off the lung transplant list.
I understand the time restrictions, but I will give one more example. So many people have contacted me, including Martin Keefe, whose beautiful granddaughter, Evie-May, was diagnosed with CF at three weeks old. She is now seven years old. Surely this is the time to begin this treatment, so that she has less irreversible lung damage and can look forward to a longer, healthier life. To be clear, I am not a scientist, a doctor or a researcher, but as an elected representative, I can listen to the difference that these drugs have made and could make to people’s lives—to Rachel’s life, Evie-May’s life and the lives of many others. The research that was not available at the time of the NICE guidelines is now available and it is compelling. With great respect, we are all conveying compelling evidence and information directly to the Minister.
The review is an opportunity to do the right thing by those suffering from this disease, particularly those such as Evie-May and Rachel, who has noticed such a change. It is for those people that I ask the Department of Health to end the stalemate and make a new decision. We look forward to the Minister’s giving them the Christmas present that they want and that we in this House all wish for. I understand the budgetary constraints, but the benefit of the drug appears to outweigh the financial cost. Rachel, Evie-May and others like them, UK-wide, deserve the chance to have the drug.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Sir Alan. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us this debate. I also thank the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which has not just been instrumental in getting MPs here today, but does great work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, in supporting people with cystic fibrosis and their families. I think that Ed Owen is now moving on to other things and I particularly pay tribute to him for his work.
As I have mentioned before in this place, I have a 12-year-old niece, Maisie, who was diagnosed at Christmas in 2004 as one of the 10,500 people in the UK with cystic fibrosis. Thankfully, she is doing very well. In recent weeks, the number of constituents who have contacted me whose children, grandchildren or friends’ children have cystic fibrosis has been revealing to me. Sadly, I also have constituents whose children have died from the condition. The youngest cystic fibrosis patient I have been contacted about was born in April this year. I have also been contacted by a couple of people who have 19-year-olds who are both at university, and the issue of prescription charges mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North has particularly hit home. One constituent said that, although she was very proud that her son had now gone to university hundreds of miles away, he was now responsible for managing his condition, which created some anxieties for her. She said that he was very angry that, despite being classed as a disabled student, he had to pay for his prescription. I hope that the Minister takes that on board because we have been promised a review of exemptions for many years.
As we have heard, Kalydeco, the drug that treats one particular mutation of cystic fibrosis, helps about 4% of patients in the UK. It was approved back in 2013 and the results have been dramatic, increasing lung function and reducing the time people have to spend in hospital on intravenous antibiotics. It has made a huge difference to patients’ quality of life and all the signs indicate that it could significantly improve life expectancy. Now we have Orkambi, which is a combination of the drug that is marketed as Kalydeco and another drug. Orkambi targets a different mutation that affects more than 4,000 people, so it could help almost half the CF population in the country.
The clinical studies that became available last year indicated a significant reduction of 30% to 39% in lung infections and inflammations that lead to irreversible lung scarring and the need for a lung transplant. One in three patients who need a double lung transplant because of cystic fibrosis die while they are still on the waiting list. I hope that organ donation is also on the Minister’s radar. Orkambi could be absolutely life-transforming. Despite that, NICE rejected it back in June because of doubts about its cost-effectiveness. It recognised that the drug is potentially a “valuable new therapy” with “significant clinical benefits”, but it concluded that the cost per “quality-adjusted life year” is too high.
I acknowledge that NICE has a difficult job in assessing all the potential treatments for a range of conditions, and that it operates on a tight budget, but, as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has argued and as we have heard this morning, the processes that NICE uses can be flawed because they rely on short-term data for a lifelong condition. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that new data show that after 96 weeks of treatment—NICE only looked at the 24-week clinical trials—the decline in lung function, which is the main cause of death for people with cystic fibrosis, slows by 42%. If NICE had had that data, it would have rated Orkambi’s cost-effectiveness much higher.
I am partly speaking from personal experience, but I also know from my constituents’ very sad stories that people are desperate for something to address these problems. The accelerated access review was commissioned because the Government recognised the weaknesses in the NICE process. For patients whose life depends on the outcome of the report and its implementation, it has been a long wait. I urge the Minister not to delay any longer and to consider the Cystic Fibrosis Trust’s request to apply the AAR recommendations to the deadlocked Orkambi negotiations. Confidential commercial agreements would free Vertex to make the NHS its best offer, and commercial agreements under the Cancer Drugs Fund are confidential. Flexible pricing arrangements would allow the consideration of alternative models to manage costs, such as a price cap that is not exceeded even if patient numbers rise, and the collection of real-world data would allow a more accurate assessment of the drug’s effectiveness. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned the fact that 99% of cystic fibrosis patients are on the database and that there is a lot of available information about them, which makes them ideal to pilot the scheme. I hope that the Minister considers that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on leading this important debate. We have long needed to address the fact that the UK is trailing behind on patient access to new medicine. A.A. Gill who, just three days ago, sadly died of cancer, wrote:
“The NHS represents everything we think is best about us.”
But in his final column, he revealed that he was denied immunotherapy that might have helped him to live longer. He said that NICE,
“the quango that acts as the quartermaster for the health service, won’t pay.”
His experiences are striking, but they are a symptom that is all too common of a system that is struggling to cope. When Labour established NICE it soon became a world leader in approaching the profound and challenging question of how to allocate scarce resources fairly. Although the question remains the same, the times have changed and the pace of innovation has increased, as has the cost.
We were all pleased when the Government’s long-awaited and much-delayed accelerated access review was finally published. Simply put, we need innovative new drugs to reach patients quickly at a price that the NHS can afford, but it is not clear that the accelerated access review has solved the conundrum. There are already signs, since publication, that yet more problems are emerging. NHS England’s sudden and unexpected consultation on the QALY—quality-adjusted life years—threshold for highly specialised technologies risks running counter to the spirit of the AAR and introducing yet another gatekeeper.
The AAR recommends a fully funded early access to medicines scheme, but we need a positive response from both the Government and NHS England because the danger is that, with other countries having funded early access companies, we risk seeing clinical development work moving away from the UK.
As we have heard, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has suggested that the AAR made several recommendations that could enable access to drugs such as Orkambi through flexible pricing arrangements and the gathering of real-world data to prove the drug’s effectiveness. Does the Minister agree that those recommendations will make a difference to people affected by cystic fibrosis? If so, will he commit to implementing the recommendations?
Other hon. Members have told us of real-world examples, and I will quote my constituent Julian Wheel:
“My youngest daughter, a local Cambridge primary school teacher for over 15 years, recently had a new daughter, diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. It imposes major changes on her and her partner’s lives in caring for her—time, difficult nutritional choices and the fear of recurrent infection, not to mention the additional and regular workloads imposed on the NHS staff at Addenbrooke’s, the local GP practice in Harston and healthcare visitors.”
He says that their family receive terrific support from the cystic fibrosis clinic and local surgery practice, but this new drug could relieve the suffering and improve their quality of life. He says it could offer “real hope.”
New drugs are expensive, but incentivising innovation should be a priority. The Government must ensure there are effective mechanisms that can help to address the affordability challenges that new treatments are likely to present. A balance will need to be struck between setting a price that rewards and incentivises innovative research and setting a price that is also affordable to the NHS. Will the Minister establish a strategic commercial unit in NHS England to consider flexible pricing models?
Recommendations such as a fully funded early access to medicines scheme could make real inroads, but of course that depends on the Government supporting their implementation. The BioIndustry Association points out that innovation is impaired because the current early access to medicines scheme is not funded, and the lack of funding poses a barrier to many small biotech companies engaging with the scheme.
Across the board, organisations have called for a strong response from the Government to the accelerated access review. I am not sure we yet have that. Will we have one today?
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on the spirit in which he introduced the debate and on his consensual tone. I also commend him for the quality of the case he outlined in his excellent speech. He could not have done a better job of representing his constituents and all those represented by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is right to pay tribute to Ed Owen, the departing chief executive of the CF Trust, who made an enormous difference to so many people during his tenure.
I sympathise with the Minister, because I have been there when such difficult issues have arisen. I assure him that there is no party politics in this room today. We have heard excellent speeches from both sides of Westminster Hall on issues of great importance to our constituents, and Members have made their points in that spirit.
I was involved in the establishment of NICE, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) mentioned, and it did become a world leader. I am the first to say that it can never be right for politicians to sit in judgment on treatments—judging that those who shout the loudest should therefore get the treatment. NICE was established for an important reason and, as a Minister, I always sought as best I could to stick to NICE’s judgments and not to undermine them. On occasion, however, treatments would come along that were, quite simply, exceptional and that could not be considered within the narrow confines of the NICE appraisal process. Those treatments were often innovative and related to chronic conditions where the drug, if used, might have a long-term beneficial social impact, rather than an impact that would necessarily return money to the NHS budget.
To be open about the shortcomings of the NICE process that we established, NICE was not able to consider the wider public budget, the Department for Work and Pensions budget and other budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North spoke about people being able to work and care for their kids, and often the failure to fund a drug has a much wider social cost, yet the narrow process applied by NICE often did not take that into account. Orkambi is one such treatment where we need exceptional consideration of its potential wider impact. The accelerated access review has given the keys to the Minister. There are things that can be done, and we all urge him to use those flexibilities today.
I could say a lot more, but the best way to use the time remaining to me is to refer to some of my constituents, many of whom have been in touch to encourage me to speak today. My office manager, Karen Aspinall, has a son in his 20s who has CF. Through her, I know how it is to live day to day with the challenges presented by CF.
I close with the direct words of my constituent, Leigh resident Philip Grimshaw. He is 28 years old and his words say far more than I could. He and his sister Melissa were diagnosed with cystic fibrosis when they were very young, and this is what he wrote to me:
“Melissa was diagnosed with CF as a baby after being very unwell since birth, and I was diagnosed as a result of this, at 7 years old. All our lives we have had to take a cocktail of medications and have had frequent stays in hospital.
In my opinion Orkambi would, amongst other things, reduce the number of hospital stays and also reduce the need for occasional extra antibiotics due to CF related illness (because we would be in better health as a result of Orkambi). Both of these mentioned would save the NHS money. I understand that it’s not a cheap medication but neither is a two week hospital stay, on a specialised ward, on extra antibiotics, six times or more a year.
I do think that the stress of losing our mum had an impact on Melissa’s health.”
Sadly, Melissa died in 2013. The letter continues:
“The problem with CF is that once your health starts to slide, it’s very difficult to bring back to where it should be. If Melissa was on Orkambi then it could have kept her in a better state of health and prevented her becoming as ill as she was and would have prevented the worst.
As for me; I’m looking to settle down and have children in the near future. Orkambi would help me to watch my children grow up rather than live to the predicted age of being in my 50s. I have had the dilemma of whether or not to pay into a pension because I won’t live to see retirement age and maybe even not long enough to be able to take a lump sum out at 55!
Orkambi can change that. It would be nice to have the confidence to know that I could see my children graduate university, start jobs and even have children of their own.”
I am sure that Philip’s words would be shared by many other people in their 20s, or younger, with cystic fibrosis if they had the opportunity to vent them in this place. They are the appropriate words on which to finish.
I recognise the difficulties, but we were here before with Kalydeco and we managed to find a way through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East said, nobody now doubts that that drug has made a huge difference to so many lives. We are in exactly the same position again, so let us learn from that experience. Let us not test people’s patience. Let us get the appraisal process moving towards a positive resolution. I realise that that is a challenge, but Ministers sometimes need to cut through the bureaucracy. The Minister is a good man, and I urge him to do that today.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Access to new drugs seems to be almost the commonest theme of debates in Westminster Hall. Having spent years as a breast cancer specialist involved in trials, I can say that it is really frustrating to have access to drugs within a trial and then lose that access when the drug is passed. The United Kingdom can be up to five years behind Europe or America in accessing such drugs. We talk all the time about having more research on brain tumours and other diseases, but that does not help us if, at the end of the research, our patients cannot get the drugs.
Cystic fibrosis is one of the commonest of what we call the rare diseases. It involves a problem with transmission of salts through membranes, which results in incredibly thick mucus that clogs various organs, most commonly the lungs. As the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned, if it is diagnosed late, damage will already have been done. The earlier patients with cystic fibrosis are treated, the less damage is done and the healthier they are. The life expectancy has changed from childhood to middle age, due to a combination of approaches.
I am shocked to hear that people in England with cystic fibrosis have to pay for their prescriptions, because that would amount to quite a lot of money; they are on a lot of medication. We do not have prescription charges at all in Scotland, because you get an increased rate of people not collecting their prescription, or going to the chemist and saying, “Excuse me, dear, which are the two most important drugs for me to take?” and that ends up not being cost-effective. I would have thought that people with a chronic condition should at least have their names on a list as being exempt. I would have thought that that was the least the Government could do.
The right hon. Member for Leigh said that we have been through this with Kalydeco and many other drugs. Orkambi is a synergistic combination of Kalydeco, or ivacaftor, with lumacaftor, which makes it work much better. They are the first drugs that are not just antibiotics or mucolytics; they are trying to attack the disease itself. In that sense, they are transformative. The problem in the access review is that the definition of “transformative” going forward will not necessarily help those drugs. We do not suddenly find a drug that is a cure for any of these conditions; we move step by step, often adding drugs together or making new discoveries.
There is a real concern among those who develop drugs that in the consultation between NICE and NHS England, the levels considered acceptable for such highly specialised treatments are being changed. The problem is that if we send out the message to people with rare conditions, “I’m sorry; you’re just outside the pale,” we will be letting them down. We need a different approach. I think we need a different conversation for all drugs. The NHS in the United Kingdom brings a cohesive system that allows for follow-up data and allows a lot more information to be sent back to companies over time, which is not easily available in other countries. That should be on the table as part of the negotiations.
I have a real concern, going forward after Brexit, that in this country we will be further down the list for people to even apply for licences here. It may well be that the application to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for 60-odd million people in the United Kingdom may well cost an amount very similar to an application to the European Medicines Agency for a market of 450 million. That means we could end up in the same position as Canada, where it often takes about a year before a company decides to apply for a licence. The problem is that if, going forward, companies see that they must pay to apply to NICE, which will turn them down so they will have to pay to apply again, they may just decide that it is not worth the candle. That must be taken into consideration.
Obviously, England has the Cancer Drugs Fund, the idea of which is to allow a little bit of flexibility on access to new drugs, which are often expensive, but it does not help you if you do not have cancer. In Scotland, ours is a new medicines and rare diseases fund, which as a proportion of the population is three times the size of CDF, so it is more flexible. It cannot be a long-term solution for such drugs, or the funds would get sucked up, but it is important that when we are going through a phase of considering the real-life use of expensive drugs we have some flexibility for patients, and not just cancer patients.
We had a debate in the main Chamber last week about the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill, and one discussion involved funding. In Scotland, the pharmaceutical rebate goes to fund the new medicines and rare diseases fund. In England, it goes back into core funding, which means that along the line, the beneficiary is the Treasury. If the NHS is managing attribution and access to new drugs in such a way that it gets a rebate, it should be able to use that to access more innovative medicines. That is why the pharmaceutical industry agreed to it. It also creates a better relationship with the pharmaceutical industry. We cannot have a situation where the industry just pulls a price out of the air and we must rise to it—of course we must get value for money—but it is really important that we do not leave people with certain conditions knowing that there is utterly no chance that they or their children will access treatment.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) for securing this important debate. I note that as he said, it is just over a year since he first brought to the House a debate on cystic fibrosis.
I appreciate all hon. Members who have attended and spoken in this debate to show their support for the cause; it is one that we must urgently get right. Members have shared many moving cases involving their constituents whose lives Orkambi could save and would certainly transform. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North mentioned Carly Jeavons and Sam and Rob, the parents of Daisy. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about Evie-May, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned her niece Maisie. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke about his office manager Karen Aspinall and her son, as well as Philip and his sister Melissa, who sadly died. Philip believes that Orkambi would have helped his sister and would certainly help him, as he also suffers from cystic fibrosis. Those people believe that their lives would be transformed by Orkambi. I believe that too, and the evidence supports it, as we have heard in detail.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for their excellent contributions, as well as the many others who have made valuable interventions. I also thank the Cystic Fibrosis Trust for its dedicated campaigning on the issue, and the 20,000 people who have been involved in its survey, in the digital debate here in Parliament, and in petitions and e-action. The concerns and the need for action are clear, and it is up to the Minister to give all those people beyond this place the answers that they need.
In my contribution, I will set out why the Opposition want to see the Government do more on innovative drugs, through case studies involving Orkambi. I will touch on issues of access to Orkambi and other drugs for those living with cystic fibrosis and expand into the recommendations of the accelerated access review, which can do much to address many of the issues involving access to new drugs.
Although it is welcome that the prescription drug Kalydeco was given the go-ahead by NHS England last week for two to five-year-olds as part of re-prioritisation, Orkambi remains an issue. There is currently a deadlock in negotiations between the pharmaceutical company Vertex, the Government and NHS England for the drug to be accessible to the 2,700 people who stand to benefit from it. As we have heard in detail today, that is all down to rejection of the drug under NICE’s appraisal system because there is a lack of long-term data. Although it is welcome that NICE recognises the treatment as effective in managing cystic fibrosis, it is clear that we desperately need a new system under which drugs can be better accessed, especially those that show that they can benefit patients. We have also heard about new data that NICE did not take into account and that would have showed 42% effectiveness.
Orkambi has been shown to halve the amount of hospitalisation of cystic fibrosis sufferers, and 96-week data published recently showed that it can help to slow lung function decline by 42%. The data are also backed up by anecdotal evidence from people who have accessed Orkambi through the compassionate use programme and are beginning to report transformations in their health—some are reporting enough improvement to come off the lung transplant list. That information is all positive. It should be made better available for consideration as part of the appraisal process; it should also form part of the negotiations between Vertex, the Government and NHS England. However, when we see a deadlock, all of that information is for naught. Thousands of people are suffering irreversible lung damage that could be stopped if the current impasse between those around the negotiating table was broken. Those who will suffer the most are stuck in the middle.
It is up to the Government to facilitate the end of the deadlock so that people can access Orkambi and see their lives transformed. One way to do that is to begin the job of implementing the recommendations set out in the accelerated access review, which the Opposition welcome. The goal of speeding up access to drugs by cutting four years off the time needed to bring new medicines to patients is something that we should all welcome; we need to see whether it can be achieved. The review has the potential to change the philosophy of the NHS in line with the five-year forward view, but also to help to maintain our global lead in life sciences. The recommendations set out in its final report have the potential to transform how we provide drugs and treatments, ensuring that we see innovation in drugs, diagnostic tools and healthcare developments. However, there still remain issues around thresholds for new drugs, which NICE and NHS England are currently consulting on. I understand that some associations and charities have raised concerns about that, and I hope that the Minister will update us on some of those discussions.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
My hon. Friend is right to be so positive about many aspects of the accelerated access review. However, as she has mentioned, there are concerns that new definitional ruts could be created by some of the terms of the review, which could lead to some patients and some promising drugs being trapped in exactly the sort of deadlock that she has described.
Mrs Hodgson
My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. We do not want to move into a new system that will create new unintended consequences. Perhaps the Minister will touch on that in his speech.
Although some are calling for interim solutions to help people who are stuck waiting for the accelerated access review’s recommendations to be implemented, it is also important that the Government get on with implementing those changes. The review was announced more than a year ago and was published two months ago now. It is important to remember that the transformation that we all want to see will not happen straight away, but it is still right that we keep up the pressure for the recommendations to be implemented. There are many such recommendations, and I hope that the Minister will be able to update us today on the progress on each of them. There are two in particular that illustrate what can be done to resolve the deadlock around Orkambi—the immediate establishment of an accelerated access partnership and the setting up of a new flexible strategic commercial unit.
The accelerated access partnership is one way in which, through co-ordination and collaboration across the system, we could see drugs brought on to the market more quickly to benefit patients who need access to them. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on its creation, especially in conjunction with the issues surrounding the deadlock on Orkambi.
It is clear that the strategic commercial unit could help to benefit those who wish to see Orkambi offered on the NHS. The unit could work with those involved in this dispute to end the current deadlock through facilitation of the flexibility and transformational change promised by the accelerated access review. That would go some way towards helping to access data on drugs such as Orkambi and getting them out to patients. There is a willingness out there for that flexibility to be brought into the system; for example, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust has offered to use the UK cystic fibrosis registry to help to provide essential data that can help to prove how effective drugs can be and what more needs to be done. We have already heard how substantial that registry is; it includes 99% of sufferers. I understand that the trust’s offer has been welcomed by all sides in the negotiations but is blocked due to the lack of progress in implementing the changes set out in the review. I hope that the Minister will give us some clarity on when the unit will be created and when we can see a culture shift within the system that will allow for flexibility to accept data and information that show how much effect these drugs have on people’s lives.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Does the hon. Lady share my concern about drugs for other conditions, such as sofosbuvir for hepatitis C? Even after they get NICE approval, those more expensive drugs are now being rationed at the NHS England stage. At the moment we are fighting to get through NICE, but it needs to be a smooth path all the way through.
Mrs Hodgson
The cost of drugs sometimes leads the NHS into the terrible and unfortunate situation in which rationing seems to become the norm. There can also be a postcode lottery, which is another element that we need to look at. The price of drugs really is the crux of the issue.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will offer some insight into the progress being made on the recommendations of the accelerated access review. The case of Orkambi can help to drive through these changes and to end this deadlock, which, as we have heard, is causing unnecessary suffering for those living with cystic fibrosis. The review has established a space for change and for patients to access new and innovative drugs and treatments. It is important that there is no stalling or delay in transforming the system, because people’s lives depend on the changes called for by the review. I am sure that the Minister will keep that in mind when he goes back to his officials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
It is good to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on leading the charge in this debate. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rightly said in his very good speech that this is not really a political issue. Every Member in this Chamber has constituents who would benefit from these drugs. There are 10,500 people in the country with cystic fibrosis and it is massively important that we do everything we can to make progress on the issue. I also congratulate the Cystic Fibrosis Trust on its work and on its “Stopping the Clock” campaign. Debates such as this give prominence to these issues and to the need to make progress.
The debate is really about two drugs, a drugs company and an evaluation process. I shall speak about all of those and about where we are going with the accelerated access review. The two drugs are Kalydeco, which applies to something like 4% of cystic fibrosis sufferers, and Orkambi, which would apply to a further 40% of sufferers. Both are relatively small populations: for Kalydeco it is something like 400 people in England, and for Orkambi it is something like 2,700 or 3,000. Kalydeco has been routinely available on the NHS since 2013. As mentioned today, it was extended on 4 December to children aged two to five. It makes a big difference and we are pleased to have made that progress. Both Kalydeco and Orkambi are produced and owned by a Boston-based drugs company called Vertex, which I shall talk about later.
Orkambi could be used by around 3,000 patients. It has a price of something like £100,000 per annum—the implication being that the cost of its approval in England would be in the order of £300 million or £400 million a year. As several Members have said, it is obviously right that there is a process that weighs that cost of £300 million to £400 million a year against other NHS priorities and other drugs. That process is the NICE process. A number of comments have been made about the efficacy of that process, and it has been suggested that it may have deficiencies in respect of providing precision drugs to small numbers of users. I will try to address those concerns. I think everybody agrees that we need a consistent method of evaluating these matters, and there needs to be a way forward based on that.
When NICE evaluated Orkambi in July, it found that it had clinically significant and important benefits, which several Members have spoken about. There is no dispute about that, but the evaluation process—which is based on quality-adjusted life years, as has been said—also found that it was not cost-effective. I spent some time last night reading the NICE evaluation, and make the point to colleagues and other Members that it was not a near miss. It looks like there is a factor of 10 in NICE’s evaluation of its cost-effectiveness. I guess that is largely driven by the price of £100,000 per annum and what that would mean.
Andy Burnham
It is obviously reassuring to everybody that the Minister has taken such a close interest in the issue before coming to the debate. He says it was not a near miss. That may have been the case on the data that NICE had, but does he accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and other Opposition Members that those data were very limited indeed? The 96-week trial data that are now available would probably have produced a very different overall calculation.
David Mowat
To be honest, I am not qualified to have an opinion on that. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that decisions of this sort should not be made by politicians and that there has to be a process around them. It is clear that if NICE is presented by Vertex with new clinical data, or indeed new price data—this is perhaps equally relevant, but we have not really discussed it—a review could be carried out quickly without any need for us to go through the whole process again. There is a precedent for that, and if those data exist and Vertex presents them, they would be looked at. I give my commitment, and certainly that of the Minister responsible for this policy area, that that would be the case and there is no impediment to that. I do not want to raise false hopes by saying that, and I do not think I have done so. The fact that it is not a near miss—it is possibly out by a factor of eight or 10—implies that there is quite a lot of work to do on pricing.
It is worth recapping what other countries have done. Orkambi is available in Germany, although it appears from the data available that its use there is quite mixed, with perhaps no more than one in five eligible people having access to it. In France, the other country in Europe that has authorised it, Vertex has booked no sales yet this year. The picture seems quite mixed in those countries. The countries that have not authorised Orkambi include Scotland.
Jim Shannon
In my speech I mentioned a young girl from my constituency, Rachel, who has been on the Orkambi trials and shown exemplary improvements in her health. That is an example we can all point to of where goodness has come out of the drug for those who have had the opportunity to have it, and that is true not only in my constituency but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
David Mowat
There is no dispute that the drug works, and there is no dispute at all that it is life-changing. The issue before us is the extent to which it justifies a price tag of £300 million to £400 million versus other NHS priorities. All I can say on that is that it is right that the decision is not made by politicians, for the reasons given earlier by the right hon. Member for Leigh.
I was discussing the countries that have so far not authorised Orkambi. Neither Scotland nor the Republic of Ireland accepted that it was cost-effective, and it is not used in Scandinavia or Canada either.
Mark Durkan
The Minister mentioned Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, where there are clearly challenges—we only have to look at the pictures in The Irish Times yesterday to see the graffiti about Orkambi in Dublin. Will he commit to working with colleagues from across these islands to use the underdeveloped and underused machinery of the British-Irish Council to literally get our act together when it comes to rare diseases? We should combine our purchasing power when negotiating with the drugs companies and ensure that there are much better networks for referral and treatment. We should improve that collaboration and literally get our act together on these islands.
David Mowat
I, too, saw the press. I think the Republic of Ireland drugs Minister has talked about writing around to that effect, and it would be a great idea were we to use our combined procurement muscle in that regard. He is certainly pressing at an open door.
I wish to spend a little time talking about Vertex. The company owns the drugs we are discussing and is worth $18 billion. As well as looking at the NICE review last night, I spent quite a lot of time looking at Vertex’s financial position. The company needs to sell these products; indeed, its continued functioning as a major pharmaceuticals company depends on that. Its share price has fallen by a third during the course of this year—I estimate that is a loss of value of something like $7 billion—because its sales are not adequate. There needs to be a meeting of minds here. I am sure that people from Vertex are listening to this debate, as will people from other places, too. We all want a solution whereby the drug becomes available at a cost-effective price, but the negotiation is not a one-way street; Vertex is part of it as well. Were the company to come forward with different pricing data, those would be looked at very quickly. At some point in the future—I know it will be a long time—the drug will be available generically, although I accept that that will not give hope to some of the people we have heard about today.
In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I wish to discuss the accelerated access review, which was a manifesto commitment we made at the election. We set up the review panel. The basic intent was to enable transformative drugs to come forward more quickly and for there to be, as Members have mentioned, a commercial unit in the NHS that is empowered to do deals and bring treatments forward more rapidly. In October the review team and panel published the final report, to which something like 600 stakeholders contributed. It is a valuable piece of work and we know its direction of travel: bringing drugs into the system more quickly, allowing the NHS to set priorities for the drugs its wants, and giving drugs companies some notice and knowledge that if they develop drugs, they will be used. That will mean that a lot of the commercial discussions can happen earlier and progress can be made more quickly.
The Government are reviewing the results of the accelerated access review. There is much in it, if not all of it, that will be accepted, although I am not in the position to accept it today—that is not my role here. We do, though, want to make progress, which should give some hope for the potential of another review of the matters we have been discussing. Nevertheless, I must say again to Government and Opposition Members that the NICE process and the people carrying it out—they are rigorous scientists and serious doctors—need to be treated and understood with respect. We can all agree that the current situation is heartbreaking for many people. The world has a drug that would change people’s lives, but the world has not rolled that drug out to them because of real and reasonable financial issues. I accept that that is a very difficult thing to explain to people and it is very difficult to accept.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Education: Knowsley
(7 years, 4 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
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education in Knowsley.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan; I am sure we will be treated impartially and fairly. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) had hoped to be here, but she is currently recovering from an accident; she wanted me to make it clear that she would be here if she was fit.
Secondary education in Knowsley has received attention in this House and in the media recently, particularly as a result of the report by the ResPublica think-tank. Unless urgent action is taken, at the end of this academic year not a single education institution in Knowsley will offer A-level provision.
Let me say first a word about the ResPublica report, which was commissioned by Knowsley Council. The Prime Minister is known for weighing up matters before pronouncing on them, but I doubt that she had actually read the report before quoting from the press release about it at Prime Minister’s questions on 16 November; if she had, she would have noticed that the report that the council received in May did not mention grammar schools at all. In Knowsley, 39% of the secondary school population attends schools in neighbouring boroughs, which amounts to 3,164 school students and takes more than £17 million a year out of Knowsley’s education system. Unchecked, that is in danger of escalating to the point at which secondary education in the borough becomes unviable.
Let me be clear: parents rightly decide what is the best education for their children and my comments should in no way be taken as a criticism of people who choose to send their children to schools outside Knowsley—that is their right. However, the fact that they do so does challenge us to improve attainment levels, and education in Knowsley needs some radical changes. Frankly, the problems we face would not be resolved by the creation of a grammar school. Indeed, it would make matters worse for the overwhelming majority of school students. For example, the Education Policy Institute yesterday concluded that, overall, its analysis
“supported the conclusions reached by the OECD for school systems across the world – that there is no evidence that an increase in selection would have any positive impact on social mobility.”
Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of Ofsted, said:
“The notion that the poor stand to benefit from the return of grammar schools strikes me as palpable tosh and nonsense”.
I think he put that firmly enough.
Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for St Helens South and Whiston, I have been exploring possibilities for ensuring that A-level provision in the borough continues beyond 2017. We had a meeting with the schools Minister in June. There are potential solutions. At a recent meeting with the principal of Knowsley Community College about the proposed merger with St Helens College, I was pleased to hear that, if the merger goes ahead, they have some serious ideas about how to restore viable A-level provision in the borough.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that for a borough such as Knowsley, which has a substantial population, the idea of having no academic A-level provision is embarrassing for all the schools and education institutes? It does not bode well for the future of the borough if our young people cannot get the education they need—of whatever variety—in the place that they live.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend puts that very well. I agree with her entirely and was just going on to add a word about the impact of the negative publicity and comment.
Before setting out some ideas that I believe will help improve secondary education, I want to note some positive things that are already happening. Hard-working heads and teachers are understandably demoralised at the continual denigration that they experience in the media and from the Government; parents and school students are understandably upset that their hard work and achievements are continually rubbished. Yet there is so much good work going on that never gets a mention.
Ten days ago, for example, I visited the Lord Derby Academy, part of the Dean Trust, and met head of school Vicky Gowan and assistant headteacher, Josette Arnold. On a tour of the school, it was obvious that they were doing a lot right. The sense of discipline and the rigorous approach to teaching were obvious and commendable, and promise to bring about big improvements. Much the same could be said for the other secondary schools in Knowsley. Similarly, I recently had the privilege of opening the new Northern Logistics Academy in Kirkby, a joint undertaking between St Helens College and Knowsley Community College. It provides logistics training for those seeking to work in that industry, which is a real growth industry in our city region.
Knowsley Council, having disowned the ResPublica report, has now established an education commission, chaired by Christine Gilbert, previously chief inspector of schools in England and head of Ofsted, and supported by other distinguished commissioners, which is charged with producing an improvement plan. That approach should be supported and I would ask the Minister to commit the Government to that. It is worth noting that the commission has the potential to signpost ways in which other deprived areas such as Knowsley can also make appropriate improvements.
Two developments which could lift achievement are the Shakespeare North and Bio-Inspire projects. Both implicitly offer opportunities to raise aspiration for school students in Knowsley, and I hope that the Government will continue to support both initiatives.
If we are to improve social mobility in areas such as Knowsley, the single most powerful engine for doing so is education. That being so, and given Knowsley’s high level of deprivation, it came as a surprise that Knowsley was not one of the six opportunity areas recently announced by the Government. I feel that the methodology used to identify those areas was flawed. Will the Minister undertake to review the methodology? Will she undertake to look at how Knowsley could be included in any further strategies to improve social mobility?
I want to make a suggestion about how educational attainment could be improved. Before doing so, I should say a word about how attainment is measured. Attainment 8 measures a student’s average grade across eight subjects, which are the same subjects that count for progress 8. Those new metrics are a significant change to education reporting; performance measurement is spread across a wider range of subjects and is no longer based solely on attainment, and there is an emphasis on progress.
Knowsley ranks bottom in the north-west, with an overall attainment 8 score of 39, compared with Liverpool on 47 and Trafford, which is top, on 57. It also has the worst progress 8 score in the north-west, with a score of minus 0.88 compared with Liverpool on minus 0.35. Those figures illustrate the scale of the challenge in Knowsley.
I expect that the commission established by Knowsley Council will look at how post-14 education could be radically reorganised. There is, in my view, a case to be made for creating a choice post-14, but not through a grammar school. Many students in their later years do not regard the sort of education on offer as suited to their future aspirations. Sir Michael Wilshaw has, on a number of occasions, called for a skills revolution in the UK, arguing that every multi-academy trust should run a vocational university technology college for youngsters aged 14 to 19. He said:
“We need to say to youngsters, ‘there are other paths than university’. If you’re going to make a success of Brexit, this should be the number one priority of government. Not grammar schools ... Otherwise we won’t have the skills. And the prospects for growth in the economy and productivity in the economy will suffer.”
Maria Eagle
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Halewood Academy closed its sixth form not because it no longer wished to teach A-levels but because, and I do not blame the head and the governors for their decision, financially it is obliged to balance its budget and it simply no longer had enough pupils wanting to go into the sixth form—for various reasons—to enable it financially to continue? As a consequence, there is now no academic A-level provision in the entire borough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is commendable that Knowsley, which has no longer has any levers to provide education in its own borough and gets blamed when it goes wrong, has done what it can in establishing the commission? We hope that the Government will do what they can, in supporting that process, for all the young people and families in Knowsley.
Mr Howarth
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She is right to point out the limited scope of Knowsley Council, which is the local authority that has suffered the greatest cuts in the country while also being among those with the highest need. As I said earlier—it is an extension of my hon. Friend’s point—it is no longer viable to offer sixth-form provision in Knowsley, and if we do not do something urgently it will become unviable to offer any kind of secondary education at all. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I also agree with Sir Michael Wilshaw.
In many cases it would be more effective if the opportunity for vocational education were available post-14, offering pupils a programme of GCSEs, technical and professional qualifications and work experience. That is not to say that those who aspire to a more academic education should not have that choice but, rather, that it should be a choice and not the only option.
Time does not allow me to give a detailed account of how such a reorganisation would need to be carried out. Who would offer the more vocational post-14 option and could the existing secondary system be adapted to provide the more academic option? Those are examples of tough questions that need to be worked through. It is also essential that the vocational and technical education courses on offer are of a high quality and of equal status to the conventional curriculum.
I should perhaps declare an interest at this point. I was one of the generation who left secondary school at 15 but went to technical college. I studied engineering and then went on to do an engineering apprenticeship. Later, in my 20s, I did a degree. Those were options I had, and options I could take, and my worry is that such options are no longer available for young people, other than through the apprenticeship system. The problem with some apprenticeships is that they are too narrowly focused on the needs of the employer and, therefore, the young people who go through them do not acquire the transferable skills that might be needed when they are ready to move on to another employer. Post-14 opportunities in vocational education offer the prospect of their gaining those skills.
I am clear, as is Knowsley Council and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, that improvement is essential, and that a great deal of responsibility sits on the shoulders of the commissioners to come up with a way forward. Again, I ask the Minister to endorse that approach. Finally, it is important to point out that I have first-hand knowledge that young people in Knowsley are no less capable and no less ambitious than young people from better-off families. They deserve the same opportunities as young people from other parts of the country and from more prosperous areas. I hope that the Government will work with Knowsley Council, the commission, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood and for St Helens South and Whiston, and me to ensure that that is exactly what happens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) on securing this really important debate and on the obvious passion and understanding with which he speaks about the challenges in his constituency. I also thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her support today, and I add my voice to those wishing the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) a speedy recovery.
I know that we all share the Government’s ambition to build a country that works for everyone, and that means providing a good school place for every child, one that caters to their individual talents and abilities and, indeed, their needs. Thanks to the incredible hard work of teachers and the action we have taken over the past six years, there are now more pupils in “good” or “outstanding” schools than in 2010. But if just one child in England is not able to access a good school, that is, of course, one too many, and that is a particular issue in Knowsley, where none of the six secondary schools is “good” or “outstanding”.
Provisional 2016 results for secondary schools in the borough show that pupils, on average, make half a grade less progress than other pupils nationally with the same prior attainment. Knowsley has been the lowest-performing local authority at secondary level for a number of years. I absolutely understand, therefore, why the right hon. Gentleman has raised this really important issue. We are working in partnership with Knowsley Council and other key stakeholders in the region to improve and extend the reach of high-performing schools and leaders, to provide the best possible outcomes for Knowsley’s young people, which is, of course, absolutely nothing less than they deserve.
Maria Eagle
Will the Minister put on the record today the fact that she and her Government will work with the local authority and local MPs to ensure that academic A-level provision is available from next September when Halewood Academy’s sixth form unfortunately ceases? We must not send a signal to all young people of an academic bent in Knowsley that they have to leave the borough to continue their education.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. I understand that the regional schools commissioner is meeting Lord Nash and local MPs in early January to discuss options for A-level provision in the area. Those options are being explored by the Department for Education as we speak. I also know that the educational issue across the board in Knowsley is one on which people are working very collaboratively. We have a number of strong multi-academy trusts in the north-west that are now supporting schools within Knowsley; and the regional schools commissioner, in conjunction with the education commission, is bringing them together for a roundtable discussion next week to consider some of the challenges around school performance in the borough and other issues.
The leader of Knowsley Council, Andy Moorhead, has acknowledged that educational performance in the local authority needs to improve. He recognises that although over the years a number of actions have been put in place to address the issue, a different approach is now needed. That is why we very much welcome the launch of the Education Commission for Knowsley, which I hope will provide that new approach. The commission will work closely with the Department for Education and national and local leaders in education, as well as with business partners, to address the underlying causes of educational under-performance in the area. The commission will draw on the expertise and knowledge of its members who are key leaders in education at a local, regional and national level, including Christine Gilbert, the former chief inspector of schools, Vicky Beer, the regional schools commissioner for Lancashire and West Yorkshire, and Sir Kevan Collins, chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation.
I know that the commission will want to work closely with those who work in local schools; they are the real experts, who have clear views on how to get the much-needed improvement. The right hon. Member for Knowsley is right that we should be championing the dedication and commitment of the hard-working teaching professionals in our local schools, seeking to support, not denigrate, and seeking to encourage, not undermine. The commission will want to focus not only on immediate interventions to make visible improvements, but on long-term measures to ensure that all pupils achieve their full potential and leave school with confidence and ambition.
On A-level provision, we are working in partnership with Knowsley Council and other key stakeholders in the region, such as Learn and Lead and the Liverpool city region combined authority, to improve and extend the reach of high-performing schools and leaders to look for that solution and provide high-quality A-levels. I have already spoken about the meeting in January with the regional schools commissioner and Lord Nash.
To clear up the confusion that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised about the ResPublica report, the version that was seen in May was a very early draft. The final report, “Achieving Educational Excellence in Knowsley”, did not come out until October. That is the one that acknowledges the transformative impact that grammar schools can have on the life chances of less well-off pupils. The Prime Minister has been clear that every child should be allowed to rise as far as their talents will take them, and that their background should not be a barrier. We want all pupils to have access to a good local school, which is why we are consulting on reforms to a number of different schools, including not only grammar schools, but independent and faith schools.
Caroline Dinenage
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will make a tiny bit of progress first; he has asked me a number of questions and I do not want to leave anything out.
We want to tap into the expertise of all these types of schools and spread the knowledge across the system, so that every child has access to a good space. That is what the consultation is all about, and it is still open. We are considering how new grammar schools can open where parents want them, but with strict conditions to make sure that they improve the education of pupils in other parts of the system. We believe that all “good” and “outstanding” schools that have the capacity to expand should be able to do so to meet the demands of parents in their local area. Our proposals will also result in more universities and independent schools sponsoring academies and establishing free schools. There are positive examples of that happening in Merseyside, where, for example, the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts has set up a free school.
The Government’s reforms have increased autonomy in the education system, placing a relentless focus on improving standards and tackling underperformance and encouraging innovative partnerships to improve existing schools and create new ones. The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the issue of post-14 technical education—he is one of the great alumni of that sort of system. Fourteen to sixteen-year-olds are able to take up high-quality, technical applied qualifications alongside their GCSEs, enabling students to gain valuable experience in a range of subjects not normally covered by GCSEs and develop practical and technical skills. Up to three technical awards can count in headline performance measures.
Caroline Dinenage
I will in a moment, when I get to the end of this bit; the right hon. Gentleman was very keen to talk about technical education and I do not want to miss anything out. As he will be aware, 48 university technical colleges are currently open. A further seven are in development and plan to open in 2017 and beyond, and along with the 48 open UTCs, they will create opportunities for more than 35,000 young people to train as the engineers and scientists of the future.
Mr George Howarth
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to make a big issue of the Prime Minister’s comments at Prime Minister’s questions; I just want to set the record straight. Knowsley Council received the report that it commissioned from ResPublica in May, and that did not include any reference, in any shape or form, to the need for a grammar school in the borough. As I understand it—I spoke to the local authority at some length yesterday—the only reference to a grammar school was in a press release, which I assume the Prime Minister was quoting from. It was not in the body of the report that the council received.
Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, which we will look into. My understanding is that the very early draft in May did not refer to grammar schools, but that the final report, which came out in October, did. However, I will pass his comments back to the Department.
Maria Eagle
Is the Minister saying that a new grammar school in Knowsley is the solution that the Government might come up with?
Caroline Dinenage
No, what I am saying is that it is all about choice, flexibility, keeping our options open and listening to people’s views. That is what the consultation is all about. It is not about writing anything off, because we do not want to write off our children’s future. We want to consider any changes that will bring about the best possible social mobility for all those in our schools. We want every child to be able to fulfil their potential.
I will briefly talk about the opportunity areas for social mobility, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley was concerned about that issue. I understand his frustration that Knowsley was not included in that, because it is the lowest-performing authority at secondary level. However, it is not the weakest in the social mobility index, so it is not currently considered an opportunity area. Opportunity areas have been selected as social mobility “cold spots”, where we will trial new ways of addressing entrenched problems. However, we will use the learning from those areas to spread excellence to other areas, which will, of course, include areas such as Knowsley, where we want outcomes in schools to improve. We also want to go beyond schools and make sure that all programmes, from early years to accessing employment, help to break the link between a person’s background and what they achieve as adults. That is fundamentally very important.
I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised these issues today. He is absolutely right that we must ensure that this country works for everyone, not just the privileged few. It is so essential to create a socially just and socially mobile society, in partnership with fantastic teachers, strong schools and college leaders. We must all work together to ensure that the Government’s education reforms will be successful in raising educational standards for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Operation Midland: Henriques Report
(7 years, 4 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
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Operation Midland and the Henriques report.
I am very grateful to you, Mr Streeter, for chairing this debate today, and to hon. Members from all parties in the House who have come to take part in this important debate.
One of the founding purposes of our Parliament, which was established 751 years ago, was for the redress of grievances. So let me say from the outset that where people—particularly the young and the vulnerable—have been abused by others, however high the alleged perpetrator is, they are not above the law. That was an assertion of the late and great Lord Denning, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and the subject of this debate, is the manner in which a number of police forces have chosen to operate and the rules under which they have operated.
Today I make no apologies for seeking to highlight what I and many others consider to be a major miscarriage of justice by the Metropolitan police and indeed by other police forces across the land. I intend to concentrate my remarks on Operation Midland, which involved the pursuit of unfounded claims that sexual offences were committed by the former Home Secretary, the late Lord Brittan; the former Chief of the Defence Staff and distinguished Normandy veteran, Field Marshal The Lord Bramall; and my long-standing friend, Harvey Proctor. Mr Proctor was also accused of murdering three children. I served in this House with both Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor, and I have met the Field Marshal and his late wife, Lady Bramall, a number of times.
Other well-known people, such as Sir Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and even the late Prime Minister, our former colleague Sir Edward Heath, have also been caught up in this scandal of police failure and mismanagement. However, such is the weight of evidence against—
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he just care to reflect on precisely what he means when he refers to the former Prime Minister, because from my perspective—as Salisbury’s Member of Parliament—I see that Wiltshire police have conducted their inquiries perfectly within the guidance set out by the College of Policing and are going where the evidence takes them?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to say that, such is the weight of evidence against the police operations, that time will not permit me to make more than a passing reference to them. I am afraid that I disagree with his view of Chief Constable Veale of Wiltshire. The chief constable’s recent assertion—his bravado—was quite unwarranted. Sir Edward has been dead for 10 years, but I wish to leave that point there, because I think others may well deal with it, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able in due course to make his case in defence of Chief Constable Veale.
These people have lost income. Paul Gambaccini told the Home Affairs Committee that he had lost £200,000 in income and payment of legal fees following his suspension from the BBC and other broadcasters. Harvey Proctor lost his income following his sacking by the Duke and Duchess of Rutland, to whom he had acted as secretary. That sacking was largely at the behest of Leicestershire’s constabulary and social services. Loss of the job meant he also lost his home on the duke’s estate and he is now living in an outhouse with no running water and no lavatory facilities. That is the hard effect of this travesty.
In addition, the distress caused is difficult to imagine. During the investigation conducted under Operation Midland and Operation Vincente, Lord Brittan died and Lord Bramall’s wife died, neither of them knowing that the investigations had both been wound up. In the case of Lord Brittan, who died in January 2015, it was well over a year before the Metropolitan police told Lady Brittan that the Operation Midland case had been dropped, and only when they were asked by her lawyers to verify a report in The Independent on Sunday did the Metropolitan police say that they would not have proceeded.
However, the distress was not confined to that aspect of the case. Lady Brittan endured the indignity of the search of her property. As she told me, 10 to 20 officers invaded the house. She said it was like witnessing a robbery of one’s treasured possessions, including letters of condolence and photographs, without ever being told why. The police were insensitive to her circumstances and never told her that she had certain rights during a search. In her Yorkshire house, the police asked if there was any newly turned earth in the garden, again without saying why.
As Lady Brittan says, while it was ordinary police officers who were instructed to undertake the searches, responsibility for the control of this operation rests with senior police officers, whose insensitivity and incompetence has been revealed.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what appears to be at work here is the most extraordinary want of any form of judgment and balance? And would he care to comment on why there is a pattern running through all this activity of an absolute inability of the police to think for themselves?
Sir Gerald Howarth
My right hon. Friend makes an important intervention, and in looking at all of this I have tried to work out precisely what motivated the police. As I will say in a moment, they seem completely bereft of any common sense. However, if he will forgive me, I will try to address that point later on.
In respect of the searches of Lady Brittan’s home, one sergeant told her, “Thank goodness we are only lowly cogs in this investigation”.
Let me turn to my long-standing friend, Harvey Proctor. It took him 28 years to rebuild his life following conviction in 1987 for a sexual offence, which is no longer an offence and which of course cost him his place in this House. He shunned the public spotlight and became a very private citizen until, out of the blue, his home was raided by police, who spent 15 hours searching, removed papers and possessions, and told him that he was accused of being involved in historical child sex abuse. It took the police a further two months to accuse him of being a child serial murderer, a child rapist and an abuser of children. Those were the wild allegations of one fantasist known only to the public as Nick.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend is coming to a very important area. Does he agree that we must be very careful about talking about victims, because surely what we are talking about are complainants? There are no victims until allegations have been proven.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and it is one that I intend to address in some detail in a moment.
Not content with making these serious charges against Harvey, Nick suggested that there was a paedophile ring operating in Westminster, accusations that the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who is the deputy leader of the Labour party, was keen to exploit as a Tory scandal and for which he should now offer a full and unreserved apology.
Harvey had staying with him in his house a couple and their newborn child. He was told two weeks before the search of his house by the Metropolitan police that that child should be removed for their own safety, and secret sessions between the Leicestershire police, Leicestershire social services and the duke’s representatives were convened when pressure was placed on the duke and duchess to sack Harvey from his employment after the search of his house. Leicestershire constabulary and the Met passed responsibility for this issue to each other, backwards and forwards, but it happened.
What are the charges against the Metropolitan police and the other forces involved? First, it is that they adopted a policy that the accusations were, in the words of Superintendent Kenny McDonald, “credible and true”. Gone was any pretence of old-fashioned policing—looking dispassionately at the evidence and seeing where it leads.
This is where we are assisted by the excellent report produced by Sir Richard Henriques, a former High Court judge; admittedly, that report was at the specific request of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police. What Sir Richard found was that the chief constable of Norfolk, Simon Bailey, who I understand leads for the Association of Chief Police Officers on child protection and abuse investigation, produced guidance in November 2015 that insisted that complainants should be described as victims. He wrote:
“If we don’t acknowledge a victim as such, it reinforces a system based on distrust and disbelief.”
He said:
“The police service”—
please note the reference to the police service, not the police force—
“is the conduit that links the victim to the rest of the criminal justice system; there is a need to develop a relationship and rapport with a victim…in order to achieve the best evidence possible.”
That is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham).
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does not that fundamentally undermine the bedrock of our justice system—that somebody is innocent until proved guilty?
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friends are intervening in such a way that they keep anticipating the next paragraph of my speech. I will be coming precisely to that point, because it goes to the heart of this case.
Sir Richard, in describing the approach as “flawed”, said that use of the word “victim” to describe a complainant
“gives the impression of pre-judging a complaint.”
So confident is Mr Bailey, he countered that by
“asserting that only 0.1% of all complaints were false”—
so, according to the chief constable of Norfolk, 0.1% of complaints were false—
“any inaccuracy in the use of the word ‘victim’ is so minimal that it can be disregarded.”
What an astonishing claim to be made by a senior police officer in this country! Not one complainant with whom Sir Richard discussed the issue felt that the word “victim” should be applied instead. On the issue of searches, Sir Richard concluded that they were simply illegal.
Sir Richard turns next to the question of belief, noting that a 2002 police special notice dealing with rape investigations read that
“it is the policy of the MPS to accept allegations made by the victim in the first instance as being truthful.”
A 2014 report on police crime reporting by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary recommended:
“The presumption that the victim should always be believed should be institutionalised.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said, that approach represents a fundamental reversal of a cardinal principle of English law, namely that a man is innocent unless and until proved otherwise.
As Rupert Butler, counsel of 3 Hare Court, put it to Sir Richard:
“The assumption is one of guilt until the police have evidence to the contrary. This involves an artificial and imposed suspension of forensic analysis which creates three incremental and unacceptable consequences. Firstly, there is no investigation that challenges the Complainant; secondly, therefore, the suspect is disbelieved; and, thirdly, and consequently, the burden of proof is shifted onto the suspect.”
The second charge against the police relates to the evidence of witnesses. Sir Richard observed that
“prominent people…are more vulnerable to false complaints than others…They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems. The internet provides the information and detail to support a false allegation. Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations meeting, as they do, literally thousands of attention seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued in their recollection many years later. Deceased persons are particularly vulnerable as allegations cannot be answered.”
I emphasise that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen)—the allegations against Sir Edward are allegations that cannot be answered by him.
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend says “if they exist”; I am not saying they do not. I do not know, but what I do know—it is a fact—is that Sir Edward Heath is dead and cannot answer back.
Paul Gambaccini, whom I met yesterday, referred to the “bandwagoner”—a person who hears about a complaint against a well-known personality and adds their own false complaint, possibly to make money. That motive should not be discounted in the consideration of these matters.
The third charge relates to the reliability of witnesses. Nick, the man upon whose evidence much of this monstrous submission was based, was dismissed by his mother, his stepmother, his ex-wife and his siblings as a fantasist. In their investigation, Northumbria constabulary must be ruthless in their analysis of why that man should have been free to make such deeply serious accusations against prominent figures when it would appear that little research was undertaken into his background. If his own mother denounced him, why did the police attach such credence to his claims? Of course, this is a man whose evidence was said to be “credible and true” by that chief superintendent. Did they not even think it was worth asking his relatives?
Fourthly, “victims” were constantly kept informed of progress on the case, but the alleged suspects remained in the dark throughout. That cannot be allowed to happen again.
Finally, why did the police abandon all notion of common sense? My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) made that point. At the time of the alleged offences committed by Lord Bramall, he would have had any number of senior officers around him. What attempt was made by the police to ask for their opinion? Or did the police prefer to believe an unknown witness over one with close knowledge of the suspect? The idea that he was cavorting in some orgy on that most solemn of days, Remembrance Day, is not only absurd but an insult to a decorated war hero.
At my surgery on Saturday, I met Lieutenant Colonel Ben Herman. He is an ex-Royal Marine and a former equerry to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He lives in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who cannot be here because he is attending a Committee. Lieutenant Colonel Herman was charged after being kept on bail for more than two years, but was acquitted after 15 minutes’ consideration by the jury. It was his contention that the attraction of his case was the opportunity to land a big fish. Lowly police officers carrying out dull work—except, I suppose, when they were infiltrating subversive groups and fathering children by the women they were supposed to be investigating—were salivating at the prospect of nailing a servant of the royal household. How far did such sentiments permeate the minds of those engaged on Operations Midland, Vincente and Yewtree?
These investigations constituted a grotesque and inexcusable failure by the Metropolitan police. Sir Bernard has accepted that there was failure, but who has been reprimanded or even sacked for the damage done to the individuals concerned and to the reputation of the Metropolitan police? We await the investigation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission with interest. I hope it will be expedited. On the other hand, the behaviour of those facing these dreadful accusations has been extraordinarily dignified. My noble Friend Lord Dear, a former chief constable of West Midlands police, said that in contrast to the dignity shown by Lord Bramall,
“the police investigation lurched from over-reaction to torpidity.”
I will outline what is needed. First, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe should ensure that those responsible for authorising payments to the real victims of this witch hunt—the people whose reputations his force has shredded and to whom immense distress has been caused—are provided with that authority before he leaves office early in the new year. I spoke briefly to him last night to let him know I was initiating this debate. He must sign the cheques before he leaves. Forcing these people to go to court to seek compensation would simply add insult to injury. However, in the absence of an agreed arrangement, that is what they may be obliged to do. As Paul Gambaccini said to me yesterday, no man should acquiesce in his own annihilation.
Secondly, the Henriques recommendations must be implemented urgently. In particular, the requirement that those making claims of historical child abuse be regarded as victims and not complainants must be reversed forthwith, as it overturns the centuries-old principle of the burden of proof. In an article in The Guardian on 10 February this year, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said—he kindly sent it over to me this morning:
“The public should be clear that officers do not believe unconditionally what anyone tells them.”
But that flatly contradicts Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s ruling, which I mentioned earlier, that the presumption should be that the victim is always believed.
Thirdly, the recommendation of anonymity before charge should also be implemented without delay. The Home Affairs Committee’s report on police bail, published on 17 March last year, was clear about that. It concluded:
“Newspapers and the media are prohibited from revealing the name of a person who is the victim of an alleged sexual offence. We recommend that the same right to anonymity should also apply to the person accused of the crime, unless and until they are charged with an offence.”
In support of that recommendation, the Committee referred to its predecessor Committee’s inquiry into the Sexual Offences Bill 2003, which
“called for anonymity for the defendant in such cases, because it felt sexual offences were ‘within an entirely different order’ to most other crimes, carrying a particular and very damaging stigma.”
I agree and, I am pleased to say, so does Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. At least we have found common ground there.
Fourthly, I am disappointed that the Home Secretary feels unable to intervene in any aspect of this saga. In response to my call for the full Henriques report to be published and for compensation to be paid, she wrote to me last month to say that:
“The police are operationally independent of Government, and so any arrangements in connection with the publication of Sir Richard’s report are a matter for the Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis to consider and address.”
I do not agree. These are not operational matters. I regard them as matters pertaining to public policy, which cannot simply be passed back to the commissioner. Indeed, I would argue that it is unfair on him to leave him with the sole responsibility. I gather that, as far as compensation is concerned, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has to seek authority from other unspecified people, but I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm to me that that will be forthcoming shortly.
I have not been able to contact the Mayor of London, although his office phoned me about five minutes before this debate started. Again, I understand that he does not feel that this is a matter for him because it is an operational matter. I fundamentally disagree. This is a matter of public policy. There has been a serious miscarriage of justice, and Ministers cannot simply stand by and wash their hands of it. They may not agree with my view, but they should at least have a view. I think that the full Henriques report should be published. There is, for example, an entire chapter on Paul Gambaccini, which has not seen the light of day; it has been redacted in its entirety.
For all those people, this has been a harrowing experience exacerbated by insensitivity combined with incompetence on the part of the police. Lord Brittan went to his grave not knowing that the allegations in Operation Vincente had been dismissed. Lady Bramall went to hers not knowing that her husband had also been exonerated. Harvey Proctor said at his press conference on 25 August 2015:
“This whole catalogue of events has wrecked my life, lost me my job and demolished 28 years of my rehabilitation since 1987.”
Not a single police officer has been reprimanded, let alone sacked. Responsibility for this scandalous failure must lie with Sir Bernard and his senior officers. Either they knew what was being done in their name, which clearly renders them culpable, or they did not, which begs the question why they were not closely updated on cases involving multiple child murders and child sexual abuse, allegedly perpetrated by a Westminster ring involving a former Prime Minister and other public figures. In the case of Sir Cliff Richard, we know that the South Yorkshire police disgracefully conspired with the BBC to film the raid on his home.
However, there is one police officer who deserves praise. Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle is the senior officer responsible for Operation Vincente into the allegation of rape made against Lord Brittan by a woman known only as Jane. In September 2013, he decided that the investigation should not proceed any further, and concluded that any action against Lord Brittan would be grossly disproportionate and would not have a legal basis. As he told the Home Affairs Select Committee, as a result of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East piling pressure on the Met, a hurried review of DCI Settle’s decision was carried out by another officer, who failed to look at all the documents and, in particular, did not look at DCI Settle’s decision log, a document he described as
“an intrinsic and fundamental part of all major investigations.”
That provides further evidence that culpability for this matter resides at the top of the Met.
For acting with probity, DCI Settle was ordered by his line manager, Detective Superintendent Gray, to have nothing more to do with the case. Not only was he brushed aside and not only was his hitherto distinguished career blighted but he was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for allegedly leaking information to the media. As one police source is reported to have told the Daily Telegraph:
“He was the only detective who spoke out against the witch hunt of VIPs and he is being punished for his honesty.”
It seems that he is being sacrificed by his superiors.
Finally, I say to those who might be tempted to think that I am concerned with those in high places suffering injustice only because they are people I know in one way or another that I am not. If that is how the police treat those in high places, what confidence can the ordinary man in the street have that he will receive fair and impartial treatment from the police?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. We have about 36 minutes until the wind-ups begin, and six people who have indicated that they wish to speak, so they have about six minutes each.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for securing this debate, which gives us the opportunity to examine policing in relation to one of the most serious crimes of our age. At the outset, I should say that I have spent a good number of years campaigning on child sexual abuse, and I have met many survivors of sexual abuse. Furthermore, my second wife was sexually abused as a child, as is publicly known, so I know that it destroys lives.
I have an additional perspective on this matter: I have been the subject of accusations of sexual abuse, which were investigated by the police. I knew the allegations were nonsense, and it was a very distressing time as I had to wait many months before the Crown Prosecution Service put me out of my misery and dropped the case because there was no evidence. It also cost me a considerable amount of money—the hon. Gentleman talked about that issue. I think I can therefore contribute an understanding not just of the seriousness of this type of crime but of the trauma that innocent people are put through when malicious allegations are made against them.
I have also been critical of the police for the mistakes they have made in investigating sexual abuse. I have had good reason to do so on behalf of my constituents, especially in relation to the Rochdale grooming scandal. Greater Manchester police eventually apologised for that.
I have also read the Henriques report on Operation Midland. It is clear that that investigation also suffered from chronic failures, albeit of a different kind. The pendulum swung from a situation in which the police showed little interest in investigating the crime to one in which, haunted by failures of the past, they became over-zealous and they over-reached. Neither approach is acceptable, and it is right that scrutiny and criticism have followed.
I am pleased that the Home Secretary has announced that the police should have a licence to investigate child abuse to ensure consistent standards and to prevent officers from being forced to take on roles for which they are not prepared. However, I also believe that the Home Secretary should introduce mandatory reporting of abuse, although that is perhaps a debate for another day. As important as it is to scrutinise Operation Midland, we cannot give the public the impression that we are here to protect our own or to make the police think twice before investigating any current or former Members of this House. The police must act without fear or favour. They should not be intimidated or discouraged from carrying out investigations into MPs. It is just as important that justice is applied to a Home Secretary as it is that it is applied to a homeless person.
We must remember that we have had Government Whips such as Tim Fortescue boasting that they could cover up scandals involving MPs and small boys; we have had papers from the head of MI5 sent to the Cabinet Secretary under Margaret Thatcher warning that Peter Morrison MP had a penchant for small boys; and we have had significant allegations of child abuse by Lord Janner. There are currently 29 cases before the Independent Police Complaints Commission involving allegations of the police covering up child sexual offences from the ’70s to 2005. The IPCC has admitted that some of those allegations concern Members of Parliament —people who have been Members of Parliament. I could go on with other examples. It is clear that Sir Ian Horobin, the MP who was jailed for child sexual abuse in 1962, was certainly not the only person in this House guilty of that type of crime.
But that is the wider context. I would like now to focus on my personal understanding of the failings in relation to Operation Midland. After I wrote a book on Cyril Smith and the abuse that he meted out, I was inundated with correspondence making all sorts of allegations about other politicians, including Leon Brittan. I looked into those allegations, but I could find no evidence to suggest that he had done anything criminal. Furthermore, my office spoke to the person known as Nick, who was a key source of evidence during Operation Midland. The feedback that I received was that he had been instructed by the now defunct news website Exaro not to provide details to me about VIP abusers. Nick was clearly a very damaged individual who was struggling to cope, and I do believe that he had been abused. I just did not know by who.
I found all that a depressing tale and decided not to do anything with Nick’s testimony. However, I assumed that the Metropolitan police would not rely on one victim and that there were surely others. It now appears that that was not the case, and it was obviously a mistake to rely on so much from just one person. That said, I will not join in the calls to have Nick prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. I do not think that would be wise. There is some irony, in that we do not have to go too far back in modern history to find a Director of Public Prosecutions stating that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Cyril Smith MP for child abuse, or Victor Montagu MP, who admitted abusing a boy for nearly two years, and yet there are now calls for a survivor of abuse to be prosecuted. I certainly do not think it is in the public interest to prosecute Nick.
The law is messy and imperfect. Child abuse is a difficult crime to investigate, and a combination of disinterest and inadequate police skills over recent decades has resulted in far too many people getting away with a very serious crime. On occasion, that has also resulted in the wrong people being accused, with a lot of unnecessary hurt caused as a result. Finally, the ongoing football scandal shows that we have been far too slow to act. We must be more vigilant about powerful people abusing children.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr Streeter, and I am very pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). Everyone knows him to be a very good man, but it takes courage and determination to raise this sort of matter. I warmly support everything that he said.
The cases in question have created widespread concern about how the Metropolitan police and other forces have handled high-profile cases involving serious accusations of criminal offences allegedly committed by some of the leaders of our country. There is the apparently ongoing, astonishing case of our former colleague and Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath. So far, £700,000 has been spent on Operation Conifer, which is investigating the allegations against him. Some of the original allegations apparently included those of satanic rituals. Those complaints have since been dismissed, but they are illustrative of the bizarre extent of the allegations. The chief constable for Wiltshire has responded to the inevitable questions about why the police are wasting so much money on claims against a man who died more than 10 years ago and cannot answer back by defiantly affirming that he would not be
“buckling under pressure to not investigate or to conclude the investigation prematurely.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot mentioned the raid on the home of Lord and Lady Brittan. I should declare an interest: both Lord and Lady Brittan are very old friends of mine. My hon. Friend also mentioned the horrific indifference of the police officers involved. Furthermore, I remind the House of what happened to Lord Bramall. His house was raided by a 20-strong search team in a blaze of publicity, with police cars parked in the pub car park, advertising to the world what they were about. What an unspeakable way in which to treat a second world war veteran, let alone a former Chief of the Defence Staff of utmost probity. That calls the police’s whole sense of proportion and loss of judgment into question.
I knew Harvey Proctor slightly. He had been in the House for four years when I was first elected in 1983. We were not political soulmates, but I was one of those Members of Parliament proud to rally around to help him to set up his shop in Richmond following his conviction in 1987, which resulted in his leaving the House. I was heartened to see that, once again, people such as Matthew Parris and Michael Portillo were rallying around to support the public-spirited initiative of Iain Dale to raise money for Mr Proctor, who in my judgment has been unspeakably treated. The effort raised some £11,140, including many small contributions from ordinary people disgusted by what they had read about the handling of the case by the Metropolitan police.
Another case concerns a former fire officer in Dorset, David Bryant, who is 66 years old and has received commendations for gallantry. He spent almost three years behind bars for a crime that he did not commit, solely on the evidence of a man with a history of mental illness. Danny Day, now aged 53, had gone to the police in 2012 claiming that he had been raped by Mr Bryant and another firefighter, who is now dead, at the fire station in Christchurch on a single unspecified date at some time between 1976 and 1978. Mr Day said he was aged about 14 at the time of the alleged attack.
Mr Bryant, who the court heard was of “impeccable character” and had no previous criminal record, was convicted in 2013. Initially, he was sentenced to six years in jail, later increased to eight. Mr Day, who waived his right to anonymity in a series of newspaper interviews after the conviction, was finally exposed as a liar after detective work by a brave Mrs Bryant and a team of lawyers and private investigators who had been so horrified by the conviction that they had agreed to work on the case for free. Mr Justice Singly, hearing the case with Lord Justice Leveson and one other senior judge, said that other fresh material before the court included information that
“over a period from 2000 to 2010 the complainant in this case had to seek medical attention from his GP in relation to what can only be described as his being a chronic liar”.
David Bryant said:
“What happened to me must never be allowed to happen again. Being wrongly imprisoned as an innocent man is a living hell and something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy.”
To conclude, there are terrible cases that must be dealt with—I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—but what comes through in the case of Harvey Proctor and others is the monstrous treatment of an innocent man, who lost his livelihood, his way of life and everything else that he had strenuously worked for to re-establish his good name. The Metropolitan police must put him back and recompense him for that terrible evil. A monstrous injustice has been done and is too regularly done. I beg the Home Secretary and others in some way to ensure that the police exercise a proper sense of proportion, common sense and good judgment when dealing with such difficult cases.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for securing the debate.
As more and more allegations of historical child sex abuse come to light, more focus is inevitably placed on how our police forces handle such important matters. We have had Operation Yewtree into the Jimmy Savile cases; the umbrella inquiry, Operation Fairbank, which investigated politicians and other high-profile public figures; and Operation Midland, which is our particular focus today. Operation Midland was closed without any charges being brought.
As is now agreed, the allegations of historical child sex abuse that gave rise to Operation Midland were mishandled at best and shambolic at worst. In the event, worryingly, 40 areas of concern were identified in Sir Richard Henriques’s report, including the “automatic believing” of the allegations of the person known as Nick, whom we have heard about. Nick, the principal complainant, was treated as being “credible and true”, to use Henriques’s words.
Although there can be no further doubt that Operation Midland is an example of investigation at its worst of most serious allegations, and that lessons must be learned so that such allegations in the future are properly and fully investigated, it is also essential that those who allege they have suffered sexual abuse always remain at the heart of police investigations and feel able, supported and confident about coming forward to report crimes in future.
Although the Henriques report spoke of police failings in automatically believing the complainant Nick, whose account and allegations contained inconsistencies that ought to have made investigators more sceptical and more questioning, he is only one person, and all future complainants should not be tarred with the same brush. False allegations of historical sexual abuse, or any sexual abuse, are not seriously believed by many people to be widespread, and we must remember that.
However, concerns about this entire unfortunate episode persist. There has been much criticism of the fact that only around 10% of the Henriques report will be published. What does that mean for full transparency in such a serious matter? The fact that its publication coincided with the day of the presidential election in America has also raised concerns about attempts to bury bad news, but bad news such as this is like Banquo’s ghost; it will appear at the most inopportune moments to haunt those concerned. This attempt to bury bad news does not reassure the public or gratify those who feel they were unfairly targeted as part of Operation Midland.
Scotland Yard has been accused of attempting to limit the damage to its reputation by heavily redacting the report. The main complainant who gave rise to Operation Midland has now been dismissed, as we have heard, as a fantasist who faces potential charges. We must also remember that, by their very nature, allegations of historical sex abuse can be extremely challenging to investigate and very difficult to prove in court. Amid all the criticism, we need to remember that the police have an extremely difficult task. If they were not to be seen to investigate such allegations, they could be accused of being conflicted over investigating establishment figures. Clearly, that would lead to a loss of public confidence.
Investigating in a heavy-handed and gung-ho all-guns-blazing procedure is not appropriate, either. A balance must be struck that most people would agree was not struck in Operation Midland. That should be a cause of great concern to us all. It is a concern that there should not be and must not be any negative implications for how such allegations are treated in future. It is a concern that the police learn the lessons and investigate all such allegations in future without fear or favour and go wherever their investigations take them. It is a concern that victims of such abuse are not dismissed out of hand and have confidence that allegations will be fully and properly investigated. It is a concern that the public must feel that establishment figures will be fully investigated properly and transparently when such allegations are made against them in future, in the same way as such allegations should be investigated against any ordinary person. Those are important points, as more allegations of historical sex abuse emerge from the world of football as we speak.
Child sex abuse is the dirty little secret that is slowly exposing itself more and more as more people find the courage to come forward. We need to treat such allegations with proper care and attention and investigate them correctly. We owe that to every single person who has lived through such horrific abuse. It is important that no one is seen to be above the law, and no matter how historical the allegations are, they must be subject to full analysis. When there is sufficient evidence, those who are found to be guilty must be punished.
Mistakes in Operation Midland should serve warning of the importance of getting this right for both alleged victims and alleged abusers. It should not and must not be used as a barrier or a reason to automatically disbelieve future allegations. We need to get this right. I hope that today the Minister will reassure us that the Government are placing a strong emphasis on making sure they get this right in future.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
We all bring prejudices into this place. The greatest prejudice that perhaps we all share is one of revulsion at the idea of child sexual exploitation, but when it affects an individual we know or revere, our prejudice is to immediately assume they are innocent. That was the case, in my circumstances, with Field Marshal Lord Bramall. He is an individual who, in my regiment, is revered, with a semi-godlike status. The whole family of the regiment were horrified that he should have been accused in such a way, and we rejoice that all the effects of the accusation have been removed from his character. However, we remain demanding of answers in this case.
Of course the great and the powerful should be investigated when allegations are made, just as allegations against anyone should be investigated, but it is how we investigate that matters. The Henriques report has outlined an appalling catalogue of errors in all the cases that hon. Members have mentioned in this debate. In the case of Lord Bramall, the report says that it was wrong to raid his home based on the testimony of a single complainant since dismissed, as hon. Members have said, as a fantasist. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) about the number of officers, where they parked and the other factors involved in the case. The Henriques report says that it was entirely wrong to wait 10 months for the investigation to be dropped. In addition, Henriques questions the police tactics in obtaining search warrants for Lord Brittan’s and Harvey Proctor’s homes.
We have to ask who in the team conducting the search on Lord Bramall’s home questioned the ethics of entering the house of someone in their 90s in the way that they did. This was someone nursing his terminally ill wife. The police spent 10 hours in that house, many of them dressed in forensic suits, causing great distress to the ailing Lady Bramall. They took personal items out of the house and did not return them for a very long time. What kind of appalling groupthink existed in that team? I understand the medical term for it is cognitive dissonance. We have seen this in hospitals that have declined to see terrible figures on mortality. We have seen it in other organisations. I suggest it was prevalent in the Operation Midland team. Was there—is there—an adequate whistleblowing system that would have allowed someone properly to raise this?
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who secured this debate. He made an excellent speech. In many of our public services, including our most secret intelligence services, there is a system for people to raise concerns, but the system clearly failed in the case of Operation Midland.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) rightly talked about the pendulum swinging. The police were appalled at the attacks that had been made on them for their failure in the Savile case and they swung the other way. But did anyone lose their job over the treatment of people like Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and Harvey Proctor? Such high-profile people who are still alive are articulate and able to make a powerful case on their own behalf, whatever the privations they have suffered as a result.
Sir Nicholas Soames
On that point, I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. Someone was in charge of this. Someone was providing the leadership for the teams and exerting the judgment, issuing instructions and orders, and yet no one has been held accountable for the dreadful way in which it was being done.
Richard Benyon
As my right hon. Friend’s grandfather might have said, who was in charge of the clattering train? But it is not just about famous and well-known people. What about the teacher, the carer, the social worker, the fireman who are treated in this way? Blame lies not just with the misguided officers behind so many of the failures in Operation Midland. The climate was perpetrated by—I will name him—the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and others, who fostered a conspiracy theory culture around many of the investigations into the individuals.
The hon. Member for Rochdale was right to mention the loathsome people behind Exaro, the news website that put innocent people’s names in the public domain. It is hard to credit that the initial failures of the search and the delay in announcing that the inquiry had been dropped were compounded by the official letter Lord Bramall received, which was very churlish in its conclusions. It just said there was insufficient evidence to merit continuing the inquiry, and that further investigation could take place if more information came out. That was sent to a 90-year-old war veteran, with his dying wife in the house. What kind of mindset prevailed in the organisation?
I want never again to be ashamed of any action taken by the police force in any part of the country. I revere the police and firmly agree that they have a most difficult job; but the way things were done in the case I have outlined is deeply worrying to all of us who believe that fairness before the law is this country’s greatest virtue. I hope that the Minister will understand the strength of feeling that means he needs to hold the police force to account.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on his powerful speech. I entirely agree with everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). He was absolutely right when he focused on the issue of common sense. I should not want to be a police officer, and no doubt a police officer would not want to be a politician; but Operation Midland is not the police’s finest hour.
I think that there are five colleagues present in the Chamber who have been in this place since the time when those who were accused were parliamentarians; so most of us knew those individuals. Of course, it is not for us to judge the rights and wrongs of whatever they were accused of. Lord Bramall, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke, is someone for whom I have the highest regard. It is unforgivable that his wife died without knowing that the accusations against her husband were false. The way the raid on his home was conducted was a disgrace. The late Lord Brittan was a fine Home Secretary and a great European Commissioner. When I heard of the allegations against him I just could not believe them. It is, again, unforgivable that he died without knowing he had been cleared of the allegations.
However, I want to focus in my speech mainly on Harvey Proctor. He was the Member of Parliament for Basildon first, and then Billericay, from 1979 to 1987. I was elected for Basildon in 1983 and Harvey Proctor then became the MP for Billericay. As a newly elected Member of Parliament, elected under extraordinary circumstances to a House that was very different from the way it is today, I was grateful for all the help and support that he gave me. I speak as I find; he was perhaps the least materialistic Conservative colleague I have ever known. His reputation as an assiduous constituency Member still holds good today. It was a shock when, in May 1987, in the first week of the general election campaign, there was a trial and Harvey was convicted of an act of gross indecency; he was fined £1,450. Suddenly, in the first week of the campaign, there was a new Conservative candidate, the late Teresa Gorman.
I think that Harvey paid a heavy price for what he was found guilty of in 1987. I have been in correspondence with the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, to see what could be done about the charges. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex for what he and others did to try to rescue Harvey’s career, which had been destroyed. So it was a shock when, in March 2015, Harvey’s home at Belvoir was raided. Between 1987 and 2015 I had rather lost contact with him and it was after some years, at a caravan rally at the Duke of Rutland’s estate, where he was the manager, that we met. I was reminded—we are all busy people and we forget about things—how his life had been destroyed; he was haunted by what had happened in 1987. Harvey was, of course, accused of rape and murder, and has been acquitted.
Sir Richard’s report, which is excellent, makes 40 recommendations. I want to end by saying that I am tiring of Ministers responding to debates with what amounts to saying they cannot do anything. In 1983 they could do something, so how is it that 33 years later Ministers seem to be so powerless? Surely a word could be said, or a message could be sent. As far as Harvey Proctor is concerned, his life has been destroyed; he is more than entitled to compensation, as indeed the other victims should be.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Early one morning in March 2015, one of my constituents opened the front door of her home in Wensleydale to find a group of police officers standing there, with a warrant to search her house. Having lost her husband of 35 years just weeks before, she watched while the officers upturned every inch of the home they had shared. She told me it was
“like seeing your house burgled in front of your eyes”.
My constituent is Lady Diana Brittan, and her husband Leon was once my constituency’s representative in this House.
By any measure, Leon Brittan was a great man. Our nation’s youngest Home Secretary since Churchill, he helped to guide the country through the long night of the miners’ strikes. As Secretary of State for Trade, he played an instrumental role in creating the World Trade Organisation and, as Britain’s EU Commissioner, he won the nickname “Bulldozer” for his immovable commitment to UK interests. In pursuing what he knew to be right, regardless of who told him otherwise, Leon soon proved that he had, in spirit at least, been a son of Yorkshire all along.
However, in the last year of his life, when he was dying from cancer, he received a phone call from the Metropolitan police. He was told that he was to be investigated for an allegation of rape some 48 years old. The phone call was made despite the fact that the officer in charge of the case described the investigation as “grossly disproportionate”, and despite the fact that, as the Director of Public Prosecutions would later confirm, the case “at no time” met the necessary threshold for a realistic prospect of conviction. No one is above the law. It is of course right that the police should vigorously pursue allegations of criminality. However, in the case of my constituent it is clear that the Metropolitan police committed grave errors. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs said, the police acted in fear of
“media criticism and public cynicism”.
That is not a proper basis for police operations. The pursuit of justice is not an exercise in public relations.
Commissioner Hogan-Howe is to be commended for initiating the excellent independent Henriques review of the Met’s performance. However, the report is damning and lists more than 40 different failings, of which I will touch on three. First, current police guidance dictates that officers must “believe” a complainant’s allegations and that complainants should be referred to as “victims”. That is a dangerous principle. It flies in the face of the most fundamental principle of our justice system: that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. It goes beyond the reasonable requirement that officers should treat any allegations seriously and respectfully, and it creates a mindset where investigators may be tempted to fit facts to an accusation rather than approach their investigation with an open mind. It was precisely such thinking that led officers allegedly to mislead a judge about the credibility of a witness, thereby obtaining an unjustified search warrant and causing my constituent Lady Brittan so much distress.
Secondly, there were serious shortcomings in the way that the Metropolitan police interacted with the media. Our laws rightly preserve the anonymity of the accuser for sexual offences. Yet for the accused, our protections have repeatedly proved inadequate. Current police practice of confirming to the media the age and location of suspects is clearly incompatible with the police policy that suspects should maintain their anonymity until charged. For Leon, whose long years of public service made him easily identifiable, anonymity was lost well before it should have been, with devastating consequences. Lady Brittan, who was a dedicated magistrate, described to me how she and Leon, who was then in the late stages of cancer, were chased down narrow Yorkshire lanes by photographers and how their daughters fended off journalists outside their home. I appreciate the delicate arguments involved in considering statutory pre-charge protection of anonymity, but the failings of Operation Midland provide a compelling case for review.
Lastly, and most unforgivably of all, the police failed to inform the Brittan family that they were no longer pursuing their investigations. They found the time to inform the complainant, but it was not until nine months later that Lady Brittan read in a newspaper what she had known all along: that her husband had done nothing wrong. That delay meant that Leon died without ever seeing his innocence confirmed. It is shameful that the man who led our police force through one of its most challenging periods found himself so poorly repaid at its hands.
In conclusion, I have no doubt that if Leon, with his fierce intellect, had been standing in my place today, he would have made a far better case than I ever could. However, foremost in his mind would have been that the lessons must be learned, and learned properly. No one should ever suffer the injustice that he and his family have had to endure.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
If each of the Front Benchers aims for nine minutes, that will give Sir Gerald two minutes to respond. I call Richard Arkless.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I will not attempt to take up any more time than I have been allocated; I am keen to hear what the other Front Benchers have to say. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on bringing this sensitive and difficult topic to the Chamber. It is not easy to take the position that he has taken on this matter, and I recognise his bravery for doing so.
I will start by bucking the trend and praising the police—although obviously not in the context of Operation Midland. In my experience, the police in all four nations of these islands do a terrific job, and we should not forget that. This seems to be an isolated incident, and it is right that we express concern about it and try to tackle it.
Like most Members in the Chamber, I believe two things in this respect. First, I believe in the presumption of innocence. I am a lawyer, so for me that is a cornerstone of a civil society and the rule of law and it ought never to be discarded. Secondly, I believe that child sexual abuse is the most heinous crime that human beings have ever committed against other human beings. It is a heinous crime not only to be committed, but for someone to be accused of if they have not committed it. We should remember both those things. It is the only crime for which I could possibly justify reinstatement of the death penalty—clearly not in cases where people are innocent, but it is the most appallingly disgusting crime.
Sir Nicholas Soames
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the case of Cliff Richard, for example, the presumption of innocence was done away with when the search of his house and the reason for it was broadcast live on television with the connivance of the police?
Richard Arkless
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have just said that I appreciate that child sexual abuse is the most heinous crime not only to commit but to be accused of, and I have certain personal sympathies with Mr Richard’s position that there should be anonymity before charge. That debate is ongoing, and it is right that we have it. I do not disagree at all that child sexual abuse is the most heinous and appalling crime to be convicted of, and I have sympathy with anyone who has ever found themselves in that position.
I suppose the public will watch debates such as this and think to themselves, “What on earth was going on 20, 30 or 40 years ago?” The allegations made in the context of Operation Midland could not be proven—rightly so, it seems—but we have had other high-profile cases such as Savile, and we now have allegations involving football players and clubs. It seems that when two or three victims, or complainants, have the courage to come forward, that unlocks a Pandora’s box that no one thought was there. Although the points that the hon. Member for Aldershot made are steeped in sense, the danger of this debate is that we somehow appear to be protecting our friends and pals. If we do that, it will completely put off more victims from coming forward, and if they do not come forward, we will never understand the scale of what seems to have happened in a time about which I quite frankly cannot understand what I have seen and heard over the past few years.
The hon. Gentleman made a fantastic and powerful speech, and I was struck by the recommendations that he made. I was interested in his points about 3 Hare Court chambers—which I used to work with, incidentally, so I trust its advice. I was quite perturbed and distressed by the words “if they exist”. Clearly, in Operation Midland, it was difficult to prove that Nick was telling the truth, but if we in this place start taking that attitude—“Do victims exist? Should these allegations be believed? Are they spurious?”—we will put a lid on people being brave enough to come forward and describe such allegations, so that we in society can face up to what people did years ago, which none of us would suggest we have any part in.
That is the main point that I wanted to make. I was going to comment on some other speeches—I have been impressed by all the speeches—but I am keen to hear what the other Front Benchers have to say. I conclude with a note of caution: although it is right that we have this debate, we should be very clear and careful about the message that we send out. Presumption of innocence is one thing, but I would rather have a debate about the thousands of people all over these islands who have been sexually abused—not by the gentlemen investigated by Operation Midland, granted—and who never had the courage to come forward. I would like those people to come forward so they can finally get justice. That is what I would prefer to be talking about.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
May I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and all other Members on their passionate and interesting speeches? May I also say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter?
The report’s findings are extremely serious. They relate to the poor conduct of the police investigation and the breach of the police’s own guidelines on the anonymity of suspects, which have caused the Met to be in crisis. However, people’s focus is changing, and there now appears to be more attention on the credibility of rape and sexual assault victims. There is no evidence in the report to support a blanket change in policy for the treatment of all victims, which would run counter to all the evidence and the positions of all stakeholders.
Rape Crisis England and Wales says:
“The vast majority of survivors choose not to report to the police. One significant reason…is the fear of not being believed.”
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children carried out a series of focus groups with victims of Jimmy Savile to identify common themes that prevented those victims from reporting their abuse to the police at the time and to explore how the police could improve their management of the reporting process and subsequent interviews and contacts. In all those groups, a key reason victims gave for not disclosing abuse was their overwhelming belief that if they had done so, they would not have been believed. Those who did not report abuse cited feelings of shame, guilt and a fear of not being believed, as well as feeling intimidated by Jimmy Savile’s profile, as their reasons for not telling anyone. Status and position must not be a shield against investigation. We have heard a lot about loss of income and livelihoods. If just one case is proven, that is one child’s childhood that has been taken.
The Met has made very serious errors. The detail of the Henriques report should be used to strengthen police procedures for both investigation and the treatment of suspects. It cannot and must not be used to downgrade the seriousness of allegations of rape or sexual assault—crimes that are already woefully under-reported and have low conviction rates. Victims fearing that they will be doubted only serves to prevent reporting and to degrade those victims. There must be no move backwards by the police to make matters even worse. There must be no return to the abysmal treatment of victims or lack of seriousness in investigations, or to the police denigrating victims or denying them their rights.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Thank you. The Minister now has plenty of time to respond. I call Brandon Lewis.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, especially as you have effectively encouraged colleagues to intervene on me. Thank you for that.
As others have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on securing this debate, and I thank him and others for the points that they have raised about this serious matter. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the quality of the debate, which shows Parliament at its very best. This subject is difficult and can be sensitive, but they have made their points clearly. I was going to say that if there is anything I do not touch on due to pressure of time, I will write to hon. Members, but I think we should have time to cover everything thanks to the tight speeches from the Opposition Front-Bench Members.
One of the difficulties with a debate such as this, as a couple of Members rightly mentioned, is getting the balance in the system, and understanding that there is a balance, that finds the correct line between making sure that people can come forward as complainants or victims—there is an issue about the definition of victims, which was raised by hon. Friends and is in the Henriques report—and judging that against the rights of the individual, ensuring that we have a system in which people have the freedom and confidence to come forward to make complaints in the first place.
One of the things the police force should be proud of—we should all be proud of this—is that we are seeing a rise in recorded crime, with the two main causes of that being the improvement in the quality of recording crimes and the number of people who have had the confidence to come forward that was not there before. We need to ensure that we retain that while we ensure that the police and criminal justice system have the credibility we all want them to have so that when an allegation is brought forward that has no substance and no finding, the police deal with it effectively and efficiently as well. I will now come to that issue, which is at the core of the debate.
I want to be clear at the outset that I am not going to defend—nor could I—the actions of the Metropolitan Police Service in this case. We in Government share the deep concerns that hon. Members have articulated so clearly during the debate and those about the Metropolitan police’s handling of non-recent sexual abuse allegations, including Operation Midland. The Metropolitan police’s credibility in dealing with child sexual exploitation generally was highlighted and clearly shown to be well below the standard it should be in the recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which, to quote Sir Tom Winsor, is about the worst report that it has ever written about any police force in the country.
We recognise the anguish felt by those who had their reputations traduced by allegations that were subsequently discovered to be unfounded, and I empathise with them. To be unjustly accused of any crime, and, as the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) outlined, especially of a crime such as this, is a terrible experience for any individual. For that trauma to be exacerbated by police failures and behaviour is an affront to our criminal justice process and it should not happen.
Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, to his credit, was right to ask Sir Richard Henriques to carry out the independent review, but now he must stand up to the findings of that review. It sheds a light on the errors made by his force in carrying out the investigations. He has been frank in acknowledging the failings of the Metropolitan Police Service, and he, and I would say also his successor—I hope that he will deal with this so that it is not an issue for his successor to pick up next year—must not shy away from a proper consideration and response to Sir Richard’s recommendations or from taking all action necessary to ensure that that litany of errors never occurs again. I do mean all action necessary, and I will come to the detail of that in a moment. It is imperative that that is done without shying away from it at the earliest opportunity.
The Metropolitan police are now consulting on the recommendations with the National Police Chiefs Council, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the College of Policing and statutory and voluntary partners in the criminal justice system. I urge all parties involved in that work to consider the recommendations swiftly and decisively. They must learn the lessons from the failures. Investigations into allegations around sexual offences must be carried out professionally and appropriately for both parties.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Having benefited hugely from particular kindness from both Field Marshal Lord Bramall and Lord Brittan, may I suggest, as colleagues have, that it is not just about learning lessons? Those who were responsible for the disgraceful behaviour on the day and the failure to follow up afterwards must be identified.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point that the review deals with. I will come specifically to that in a moment.
This problem will not go away. Reports of child sexual abuse are increasing year on year and our public must have confidence in the system and that their police force—whoever and wherever that is—will handle those cases appropriately. However, again, that works both ways. Members have noted the case of South Yorkshire police and Sir Cliff Richard and how that was dealt with. That is a great example of how to do it badly and in a way that brings the entire police force into disrepute.
In order to wield the power, the police have to take investigations forward properly and appropriately; they have to understand the adage that with great power comes responsibility. At what point could anyone take the view that it is appropriate to carry out a raid with the BBC or any media outlet in tow?
Sir Gerald Howarth
Like my hon. Friends, I find the behaviour of the police and the BBC completely inexplicable. What action has been taken? What reprimands have there been? Has anyone been sacked? Can the Minister tell us?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend may be aware that there have been changes in the leadership at South Yorkshire police, and work is being done there to look at how they act. One of the other things we are doing to ensure that action is taken more widely nationally is to look at some issues that the Home Secretary has raised. I will come to that in just a few moments.
Today I have spoken to the national policing lead, Simon Bailey, who will be coming to see me before Christmas to discuss the recommendations of the review and the work that the police are doing more generally in response to these serious issues. There is also the issue of compensation for those who feel that they have been poorly treated and who have seen their reputations tarnished by the Metropolitan police force. As Members have said, that is important.
Of course, as we have taken power from the centre and moved it into police forces, it is for the Metropolitan police to address any claims for compensation that arise from the report’s findings and the general issues around such cases, particularly the Harvey Proctor case. I am sure that the House will agree that money cannot give someone back their previously unsullied reputation; nor can it give back the months, if not years, of anguish and turmoil they will have suffered. It does however at least provide some recognition of failure and responsibility, and recompense for the cost that people have suffered. That is something on which the police must focus. I am seeing Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe next week, when I will raise that issue and what the Metropolitan police are doing in that case. I assure the House that I will treat these matters with the utmost seriousness in raising them with him, and indeed in the conversations that I will have with the national police lead.
Richard Benyon
The Minister has rightly talked about maintaining the right balance, and he is making a powerful speech. However, if a member of a team going to search an individual’s house knows that what they are being asked to do is intrinsically wrong, what mechanisms exist in the police? I am mindful that the police have to maintain good order and discipline and cannot have people questioning them and going to the press, but there must be a hierarchical system in which an individual can say, “This is wrong. Something has to change.”
Brandon Lewis
I will come in a second to how the police should be dealing with those issues and going about their investigations, but, in terms of something happening whereby a member of the force sees something is wrong, in the first instance we should have a police service in which any member within it has the ability and confidence to come forward to the hierarchy of that service with a complaint and an outline of where things are going wrong. However, going beyond that and realising that we live in the real world and that in some hierarchical organisations, no matter how much we want it to be different, people feel that they cannot do that, in the Policing and Crime Bill that is going through Parliament we are giving more power to the Independent Police Complaints Commission so that it can take things up directly to give better protection to whistleblowers.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Detective Chief Inspector Settle did precisely that. He said that he thought the inquiry should go no further. What happened to him? Basically, he was destroyed. I do not think any legislation that my right hon. Friend can put on the statute book will remedy what has happened, which is a failure of leadership in the Metropolitan police.
Brandon Lewis
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and then deal with both issues.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The Minister is helping the debate, but may I pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)? Rather than having to go to the extreme of whistleblowing and making a formal complaint, why cannot someone say to their leading officer, “What on earth are we doing? Who told you to do this? Why are we doing it? Explain it.” I can do that with my Whips. Why cannot they do that with their inspectors?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that the members of the Government Whips Office will be delighted to hear that my hon. Friend feels rightly confident in having that conversation with them. He is right; that is exactly what should happen. However, through the Policing and Crime Bill we are trying to recognise that from time to time, as much as I wish it were not the case, there may be an officer who feels for whatever reason that they cannot go down that route and effectively act as a whistleblower. I will come on to how that should be handled going forward in more detail in just a few moments.
I will turn to some of the specific issues raised during the debate, but hon. Members will be aware that I cannot comment in detail on some of the specifics of Operation Midland, or indeed on individual cases associated with it. It is inappropriate for the Government to comment on operational matters such as those. Additionally, I am sure hon. Members are aware that action is being taken by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which I will outline, as a result of some of the failings identified in the review.
Five Metropolitan Police Service officers, ranging from a detective sergeant through to a deputy assistant commissioner, have been referred to the IPCC. Indeed, the individual who originally made the allegations that Operation Midland focused on is also being investigated by an outside force for attempting to pervert the course of justice. To that end, I hope the House appreciates that I am constrained by various ongoing proceedings, but I am happy to continue and to outline some further wide-ranging points.
On the publication of the report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred in his opening remarks, I believe that there should be a presumption in favour of transparency in a situation like this. It is to the commissioner’s credit that he commissioned this report, and I will discuss his plans for publishing it when I see him next week. There is a balance to be found between considering any legal implications of sensitive and confidential material in the report and publishing that material, which is an issue I know the commissioner has to look at. I will discuss that with him next week. In the first instance, we and the Metropolitan police should look to be as transparent as possible.
I understand the views of Sir Richard Henriques and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on whether the police should “believe” all victims. I cannot be clearer on the matter than by reiterating the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then the Home Secretary. She said that the police should focus on the credibility of the allegation, rather than on the credibility of the witness or victim. That has to be right, but as was said earlier, it works both ways in terms of how the police deal with these issues.
The position of the National Police Chiefs Council—I spoke to Simon Bailey about this earlier today—is that officers and staff must approach any investigation without fear or favour, and must go where the evidence takes them. I understand that Simon Bailey clearly made the point to Sir Richard Henriques, as he was putting together his report that outlined how many claimants’ allegations tend to be baseless, that once the victim has come forward, that case and its investigation must be undertaken without fear or favour to get to the bottom of whether that allegation is correct. If it is, it should quite rightly be followed through to its finality, which the police are required to do by the code of practice of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
The evidence of the victim is just one part of an investigation; “believing” victims, or even referring to them as such at the point of disclosure when recording the crime, as opposed to complainants, should not and must not interfere with that. However, we need a system under which people who believe they are a victim feel confident and free enough to come forward in the first place. I am sure we all wish to see that continue. As with the rest of Sir Richard’s recommendations, I know that the Metropolitan police, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council are looking closely and carefully at that, as they must, in order to respond fully.
Richard Benyon
Lord Dear made an important interjection on this issue in the other place. He said that the loss of the Police Staff College has had an impact on decision making and leadership. Does the Minister agree, and are there plans to put something like it in its place?
Brandon Lewis
I understand why Lord Dear made that point; I met him recently and he outlined his thoughts. However, we now have the College of Policing, which is working to make sure that we have the standards and the sharing of best practice in place. That is exactly what the college is there for.
The Home Secretary recently announced the development of a licence to practise for child sexual abuse investigators, as hon. Members outlined earlier. That will ensure that only qualified officers are carrying out those complex investigations and in the correct and appropriate way, and are hopefully dealing with some of the issues raised earlier. As a Government, we have done more than any other to lift the lid on what are heinous crimes. We have acknowledged the painful treatment endured by victims and by those wrongly accused. We have to make sure that we get that balance right. Similarly, we have to acknowledge the pain endured by those who have suffered sexual abuse and whose voices went unheard for such a long time. We saw that with the revelations relating to Jimmy Savile several years ago, and we are sadly seeing it again now with the appalling scale of allegations of abuse within football, as was noted earlier.
Child sexual abuse is a despicable crime. We have to do everything in our power not only to prevent it from happening but, where it happens, to root it out, deal with it and bring people to justice. We have been consistently clear that, where abuse has taken place, victims must be encouraged to come forward and have their allegations reviewed thoroughly and properly investigated so that people can be brought to justice. Again, that has to work both ways. To have confidence in the system, both the victims and the accused must have confidence that they will be treated with respect and will be brought to justice where appropriate.
In the case of Operation Midland, the Metropolitan police is clearly guilty of serious errors, as we heard earlier. Those failures must not be allowed to undo so much of the good work that we and they have done in recent years in giving that confidence to victims, survivors and the wider public to ensure that the police take these crimes seriously. Victims should—and increasingly do, as we have seen with the football scandal—feel able to come forward, to report abuse and to get the support that they need. In ensuring that that continues, we must not turn a blind eye to when the police get it wrong. In this instance they got it wrong, and they must stand up to that.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot for raising these important issues in such a powerful way, along with other right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that I have been able to assure hon. Members on the Government’s position; I will update them further following my meetings over the next week.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am most grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been a seminal debate and has been very powerful and useful indeed.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) that child abuse is the most heinous crime. That is why it is so serious for those who have been falsely accused; it is the most heinous crime. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was also absolutely right that accusations must be investigated, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) said that the police must not be intimidated.
That is common ground among us all, but I think the hon. Member for Rochdale was right when he said that the pendulum had swung too far the other way. We know of the ghastly things that happened in his town; blind eyes were turned to the most heinous of crimes there, which must never be allowed to happen again. The issue is getting the balance right, which we have to do. I think that the guidance has to change. I cannot believe that we can carry on, as is required at the moment, having to believe people making these sometimes very wild accusations.
It is important that the point made by Sir Richard Henriques is taken on board—that some people in public life, particularly entertainers, are especially vulnerable to fantasists’ made-up accusations. In winnowing out all of these cases, it is important to recognise that some people may themselves be the target of fantasists who are interested simply in making money. I readily understand, as Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said in his February article in The Guardian, that investigating these cases is exceptionally difficult. However, this debate has illustrated that the pendulum has gone too far, and that the police have to adopt a different standard. They must call people “complainants” and not “victims”, because otherwise they have prejudged the case at the outset.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his comments. I am delighted that he is meeting Chief Constable Bailey next week, because the issue is the nomenclature and the police’s approach to these claims. I particularly welcome his meeting next week with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and his belief that compensation, particularly in the case of Harvey Proctor, must be resolved before Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe retires. That is a precondition, and I hope that my hon. Friend will reinforce that message and secure that result. I end by thanking all hon. Members for taking part in the debate, and by reminding them that this inquiry has cost the British taxpayer between £2.5 million and £3 million.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10 (6)).
Legacy Issues: Northern Ireland
(7 years, 4 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
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered legacy issues arising from cases in Northern Ireland.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I think all of us agree that the Northern Ireland peace process has surpassed all expectations. Who could ever have dreamt 20 years ago that we would see in the Northern Ireland Administration both Democratic Unionist party Ministers and Sinn Féin Ministers? It is in everyone’s interest that the peace process continues and endures.
I will say something about the legacy. I remind colleagues that 3,500 people were killed. Of those, 2,000 were killed by republican terrorists, 1,000 were killed by loyalist paramilitaries and 368 were killed by security forces. In total, 722 members of the security services were killed, which includes 477 serving British soldiers. The overwhelming majority of those deaths were fully investigated. The vast majority of wrongdoers were brought to justice. A very small number remain unsolved, and I understand the desire of some of those victims’ relatives for closure. However, we have to be cautious. We simply cannot get away from the obvious fact that these events took place many, many years ago, and much of the evidence has disappeared.
In 2010, the Police Service of Northern Ireland set up the historical inquiries team to look at various cases. I understand that it completed investigations into 1,615 cases. It then set up the legacy investigation branch in January 2015 to look at the remaining 923 cases. Of those, 379 were republican cases, including 228 so-called on-the-runs, 230 were loyalists, and 283 were security forces. The active caseload is eight republican cases, one loyalist and five security forces. That means there are 911 cases outstanding. This could go on for many years. So far, the cost has been £33.2 million.
The cases are split pretty evenly between republicans, loyalists and security forces. However, I believe strongly that there cannot be any parity or moral equivalence between paramilitaries and terrorists and members of the armed forces. Those brave members of the armed forces were doing their duty, wearing the uniform of the Crown and working to keep the peace. We should not forget that the Army was originally called into Northern Ireland to restore order and to protect Catholics. The vast majority of those soldiers were young people, conducting themselves invariably to the highest possible professional standards and following the Yellow Book. The terrorists and paramilitaries, on the other hand, had one simple plan and aim in life: to kill and injure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He clearly outlined the case for British soldiers who courageously, energetically and within the law did their job to an exemplary standard. Does he share my concern, as many people in Northern Ireland do, that at 60 or 70 years old, these men are thrown to the wolves? Does he think that should happen?
Sir Henry Bellingham
I will come to that in a moment. Dragging veterans—people in their 70s and 80s—out of their retirement to face trial when most of the evidence has long since disappeared is a fundamental breach of the military covenant.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
In that context, may I mention Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings? He served in the same squadron as a very dear friend of mine—an extremely brave soldier. A terrorist was killed in an incident in which three soldiers were involved. He is the only one who is still alive. How can he ever have a fair trial?
Sir Henry Bellingham
My hon. Friend anticipates what I am coming on to.
In the Province, 1974 was an incredibly difficult year. A large number of people—just under 300—were killed. It was a very tough and challenging year indeed, with a number of serious incidents. Colleagues will remember the M62 coach bombing, when 12 people were killed by the IRA. They will remember the Provisional IRA bomb that exploded outside the Houses of Parliament, injuring 11 people and causing extensive damage. They will remember the Guildford bombings, carried out by the IRA, and the Birmingham bombings. During that summer in the troubled Province, the Life Guards—one of the most senior regiments of the British Army—were deployed to Armagh, Dungannon and Cookstown. They had a very tough tour, with predominantly young soldiers on the frontline who were under a great deal of pressure but at all times behaved with the utmost professionalism.
I want to look at the Army report of some incidents that took place around that time. The report states that the threat level against the Life Guards in the areas around Dungannon and Armagh was particularly high. All patrols had been warned to take special care. A number of shooting incidents involving the Life Guards had occurred close to Eglish, and it was generally believed that the unrelated non-fatal shooting of a soldier from the Life Guards on 4 June was in direct retaliation to an arms find in that area. The same day, a Life Guard foot patrol surprised a group of young men who were in the process of transferring weapons into a car in the village of Eglish. The patrol was fired upon, and an exchange of fire took place. Three men were arrested, and a quantity of arms and explosives were recovered. At least three gunmen escaped.
During that particular incident, Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) referred, was mentioned in dispatches for his exemplary bravery and leadership. Two days later, Dennis Hutchings led a patrol of four men in a follow-up operation aimed at locating further arms caches near the village of Benburb. They chanced on John Pat Cunningham, who was challenged to give himself up—he was behaving in a suspicious manner. The patrol believed they were threatened. They opened fire and, as we know, John Pat Cunningham was tragically killed. It transpires that he was not a terrorist but an innocent civilian. It was a tragic case of mistaken identity.
That incident was investigated fully by the Life Guards. It was investigated by the military police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The four patrol members were completely exonerated and cleared, and the regiment believed that was the end of the matter. If we fast-forward to 2011, Dennis Hutchings was staggered and flabbergasted when he was investigated by the PSNI historical inquiries team. A comprehensive investigation took place at the time. He co-operated fully and was told, after a short period, that no further investigations would take place because there was no case to answer and the whole matter could be closed. He specifically asked whether that was the end of it and was told that it was, so he went back to his retirement, to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and got on with his life.
We now fast-forward to April 2015, when there was a dawn raid on the corporal major’s house in Cornwall. By then he was in very poor health. He was arrested, taken to Northern Ireland for four days of questioning and then charged with attempted murder—of course, a charge he vehemently denies. After 42 years, there are no witnesses left. The three other members of the patrol have died. There is no forensic evidence. There are no weapons left.
I was certainly taught at law school that one of the key tenets of criminal justice is the need for credible, current and corroborated evidence. It is beyond belief that he has been charged. There is no conceivable way he could ever receive a fair trial without proper evidence. These charges fly in the face of all the basic rules of criminal justice. We are seeing an outbreak of revisionism. We cannot simply revisit cases from 42 years ago and try to reinterpret them through the prism of the 21st century, with its emphasis on human rights.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman might take comfort from the Secretary of State’s words last week at Northern Ireland questions, when he said that
“the system is heavily focused on the 10% rather than the 90%, and the balanced, proportionate measures that I put forward will assist in changing that.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 199.]
Sir Henry Bellingham
That gives me a certain amount of comfort.
What has changed? There is no new evidence, but what has changed is that the DPP in Northern Ireland is now Barra McGrory, QC—the same person who represented Martin McGuinness in the Saville inquiry. This is the person who is prepared to move away from credible evidence to political decision making, which I find very worrying. It has to be stopped. There are potentially 278 more cases involving the security forces. I do not want any more veterans to be dragged out of their retirement homes any more than I want Sinn Féin councillors to be dragged out of council chambers.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Has the hon. Gentleman not hit the nail on the head? This is not about opening cases to find out who is guilty or not guilty. It is about political revisionism, rewriting history, and trying to move the blame from the terrorists to those who served their country faithfully. The Government ought to get a grip on this now and say, “No more.”
Sir Henry Bellingham
I agree entirely. I will quote what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said back in October. She said that
“we will never again in any future conflict let those activist, left-wing human rights lawyers harangue and harass the bravest of the brave, the men and women of our Armed Forces.”
Furthermore, in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, dated 15 November, to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), he said that we
“‘will always salute the remarkable dedication and courage of the RUC and our Armed Forces in defending the rule of law and in ensuring that Northern Ireland’s future would only ever be determined by democracy and consent. We will never forget the debt we owe them…we will also never accept ‘equivalence’ between the security forces and those who carried out acts of terrorism’.”
I submit in conclusion that we have to find a way forward. We have to draw a line under this. We have to see the scrapping of the legacy investigation branch. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that he look at what happened in South Africa. If he does not want to scrap the legacy investigation branch and put a line under this, could he look at something along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and amnesty committee that South Africa set up so successfully? The alternative does not bear thinking about. It would represent a betrayal of our armed forces and a tearing up of the military covenant, and could imperil the entire peace process.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I represent the home of the British Army and have constituents in their 70s and 80s who still await a potential knock at the door. My hon. Friend has made a powerful speech. Does he agree that what is being done will seriously damage the morale of British troops? If they feel that their Government are not prepared to stand by them, they will think, “What is the point in putting my life on the line for my fellow citizens?”
Sir Henry Bellingham
I fear that if we do not draw a line under this, we will be not just undermining the morale of our armed forces, but betraying veterans. We could also imperil the entire peace process.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Sir Henry Bellingham has agreed to give four minutes to Danny Kinahan.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Thank you, Ms Dorries. I am very pleased to be speaking in the debate, and that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) initiated it and put the argument so eloquently. I must declare that I was a Household Cavalry officer a long time ago and therefore I have a great deal of interest in this case. When I heard about it, I wrote to every Lord and every MP, to the Secretary of State for Defence and to the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I have spoken with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on two occasions and to the Minister, who I am glad is here today—but all to no avail. All I have really had, all the way through, is the straight bat: “This is an ongoing investigation. Sorry, we can’t speak about it,” or “It’s all part of a future legacy deal.”
I sometimes think that society has gone mad. On 11 November every year, we remember those who died in conflict as their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen march along, thinking of the horrors and the great heroic moments that they shared, past cenotaphs throughout the United Kingdom. That is what we mark on that day, yet cynically I look at that now and think, are they all walking past and wondering when their day is coming—when will there be that knock on the door, when will they be called to answer for something they did when they were doing their duty?
I would like to remind everyone that the British Army went to Northern Ireland to keep the peace and, in time, found itself fighting the most vile and horrendous conflict with terrorists. We are thankful to all who served—I said that in my maiden speech—and we must remember them, and all the work that they have done, all the time.
We have heard that more than 3,000 people died between 1969 and the Belfast agreement in 1998, but many people out there still want closure and, at the same time as all this, we must find a way of getting closure for them. Our sympathy must go to all those who have lost loved ones and especially to the Cunningham family, whom we are talking about today.
The Secretary of State said in September that the approach to legacy should be fair, balanced, impartial and, crucially, proportionate. It is vital that no one is above the law, whether they are security force personnel or paramilitary, and many people feel that there can never be an amnesty of any kind.
What we are concerned with is that the approach to the past is disproportionately focused on state actions. The basic facts that we have heard are that 90% of the deaths during the troubles were a direct consequence of terrorist groups and only 10% were the responsibility of the state. I have heard in a response from the Assistant Chief Constable that out of the 2,538 cases being investigated, 88% are republican or loyalist and 315 are security force cases. We asked about the detail, and we have already heard the numbers. Going through at the moment are 14 cases: eight republican, one loyalist and five security force cases. That is 36%, not 10%, so it is not proportionate. Of those referred by the DPP—four of them—all, 100%, are security force cases, and one of those is that of Corporal Major Hutchings. Do we really think that that is proportionate?
The Hutchings case is one example of where scrutiny has been applied to the security forces in a way that has not been allowed for others. John Downey was able to blow up the Household Cavalry in 1982. He was given a comfort letter and let off. That is completely wrong. We seem to have lost our sense. Lady Justice Hallett said that this was a clear distortion of our justice system, so the justice system knows about it. We must do things better and find a better way of going forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Kris Hopkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) on securing the debate and on a passionate speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) on his contribution.
It is evident that for many people, the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past continues to cast a dark shadow over the present. I am conscious that in approaching this issue we need to recognise the terrible loss suffered by so many people during the troubles, in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out, over the period of the troubles— broadly, from 1968 to 1998—more than 3,500 people were killed, mostly, though by no means all, in Northern Ireland. Many of those were members of the armed forces, killed in the line of duty protecting the public and maintaining the rule of law. Thousands were also maimed or injured during the terrorist campaigns.
This Government have always been clear that we wholly reject the suggestion that there is some equivalence between the security forces and those who carried out acts of terrorism. Terrorism was and is wholly wrong. It was never and could never be justified, from whichever side it came, republican or loyalist. No injustice, perceived or otherwise, warranted the violent actions of the paramilitary groups. The terrorist campaigns caused untold misery and suffering, and the terrorists left lasting scars, physical and psychological, in the wake of every atrocity that they carried out. We will never agree—I repeat that we will never agree—with a version of history that seeks to legitimise that.
The Government have also shown that where the state has got things wrong, we are prepared to face up to and account for what we have done. I say this as someone who has served in Northern Ireland. As a proud member of the British Army, I witnessed at first hand the remarkable dedication, professionalism and courage of the armed forces and the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister not see that with the hounding of individual members, whether in cases in Northern Ireland or what we see with soldiers who face enemy fire in Afghanistan and Iraq, that is exactly how soldiers perceive it—that they are not stood up for by their own Government?
Kris Hopkins
I will come to the issue around proportionality, but I went to Northern Ireland to maintain law and order. I said I saw people acting bravely and professionally, but if I saw somebody doing something wrong, I would expect the state to challenge those individuals and bring them to account. We cannot have one set of rules and have another set of rules for another set of people. Proportionality, which the hon. Member for South Antrim raised, is really important. I will come to that in a second.
More than 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives over the period of Operation Banner, which was the longest continuous deployment in our country’s history. Over 7,000 awards for bravery were made and, quite simply, without the dedication and self-sacrifice of the security forces in keeping people in Northern Ireland safe, the circumstances that enabled the peace process to take root would never have happened.
I will briefly talk about the case of Dennis Hutchings. First, I recognise that Dennis Hutchings was a senior NCO in Her Majesty’s forces. I met the proposer of today’s debate last month after he raised the case of Mr Hutchings in Northern Ireland Question Time in October. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk on that day:
“Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and the prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government and politicians.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 270.]
I cannot, therefore, comment on this individual case.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Forgive me, but that is simply an unacceptable answer from a Minister of the Crown. I am sorry, but this is what we hear. We heard in the previous debate that it was an operational police matter. We are now told that this is a matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. This is a matter of public policy. We have heard that Corporal Major Hutchings was told that the matter was closed. Now, in his dotage, it is being reopened. Ministers cannot pass this responsibility to the police force. This is a matter of public policy and the people of Britain—particularly those with whom the Minister formerly served in the armed forces—will expect Ministers to stand by it and not simply pass the buck to the police.
Kris Hopkins
May I respectfully say that I am not going to get into the debate over Mr Hutchings? Actually, the process of law in this country is that politicians and Government do not get involved. There is a department for prosecutions, a criminal process to go through and a police service that must be allowed to pursue its inquiries. We cannot create one set of rules for one part of society and another for another part of society. I will briefly address the issue of proportionality, which is the most important.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does the Minister understand that many people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere are perplexed and confused about the fact that the PSNI is pursuing people, such as the gentleman who was mentioned, in a disgraceful way, yet senior members come on the radio and cast aspersions about all sorts of people, saying they are involved in criminal activity, and yet do nothing about it? They are talking about active people. Is that not the dichotomy? Is it not disgraceful that people who served their country are being pursued, while police say they know all about the activities of others and are doing nothing about it?
Kris Hopkins
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point. This issue of proportionality is really important and that is why the Secretary of State and others have sought to find a mechanism, because the present situation creates the challenges that people are talking about at this time. We need to find another way that brings proportionality to the system and enables people to feel justice on both sides of society.
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been generous in taking interventions. I welcome his last statement about looking for a new way forward, but does he accept that although the decision to prosecute is independent, the manner in which it is carried out—raiding the house of a great-grandfather with police cars, thus giving away his address and all the rest of it—can be commented on? Indeed, we just had comments on the Met from our right hon. Friend, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, a few minutes ago in another context.
Kris Hopkins
I expect the police to always maintain a high standard when they go to arrest somebody, and I am sure that every Member here would as well.
I want to talk about proportionality. As has been pointed out, 90% of victims were as a consequence of terrorist interventions. The proposals that are out there, which the Secretary of State would like to consult people on, are around how we ensure that those accused, from both the state side and the republican side, are brought before the courts and examined in a proportionate way. The proposals are that each case would be examined chronologically. There will be a conclusion within a period of five years, to give people some closure and some idea of timescale.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
From what the Minister said, I assume he accepts that there is not proportionality within the legacy investigation branch at the moment, given that for places like Enniskillen—the explosion in the poppy day bombing—there is not one police officer investigating that case.
Kris Hopkins
The next line that I was going to read states that the almost exclusive focus on the actions of the state is disproportionate and must be challenged and redressed if we are to deal with the past in a way that is fair and balanced and allows victims and survivors to see better outcomes than the current piecemeal approach. That is why the Government continue to believe that the Stormont House agreement institutions remain the best way forward in dealing with Northern Ireland’s past.
I believe that these proposals will make the situation better for victims and survivors, and will be the only chance we have of prosecuting terrorists who murdered soldiers and police officers along with other innocent victims. I believe that the historical investigations unit, a body proposed under the Stormont House agreement, has a number of important advantages over the current system. I reiterate that it will investigate deaths in a chronological order. The HIU will not focus on the deaths caused by soldiers, as the investigations systems in Northern Ireland do today. Instead, it will take each case in turn and will investigate the many hundreds of murders caused by terrorists, including the murders of soldiers. Honourable Friends, it is estimated that without reform of the current mechanisms, around 185 murders of soldiers, not to mention the many murders of RUC members, will not be investigated. There will be a statutory duty for the HIU to act in a balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable way. The HIU will be time-limited, as I said, with an objective to bring to an end all investigations into the past in five years.
I have outlined the reasons why the Secretary of State announced his intention to move forward into a public phase on legacy bodies, and why he and I have been engaging extensively with political parties and victims groups to find a way forward in these outstanding cases. I believe that this approach has the potential to build greater confidence in the new bodies and to resolve the remaining issues. It is clear that the status quo is not working well enough for victims and families, and it is time that progress is made. This should create a more proportionate approach in dealing with the past and ensure that the balance of investigations is rightly on the terrorists who caused so much pain and suffering, rather than disproportionately on the brave soldiers and police officers who sacrificed so much to protect us.
Question put and agreed to.
Local Government Funding: Birmingham
(7 years, 4 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered local government funding for Birmingham.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Dorries. I asked for this debate because social care services in Birmingham are on the brink of collapse. Public libraries and parks are likely to become a thing of the past and children’s services, which we are supposed to be improving, are braced for swingeing cuts. This is no less than political vandalism; some people in our city are set to experience the most severe and catastrophic consequences of deliberate Government policy.
The core spending power of Birmingham is set to reduce by 5% at a time when some Tory-led authorities have received funding increases of almost 8%. Last February, the Secretary of State announced a hardship fund of transitional money worth £300 million for councils facing the sharpest reductions in grant, but not one penny went to Birmingham. It went to places such as Conservative-led Bromley, Conservative-led Kingston upon Thames, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. How exactly does the Minister justify that state of affairs?
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
This is not the first year that Birmingham has experienced such a situation. There is a pattern and, on top of that, the councils that get a higher percentage increase also have a lower dependency on core funding. Birmingham is therefore being hit disproportionately year after year.
Steve McCabe
My right hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I will make later about council tax, but she is absolutely right: this situation is not new and there is a pattern.
The simple truth is that we are suffering from a legacy of unfairness in our city. Part of that dates back to the 2014-15 and 2015-16 settlements, and as a result the chickens are now coming home to roost on the Minister’s watch. Birmingham, the second city in the country and home to more than 1 million people, is also the second-hardest-hit by Government cuts in the whole country. How is that fair?
Most people would expect a Government Minister to acknowledge the special factors in Birmingham that ought to be taken into account: most of our properties, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) indicated, are in council tax bands A, B and C, which means that we have a lower council tax base than many other places. We are therefore more heavily affected by the withdrawal of Government grant and raise proportionately less from council tax or precept rises. We suffer from classic big-city issues. Infant mortality is almost 8%—almost double the national average—and life expectancy for men and women is eight and five years shorter respectively when we compare the most affluent and poorest areas. Birmingham is ranked No. 1 in the country when it comes to the total number of fuel-poor households. We should consider Birmingham’s predicament in that context.
This year we expect a £30 million shortfall in the social care budget; that is after the council has followed the Minister’s advice and slapped an extra 2% social care council tax precept on our long-suffering residents. Because extra funding from the social care precept is skewed towards more affluent areas until resources from the improved better care fund become available, we estimate that Birmingham will be disadvantaged to the tune of £98 million in terms of social care come 2017-18. An obvious crumb of comfort that the Minister could offer today would be to say that he will meet us to consider how resources from the better care fund could be used now to recognise the fact that social care spending pressures are being experienced now.
It is not just council services that are teetering on the edge of disaster as a result of deliberate decisions by the Government. Our police have suffered successive cuts to personnel and resources. Just the other day, the chief constable admitted that more than 170,000 calls to 101 went unanswered because of staff shortages. Our NHS is crippled by bed-blocking, rising waiting lists and the spectre of deficits, as well as a sustainability and transformation plan designed to further reduce access to some services.
I have no doubt that, at some point, the Minister will quote his estimate of the city council’s spending figure, as his officials did when they briefed the press earlier today. It is all very well to quote big-sounding numbers from spreadsheets, but what experience does he have of taking an enterprise that is responsible for over 1 million people and slashing its budget by more than £750 million? That is what the Government have done to Birmingham. Health visitors warn that the budget cuts are putting safeguarding at risk. Children’s centres are to be cut so severely that only those who can pass through the super-deprived gateway can expect any help or support. Nurseries, despite the Government’s care offer, are bracing themselves for closures and a massive reduction in services.
The council has almost halved its workforce. More than 12,000 jobs have been lost—those are real people and real jobs. Homelessness prevention services have had to be cut by so much that rough sleeping in Birmingham has quadrupled. On 29 November, a homeless man froze to death on the streets of our city on one of the coldest nights of the year. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who is not exactly unfamiliar with the city, said at the time:
“I think one person homeless is one person too many so you have always got to do more.”
As the Minister knows, the relentless period of cuts means that we have now reached the stage at which the council has to reconsider the Supporting People budget. I am sure he knows that the sole purpose of that budget was to fund accommodation-related support, particularly supported housing. In 2009, it was his Government who removed the ring fence on the Supporting People budget. We are talking here about homeless young people aged 16 to 25—about care leavers. Elsewhere in this building today, the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families is telling Members about his seven principles for childcare, which he describes as the heartbeat of his plans. How will that work if there is no supported accommodation for those young people?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and I have every sympathy for what he says, because Coventry has experienced the same thing. Importantly, it was only some weeks ago that a private Member’s Bill was approved in this House and we were being assured that homeless people would be found accommodation. However, we never got a price tag put on that.
Steve McCabe
My hon. Friend makes a good point and he is exactly right. It is difficult to see how the Government can say they are doing a great job with the homelessness reduction legislation if its effect will be to impose more duties on local authorities that are unable to fund their existing proposals for Supporting People.
I am concerned about young people, older people with support needs, those with learning disabilities or mental health needs, and the victims of domestic violence. If there is a cut in budgets for Supporting People, all that help is at risk. It will lead to a reduction of provision and a further reliance on the costly unregistered and unregulated sector. Is that what the Minister wants? I commend the Birmingham pathway model for under-25s to the Minister. I understand that it is seen as a national exemplar and has been used to inform the work of his Department in establishing a framework for all other services for single homeless people. Why would he want to stand by and see it close down?
The Minister might want to remind me of the council’s failings and suggest that its members should put their own house in order, rather than complain to the Government. I acknowledge that Birmingham is under scrutiny. We have had: an independent review of education and the appointment of a Government commissioner for education; an independent review of children’s services and the appointment of a children’s services commissioner; and the Kerslake report into the structure and functioning of the council itself, and the appointment of a Government improvement panel to oversee the implementation of the recommended changes. How many meetings has the Minister had with those commissioners and members of the improvement panel since being appointed to his post? Does he consult them weekly or fortnightly? What is the frequency of the contact? Surely he cannot be defending this dire approach to our city’s future without reference to his own appointed experts. Would that not be tantamount to a dereliction of duty on his part?
We want a fundamental re-evaluation of spending needs to determine the funding levels of different local authorities, and we want a fair system, not a skewed or fixed one. We want recognition of some of the unique problems that confront Birmingham and an offer of some transitional support while that re-evaluation takes place. I can try to be helpful to the Minister, if he is in any kind of listening mode. I am not simply calling on him to give the city council more money. I am open to discussions, as are a number of my colleagues—any place, any time—to see what kind of partnerships, innovative approaches and pilot schemes might be available to help to ease the plight of our city and its people. As I have indicated, the Minister might like to consider bringing forward resources from the better care fund to recognise that pressures are being experienced now. I am open to suggestions about how that extra funding might be distributed. My concern is that those in desperate need get help. If the Minister has set his face against giving any extra money to the city council, I will accept an alternative approach to boosting the overall social care resource if he is ready to make that offer.
The Birmingham Social Housing Partnership has made a proposal to Government to pilot a locally administered co-investment model for supported housing, which would make possible the squeezing out of transactional costs. If agreed, it could be part of a national pilot for the delivery of supported housing. Can the Minister offer any comfort on that front today?
If we do not see some improvement in the financial situation facing our city, I predict dire consequences: the abandonment of the elderly, vulnerable and homeless; the full-scale closure of libraries, public parks and play areas; the second city reduced to a wasteland; and a breakdown of the social consensus on which the very basis of our community exists. Our city has had an extremely raw deal. I beg the Minister to treat these warnings seriously.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Dorries.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate, not least because, as he said in his powerful speech, but two weeks ago a young man froze to death on the streets of Birmingham. Who are the young homeless? One in 10 young people in Birmingham over the past five years have suffered from homelessness. Half of those in homeless accommodation are young people. I, for one, object sometimes to the caricature of those young homeless people as somehow being druggies, drunks and dropouts. I remember when we organised, here in the House of Commons, the first ever Youth Homeless Parliament, and there were Brummies here from the YMCA and St Basils. We saw quintessentially middle-England young people whose lives had spiralled downwards and who had ended up homeless on the streets.
The Secretary of State said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned, that one young homeless person dying on the streets was “one too many”. He went on to say that we always have to do more. That is why, only yesterday, co-ordinated by St Basils, the charity for homeless people in Birmingham, 14 organisations supporting the homeless in Birmingham wrote to the Government calling for a fair settlement for Birmingham. They praised Birmingham City Council for having protected, thus far, the most vulnerable from the biggest cuts in local government history, and said that, thus far, Birmingham City Council had managed to protect the Supporting People budget, unlike many other local authorities. However, they went on to say that it was now becoming increasingly difficult, concluding that there was a social and financial line that should never be crossed. But that is exactly what is happening.
Only today, Alan Fraser, the chief executive of the YMCA in Birmingham, has warned that further cuts to the city council’s budget, with particular reference to Supporting People, will
“massively increase the risks of these deaths happening again.”
He is right.
The chief executive of Birmingham City Council, Mark Rogers, in a powerful interview, today said something similar, saying that the risks of more people dying were “massively increased” because of the cuts. He is right. That is why it is wrong that the great city of Birmingham—Britain’s second city—has been hit by a combination of the biggest cuts in local government history on one hand, and grotesquely unfair treatment on the other. Mark Rogers, a man who is normally cautious in the way he expresses himself, said in the interview:
“We are fast reaching the point where there could be catastrophic consequences for some people.”
That is little wonder, in circumstances where the council’s employee headcount has halved since 2008 from 24,000 to just over 12,000. The council will, by the end of this financial year, have made £800 million of cuts since the era of austerity, which, I stress again, was the biggest in local government history; the council lost 50% of its grant from central Government. Eligibility for social care has been restricted so that only those with substantial or critical needs now receive help.
What we are seeing increasingly in Birmingham—this is heartbreaking—are those 15-minute flying visits to people in need of care, who previously were able to count on something very different and much better. Another £28 million has just gone from the adult care budget. The combination of what is happening in the health service and in the council has led to a £150 million black hole in the city’s finances this year. This is a tough year but, on the current trajectory, things will get even worse in the next financial year, with a further £113 million reduction to the city council’s budget on top of the previous £800 million.
Mark Rogers talks about cuts to youth services. Birmingham used to pride itself on being an exemplar city with its programmes for young people. There were dozens of youth services, but there are now just two left. Birmingham had 40 advice centres in 2010; now there are just four. There is also an increasing impact on children’s centres. Half have gone and, as my hon. Friend said, only those in what are sometimes described as super-deprived communities get the support that people were previously able to count on through the excellent Sure Start children’s centres.
On the very survival of some nursery schools, I took the heads of our four nursery schools in Erdington—Castle Vale, Osborne, Marsh Hill and Featherstone—to meet the Minister with responsibility for nurseries, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), and they waxed lyrical, as do the people who use those nursery schools, about how they have made a difference to children’s lives. The best way of achieving social mobility is addressing what happens at the ages of two, three and four. I heard powerful stories, including from the grandad who said, “He never used to open his mouth. He was only in the nursery school for nine months, and now he never stops talking.” I heard how the kids have come on and about the support being given to the parents. The idea that some of those nursery schools, which are in a deprived community, now face closure as a result of the continuing budget cuts is absolutely unthinkable.
On the one hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak is right that in the past we said that the council had to up its performance, but on the other hand, the argument that this is all due to the council is completely false because of the sheer scale of what has happened. Indeed, in a stark warning today, the chief executive said that the imposition of large cuts is not simply a response to the 2008 banking crisis:
“Deficit reduction enabled first the coalition and then the straight Tory government to pursue a straight Tory objective of a smaller state.”
He is right, and it is not just that; it is the grotesque unfairness of approach.
After we went to see the Minister and had a good hearing, the nursery school heads were utterly dismayed to see that the outcome of the funding formula review was that Birmingham got less but—surprise, surprise—Maidenhead got more. Overall, Buckinghamshire is being treated twice as fairly as high-need Birmingham. The scale and unfairness is simply wrong.
The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), a man with whom we had good discussions, admitted to the Members of Parliament for Birmingham earlier this year that there had been an unfairness of approach. We were led to believe that it might be put right but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, the £300 million fund overwhelmingly went to leafy, Tory shires. Not a single penny went to Birmingham, despite the sheer scale of the cuts that have been taking place.
As Members of Parliament for the city, we wrote to the Chancellor in advance of the autumn statement to make a series of proposals—I will not repeat what my hon. Friend has already said—including bringing forward the better care fund, greater investment in health and, crucially, a fair local government settlement. As Members of Parliament, we stand ready to engage with the Government on the next stages, but it cannot go on like this, with the Government seemingly oblivious to the sheer scale of what is happening and the sheer scale of the consequences for our city. That is why this debate is so important in asking that the Government hear the city’s case before the local government settlement.
I am proud to represent my Erdington constituency, and I always say that it may be rich in talent but it is one of the poorest in the country. It is a stark statistic that a person who gets on the train at New Street and gets off at Gravelly Hill or Erdington is likely to live seven years less than a person who continues on to Four Oaks in the leafy shires of Sutton Coldfield. That cannot be right. When such appalling statistics and discrepancies show the sheer scale of what is happening in the city, it cannot be right that our nursery schools and children’s centres are at risk—I stress again that they are vital to giving kids the best start in life.
Home-Start supports struggling families locally, and its services are desperately needed. I have seen its outstanding work first hand, but it is now living from hand to mouth. As a consequence of what has happened to the Supporting People programme, the financial security of New Oscott retirement village and the Ralph Barlow house, which look after those in the twilight of their years and those who are vulnerable for one reason or another, is being fundamentally undermined. The Members of Parliament for Birmingham appeal to the Government to hear the case of Birmingham and to recognise that the sheer scale cannot continue because of the serious implications. The time has come for fair treatment of a great city.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Dorries—everyone has said something different. I have just come out of the debate on Aleppo, and a Government Member who served in the armed forces stressed that perhaps we would not be so ready with some of our suggestions had we seen some of the things that he had seen. I express exactly the same sentiment here. If some of those in the Department for Communities and Local Government, including the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), had seen some of the things that I have seen in my work with the homelessness services in the city of Birmingham, they would not have made the decisions that they have made in the past six years and are continuing to make.
The people who use those services rely on them for their lives. Compare that with the money we spend on other things. I have seen people’s lives saved. These people are not just about managing; they are surviving. Without the refuges, without the St Basils youth homelessness service and without Sifa Fireside—I invite the Minister to sit and eat breakfast with me every morning at Sifa Fireside—we are condemning these people to death with a cut of £5 million to £10 million in Birmingham City Council’s budget for those services.
I am not shroud-waving. I am an expert—I know we do not like experts any more—and I know what even half the proposed budget cut to our current Supporting People services will mean. It will basically mean that the services cannot function any more. There are 4,000 victims of domestic violence in the city of Birmingham. Already, every single day, hundreds of people in our city are turned away from specialist services. We are about to start turning away many more.
On average, there are 97 homelessness applications in our city every single day. We used to have services all across the city where people could go to get help and advice, which reduced the number of homelessness applications. I set up some of those services. Birmingham & Solihull Women’s Aid used to provide specialist support in each of our neighbourhood offices so that there was a specialist, not a checkbox, there when a victim of domestic violence came in needing support for their housing. Those specialists have been gone for about two years; the centres they were housed in no longer exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) began his powerful comments on the subject of social care. I put in a freedom of information request to every single council in the UK, asking how much they spent weekly on adult social care in care homes. In Birmingham, the spend is £436 per week. That is £100 less than it costs the care homes in my constituency to care for the people who need adult social care, so the poorest people in our country are paying a top-up fee. In Buckinghamshire, the weekly cost provided by the council is £615; in Richmond, it is £805.
Yesterday, I asked the Care Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), do the nans and grandads, the aunts and uncles, the mums and dads in Buckinghamshire and Richmond matter more than my nan and grandad, than my mum and dad? Because that is what those figures tell me—and that is post-precept. Those figures show an already widening gap, where some people matter and some people don’t. That is what is being created all around the country.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
How does my hon. Friend think the situation will now unfold, given that the funding gap in social care in our city grows to something like a quarter of a billion pounds by 2020-21? Never has a social care system had to withstand this kind of pressure. The situation that she describes is only the beginning.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Byrne, you really should know better than to walk into a debate and intervene as soon as you walk in, without even hearing the opening speeches. You also should address the Chair, not the individual Member.
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. There is a huge gap, and it is widening. Care homes in my constituency often get a bad name when we see “Panorama” documentaries about how awful care homes are, but the ones in my constituency are largely not for profit. Yardley Great Trust and Grey Gables have both told me that given the situation with the social care budget, the simple fact is that they will have to close their doors. Where do the people go who live there?
The social care budget problems will not be solved in Birmingham by a further increase in the precept. It is a sticking-plaster on an enormous wound and it will simply put a burden on those who are just about managing, when the percentage of their income that goes on council tax is far higher than for those at the highest end of society. I am not sure why I should be asking those who are just about managing, to pay that price. Perhaps we could ask Andy Street.
What my FOI request revealed about the social care budget is its clear and stark unfairness. Since I came to this House, I have heard an awful lot of Government Members talking about the stark unfairness in schools and education funding—“They are getting loads more money,” and so on. Those calls have been answered by the Government; incidentally, it has meant staff reductions in my constituency, and in my own children’s school. My son’s class will now have 33 children, exceeding the legal limit. I have watched Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “It isn’t fair that children in Knowsley get this much.” Well, I am here to speak up for the old people of Birmingham. My children are paying the price because this Government are righting a perceived unfairness in education funding. I am asking for my unfairness to be righted, and for social care disparities to be addressed today. The problem is not going away; it is a problem now, and it must stop.
What I would say about all the different people sent into Birmingham City Council—rightly so; I am sure that all of us, as Members of Parliament across the country, have seen our councils do good and bad things and got annoyed at them—is that it seems like moving the deckchairs while Rome burns. Nothing has changed for the end users, the citizens. I ask the Minister to look at the figures—Richmond with its £805 a week, Birmingham with its £400, Coventry with even less and Wolverhampton with £350—and tell me that he thinks that is okay.
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate and making such an excellent case on behalf of the people of Birmingham. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on adding to it with their comments.
Madam Chairperson—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Godsiff, it is appropriate to call me “Ms Dorries” in here, just to save you all tying yourselves up in knots.
Mr Godsiff
I apologise, Ms Dorries. I feel frantic that my city faces a shortfall in its budget next year of £150 million. That could well lead to the closure of children’s centres, leisure centres and libraries and, as has been said, cuts to care services. I feel doubly affronted that the Government have a transition fund of £300 million, yet not one penny has gone to Birmingham. Furthermore, 83p in every pound of that £300 million has gone to Tory shire counties. That is not fairness; that is great injustice.
Reference has been made to what the chief executive of Birmingham City Council said in his front-page interview with The Guardian today. He said that Birmingham faces a “catastrophic” situation if nothing is done, and that youth services in Birmingham are virtually non-existent. Birmingham is the youngest city in the country. It has a huge population of young people, many of whom are Muslim. What does the Minister think the effects will be if youth services in Birmingham cease to exist? Where will those young people go? The Government are rightly concerned about radicalisation among young people, but if they do not have centres to go to where they have the opportunity to mix with young people from other communities, play with them and enjoy life with them, they will be more and more vulnerable to the small percentage of people within their communities who seek to radicalise them.
Birmingham has had more arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 than any city in the country. Only this week, two people in Birmingham were given long sentences for funding the Brussels bombing attacks. If the Minister wants to prevent young people from becoming radicalised, he must give them not only hope but facilities. If a city such as Birmingham has virtually no youth services, as the chief executive said, I fear the consequences.
I am sure that the Minister is an honourable man, but I remember that the Tory Secretary of State Nicholas Ridley said in the 1980s that local councils needed only two meetings a year—one to hand out the contracts, and the second to review them—and that local government did not really need to exist. I very much hope that the Minister will give some assurance that he does believe in local government and that he does believe that Birmingham City Council has the problems that have been outlined today; because if he does not, there will be consequences, and the people of Birmingham will know exactly who is to blame.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing it, on making such a detailed, determined and effective speech on behalf of his constituents and on defending his city as he did. I also acknowledge the contributions of my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff), who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak today and who each sought to defend and make the case for the people of Britain’s second city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak set out the scale of the cuts that have hit Birmingham —some £90 million in 2016-17 in total. After Liverpool, Birmingham is the local government area hit hardest by the Government’s funding cuts: some £750 million has been cut from its budget since 2010. He went on to point out very powerfully the failure of the Conservatives to ensure any transitional funding at all for Birmingham in last year’s settlement. Conservative-led Surrey got £12 million and Hampshire got £19 million; those are just two examples, alongside the others he mentioned, of areas that benefited from the transitional funding package, while his city—one of the biggest and most significant local authority areas in the UK—got nothing at all.
I will come back to some of my hon. Friend’s opening remarks, but let me first dwell on the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington. He referenced the impact of local authority cuts on homelessness in Birmingham, and particularly on young people suffering homelessness. He noted the work of 14 charities in Birmingham that support their Members of Parliament today in demanding a better settlement for Birmingham and in praising the efforts of the council to protect the most vulnerable in challenging times.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I do not want to detract from the bigger issue of Birmingham, but I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that other local authorities in the west midlands are experiencing exactly the same cuts to public services—youth services, libraries, teachers, education budgets, social services, you name it.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend widens the debate to the impact of cuts in funding on local authority areas throughout the west midlands. He could also have widened it to underline the cuts in funding that all English local authorities have suffered since 2010. In that context, Thursday’s local government finance settlement will be particularly important, not only for Birmingham and for local authorities in the west midlands but for the whole of England.
If he will forgive me for saying so, my hon. Friend interrupted my praise for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who underlined a number of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about the need for further improvements in areas for which the council is responsible. He said quite rightly that that is absolutely no justification for the scale of cuts that various local government Ministers have demanded of Birmingham’s public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made particularly powerful points about the impact of local authority funding cuts on the many victims of domestic abuse in Birmingham. She backed up the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak, and for Birmingham, Erdington on the impact of homelessness in Birmingham and the lack of available support. She underlined the significance of Birmingham’s social care funding crisis, which we will particularly need to focus on when the local government finance settlement is debated on Thursday. She went on to widen the debate from services directly funded by local authorities to other public services. She spoke about the impact on children in our schools of the real-terms cuts in schools funding. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referenced the impact of other aspects of the funding cuts on the national health service and the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made a series of important points about the impact on youth services, which, when they exist, can offer alternatives to crime and radicalisation. He underlined the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about the scale of the cuts in youth services that Birmingham City Council has had to push through because of the loss of funding.
Before the debate, we had the chance to read some of the comments made to the media by the chief executive of Birmingham City Council, Mark Rogers. It is impossible for anybody who has read his comments to doubt the veracity of my hon. Friends’ contributions today. He spoke about the
“catastrophic consequences for some people”
in the city of Birmingham of years of cuts that have forced it to slash funding for key services for vulnerable people. He said that the council had
“just two youth centres”
left and that the
“youth service has all but gone.”
The article also states that, according to Mr Rogers,
“homelessness prevention services had been cut by so much that rough sleeping had quadrupled”.
Understandably, he is worried about the impact of cuts in funding on social care and about how fewer elderly people are now eligible for care at home. He is expecting to have to implement £113 million of cuts in 2017-18, on top of the cuts that have been made since 2010. In the context of the much-debated social care crisis, which many Members on both sides of the House have underlined to the Government, the fact that Birmingham is having to look at taking almost £30 million out of its adult care budget will be profoundly worrying to anyone who knows people who are elderly, in need of care or vulnerable in other ways.
We already know from the letter that Ministers sent to councils last year with the details of their funding settlement that the Government increasingly expect councils such as Birmingham to increase council tax by as much as 20% by 2020. Across the country, that is equivalent to an increase in average band E of about £300 a year by 2020. Effectively, the people of Birmingham are being expected to pay 20% more in council tax while getting dramatically lower levels of service. Will they get better street cleaning? Will their bins be emptied more regularly? Will they have a better chance of seeing the elderly people they love get better care? Sadly, the brutal truth is that the quality of services is going down as the Government seek to continue to cut funding.
We are told that Ministers are no longer talking about austerity, but the brutal reality of the cuts in funding that Ministers are still making is that public services will continue to decline. We hope for something different when the local government finance settlement is announced on Thursday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I begin with an apology on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is unable to be here to respond to the debate because of a personal issue. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to respond to a Westminster Hall debate for the first time as a Minister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate and for the passionate way he presented the issues facing Birmingham, as did, indeed, other Members who took part in the debate.
We should remind ourselves of the context in which local government operates. Many of the decisions that have been taken by Birmingham City Council have been taken locally and independently of central Government, although that is not to pretend that the Government have not had a role to play through challenging funding settlements, about which we have been quite honest over the years. We have been absolutely clear that, as councils account for a quarter of public spending, they, too, need to play their part in deficit reduction. No Member present went into the most recent general election offering more money for local government—that was accepted across the various parties.
We have tried to provide local authorities with a fair and sustainable financial settlement. Fundamentally, we have provided councils with a financial settlement that is broadly flat in cash terms, moving from £44.5 billion in 2015-16 to £44.3 billion in 2019-20. Over the course of this Parliament, council core spending will see a decrease of just 0.4% in cash terms. As a result, councils will have almost £200 billion to spend on local services. Birmingham’s average core spending power per dwelling will remain significantly higher than that for many other metropolitan authorities. We must remember that £1,983 per dwelling compares with £1,767 for other local authorities, and is higher than in Manchester and Leeds, which have had to manage similar issues.
Like many other Members, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised the issue of social care, which is undoubtedly a massive challenge for the country given the changing demographics. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) asked whether I personally care about local government. I spent 10 years as a local councillor when some of the difficult decisions we are now facing started to be made. Over that period, which was not when we were in government but under a different Government, we saw councils start to change their intervention criteria substantially due to rising pressures. This is not an issue that has developed overnight. We have to be honest that it is a massive challenge for the country to deal with.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, along with others, mentioned NHS funding. It is at a record level, although I do not for a moment pretend that that will necessarily deal with all the issues relating to the demographic shift—the increasing pressures, the increasing number of people going through the system, the cost of treatment, the number of people living with long-term conditions, and all the rest of it—that is putting huge pressure on the social care and health system. I do not for a moment want to pretend that the issues we are discussing are solely related to local government funding, or that they have developed overnight.
The Government are providing Birmingham with £77 million of new support for social care by 2019-20. Over the four-year period, assuming the social care precept is taken up, the figure will be £149 million, but of course I must put that in the context of changing demography and increasing demand. Many other countries in the west are trying to deal with the same issues. We have also delivered to Birmingham, and local government generally, guaranteed budgets to councils for 2016-17 and for every year of the Parliament. Birmingham is among the 97% of councils to have signed up to that. We are looking to have 100% retention of business rates by the end of the Parliament.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the independent improvement panel. We have to put many of the decisions that are currently being taken in Birmingham in the context of a failure to deliver on the budgets that we passed and outlined. I welcomed the contribution of colleagues who said that they understood some of the challenges to have resulted from budgetary issues and management in Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government had met the independent improvement panel. As it happens, I met one of its members yesterday, as Councillor Nick Forbes, the Labour leader of Newcastle City Council, was taking part in the independent financial review. As this is not my policy area, I have not met the other members of the panel, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that DCLG officials are meeting them regularly, and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton, has done so on several occasions as well.
Steve McCabe
I do not want to interrupt the Minister, and I appreciate that this is not his specific policy area, but when Ministers or departmental officials have met the improvement panel, have they heard the panel tell them that it is worried about the level of resources available in Birmingham?
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have not been in the meetings so I cannot comment on their content. Needless to say, because I was meeting Councillor Forbes yesterday to discuss another matter, I had a brief conversation with him about the issues in Birmingham, but I cannot comment beyond that.
I could list lots of the other investment the Government are putting into Birmingham through local growth deals, which are having a significant impact and transforming people’s lives, but I want to respond to as much of the debate as possible rather than discuss overall investment in the region. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made a powerful case about transition funding, which was also mentioned by other Members. Birmingham did not get transition funding for the simple reason that it had benefited from the 2015-16 change. The shire counties were the authorities hardest-hit by that change, so the transition funding was naturally focused on them.
The hon. Lady also mentioned school funding. I represent the third-worst—sometimes worst—funded education authority. If she wants to come to Goole in my community, she will also see very high levels of deprivation and huge challenges, but ones that we have to address with many hundreds—
Andrew Percy
Yes, some of them do. We have funding differences of many hundreds of pounds below the national average, let alone our neighbouring authorities. Nobody owns one particular community. I grew up in one of the poorest cities in the country and attended one of the worst comprehensive schools, and for many years I taught in some of the toughest schools in the country, let alone in the city. I understand the challenges as well as the hon. Lady, as do others on the Government Benches. Some of her comments were a little divisive, trying to set Tory-run shires against Labour-run metropolitan areas. There are huge challenges in many areas. Deprivation and poverty do not necessarily respect local government boundaries.
A couple of points were made about homelessness, which is of course a massive challenge. I cannot comment on the specifics of the funding decisions that have been made in Birmingham, but the Government do take the issue seriously, which is why we have supported the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Homelessness is at half its 2003 peak. Birmingham has received nearly £1.1 million in homelessness prevention funding for 2016-17, and we are investing £500 million in seeking to tackle homelessness.
In the short time remaining, I say to Members who represent Birmingham that the Government see solving the issues there as a partnership. It is important that the decisions that need to be taken on financial management in Birmingham are taken. As I have said, other local authorities and metropolitan boroughs have, with less spending power per dwelling, dealt with the very challenging settlements for local government. We want to assist Birmingham in doing the same. We have to wait for the independent financial review, which should conclude in the middle of January, to report so that we can consider matters further.
We are determined to try to get Birmingham, like many of the metropolitan councils, into a position where the budgets that are set are realistic, so that people know what services are being delivered. Plenty of other local authorities, many with much lower funding per dwelling, are not reducing services in the way described today. Key to that is having a budget that is viable and realistic, which is what we hope will come out of this process.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered local government funding for Birmingham.
Written Statements
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Brussels on 6 December 2016. EU Finance Ministers discussed the following items:
Early morning session
Ministers were briefed on the outcomes of the 5 December meeting of the Eurogroup and the European Commission presented an update on the current economic situation.
Investment plan for Europe
Ministers discussed proposals for the investment plan for Europe and reached a general approach on the Commission’s proposal to amend the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) legislation as part of the planned extension beyond its original 2015-2018 lifetime. Ministers also discussed draft council conclusions on measures to tackle bottlenecks to investment identified under the third pillar of the investment plan for Europe.
Anti-tax-avoidance directive 2
Ministers discussed the Commission’s proposals on the anti-tax avoidance directive (ATAD2).
Enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax
Ministers received an update on the proposal for a Council directive implementing enhanced co-operation in the area of financial transaction tax.
Banking union: risk-reduction measures
The Council presidency presented its new proposals, published on November 23, to revise the capital and resolution frameworks for banks and large investment firms, which was followed by an exchange of views.
Anti-money laundering directive
The Council presidency provided an update on the discussions for proposal for a directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing.
Current financial service legislative proposals
The Council presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
VAT digital package
The Commission presented on the digital single market VAT package.
Deepening the economic and monetary union: Follow-up on the 5 Presidents’ report
The Commission provided information on the 5 Presidents’ report: Completing Europe’s economic and monetary union.
Improving the predictability and transparency of the stability and growth pact
Ministers endorsed draft Council conclusions on improving the predictability and transparency of the stability and growth pact.
Report on strategic issues in the area of customs by the high level group of customs directors general
Ministers were informed about the outcome of the pilot meeting of the high level group of directors general for customs policy, taxation and customs co-operation on 25 October 2016.
European semester 2017
The Commission presented to Ministers on the publication of the 2017 annual growth survey (AGS) and alert mechanism report (AMR), which was followed by an exchange of views.
Implementation of the Banking Union
Ministers discussed the current state of play regarding implementation of banking union within the eurozone.
Fight against the financing of terrorism
The Commission gave a presentation on the fight against the financing of terrorism.
Capital Markets Union
The Commission provided information on the capital markets union.
[HCWS349]
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
On 19 October 2016, I announced my intention, after careful consideration of the recommendation of the commissioner team, to return licensing functions to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. On the same day, representations were invited from the authority regarding this intention. I have now considered the representations, including from the leader and the chief executive, and I am satisfied that the council is now able to exercise this service area in compliance with the best value duty and that the people of Rotherham can have confidence that this will be the case.
Therefore, today I am exercising my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to return licensing, including all associated executive and non-executive functions, to the council. Handing back this function will allow some democratic control to be returned and is an important milestone for the council, which has demonstrated steady progress in its improvement journey.
Today, the Secretary of State for Education and I have issued further directions amending the directions issued on 11 February 2016 that return this service area to the authority. With effect from 13 December, councillors will be responsible for decision making in this area. The commissioners will continue to provide oversight on licensing as well as the set of functions returned in February 2016 and ensure that they are exercised in accordance with the statutory best value duty. Commissioners also continue to retain powers in additional service areas including children’s services (including all services relating to child sexual exploitation); adult social care and audit.
I am placing a copy of the documents associated with this announcement in the Library of the House and on my Department’s website.
[HCWS351]
Telecommunications Council
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
The EU Council of Ministers’ Telecommunications Council took place in Brussels on 2 December 2016. I represented the UK at this Council. As is procedure, this statement sets out a formal record of that meeting.
The first item was a policy debate on the two legislative instruments and two communications that form the European Commission’s recently-published connectivity package:
The European electronic communications code directive (First reading—EM 12252/16);
Regulation on body of European regulators for electronic communications (First reading—EM12257/16);
Communication on “5G for Europe: An action plan” (EM12279/16); and
Communication on “Connectivity for a Competitive Digital Single Market—Towards a European Gigabit Society” (EM 12364/16).
My intervention was as per the pre-Council statement.
The Council then adopted a general approach on amending regulation (EU) No 531/2012 as regards rules for wholesale roaming markets (First reading— EM 13555/13).
The Council was then provided with an update from the Slovak presidency on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border parcel delivery services (First reading—EM9706/16). There was no substantive debate on this item.
The Council then adopted a partial general approach on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulations as regards the promotion of internet connectivity in local communities (First reading—EM 12259/16).
This was then followed by three items under AOB led by the Commission, the first being on fair use policy in the context of roaming services, followed by information on digital single market initiatives and finally under AOB, current internet governance issues. There were no substantive debates on any of these items.
Finally, the Maltese delegation informed the Council of their priorities for their forthcoming presidency before Council adjourned until the next meeting in Q2 2017.
[HCWS347]
Lebanese Armed Forces
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
Contagion from the worsening crisis in Syria is having a direct effect on its neighbours, particularly in areas adjacent to Lebanon’s eastern border. The UK remains firmly committed to Lebanon’s stability and security. Our support to the Lebanese armed forces (LAF) aims to minimise contagion from the Syrian conflict and combat the spread of Daesh. As part of this commitment, since 2012 the UK has been assisting the LAF, through the rapid land border security assistance project, to establish and mentor the LAF land border regiments (LBRs). Lebanon faces a number of budgetary pressures, including the cost of hosting 1.2 million Syrian refugees, and would be unable to fund the LBRs without UK support. This project is the main pillar of our defence co-operation with Lebanon and our efforts to protect stability in the region. The mission of the LBRs is to observe, identify, deter and deny activities by illegal armed actors in the near border areas, in line with agreed international human rights standards. Between 2012 and 2016, approximately £38 million of conflict pool and conflict security and stability funds were allocated to provide observation, protection, mobility and communications equipment to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd LBRs, and to establish key elements of a 4th LBR, as well as a programme of training and mentoring.
The command element of the 4th LBR has been established, and is preparing its deployment plan to cover the remaining 25% of the borders with Syria, from Arsal to Masnaa. Recent Daesh actions in the Arsal area pose a threat to UK and Lebanese security, and make it imperative that the LAF completes the expansion of the LBRs southwards. This is part of an overall strategy to bring the entire eastern border with Syria back under the authority of the state.
We intend to provide a package of £4,867,665.18 of observation and operating equipment for the continued development of the 4th LBR of the Lebanese armed forces. It will be funded by the Government’s conflict, security and stability fund. The equipment has been assessed under the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. There are no objections to the release of these items to the LAF.
The proposed provision of equipment has been scrutinised and approved by a senior, cross-Whitehall conflict, stability and security fund (CSSF) approval board, which has confirmed that it is in line with the Government’s strategic objectives. FCO officials have also assessed the project for human rights risks, using the overseas security and justice assistance guidelines established by the former Foreign Secretary in 2011. They concluded that the risk of human rights violations arising from the project’s delivery could be successfully mitigated.
If, during the period of four parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this statement was made before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS350]
Foreign Affairs Council: Development
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Wharton)
On 28 November, I attended the Foreign Affairs Council for Development in Brussels. The meeting was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini. A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted will be deposited in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members.
The UK is leaving the EU. While we remain a member we will continue to play a full role in line with our rights and obligations and represent the interests of the people of the United Kingdom.
European consensus on development
The Council discussed the European Commission proposal on a new European consensus on development following a presentation by Neven Mimica, the Commissioner for International Co-operation and Development. Discussion of a new consensus, in light of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, centred on retaining the fundamental focus on poverty eradication and human development, but with calls for more work on tackling the root causes of migration; engaging civil society and the private sector; and ensuring greater links between development and humanitarian work. I emphasised the need to finish the job on the millennium development goals, but to also go beyond aid to support countries emerging from poverty.
A renewed partnership with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (“Post-Cotonou”)
Development Commissioner Mimica set out a proposal to renew the EU’s partnership with Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) when the Cotonou agreement expires in 2020. I highlighted the UK’s desire for a differentiated approach towards partner countries at different stages of development and called for a light-touch framework which gives flexibility to work with different developing country partners as well as non-EU donors, saying that the UK wanted to take a full part in the debate now and could be a partner in future. I also welcomed the broad focus on Africa and the continued importance of the EU’s relationship with the Caribbean and the Pacific. HRVP Mogherini concluded that more work needed to be done to achieve a common position before a negotiating mandate could be proposed next year.
Energy and development
Council conclusions on energy and development were agreed by the Council during a lunch discussion attended by Ministers and Maroš Šefcovic, Vice-President of the European Commission with responsibility for the energy union. Vice-President Šefcovic focused on the importance of improving linkages between energy and sustainable development. I emphasised the opportunity provided by enhanced private sector involvement in renewable energy investments.
Migration and development
HRVP Mogherini led discussions between member states that built on the various initiatives that had been launched since last year’s Valletta summit, including the emergency trust fund for Africa, the new partnership framework and ongoing negotiations on the external investment plan. On the partnership framework, the UK joined other member states in calling for a full assessment on the effectiveness of progress with current priority countries before further expansion.
Other agenda items
Ministers adopted several sets of Council conclusions, including on mainstreaming digital solutions and technologies in EU development policy, the Court of Auditors report on humanitarian aid to the great lakes region, energy and development, and the EU common position for the second high-level meeting of the global partnership for effective development co-operation. Details of these Council conclusions will also be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS348]
House of Lords
Brexit: Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government at what stage, or stages, of the negotiations to leave the European Union they expect to meet the requirements of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the precise terms on which we leave the EU will be determined by the negotiations that follow the triggering of Article 50. These negotiations have yet to begin. It is therefore premature to speculate about timetables. However, the Government take seriously, and will comply with, all the constitutional and legal obligations that apply to the deal that we negotiate with the EU.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, this is an Act of this Parliament—nothing to do with Europe or Brussels but good British law. I would have expected by now, six months since the referendum, that the Government would be setting out in detail how they expect Parliament to respond to the initiatives on treaties. It is our statutory responsibility to scrutinise and ratify treaties. Can the Minister give us a little more detail? He is being incredibly coy. It is as if he and his colleagues were frightened of what Parliament might do. Could he at least indicate that this could be part of the subject of the White Paper that I hope he and his colleagues are going to produce?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry that I am being coy, my Lords. We have set out where Parliament will indeed be playing a very crucial role in the repeal of the European Communities Act, and Parliament—and this House—has been doing a tremendous amount of very useful scrutiny and work in the EU Select Committee and elsewhere. We will indeed look at what steps will be taken through the process, but I am not able to go further at this stage.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Is not the essence of the European Union the single market? If you leave one, you leave the other and, for that matter, if you leave the other, you leave the one.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the Government have set out very clearly what they intend to do in terms of the principles as regards leaving the EU, and we have made it clear that we will publish, as we intended, a plan in due course.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the report that has come out today from one of our committees, Brexit: The Options for Trade, says that a clear game plan is needed on trade and that it is unlikely that a bespoke EU trade agreement can be agreed within the two-year period, so a transitional deal will be vital. Could the Minister confirm that the transitional deal, as well as the final one, will be put before both Houses?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I am sorry to say that it is slightly premature for me to start commenting on all these points as regards the negotiations, which have yet to begin. As for transition, I have said at this Dispatch Box, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the Prime Minister has said and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that we wish to have a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. That is in this country’s interests and in the interests of many right across Europe—and, indeed, that is what I have been hearing up and down the length and breadth of the country. As for our plan, it will be revealed in due course.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that this week there is a string of six reports coming out from the European Select Committee, of which, I hasten to add, I am not a member? They are filled with wisdom, if the two that I have read so far are anything to go by. I am sure he will take them away for Christmas and read them. The normal practice is that the Government respond to such reports within two months. That is rather awkward timing, given the commitment to produce a plan and the possible need to produce legislation. Can the Minister guarantee that the Government’s response to those six reports will be available to the House before we debate either the legislation or the plan, so that we know how they are reacting to them?
Lord Bridges of Headley
First, I repeat what I said a moment ago: I thank the European Select Committees for their work. Christmas is indeed coming early for my department: there are large numbers of very useful contributions to the debate coming out. I am assured by my noble friend the Chief Whip that there are likely to be opportunities for debates on these reports in the near future. I will reflect on the other points which the noble Lord made.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister made reference to the good reports coming from committees of this House, which I am sure would include the EU Select Committee and the Constitution Committee. In the light of that, will he share with us the fundamental reason why the Government refused to act sensibly and in good faith after 23 June? By making Parliament their partner in the Article 50 process and treating it as an equal, they would have obviated the litigation which involves so much delay—and angels on a pinhead—and acted in political and constitutional good faith.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I dispute the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. The Government are treating Parliament with a great deal of respect. Regarding the legal case, the Government’s position has been clear all along. It is now a matter for the Supreme Court, whose judgment we await with great interest.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very interesting question. I will repeat my point that the Government intend the exit to be smooth and orderly. I am not going to go beyond that.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will the Government consider listing all the specific, individual areas that they intend to negotiate in this process?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am terribly sorry to say that the noble Viscount is going to have to wait for the plan on that point.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am certainly not frit: I am here to answer questions and I will remain here to answer questions from the noble Lord and others.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, are there not great dangers in setting out specifically what we want from these negotiations when many European countries are holding elections and will go to great lengths to tell us that we cannot have anything we are asking for?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, my noble friend is right that we obviously need to strike a balance in the plan between providing your Lordships, the other place and the public as a whole with our overall broad strategic direction and ensuring that the Government still have a negotiating position that preserves the national interest in the negotiations.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, there has been reference to good faith. Is it worth reflecting that, in good faith, this House passed the referendum Bill, allowing the people to make a decision? In good faith, the people decided that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. Is it not now a matter of good faith that, properly, the House should implement the decision of the British public?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I entirely agree with the noble Lord. That is our duty. He hits the nail absolutely on the head. We need to do all those things. We will present our plan to this House in good faith.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said several times that we are leaving the European Union, not leaving Europe. Will the Minister explain how we make sure that, in leaving Europe, we maintain the close relations with the other members of the EU which will be necessary after we have left?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a good point about our wish to retain the ability to co-operate where there are matters of mutual self-interest and national interest, as we have said all along. I am sure that this will be set out in the weeks and months ahead.
Calais: Child Refugees
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of children formerly in the Calais camp who will be eligible for transfer to the United Kingdom under their recently published general criteria for eligibility under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we are working closely with the French authorities to identify eligible children and transfer them as soon as possible. Since 10 October, we have transferred more than 750 children, including approximately 200 children who meet the criteria for Section 67 of the Immigration Act. More eligible children will be transferred from Europe, in line with the terms of the Immigration Act, and we will continue to meet our obligations under the Dublin regulation.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires the Secretary of State to safeguard the welfare of asylum-seeking children. Where a child is outside the UK, the spirit of the duty should be applied. Frankly, what I saw on my recent visit to French centres to which children from Calais have been moved makes a mockery of that duty. When will the Government finally transfer to the UK children whose eligibility they themselves established some time ago?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think I set out in my first answer that that is precisely what we will do.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, while I appreciate that children have been dispersed to many parts of France from Calais, have all of them now been contacted by Home Office officials? Do they know their situation? If they have not all been contacted, by when does the Minister think they will be told what will happen to them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, we have been working closely with the French authorities in line with what they wish us to get involved with. We will continue to do that.
Lord Laming (CB)
Will the Minister comment on media reports that some of the children who have already come to this country have disappeared? Is that at all accurate, and if it is—which would be very disturbing—what more can be done to prevent this happening to any other children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am pleased that the noble Lord, who is so concerned with safeguarding, has raised that question. Those concerns have not been raised with us, although I have seen them in the papers. We have not received specific details of any cases, but we will of course investigate any concerns fully. We are working closely with the LGA and would of course engage with any relevant agencies, should those stories be verified. We would do that in the same way as we would with our own children.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, are the Government providing any upstream funding to help with the welfare of these children when they come here?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I think I have said in answer to previous Questions, the Government are certainly providing funding for the children when they come here. Local authorities will receive two bands of funding—for children under the age of 16 and for those between 16 and 17. We are also providing funding for English language learning and funding to local authorities experiencing high levels of immigration in their communities.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to answer a question she failed to answer on another occasion: how long does the funding last? If a local authority takes in a child, is it a one-year payment or will it cover the full costs of that child’s education, housing and health?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, if a child is in local authority care, they will be looked after as if they were one of our own. As I said, the cost of that local authority care will be met. Regarding the other funding the noble Baroness referred to, I cannot speak for further budgetary rounds, but it is certainly being committed to for the moment.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Can my noble friend say whether all these children have family here, or are they looking to be adopted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Children who meet the criteria under the Dublin regulation will have family here. Those who have come here under Section 67 of the Immigration Act will not necessarily have family and so will be unaccompanied.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, when this question about the government regulations concerning which children should come here last came before your Lordships’ House, on 16 November, my noble friend Lady Sheehan asked about the legality of the guidance, in that it appeared to change the definition of a child and restricted asylum applications on the basis of country. The Minister did not answer the question then; maybe she would like to take the opportunity to do so now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that I did restrict the criteria with regard to country. I said that any child who was under 12, at risk of sexual exploitation or from a country with a high asylum grant rate would be eligible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, given the fears that have been raised that some of the children who have disappeared may be in the hands of traffickers, should the Home Office not be more proactive and find out what is happening, rather than waiting for people to come to them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness raises an important point—we certainly would not want these children, who have experienced terrible trauma in their lives, to go on to experience trafficking. Obviously, we have been concerned about safeguarding these children, and there is intelligence in the broader sense on trafficking, but I can let the noble Baroness know specifically what proactive work we are doing with regard to children who come here. We are meeting tomorrow, so perhaps we can have a further catch-up about that.
Brexit: European Union Citizenship
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to protect the European Union citizenship status of United Kingdom citizens who were born after the United Kingdom joined the European Union on 1 January 1973.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, when the United Kingdom is no longer a member state of the European Union, British nationals who are not nationals of another EU member state will no longer be EU citizens. In terms of UK citizens already living in the EU, the Prime Minister has been clear that the Government want to protect their status in the same way as we want to protect the status of EU nationals already living here.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I would be happy if the Minister will advise me how I can explain to my grandchildren how a leave vote of 18 million can affect the status of 65 million—the whole population of the UK—and that that vote seeks to deny them a fundamental right which they have. That is especially true for those born since 1 January 1973, when we joined the Union. The birthright of half the population of the UK is now being denied to them. Will the Minister explain that, please?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Yes, my Lords, I can explain in one word—the referendum, a point which the noble Lord made earlier. I can totally understand and sense the passion with which he speaks but this was a decision taken by the British people. The actual Act to introduce that referendum was passed in the other place by six to one. It is a manifesto commitment from this Government to respect the outcome and that is what we will do.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, many of the officials working currently in EU institutions fall into this category and appear not to have been consulted by the Government or by my noble friend the Minister’s department as to what their future status will be. Will he undertake to give an early commitment to meet as many of these British officials as possible, and possibly rely on their good offices and knowledge for the help that his department will undoubtedly require in preparing Britain for Brexit?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank my noble friend for drawing my attention to that point and I will indeed look into it straight after Question Time. I was under the impression that we were in talks about those issues, but clearly I need to look into that and I will write to my noble friend.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we look forward to the publication tomorrow of our EU Select Committee’s report on acquired rights. Does the Minister acknowledge that Brexit would take an axe to the valuable EU rights that individuals have either as consumers, as we discussed yesterday, or as citizens, workers and students? Is that not why it is so important to let British voters decide whether they can support any eventual Brexit deal once they see its full implications for their lives and their families’ lives?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am sorry to say that I disagree entirely with the noble Baroness’s final point about a second referendum. As regards the first point about rights, I draw her attention to the great repeal Bill, the whole premise of which is to transpose EU law into UK law, and to the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to ensure that workers’ rights are fundamentally protected.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Respecting the Brexit decision, sooner or later the Government will have to deal with the issues of Brexit-related migration and market access—and in a way that seeks to unite the whole country and not just the 52% whom they are dealing with at the moment. To do so fairly, the Government surely have to look at issuing ID cards to all those resident here at the time of Brexit. Does this form part of the Government’s Brexit plans, currently actively under consideration?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I start by welcoming the noble Lord to his place, and I look forward to other interesting questions such as that one. The Home Office is obviously looking at the Government’s plans and proposals for immigration post-Brexit, and I am sure that it will bring forward its proposals in due course.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that part of being a democrat—either a Liberal Democrat or another sort of democrat—means that one should respect democracy? When the good people of this country have voted to leave the EU, we should get on with it and not listen to discredited people such as Mr Clegg or Mr Blair, who say that we should not.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend speaks with such passion. I just remember what the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said in the minutes before the referendum result:
“It is our duty as those who serve the public to make sure the country does the best it can with the decision they have taken. In. Out. When the British people have spoken you do what they command”.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
My Lords, is it not quite wrong that any citizen should be left in any doubt about this issue, as people undoubtedly are? Will the Minister personally vouch that this issue will be cleared up? People should not be left in any doubt at all.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank the noble Lord for that. If he is referring to the issue of UK nationals in the EU and EU nationals in the UK, I assure him that the Prime Minister and the entire Government wish to see it addressed as quickly as possible.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
The Minister referred to discussions in the Home Office in response to the question of identity cards. Are any discussions at all going on in the Home Office about the introduction of some kind of identity documentation?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the Government, in a gesture of friendship towards the other 27 nations of the European Union, made it abundantly plain that we would not use EU nationals as a bargaining counter, the negotiations would get off to a very much more positive start?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I note what my noble friend has said, and I also absolutely note the strength of feeling on this issue in this House and the other place. I am sure that my ministerial colleagues and others will bear that in mind in the weeks ahead.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will the Government explain to all those British citizens who have been issued with European driving licences what the process will be for transferring them back into UK licences and when that will happen? Does he consider this to be a slight problem?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Viscount puts his finger on another of the myriad issues that my department and others are thinking about.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Will the Minister explain why the Government were happy to give a referendum to the British people when they did not know what the outcome of the negotiations would be, yet the Minister feels it would be inappropriate for them to have a vote when they do know the implications?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, we believe that we should honour the result of the referendum. Full stop. Period.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I too accept the result of the referendum and accept that Britain must leave. However, the NHS played a major part in that referendum, and it is beginning to fall apart. It depends entirely—entirely—on overseas staff working in it. Will the Minister pressurise his colleagues to guarantee that those who have spent years working in the NHS will be allowed to stay in Britain?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a passionate point and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS, wherever they come from. I am sure that that issue, as well as the myriad other issues regarding immigration, is one that my colleagues, especially in the Home Office, will take account of.
Educational Attainment: International Rankings
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s performance in the latest Programme for International Student Assessment rankings published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s 15 year-olds performed above the OECD average in science and reading, and at the average in maths. This is a credit to the hard work of teachers and pupils. Obviously, however, we will struggle to maintain our position as the fifth-largest economy in the world if we do not raise our game; hence our extensive reforms. The pupils assessed in this PISA study did not experience most of the changes that we have made to secondary education and experienced virtually none of our reforms to primary education.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
It is, though, particularly disappointing to see us ranked 27th for mathematics, down one place again, and to see that 22% of our 15 year-olds cannot solve problems routinely faced by adults in their daily lives. The PISA study shows a strong correlation between the high usage of textbooks in teaching and high scores; textbook usage in England stands at 10%. What plans does the Minister have to significantly increase that measure, as I believe the Schools Minister would like to?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s point on the importance of textbooks and rigorous teaching materials. Increasingly, we are seeing multi-academy trusts developing these for their teachers to ease their workload and to support them. We have introduced a rigorous maths curriculum at GCSE. We have launched 35 maths hubs as centres of excellence based on best practice internationally. They will work with schools to introduce high-quality textbooks as part of the department’s £41 million primary programme, Mathematics Mastery, announced in July.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the schools that rank high on the PISA report from different countries have selection at 11-plus?
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, the PISA study showed that teacher-directed instruction had a positive impact on science outcomes, whereas inquiry-based learning had a negative impact. What are the Government doing to make sure that this traditional, teacher-led approach is practised more widely in English secondary schools?
Lord Nash
My noble friend is absolutely right. The PISA study showed that pupils who report teacher-directed instruction do better in all but three countries, whereas pupils who report inquiry-based instruction do worse in the majority of countries. To support a knowledge-rich curriculum, which is so important, particularly for pupils from a disadvantaged background, clearly more teacher-led direction is necessary.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in a number of the countries that have much higher academic standards at secondary school level, particularly those in the Far East—I know the story of South Korea quite well—there is also a much higher suicide rate among teenagers? Does he agree that our schools need to help people learn in ways that they enjoy and are healthy holistically, and that schools should encourage a love of learning rather than a fear of failure?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate, and I pay tribute to the Church’s performance in education—it is particularly good at this. Of course a love of learning is important, and we believe that being taught by teachers with a very high subject knowledge can inspire pupils.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
The Minister was rather dismissive of the results, although it is fair to say that the methodology means that to some extent the findings disguise almost as much as they reveal about pupil performance. But one finding in the report that was very important was that almost half of all the head teachers of schools in England—45% in fact—who took part in the survey regard the question of teacher supply as the key barrier to more effective education, whereas the average in other countries was just 30%. In England, the question of teacher recruitment and retention is an existential problem, so can the Minister tell us why the Government insist on continuing to apply caps on the number of places allowed in teacher training universities?
Lord Nash
As the noble Lord knows, our emphasis on teacher training has been on in-school training, but we have the highest number of trainees in science for five years; physics—traditionally our hardest subject to recruit for—is up 15% on last year; and we have recruited in excess of our targets in biology, geography and history.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
The PISA studies lend themselves to cross-country comparisons which, like any league table, are always tremendously attractive to readers. However, they also purport to measure absolute standards, which are ultimately more important. There is a somewhat spurious use of tiny differences—from, for example, 827 to 828. Does the Minister have any information on, or plans to do any research into, whether or not there have actually been changes in the absolute standard of achievement of British children on the PISA tests?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will recall that last time we had the PISA results there was a Statement in the other place that was repeated here, but given the fact that we are down three places in maths and our score in science is lower than before, I can perhaps understand why that has not happened again. The Minister will be aware that there is also an OECD survey about continuing professional development among teachers. I am afraid that the average is 11 days per annum, whereas the UK provides only four. How important does he think it is to make sure that the continuing professional development of our teachers is up to that of our competitors?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord on that. Again, it is something that the multi-academy trusts are focusing on intensively in terms of supporting their teachers with CPD. We have an active programme, for instance, in maths. We fund high-quality professional development for maths teachers through our further maths support programme, our core maths support programme, the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics and a number of universities.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2016 - (12 Dec 2016)
Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] 2016-17 View all Lobbying (Transparency) Bill [HL] 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 13-I Revised marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 98KB) - (17 Nov 2016)
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 View all Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 74KB) - (21 Nov 2016)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, before moving the Motion, I should like to take a moment to reflect on the Bill and to say thank you. This is a small Bill of limited scope, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will work effectively for businesses whether in physical or online environments. I want to record my thanks to the Law Commission for bringing its great expertise to this most technical of subjects. Along with the Scottish Law Commission, it played a key role in the development of the legislation.
This has been a delightful new experience for me. It gave an opportunity to see the benefit of the Law Commission special procedure, which ensured that there was both a wide-ranging debate on the key issues and a robust examination of the Bill. The evidence sessions in particular provided access to a rich seam of expertise, and the procedure, having worked as intended, has produced a Bill that is much the better for it. This is a valuable route for much-needed and uncontroversial reform, and the Law Commission has asked me to express its gratitude to the House for the time and care it has given to undertaking its work. That is perhaps code for our careful scrutiny and the amendments we made.
I should also like to take the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his chairmanship of the Special Public Bill Committee, as well as our thanks to our excellent clerk. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their polite, considered and probing questions. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his constructive approach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for bringing her expertise to our deliberations. I also thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox, a former IP Minister, for her doughty championship of small businesses, along with our Whip, my noble friend Lady Mobarik.
Because of the structure of the Bill, we enjoyed not only the usual groups of amendments but vast families of amendments—a phrase coined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—across the various IP rights. Some of these families were quite large and, like any family, not always easy for outsiders to understand. Some of the families also appeared to be happier than others, but I would observe that we successfully manoeuvred our way through all the complexities.
I finish by putting on the record my thanks to the Bill team, the Intellectual Property Office and my private office officials for their support throughout the process. I believe that the Bill is being sent to the other place in great shape. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive.
Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. From the updates she has given me regularly and from reading Hansard, she certainly proved more than a match for the Law Commission in many respects, and indeed she helped to inform the Government as the Bill went through. I know she feels that the Bill is now in a much more satisfactory form than it was when it arrived, and I thank the Minister for the amendments that were made in the course of its passage.
Care Quality Commission Review: Deaths in the NHS
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement given in the other place by Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for the Department of Health. The Statement is as follows:
“On 12 April this year, I asked the CQC to conduct an investigation into lessons that needed to be learned following the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk in 2013 at Southern Health NHS Trust. I want to start by paying tribute to his family, particularly his mother, Sara Ryan, for her persistent and determined campaigning for a proper investigation into what happened. The lesson of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and, indeed, other injustices such as Hillsborough is that when families speak out we must listen. In this case, thanks to Dr Ryan’s efforts, many improvements will be made to the care of people with learning disabilities and many lives saved.
I asked the CQC to look at what happened at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, but also to assess more broadly what lessons there are for the NHS as a whole. Its findings make sobering reading. Among other findings, the report said that families and carers often have a poor experience of mortality investigations. They are sometimes not treated with kindness, respect and sensitivity. They can feel that their involvement is tokenistic and often question the independence of the reports.
The NHS does not prioritise learning from deaths and misses countless opportunities to learn and improve as a result. There is no single framework that sets out how local NHS organisations should identify, analyse and learn from deaths of patients in their care, or who have recently been in their care. As a result, there is inconsistency. Some NHS trusts get some elements of mortality reporting right, but not one gets all elements right. In particular, the leaders of NHS organisations, their doctors, nurses and other staff simply do not have access to the full picture of how many patients die in their care, which deaths were preventable and what needs to be learned.
I thank Professor Sir Mike Richards and his CQC colleagues for an extremely thoughtful and thorough report. I am accepting all their recommendations. From 31 March next year the boards of all NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be required to collect a range of specified information on deaths that were potentially avoidable and serious incidents, and consider what lessons need to be learned, on a regular basis. This will include estimates of how many deaths could have been prevented in their own organisation and an assessment of why this might vary positively or negatively from the national average, based on methodology adapted by the Royal College of Physicians from work by Professor Nick Black and Dr Helen Hogan.
We will require trusts to publish that information quarterly, in accordance with regulations I will lay before the House, so that local patients and the public can see whether and where progress is being made. Alongside those data, trusts will publish evidence of learning and action that is happening as a consequence of that information. They will feed the information back to NHS Improvement at a national level so that the whole NHS can learn more rapidly from individual incidents.
All trusts will also be asked to identify a board-level leader as patient safety director to take responsibility for this agenda and ensure it is prioritised and resourced in their organisation. This is likely to be the medical director. They will also be asked to appoint a non-executive director to take oversight of progress.
We will ensure that investigations of any deaths that may be the result of problems in care are more thorough and genuinely involve families and carers. More broadly, instead of the patchwork approach we have currently, all trusts will be asked to follow a standardised national framework for identifying potentially avoidable deaths, reviewing the care provided and learning from mistakes.
I have asked the NHS National Quality Board, which includes senior clinicians from all national NHS organisations, to draw up guidance on reviewing and learning from the care provided to people who die, in consultation with Keith Conradi, the new chief investigator of healthcare safety. Their guidelines will be published before the end of March next year for implementation by all trusts in the year starting next April. We will also work with the National Quality Board to ensure that much greater support is offered to bereaved families in the future.
As the report highlighted particular issues around support given to families, Health Education England will be asked to review the training for all doctors and nurses with respect both to engaging with patients and families after a tragedy and, equally importantly, maintaining their own mental health and resilience in extremely challenging situations.
Finally, because the report identified particular concerns about the treatment of people with learning disabilities, we will take two further actions. First, in acute trusts, we will ask for particular priority to be given to identifying patients with a mental health problem or a learning disability to make sure that their care responds to their particular needs and that particular trouble is taken over any mortality investigations to ensure that wrong assumptions are not made about the inevitability of death. We will also ensure that the NHS reviews and learns from all deaths of people with learning disabilities in all settings. The Learning Disability Mortality Review Programme will provide support to both families and local NHS areas to enable reporting and independent, standardised review of all learning disability deaths between the ages of four and 74.
We will ensure that there is coverage in all regions by the end of next year and will reach full national rollout by 2019. As the programme develops, all learnings will be transferred to the national avoidable mortality programme. I have today asked the LeDeR programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings and how best to take forward the learnings across the NHS. From next year, we will become the first country in the world to publish data on avoidable deaths at a hospital-by-hospital level. So I want to address how we ensure that data published about avoidable deaths are accurate, fair and meaningful and that the process of publication rewards openness and honesty. Of course, we will work closely with CQC, NHS Improvement and senior NHS doctors and nurses to get this right, but I want to make clear to the House that I will not set any target for reducing reported avoidable deaths. Nor do I believe that it will be valid to compare numbers between hospitals, because the data depend on clinical views which may change or vary. It may surprise the House that I expect to see an increase in the number of reported avoidable deaths. This is likely to be hospitals getting better at spotting and reporting them, rather than because care is deteriorating.
We should also remember that when there is a tragedy in the NHS, there is always a second victim; namely, the doctor or nurse involved, who invariably suffers huge anguish. So let us today also give credit to all NHS front-line staff for the changes that are already taking place to improve patient safety.
The number of people experiencing the four main hospital harms are down by a third since November 2012. MRSA and C. diff rates have halved since 2010. Ten thousand more hospital nurses have been recruited since the Francis report; they are now at record numbers. A new Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has been set up to perform speedy, no-blame inquiries into avoidable harm and death, modelled on the successful system that has operated in the airline industry for many years. And this week we conclude consultation on legislation to create a “safe space” for NHS staff to talk openly about how to improve the safety of care for patients without having to worry about litigation or professional consequences.
The culture of the NHS is changing following a number of tragedies, but this report shows that there is much progress to be made in the collecting of information about unexpected deaths, analysis of what was preventable and learning from the results. Only by implementing its recommendations in full will we honour the memory of Connor Sparrowhawk. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, on the death of his father.
The circumstances of Connor Sparrowhawk’s death were shocking and I pay tribute to his family, who fought so hard for justice and to ensure that other families do not have to go through what they did. The findings of this report are a wake-up call: relatives shut out of investigations, reasonable questions going unanswered and grieving families made to feel like a pain in the neck, or that they would be dealt with better at a supermarket checkout. This is totally unacceptable and we therefore strongly welcome the recommendation of a national framework and the specific measures which the Secretary of State has outlined. I assure the Minister that we will work with her and the Care Quality Commission to support the establishment of such a framework in a timely fashion.
Families and patients clearly should not be forgotten in the process. Will the Minister pledge that families and carers will be equal partners in developing the Government’s plan for implementing the CQC’s recommendations? Does she agree that those who work in the NHS show extraordinary compassion, good will and professionalism but also that when something sadly and tragically goes wrong, it can often be the result of a number of interplaying systematic failures? A national framework will therefore provide welcome standards and guidance across the service.
Does the Minister recall that the previous Labour Government set up the National Patient Safety Agency, based on airline experience, which was responsible for monitoring patient safety incidents, including medication and prescribing error reporting? Does she also recall that the agency was scrapped under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and will she acknowledge that this decision was a mistake? Can the Minister tell me what happened to the national reporting and learning system which the NPSA had developed to do the very work that she has outlined in the Statement today?
I was interested in the Minister’s comments about the Secretary of State not setting any targets for reducing reported avoidable deaths. I understand the reasons—it is a sensible approach—but it is one thing for the Secretary of State to say it and another for the different multilayered sections of bureaucracy to understand it. Can she assure me that the Secretary of State will make it clear to the various regulators that targets are not to be set? Equally, I agree with her point that seeing an increase in the number of reports of potentially avoidable deaths may well be a sign of care getting better rather than worse. But explaining that to the media and the public will be a challenge. Can she tell me that that will be a priority for the Government when these reports are published?
For a national framework and the proposed measures to succeed, investment will be necessary as well. Can the Minister confirm whether hospitals will receive extra funding to carry out the additional requirements that the CQC has recommended? Crucially, will this include safe staffing levels? The House will know that hospitals across England are suffering chronic staff shortages, leaving doctors and nurses overstretched. To go back to the mid-Staffordshire inquiry, Sir Robert Francis called for safe nurse staffing levels to be published by NICE. But when NICE attempted to do that, it was blocked by the Government. Will the Minister now commit to NICE publishing safe staffing levels, as recommended by the Francis report?
We saw reports over the weekend that the bed shortages in England have got so bad that seriously ill patients with eating disorders have to travel to Scotland for treatment. This is leaving some of the most vulnerable in our society hundreds of miles away from their homes. If the Government are interested in safety, does the Minister believe that this practice is safe and sustainable?
In conclusion, the CQC has called for the issues addressed in its report to be a national priority and for all those involved in delivering safe care to review the findings and publish a full report. The Opposition absolutely agree with that. Action is needed. We welcome the recommendations and we stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that these issues are no longer ignored.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and echo the condolences offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am chair of a learning disabilities charity caring for adults across England.
We welcome the findings of this report but are saddened that we should need one. However, we welcome its publication and recommendations and hope that they will be taken forward and acted upon as a matter of urgency.
I am going to talk about families, governance and learning good practice from unexplained death inquiry processes. In the report, the Secretary of State said:
“The lesson of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and indeed other injustices like Hillsborough is that when families speak out we must listen”.
Surely another lesson is that a trust, or even a regulated care setting run by a charity or the private sector, should reach out to the family first after the family member dies in an unexplained way. We recognise that the emphasis in the report on the importance of including and listening to families in investigations is extremely important, but is this not what common decency should require and families expect, and should this not already be happening?
The situation at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust reflects what is known across the sector: that whether we like it or not, mental health and learning disabilities are always considered after acute and community services. As long as I can remember—and my involvement with the NHS began at the end of the 1990s—commissioners thought of them last and there was certainly nothing approaching parity of esteem. Now, at least for mental health, we have parity of esteem, and we should have processes in place that are as good and as robust as in all other NHS settings. The chair of the trust should work with the CEO to make sure this happens and a named non-executive director on the board should have ownership of the process. Sadly, this situation is nothing new. Trusts have struggled with this for years and it has to be kept on the agenda. I mean this literally as well as figuratively. It should not be relegated to a subcommittee; it should be on a full board meeting agenda by default.
I commend the processes adopted by Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust. In such circumstances as we have been discovering, it carries out a review within days, very quickly, while all the involved staff are still in post and details are not forgotten—and, of course, families are involved.
Any good unexplained deaths investigation or complaints system should always have an element of learning built into it. This should be shared within the organisation and also within the sector, and there should be a process to make that happen. Processes currently seem to be ad hoc. Standards and definitions should be standardised into a common framework, as indicated by the report.
I have three key questions for the Minister. First, will the Government consider extending the recommendations of this report to regulated residential settings where those with a learning disability or a mental health condition are being cared for? Secondly, the report outlines the need for a national framework. Will the Minister outline who will co-ordinate the work outlined in the report and who might be involved, and indicate its expected completion date? Finally, will the framework contain recommendations about sharing good practice within the organisation and the sector?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the questions that have been raised. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for mentioning the sad death of my noble friend Lord Prior’s father. It is sad that I should have to be standing here instead of my noble friend on this occasion.
This is indeed a wake-up call. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we have all been absolutely shocked by this report. This is a cross-party issue and something that we all need to get involved in, and I very much welcome the noble Lord’s understanding about that.
The noble Lord mentioned families and carers being equal partners, which is indeed absolutely essential to what is being brought forward. When families have a loved one in hospital, it is absolutely essential that they can be sure that if they have a concern, they will be listened to, whoever they go to. When somebody we love goes into hospital, one of the things we all feel is a sense of relief that they are now somewhere where they are going to be looked after, cared for and treated in the best possible way. If we cannot feel that that care is going to continue when we go home at night, having been with them all day, there is something very wrong with our system. We are going to make sure that that happens, and that is exactly why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said he is determined that all the recommendations in the report will take place.
Several points were made, and I will try and get through some of them. We feel that this is not an issue of funding. Trusts already have investigations, and we will support them and make sure that best practice is followed, particularly in the training of clinical staff and in improving the way in which they investigate safety incidents. This is not about funding; this is about creating a culture where NHS trusts make sure that if somebody comes forward with a concern, they are listened to immediately. One way to help with that is the board level leader who will be put in place—a patient safety director—to take responsibility for this particular agenda. This has already been tried in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, with good feedback. It is looking at deaths and avoidability, and degrees of avoidability, and where lessons can be learned from the deaths, even if they are inevitable.
I hope that with those remarks, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will realise that this is a wake-up call for us all and that we are going to take forward all the recommendations. It is impossible to have a timeframe for this, but we need to make sure that it is done properly and that robust actions are taken to make sure that what happened earlier on will never happen again.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I, too, commend Dr Ryan—Connor’s mother—for her persistence. The truth is that if we could get this right for people with learning disabilities, we would get it right for everyone else. Could the Minister confirm that the national mortality review for learning disability will now be permanent, just like other national mortality reviews such as the one on maternal deaths, rather than for the original three-year period for which it was established? I should declare an interest, having been involved in the tender process that led to the appointment of the Norah Fry research centre to run the national mortality review.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I remember the noble Baroness mentioning this once before in a debate, and I think I said then that there were absolutely no plans for this review to stop. It will certainly be carrying on. We have to ensure that all investigations for mental health patients are of a much higher quality and genuinely involve all the patients and families. We must remember that so often it is the families that know best what is wrong with the patient and how they need to be treated. It is absolutely essential that all clinicians and healthcare workers listen to what relatives or carers are saying about people with mental health or learning disabilities. They know how those people behave at home and how they need to be looked after in hospital. There has to be a joined-up approach between carers, families, clinicians, nurses and everybody who comes into contact with the patient when they go into hospital.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, changing culture is very important but culture is about having very good leadership. We need clear and greater leadership in our NHS at both clinical and management level. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has said there is going to be some emphasis in that area. With the change in culture, good data and good information systems need to be in place. I understand that there is a move within the NHS towards more locality data-sharing, rather than putting in place a national framework. Surely a national framework—an information-sharing platform—is the way forward if we are truly to understand what is happening in our NHS.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank my noble friend for that question. Yes, national data are important, but we also have to remember that data can vary terrifically from region to region. Of course, collecting data is absolutely vital, and there will be national data, but we also need to ensure that the data are suitable for the particular area from where they have been collected.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given the lamentably low involvement in investigations of families and others who loved the person who died, how will their experience be audited and monitored in future? As the Minister rightly said—I declare an interest as chairman of the National Mental Capacity Forum—such families often describe not being listened to during the period of illness prior to death, and then not being listened to around the time of death. Without auditing their experience of their involvement in investigations, there is a danger of it being tokenistic and that nothing will really change in the longer term, even though they have a great deal to offer. Will the Minister commit to involving some of the bereavement groups that might provide support and independent monitoring of people’s experiences, and undertake to catalogue centrally the reasons that emerge from such investigations? Only then will we understand if trends really are occurring across the country that need to be dealt with at national level, rather than allowing things to slip at local level.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The noble Baroness, who is very experienced in these areas, makes an important point. The plan is certainly to publish the information quarterly, in accordance with the regulations that the Secretary of State is going to lay before the House, so that local patients and the public can see whether and where progress is being made. Alongside those data, evidence will be published of learning and action that are happening as a consequence of that information, and the information will be fed back to the NHS Improvement regime at a national level so that the whole of the NHS can learn more rapidly from individual incidents.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, it is right that this matter be discussed in the House with a very sombre attitude, because it is not to use exaggerated language to say that the report has some shocking elements in it, as the Minister has indicated. The way ahead has been set out, but can the Minister assure us that we have got to the bottom of why people in a caring profession have behaved in such an insensitive way to those who are grieving? That comes as a real surprise to us when it is set out in this stark way.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We must also recognise that most healthcare professionals in this country are doing a fantastic job. Of course, every such incident is appalling and must be looked into, but when I was a nurse, every nurse, doctor and healthcare professional I came across was doing an incredible job, quite often in very difficult circumstances. The noble Lord is right: we must make sure that doctors and nurses are made aware of how they should conduct themselves. That is why Health Education England will be asked to review the training for all doctors and nurses on engaging with patients and families after a tragedy. Equally important is ensuring that they know how they should treat people who come into hospital with mental health issues or learning disabilities. We will be putting psychiatric assessment teams into A&E departments so that they will be able to triage these patients before they go into hospital and pass on to healthcare professionals further down the line what their needs will be.
Digital Economy Bill
Tuesday 13th December 2016
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords 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)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill addresses a variety of areas where legislation needs to be updated for the digital age. It will ensure that the public are empowered to take full economic and social advantage of digital services. It will make the internet safer and enable the Government to harness digital platforms to make public services cheaper and better.
We are one of the leading digital economies in the world; however, our ambitions are not complete. In the recent Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced significant further infrastructure investment, including replacing copper networks with fibre. The Bill is a further statement of the Government’s ambition. It will help consumers to connect, provide them with skills training, protect children from online dangers, tackle nuisance calls and support the UK’s leading financial technology sector and other digital businesses.
More than 91% of premises can now receive a superfast broadband connection of at least 24 megabits per second. We are on track to reach 95% by the end of 2017. For the remaining few, we are working with industry to find the best possible options and have been trialling alternative technologies and approaches.
Part 1 of the Bill provides the broadband universal service obligation as a safety net, offering a minimum standard on which to develop improved connections for everyone. The minimum speed set will be enough for today’s needs but will be kept under review as our needs change.
Setting the right regulatory framework is only the first step to engaging consumers. We all need information about services that we can trust, allowing us easily to compare products. The Bill will enable Ofcom to deliver this, and there will be simpler and swifter service-provider switching. If things go wrong, consumers will automatically receive compensation for a failure to meet minimum standards for communications services. That will empower the consumer, increase competition and boost commerce.
Meeting this new demand for improved and better digital services requires a step-up in infrastructure. Part 2 delivers reforms to the Electronic Communications Code and spectrum regulation so that the best systems will be in place to create, distribute and monitor digital infrastructure across the country. Delivering the coverage and connectivity that UK consumers expect will depend upon a complex array of hardware, stretching across the country. Networks of masts, cables, wires, servers, routers and exchanges make electronic communications possible. The Electronic Communications Code must strike the right balance, not only between the interests of landowners and network operators but taking into account the wider benefits for the UK from having world-leading digital communications services. Following extensive consultation, the code has been updated to improve that balance and allow greater investment in infrastructure across the country.
Along with physical apparatus, the digital communications sector relies on radio spectrum for many wireless services, such as mobile phones and television. As an essential asset, it is vital that it is effectively managed and regulated. In a world where the number of digital devices requiring use of spectrum is increasing—now 4G, next 5G—we must ensure that not only is the best use made of what is a limited resource but that companies which hinder this process are duly brought to account. The Bill provides new tools for the smooth and reliable management of spectrum.
We take many protections that the state provides in the physical world for granted. The online world is another matter. We will defend freedom of expression on the internet but—as in the physical world—there must be certain boundaries and protections.
Following public consultation, Part 3 will require pornographic websites to have robust age-verification controls in place, with the British Board of Film Classification as the age-verification regulator. The BBFC will also regulate online pornographic material, using the same standards used to classify pornography distributed offline. The focus is on age verification, not the personal identification of adults, and means that children will be protected.
This was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment, and children’s charities have also identified that it is a real issue. NSPCC has been campaigning for action, having seen the consequences of a lack of regulation on children’s emotional and physical well-being. The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety said:
“Whilst it is true that most of the commercial pornography publishers acknowledge their sites are not meant for minors and say minors are not welcome on them, in practice they have done little or nothing to inhibit access by minors and it seems clear to us that they won’t unless and until they are compelled to do so by law or are otherwise highly incentivised. The Government’s approach effectively does both”.
This part of the Bill has received much scrutiny and interest in the other place and from the public. We have now included the power to require internet service providers to block websites that do not comply with the age-verification standards stipulated by the BBFC.
Internet service providers work with the Government in a number of ways, and we are pleased to see this good relationship continue in relation to the protection of children. The Government have received assurances from websites accounting for 70% of users that they will not only comply with the regulations but support them, which is encouraging and reassuring.
The legislation gives the regulator the necessary tools to deal with non-compliant providers. As part of that, we want pornographic sites to become compliant when faced with powers such as blocking. We are driving cultural change in the sector and demonstrating that we will not look the other way, but instead do everything we can to protect children.
Part 4 will bring parity between the online and offline worlds of copyright infringement. The maximum penalty for online copyright infringement is currently two years in prison. This will now be harmonised with the existing maximum sentence for copyright infringement at 10 years. This change follows extensive public consultation, and the Government remain committed to achieving the right balance between a well-functioning market and effective remedies for protecting intellectual property rights. We are also updating our copyright laws to reflect the fact that cable television is now a mainstream service, delivering a vast array of content beyond the public service channels.
The Bill is not just about encouraging consumers and businesses to grasp the digital age. It is equally about the digital transformation of government. This includes the delivery of better services thanks to more effective data sharing between public authorities. There will be many future benefits from the measures in the Bill. Some immediate ones include the potential to help an additional 750,000 fuel-poor households; making public authorities better informed when pursuing debts owed to the public sector—for example, in respect of individuals’ circumstances and ability to pay—and preventing post being sent to the families of deceased individuals.
The protection of data and transparency of its use lie at the heart of Part 5. The data-sharing powers may be used only for specific purposes. Unlawful disclosure of personal information received under the powers will be a criminal offence. Data sharing must be compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the codes of practice accompanying the data-sharing powers must be consistent with the Information Commissioner’s statutory code of practice on data sharing.
Part 6 also contains provisions to make sure that our regulatory system is fit for purpose in the digital world. The Bill will ensure that Ofcom has the right powers for the effective regulation of harmful content on internet-provided television and radio broadcasts. This is to keep up to date with changing facilities and technologies used for broadcasting while ensuring the protection of the public. The Bill also improves the efficiency of the Ofcom appeals process so that it can keep pace with the rapid development of digital communications technology. We welcome the support of Citizens Advice, Three, TalkTalk and Which? for these reforms.
Part 6 makes changes to legislation to reflect the outcome of discussions with the BBC about changes to arrangements for free TV licences for those aged 75 and over. Although this has been much debated in this House, the BBC sought responsibility for this concession as part of its funding deal with the Government. Furthermore, the BBC has a history of handling licence fee-related issues sensitively and effectively. The latest BBC charter and framework agreement outlines Ofcom’s new role as the BBC’s regulator. Ofcom will monitor and review how well the BBC is meeting its mission and public purposes, regulate editorial standards, hold the BBC to account over market impacts and public value, and consider appeals. Ofcom needs to be able to carry out its new functions effectively. They include enforcing requests for information from third parties needed by Ofcom in regulating the BBC. Being able to access information about the market, and the market impact of BBC activities, will be absolutely crucial for Ofcom to do its job.
Another important provision relates to regulatory changes that will allow non-bank payment firms to have direct access to payment systems. This will be a fillip for our world-leading fintech ecosystem, and is another example of the Bill being focused on consumers. Part 6 additionally reflects the Government’s belief that digital skills are now as important as numeracy and literacy. In certain circumstances, digital skills qualifications will be free of charge to people aged 19 and over who do not already have a relevant qualification. This will mirror the approach taken for literacy and numeracy training. More than 10 million adults in England lack the basic digital skills needed to function effectively in today’s society, so this will open doors to many where they were previously tightly shut.
The Government have expressed an intention to table further amendments shortly. These additional clauses will include the delivery of a government manifesto commitment to assist public libraries in embracing the digital age by working with them to ensure remote access to e-books, without charge and with appropriate compensation for authors that enhances the public lending right scheme. There will also be an amendment to enshrine a legal requirement for subtitles, signing and audio description to be available for on-demand services. We will also bring forward an amendment to clarify that ISPs can continue to offer family-friendly filters, which give parents the power to protect their children from inappropriate material.
The digital landscape changes rapidly and profoundly. It is vital that our legislation is kept up to date. This is a big and wide-ranging Bill. Its aim is bold: to bring major change to the UK’s digital economy in infrastructure, consumer rights and opportunities, regulation, skills, safety, innovation, and intellectual property. The prize is great, and this country can be not merely a world leader in digital, but the world leader. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of the Bill and welcome all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. It is going to be a very rich debate and we are looking forward to it. It is the season of awards; it would be wrong to let pass the very successful innovation from the Minister’s department of a book of the Bill. It is the best thing I have read since I came into your Lordships’ House and I recommend it to any of those who have not been lucky enough to be on the Minister’s—obviously very private—circulation list. It is a wonderful innovation and I found it most useful as I prepared for this speech.
The Digital Economy Bill before the House includes some very sound ideas which this side can support, not least because some of them have surfaced in previous Bills in your Lordships’ House. However, we by no means consider it a good piece of legislation as a whole. Indeed, its weaknesses lie as much in what it omits as what it contains. To start, a Labour version of the Bill would properly recognise the importance of the digital economy to our country and, in so doing, would be much more ambitious about delivering both ultrafast broadband and secure mobile network coverage to everyone who needs them, wherever they live. In fact, Labour called for a USO to be introduced back in 2010, with a fully costed plan for it to be achieved by 2012. We are still not there. The 10 megabit speed promised in the Bill is less than half what is needed to achieve superfast broadband, and it will not be sufficient to bring the benefits outlined by the Minister. There are also significant doubts about the pledge to extend coverage to the entire country, particularly in rural areas, along with no detail from the Government on how this is to be achieved or at what cost to local residents. At the moment, we do not even have the proposed standards to be legislated for, as we wait for Ofcom to complete a report on this issue, but I hope this will be published before we begin Committee stage. In Committee, we will be pressing for a much higher standard to be set for the universal service obligation, with fibre to the premises as standard and a minimum speed of 1 gigabyte.
Where are the policies to complement this welcome initiative? There is nothing in the Bill about improving the teaching of digital skills in schools, nothing about training or apprenticeships and nothing on conditions of employment for those using these technologies to forge careers in the creative industries or across industrial sectors more generally. We will probe these issues in Committee.
There are welcome measures in the Bill about access to digital services, with Ofcom gaining powers to set conditions for automatic compensation to be paid to users where providers fail to meet a specified standard or obligation. We welcome the proposal to help consumers switch communications provider—something we proposed in the 2015 Consumer Rights Bill, but which the Government turned down at that time. We would like consumers to have more ability to access mobile signals across the country and to be able to set a financial cap on those services. We welcome the proposal to improve consumer rights against nuisance calls and wonder whether the Government would be prepared to go further and pick up our suggestion—again from the Consumer Rights Bill—of a default-off proposition for cold marketing calls.
The Bill also seeks, albeit belatedly through a Commons Report stage amendment which was hardly discussed in the other place, to deliver the Conservative manifesto pledge to introduce robust online age-verification checks. We share the objective of protecting children from viewing harmful material on the internet but it is unclear how the Government’s proposals would work in practice. We also wonder whether the regulatory oversight issues have been properly thought through. This is a difficult area, but we are very concerned by the idea that, under the new clauses, the designated age-verification regulator appears to be given powers to censor material that is not illegal, and to have powers to take down websites even though they may have satisfactory age-verification procedures in place. This cannot be right. Children have to be protected, but censorship is not the way to do things in this country. We also take the view that age verification is only part of the story and Ministers should use the Bill to make provision for effective sex and relationship education for young people. In addition, we will put pressure on the Government to introduce measures to deter internet trolls, and to ensure effective prosecution and penalties for those who engage in this illegal behaviour.
The Bill contains ambitious proposals to enable data sharing for a public benefit, as part of a wider aim to deliver public services in a digital by default mode. We welcome the general approach, but there are legitimate concerns about privacy and the security of personal data, in response to which we want to be sure that not only will Ministers be held to account for what personal data are being shared, and for what purposes, but that the scope and scale of this change is subject to challenge by those affected. We are also interested in reviewing how consumers can be better briefed about cybersecurity affecting their personal details held by commercial and charitable bodies. At present, there seems to be no requirement for such bodies to notify customers when their security is breached.
We were pleased to see the fintech section in the Bill, and welcome the proposal to support broader access to electronic payment systems for non-banks, which might just mark the first appearance of real competition in the banking sector. I am also glad to see the section about personal debt, and the late but welcome recognition by HMRC that its current approach needs to do much more to tackle unmanageable personal debt. We may have some proposals in this field about a breathing space and a need for parity between formal and informal debt solutions for the Government to consider.
Following the signing of the BBC’s royal charter, the Bill contains details of Ofcom’s new role as regulator, along with clauses that would put into law the Government’s wish that the BBC take over responsibility for providing free TV licences for the elderly, along with any future policy responsibility. As debates in the other place showed, this is a controversial proposal that raises issues about the independence of the BBC now and in the future. Is it right that the BBC, which should be focusing all its efforts on making great programmes, has also to take on a social policy brief? Is it not time to make the independence of the BBC a reality by ring-fencing its funding requirements and preventing future Governments undertaking the sort of dawn raids that we saw in 2010 and 2015?
We are looking to add a number of provisions to the Bill. There is now all-industry support for action to prevent secondary ticket operators using computerised systems—so-called bots—to snap up seats at concerts and sporting events as soon as they go on sale, before then releasing them at premium prices. We want to introduce restrictions on the current practice of search engines promoting links to pirate sites, and we want to deal with the problem of illegal streaming through IPTV boxes. We will propose better accessibility for on-demand services—I was pleased to hear the Minister mention that this was in the Government’s thinking—and we will also press for a review of the prominence regulations and the listed events regime. We welcome the announcement just made of extending public lending rights to e-book lending but might wish to push further to check whether a tax on reading should continue to be paid on books that are downloaded, since this seems very unfair.
Finally, I return to my opening point about the need for the whole country to prepare for the digital economy. As the Minister said, there is a section in the briefing documents relating to Clause 87, about a new entitlement to digital skills training to help consumers make use of new digital services as well as to improve their chances in the employment market. This is, of course, a proposal we welcome but the devil is in the detail. The main thrust of this clause is simply to amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, with the intention of creating a duty that will work in a similar way to the current entitlement for basic literacy and numeracy. However, the factsheet goes on to point out that that funding will come from the existing adult education budget, administered by the DfE. We will want to probe what this will provide in practice. In particular, we are concerned that there may be no new money for this. Indeed, the document says that, as the AEB is finite, training providers will decide how to allocate resources to meet demand. I sense here the familiar problem posed by “wicked issues”—one department wants to will the ends of a policy but is not able to will the means because it has failed to bring on board the funding department.
We look forward to working with the Government on these issues and to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords this afternoon.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for the early discussions he has had with us. As we have heard, it is a long Bill and, in some ways, a rather disappointing one, as it fails to address many of the issues needed to provide increased support for our amazing creative industries.
There are notable absences in the Bill which we hope may be covered by amendments in Committee—ideally, government amendments—addressing issues such as the online sale of counterfeit electrical goods; stronger action by search engines to deal with copyright infringing material and online piracy; and ensuring a level playing field in the next round of spectrum auctions. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked, why are there no measures to tackle the mass buying-up of tickets for gigs and theatre performances by people who have no intention of attending the event but rather of reselling them at huge mark-ups and denying genuine fans the opportunity to see their heroes? This is often done using bots—web robots. They are illegal in New York and should be illegal in the United Kingdom.
Why, as we have also heard, has there been no updating of the listed events regime? With the continued changes in the way people receive television it is likely that, soon, no broadcaster will meet the current test. The listed events regime will become obsolete and we will have a free-for-all. Amendments are needed to ensure that the much-valued listed events regime remains fit for purpose.
As your Lordships Communications Committee has said, we also need a fit-for-purpose public service broadcasting prominence regime, with measures to change the rules regarding electronic programme guides. Surely we should no longer accept that, on the EPG listings of the main pay platforms, CBeebies and CBBC—with largely British-made original content—appear below listings for no fewer than 12 US cartoon channels. Similarly, the prominence rules should be developed to take account of the on-demand services from PSBs. For example, the BBC’s iPlayer should be guaranteed prominence on the first on-demand screen of any smart TV, and surely indigenous language services such as S4C and BBC Alba also need to be given greater prominence on new platforms. Yet the default on powering on the new Sky Q box is Sky’s “Top Picks”. It takes 15 clicks at present to get to BBC Alba, and PSB channels are also hard to access. As one disgruntled purchaser said,
“it’s something stupid like 7 button presses just to get the TV Guide to change channels!”.
We know why: Sky is directing viewers to its own material and away from that produced by the PSBs. Change is needed.
My noble friend Lord Lester will argue, with our support, that the Bill also provides the opportunity for Parliament to establish a set of conditions that any Government should meet when setting any future royal charter for the BBC. He will argue for statutory underpinning of the charter and will no doubt remind the Minister that such an approach is exactly the same as he recently introduced in your Lordships’ House with regard to the National Citizen Service Bill.
Despite omissions, there are many aspects of the Bill that we support. We welcome news of forthcoming amendments on, for example, e-lending. My noble friend Lord Fox will talk about broadband. We broadly support the plans for a universal service obligation, although we think the 10 megabits per second is hugely unambitious. We also support clamping down on poor service providers, an easier system of changing service provider and completing the 4G mobile rollout. However, the Minister is aware of my concern regarding poor take-up of high-speed broadband. When high-speed broadband is available, only around 30% opt for it. Unless we can improve this take-up rate, the huge benefits to individuals, businesses and the nation offered by superfast broadband will be lost. Government strategy concentrates almost exclusively on the development of superfast broadband structures. Far more needs to be done to drive up demand through skills training, marketing the benefits, addressing barriers such as cost, and by developing quality technology and content. With the welcome exception of Clause 87, the Bill is silent on all these issues. Tackling digital exclusion, not least of older and more vulnerable people, is not just a matter of structures. I hope the Minister agrees.
On these Benches we broadly support the new Electronic Communications Code, and I know from meetings with the Minister that he is now well versed in answering questions such as, “In what circumstances does a water tower or a church steeple constitute ‘land’ under the code?”. But does he agree that when code rights are granted over a piece of land, there needs to be a public record?
Rightly, there has been much debate on preventing access to pornography by under-18s. We share the Government’s objective but we have reservations about the security of data. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will describe how we believe it is possible to achieve the Government’s—and our—objective by using methods that anonymise the data.
We welcome bringing the maximum fine for online copyright infringement into line with that for physical copyright offences and welcome the repeal of Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Its purpose —to protect fledgling cable platforms—is no longer needed and is being used by parasitic services such as TVCatchup and FilmOn to livestream and monetise PSB content without permission. The ECJ case on this issue has rumbled on since 2007 and an update from the Minister would be helpful, but the repeal of Section 73 will provide a quicker solution.
In relation to the carriage of PSB channels on cable, a contractual agreement will be overseen by Ofcom. Does the Minister expect that such an agreement will lead to the payment of retransmission fees, and, if not, why not? There has been talk of a transitional period before the repeal of Section 73. On these Benches we believe that it should occur immediately after Royal Assent. Does the Minister share that view?
We are broadly supportive of Part 5, which deals with digital government. However, as my noble friend Lady Janke will amplify, we, like the BMA and many others, want assurances that the benefits are not to be achieved at the cost of confidentiality.
The Minister is well aware of our opposition to giving the BBC responsibility for the policy and the costs associated with free licences for the over-75s. This is a government social policy which should be determined by government and funded by government out of taxation. Although it was part of the licence fee settlement, we will still want to press on some of these issues—for example, to explore the options for the BBC to vary eligibility other than by age in Clause 77. For example, could the BBC use tax codes to ensure that those in receipt of pension credit still qualified for the concession but others paid tax on it? In such circumstances, would the Government be willing to reimburse to the BBC the tax revenues they receive?
We will also wish to explore aspects of the new powers that Ofcom has to regulate the BBC, not least in respect of distinctiveness. I know that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones wishes to explore whether a middle way can be found in the plans to change the Ofcom appeals procedure from a merits-based to a judicial review-based system.
We have many hours of deliberation on the Bill ahead of us. I look forward to that deliberation and to the concessions that I hope we will gain from the Government.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this important Bill. I declare that I feel a little wrong-footed in this instance by finding myself so high up the batting order and having the honour of opening for these Benches.
My interests are in the register. I am a landowner and a landlord to two code operators and one community air band operation. I am also a landlord to several businesses and residential tenants who very much rely on broadband—as I do myself as somebody who has worked from one end of my home for the last 28 years. I am a chartered surveyor with some knowledge of the compulsory purchase and compensation aspects, so it will be no surprise to your Lordships that my interests are primarily in Parts 1 and 2. However, I confess straightaway that I am no expert on digital matters, as will probably become apparent.
I know what it is like to be in an internet not-spot and to conduct a business in an area with no mobile coverage. My Sussex office, for instance, suffers from a declining broadband service. About 14 years ago I was told that I could get about 4 megabits, and it was pretty much at that level. Then BT came along and—hooray—said that it was going to upgrade me to an 8-megabit system. Since then the coverage has gradually declined from about 3.6 megabits. It now hovers at around two and a bit and sometimes gets to 3 megabits but is often below 2. At that level, things start not happening, which is a very serious impediment. My good lady wife uses a mobile network that might usefully be termed “nothing anywhere”. I commend that to the marketing people.
Naturally, all this matters because of the increasing demands on the system: the data stream, cloud computing, all the large data transfers, voiceover internet and so on. The volumes would have been absolutely eye-watering 12 or 14 years ago. The Minister referred to the need to manage the resource and I totally agree with that. But I would be a little more convinced by the Bill if it made clear that what is actually important is service delivery at the point of use; in other words, the values measured at the incoming modem connected to the socket on the wall in the home or the office. For all the claims of fibre to the exchange, to the cabinet or even direct to the home and the configuration of what I understand is traffic shaping—“demand management”, in layman’s terms—the actual experience is often different by nothing short of a country mile.
Ninety-five percent availability might mean that it is available at the exchange or to the green cabinet—but downstream, to the consumer themselves, often lie bundles of tired old copper or, worse, aluminium pairs no doubt joined in boxes liable to water ingress. The delivery really must deal with the infrastructure and attention to the permanent way, including that local loop or final mile. If, in addition to that, we have ISP network congestion or traffic-shaping effects before it ever gets to the consumer’s internal wireless network or shared users, something needs to be done to look and see where we measure these things from. So my first point is to advocate a universally accepted and accurate basis for measuring communications performance; otherwise, in 10 years we will be no further forward than we are today in this contest of salesman’s puff. The universal service obligation principle in the Bill is much to be commended, although I agree that the level is not sufficient. I also think that somebody must be empowered to make absolutely sure that these traffic-shaping and other management issues do not stand in the way.
We all know that broadband now is an essential service, like water and electricity. I would perhaps prefer a little more concentration on the communication quality and a little less on tariffs, although I agree that tariffs are an important matter. I am among those who happen to think that BT’s insistence on having a phone line with a broadband connection is mainly about it using its virtual monopoly over the permanent way and its liking for telephone-subscriber income. I recall that, some years ago, BT was awarded a huge sum of money—I forget the precise amount and other noble Lords will probably know more than I do. I understood that that money was to deal with defective parts of the hardwired system, but I am entirely unclear that there has been a proper return to the taxpayer on that.
I can, however, speak to the enormous courtesy and patience of BT Openreach staff, who I often encounter either parked in my gateway or inspecting my hedges to find out where their junction boxes are because they are never told anything about what to expect when they are sent out there. I usually end up having to tell them where to find their junction boxes and what the likely problem is that they will discover—that is after many years of experience. It really is rather like the Flanders and Swann song about the gasman coming to call. Noble Lords will remember that, in the song, each successive trade undoes something that was done previously—it is just like that. It would be funny if it was not so serious. For example, one of my tenants had their service reconnected only for the other tenant to have his second line disconnected in the process. One cannot go on like this.
Across the country, 20% of the population live in a rural area—as do I. I worry about 95% coverage nationally because that might easily mean that the remaining 4% or 5% are those in the hardest to reach rural areas, and that possibly 20% or 25% of rural householders and businesses will not get a decent service.
I point to the growing phenomenon of the absent network coverage and of ISP server downtime. I also question what standards of corporate social responsibility are deployed by some of the larger operators. I am particularly concerned that several community broadband schemes were set up and substantially undercut and made unviable by organisations such as BT. That should stop. Ofcom should be empowered to step in and deal with that sort of thing. If communities get together and get a critical mass to set up a community air band or similar mast, nobody should be allowed to come in and undercut that model, just like that, especially because the unwillingness to deal with the thing in the first place was the essential cause of the community getting together.
On Part 2, what I know about co-providers tells me a good deal about their economic power and confidence that they can, if necessary, influence government to suit their purposes. I am concerned that the operation of market forces that so far has allowed the rolling out of the mast sites across the country now seems to be in question and that the Government appear to be prepared to abandon that customary approach and compensation based on market value, appearing to ignore the Law Commission recommendation that market value should apply, so that we get some sort of compulsory acquisition-lite. I am not at all happy with that, so I shall return to that subject later in the Bill.
There are many other processes to do with the granting of rights, the perpetuation of them, their propensity for enlargement and unqualified rights to assign, which I would point to in relation to that. These things are not simply a matter of saying, “It’s the greedy landlord versus the greedy code operator”. This is a can that is being kicked down the road and will have to be picked up at some later stage when it starts to cause serious impediment to people’s reasonable aspirations and the optimal use of property.
So I have a number of reservations about the Bill, but I welcome a number of other aspects. I certainly welcome the concept of protection against underage exposure to pornography. I am less sure that data sharing is adequately framed. I am sure that I am not alone in welcoming a code controlling direct marketing and a control of the infamous bots. So while on balance the Bill is welcome, it will, I fear, need a good deal of further adjustment as we proceed.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I will make brief general remarks before focusing on Part 3, which deals with online pornography. When I was a student, 45 years ago, I invested in a dictionary, which I still have. The word “internet” did not appear in it and “digital” meant “pertaining to the fingers”. “Computer” was a mere derivative of the verb “to compute” and meant a calculator. At the time, I was completing a chemistry degree and learning early computer language such as ALGOL and FORTRAN, which I assume are as extinct now as we think dinosaurs are extinct.
Having abandoned my scientific career in order to pursue a vocation to the ordained ministry—God knows why, as I used to say—my involvement with the developing digital age was somewhat limited. But its opportunities and ambiguities were brought home to me in the early 1990s when, as vicar of Beverley Minster in East Yorkshire, I was approached by one of the emerging mobile networks, Orange, to allow a transmitter on one of the towers. We may have been the first church to reach such an agreement, through a rather complex process, but we did, provided that the transmitter and receiver simply looked like a flagpole, which they did and still do. The annual index-linked rental was useful for other purposes. Some people were opposed to it on the grounds of, “Goodness knows what might be transmitted through the church tower”, including an early sense that pornography or other unsavoury material might be transmitted, while others saw the benefits. I remember one older lady saying to me, “I will now happily go out in my car because if I break down I can call for help from the car itself”. That duality has remained with me over the years, and not least as the power of digital communication has expanded in such unprecedented and unimaginable ways.
Knowing how to provide regulation while not stifling the inherent creativity that the digital revolution is bringing is by no means easy. There are also profound issues of privacy that arise regularly, and which we confronted directly when dealing with the Investigatory Powers Bill. A little over a year ago I introduced a balloted debate in your Lordships’ House on the impact of pornography on society, and we had a good discussion. Two distinguished social scientists who are well known to the House, the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Parekh, urged caution in coming to any conclusions about the impact of pornography given that the digital age is transforming human experience in general and human sexual experience in particular in unprecedented ways that we are only just beginning to understand. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Giddens:
“If children are shielded too much, and for too long, they may not be able to cope when plunged into the maelstrom that is sexuality today”.—[Official Report, 5/11/15; col. 1774.]
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, parted company with his noble friend Lord Giddens on that point:
“Children are not in a position to exercise personal autonomy. They cannot be entrusted with the liberty we would entrust to adults. They are … not able to distinguish between real life and fantasy, and they can easily be persuaded to do … things that ought not to be done … They need to be protected against certain kinds of manipulation and exploitation”.—[Official Report, 5/11/15; col. 1783.]
That is why the Conservative manifesto contained a pledge to introduce secure age verification for access to pornographic material and why I support these provisions in the Bill, which have been so usefully strengthened during its passage through the other place with the insertion of Clauses 23 and 80. One of my own MPs from Cheshire, Mrs Fiona Bruce, played a key role in this, as I am very pleased to acknowledge. No doubt there will be details to discuss, but the fundamental trajectory is one that I hope we can more or less all share. The two new clauses help to make the application of age verification both more enforceable and more internally consistent.
I will conclude my remarks with a brief observation and then with a specific question for the Minister. My observation is that seeking to maintain a sharp distinction between what people can do when they are under the age of 18 and what they can do when aged 18 and over will need careful consideration in the future. We and our society must prepare people for life as adults in realistic and effective ways. A great deal needs to be done in an honest and transparent manner, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, not least when looking at the PSHE curriculum because it is so much of a political football—but then nothing happens. However, there are really serious issues which cannot be ducked if we want to prepare children for the world as it actually is—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens.
At the same time, I do not think we can simply assume without further thought and the careful research which is undoubtedly needed that adult exposure to pornographic material is always justifiable in the name of individual freedom and choice. This area is beyond the current Bill and certainly, careful evidence-based research is required, but there have been too many warnings from senior judges and others who have seen with their own eyes evidence of the corrupting potential of pornography in the serious criminal trials they were overseeing. Just where the legal lines are drawn, I am not sure, because some difficult questions are raised in this area, but I would like to suggest that these issues are important ones for the future.
Finally, I have a question for the Minister. I would like him to comment on what the expectations are for social media sites like Twitter, which can themselves host user-generated pornographic content. The expectations on commercial pornography websites are set out pretty clearly in Clause 15, but will the Minister please clarify how the Bill as drafted will impact on social media sites? Clause 22 starts to cover this with its reference to “ancillary service providers”, but in Clause 22(6) the reference is restricted to business activities so provided. Evidence from the Government to the Communications Select Committee on 29 October was as follows:
“Twitter is a user-generated uploading-content site. If there is pornography on Twitter, it will be considered covered under ancillary services”.
How does that apply to material on Twitter that is not uploaded in the course of business activities? I ask the Minister to clarify this point when he responds.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, which shows the Government’s continuing significant interest in the digital economy. So it should, because it is estimated that about 11.5 million people are employed in one way or another in digital activity in the UK. That number is likely to increase.
We are certainly in the beginning stages of the digital revolution, the fourth industrial revolution. I take the view that this industrial revolution, unlike the others, will destroy more jobs than it creates. This is unhistorical. As a Technology Minister in the Thatcher Government I made endless speeches saying, “Accept technology. It’s going to create more jobs than the Industrial Revolution, the car revolution and the computer revolution”. The digital revolution will not do that, because the agents of this revolution are much more widespread. They are artificial intelligence; big data; driverless cars, lorries and taxis; the internet of things; the growth of vast businesses in a matter of five or 10 years, such as Twitter, Facebook and Uber; virtual reality; cybersecurity; and hacking. These will all have huge effects on jobs.
I am not alone in thinking this. This is not an eccentric, lone view. The Davos meeting in January this year produced a devastating report, forecasting huge job losses right across the world in various countries, in two groups in particular: unskilled workers and middle management. For example, in America there are 3 million truck drivers and 8 million people in stopovers and sandwich bars. If the Mercedes lorries that are now being experimented with are driverless, most of those will go, so a lot of unskilled workers will go. Warehousing has already gone. The only time a human hand is likely to touch an Amazon order is when it knocks on your door and says it has a delivery for you. That will soon disappear because it is experimenting with drones for delivery in certain urban areas. A continuing massive amount of change is going on. There are also two reports from McKinsey that echo this. Only last week the Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Carney, expressed the views of his chief economist, Mr Haldane, who said that automation in Britain is likely to cost 15 million jobs.
If these forecasts are in any way remotely true, what are we going to have to do about it? I believe the answer lies in education. There is a bit of education in this Bill for, I gather, 30, 40 and 50 year-olds who cannot really cope with computing or smartphones. That is excellent and I am not criticising it—it is a bit like shutting the gate, but never mind. The Ministers in the DCMS should talk to the Ministers in the Department for Education, because that is where it has to be. The example I give your Lordships is GCSE computing, which is a very good exam, but this last year only 60,000 people took it. Some 300,000 people took a foreign language. Mastering a computer language is more important than getting the smatterings of a foreign language. I would make GCSE computing a compulsory subject for all students aged 16 and foreign languages optional subjects. The Department for Education would die a death before it did that, but it ought to do it. It would be responding to a need: if we start with GCSE computing, we will eventually produce computer scientists.
It is important to train youngsters at 16 to give them skills which will get them a job in the digital economy. That is what university technical colleges do. Our youngsters at 18 will have worked on projects—that does not happen in an ordinary school. Our youngsters will have worked in teams—that does not happen in an ordinary school. Our youngsters will have dealt with problem-solving—that does not happen in an ordinary school. Our youngsters will have been making and designing things with their hands—that does not happen in an ordinary school. Our youngsters will leave with a range of skills—personal and social skills, practical skills—which enable them to get a job in this digital world. If you leave at 18 with just academic subjects, it will not be enough; you are going to be one of those middle managers who are not there any more following the hollowing-out of middle management. So it has to start there.
I welcome the universal service obligation. It takes me back to the debates that we had in 1981, because I was the Minister who had to privatise BT and we had exactly the same problems with the universal service obligation then relating to traditional telephony. Even so, the Government have targeted only 95% of the UK by the end of next year. That other 5% will almost certainly be in remote rural areas, which can be reached only by mobile telephony. 3G is now almost old-fashioned; 4G is happening. I hope that the Government will invest very much more in masts for 5G, because that is how you are going to reach the lonely cottage at the end of the valley. As the right reverend Prelate said, we are now seeing masts on churches. Selling one’s church for this pornographic display is appalling, but it happens. Our village has a steeple, so it is not much good, but if a village has a tower and you can get a mast on it, you will get very good broadband.
The Government have pledged to provide broadband of 10 megabits to 95% of the country by the end of next year. Ten megabits per second is not very much actually. If you are in a household where two or three people might want to use the internet, it just will not work, and it is hopeless for small businesses. I think that Matthew Hancock said in the House of Commons that it was only a minimum, but it should be increased as soon as possible to at least 15 or 20 megabits. As the Minister mentioned, some areas can get to 24 megabits already.
Ofcom is given considerably greater powers in this Bill, which again takes me back to 1981, when we were privatising BT and had to set up the first regulator, which was called Oftel—I remember appointing the first director to it. The job of Oftel in those days, as to some extent it is of Ofcom today, was to ensure that BT did not cheat, because it owns most of the ducts in the country and must provide open, fair competition. I think that Oftel did that well; I think that Ofcom has done it well, too. There is a proposal that BT Openreach should be broken away from the rest of BT. I do not think that that would be very helpful. BT Openreach is the main instrument of extending broadband around the country. The controls on competition now in place mean that there is fair treatment for the other service providers that want to use those ducts. In our own place in the country, we decided to change one line where the broadband was very bad from BT to EE. It works very well, but it uses the same BT ducts. I am not sure quite why it works so well—my wife tells me that it is a better router—but we have experience of some switching, which is what the Government want to ensure. I hope that the Government will not accept the proposal from Ofcom to sell off BT Openreach from BT. It can work properly, more effectively and better in the nation’s interest by staying as it is.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I am a great admirer of his UTCs and only hope that, in my native country, the Scottish Government might be persuaded to allow some of them to develop there. They are certainly much needed because Scotland, like the rest of the UK, has a huge skills shortage.
Given the time of year, I am tempted to describe this Bill as something like a Christmas tree, but it would have to be the size of giant redwood to have branches sturdy enough to bear the weight of all the legislation that has been heaped on the various branches. There are at least six Bills rolled into one, and the Minister has already promised some others. I am afraid that I shall be guilty—along with some other people, judging by what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—of adding another couple of ideas. The listed sporting events regulations need looking at and, unlike the question of the 95% perhaps being broken, we may need to look at the criteria and make sure that we are dealing with broadcasters that actually reach people, rather than just potentially reach them. The other issue is EPG prominence. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, has already referred to this. It is daft that CBeebies and CBBC are at 13 and 14 in the EPG, where public service broadcasters are normally given prominence.
On the positive side, while I agree that the Bill has shortcomings I am an overwhelming approver of making the provision of high-speed broadband a universal service obligation. In that, the Government have got more right than wrong. It is a rather unambitious target that could be improved, but the key thing is to get started. I would much rather have a country where everyone had at least 10 megabits than one where a few cities had high-speed and rural areas had nothing at all. I think we can do better than the Government’s target and I hope that they will give attention to that. I was on the Select Committee on Communications when it looked at this. We stopped short of saying that there should be a universal service obligation because we thought that that was rather overambitious. I therefore applaud the Government for taking that initiative. It is a great start and it will get us moving.
I do not quite know yet how the Government are going to reach everyone with even 10 megabits for everyone. It will require some pretty dictatorial powers on the part of government to ensure that the appropriate technology is used in each area. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston for an idea that is only partly humorous: if we did a deal with the criminal classes whereby they would get a reduced sentence for stealing copper wire, provided that they put glass fibre back in its place, we would have a very fast uptake in glass fibre throughout the country.
The Electronic Communications Code requires updating and I approve entirely of what the Government are doing. However, they need to be rather clearer on the importance of independently operated digital infrastructures, which tend to offer better connectivity than masts simply owned by one mobile operator. My mind goes back to the early 1960s, when the BBC and ITV built separate masts. Then it struck them, “This is daft. Why don’t we have the one mast and put two different transmitters on it?”. I do not know why on earth the mobile companies have not got together before now. Instead of having five masts in some areas and none in others, they could agree to share masts. It is ridiculous, for example, that somebody coming from Europe with a mobile phone can roam but somebody in Britain cannot. We are stuck with our own individual provider.
The providers say that their business plans would not admit of that, but they should be forced to do it in new areas. If an area is totally uncovered, Ofcom should offer it to somebody on the basis that they cover it not just for themselves but for everybody else. Each company could be assigned a different area so that, by and large, we would get better coverage. We have to ensure that the investment incentives for companies that provide independent infrastructure are not inadvertently regulated as part of land. I would welcome clarification, because the Bill is not quite as clear as it should be on that.
Pornography has already been spoken about. I do not want to disagree with my Front Bench but I would guarantee that, in a way, everybody in the House is in favour of censorship. It is a question of disagreeing on which things should be censored. People who would take a very free, libertarian view of censorship in sexual matters would probably be quite extreme in demanding censorship against racial hatred or other such things. We all believe that some things should not be promulgated; we are just not united on which they should be.
I applaud the use of the BBFC on this issue. It has established a good reputation in the country for its age classification system. It is the best organisation to turn to, to ensure that age verification is robust. I also hope that this can eventually be done with the consent of the internet service providers. In a way, having a well-regulated system that people feel they can trust is in the long-term interest of the provider. I am a great believer in enlightened self-interest.
Likewise, I hope that enlightened self-interest will lead to peace being declared when Section 73 is abandoned and the cable companies finally start paying public service broadcasters for the material that they use without any acknowledgement or payment. They compound the iniquity by putting their own advertising around it—so the public service broadcasters are suffering a double whammy. One fight will be referred to Ofcom, and Ofcom will set a figure for what should be paid—after that, it will be over. Eventually, platform owners will realise that without content their platform is useless, just as in 1922 the British Broadcasting Company started radio because it realised that having the wonderful new medium called radio mattered not at all if there was nothing to listen to. Surely platform owners realise that if they end up strangling content providers and depriving them of resources, sooner or later content will wither and dry up and they will be left with nothing. However, there is no need for delay. This has been on the go since 2007 or 2008. There are some rumours that the Government may be thinking that we need a two-year transition period. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that that is not the case.
I realise that there are risks with digital government. I have received briefings from organisations that are alarmed by the risk of data breaches. Of course, we are all concerned about that, but it is quite remarkable that we all surrender to our mobile phone data that we would be unwilling to give to the Government. There is a slight illogicality there. Big data—data that are aggregated and anonymised—can be a very useful research tool as well as providing useful information. When I was chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board, like everyone else we relied on figures from the international passenger survey, which was a year out of date and a very small sample. It would be possible nowadays to get data from Visa or Mastercard on how many people from Alabama spent money in Scotland last year. It could easily be done, and nobody’s data would be breached as a result. It is all anonymous.
It is significant that the BBC accepts Clause 76, which gives the power to Ofcom. It is what successive Select Committees on Communications have been saying in this House for years. It makes absolute sense. The BBC is in a better position now than it has been in before. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and others that the provision of free licences to over-75s is a nonsense and should not have been put on the BBC—but we are where we are and the BBC’s position is that, much as it did not seek it, it does not want to start trying to unscramble the licence settlement in case other bits come adrift as well. The best thing we can say of the Bill’s provisions for the BBC is that the charter for 11 years and the licence provisions it has put in place will ensure that nothing like the raids on the BBC in the last two charter renewals can ever happen again.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, in my opinion, which is widely supported across the House, we need to amend the Bill to provide statutory underpinning for the BBC’s royal charter. With support from across the House, we will table amendments in Committee. Those amendments will in no way delay the coming into effect of the draft charter and agreement but will protect the future independence and viability of the BBC in performing its public service functions.
Ministers have claimed that statutory underpinning is unnecessary and that the charter provides sufficient protection of the public interest. That argument has been rejected in our debates by three former chairmen of the Communications Committee, by the former chairman of the BBC and by its former director-general. Many others across the House support the need for statutory underpinning.
The Government have themselves recognised the value of statutory underpinning in their National Citizen Service Bill, and have done so by a combination of statute and charter. The DCMS is the parent department of that Bill and the present Bill, with the same Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, in charge of both Bills’ passage through the House. It is difficult to understand why a combination of statute and charter is appropriate for the NCS Trust and not for the BBC.
What I mean by statutory underpinning is that Parliament should prescribe the basic principles protecting the independence of the BBC in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which its output is supplied and the governance and management of its affairs. It should require the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the BBC, Ofcom and all other persons and bodies responsible for matters relating to the governance and establishment of the BBC to ensure that the BBC is able to operate independently from Ministers and other public authorities in the UK.
In carrying out that duty, the Secretary of State and other Ministers should be required by legislation not to seek to influence the BBC’s decisions. In addition, the Secretary of State should be required to have regard to: the need to have regard to the BBC’s independence; the need for the BBC to have the financial and non-financial support needed to enable it to exercise its functions; and the need for the public interest to be considered in regard to matters relating to the BBC.
The Secretary of State should be required to make available to the BBC sufficient funds, through the licence fee and otherwise, to enable the BBC to perform its functions and public purposes as a public service broadcaster. It is also essential for the Bill to ensure that the licence fee is for the exclusive benefit of and use by the BBC and to fund the performance of the BBC’s functions and public purposes. The licence fee should be index linked and increased at least in line with the consumer prices index. The Secretary of State should be forbidden from transferring to the BBC the responsibility for, the liability for or cost of any public expenditure. Ofcom should be responsible for overseeing the performance of the BBC’s functions as a public service broadcaster.
As regards governance, the BBC should be governed by an independent board of not more than 14 people with the knowledge and experience needed to perform the board’s functions as a public service broadcaster. Its members should be drawn from across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and should include BBC licence-fee payers and present or former members of staff. The Prime Minister should appoint the chair and other members of the board on the basis of a recommendation made by an independent appointments committee established by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The board should carry out its functions in an open and transparent manner.
As regards the licence fee—this is pathetically weak, but deliberately so—the board should publish a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the amount of funding the Secretary of State should make available to the BBC. The Secretary of State should publish the Government’s response.
These amendments would not delay the coming into force of the current draft charter and agreement, and are designed to protect the BBC and the public for the future. I recognise that legislation by itself is not a panacea. It has to be interpreted and applied wisely. The safeguards must be proportionate—no more than appropriate and necessary, but also no less, in protecting the BBC’s independence and viability as a leading public service broadcaster.
Members of both Houses debated the draft charter, and there was detailed and sustained criticism of its perceived flaws. However, the Government refused to make any changes to the draft. The charter fails to protect the BBC against political interference or a repeat of the wholly improper slicing of the BBC’s revenue by transferring responsibility for the free television concession from the DWP to the BBC, which has had a drastic effect on the BBC’s revenue. The Government rely on the fact, as did the Minister in opening, that the BBC Trust consented to the transfer, but in the real world the BBC Trust was over a barrel and its consent was involuntary.
The charter that is about to come into effect does not protect the BBC’s financial viability through sufficient funding, whether from the licence fee or otherwise. It does not protect the BBC against excessive regulatory interference by Ofcom in regulating editorial standards, nor, unlike the charter proposed by the Government for the NCS Trust, does it provide for a merit-based method of appointing the chair and members of the BBC board—something that, in the light of recent developments, Channel 4 might wish that it could do. As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, has said, what was done to the BBC in dumping the free television concession on it must never happen again. As I have explained, we need to amend the Bill to include that necessary protection.
Just as it is important to protect the BBC against ministerial interference, it is also important to protect it against parliamentary interference with its editorial independence in performing its public service functions. That is why I do not propose making future charters subject to parliamentary approval. What is needed is neither a statutory straitjacket devised by Parliament nor ministerial interference but a constitutional framework that will safeguard the BBC’s future in the public interest to the extent necessary, and no more.
I am a pathetic optimist by nature, and I hope the Minister will be able to indicate, either today or hereafter, the Government’s sympathy for this moderate and practical approach.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, there are three areas of particular interest for me in this very wide-ranging Bill. The first is the sharing of sensitive health information. I remind noble Lords of my membership of the medical profession and that I am a past president of the British Medical Association.
The BMA believes the Bill should be amended to ensure that identifiable healthcare information is excluded from the entire scope of the Bill’s information disclosure powers. This is imperative if patients are to have trust in the confidential nature of the health service and feel confident in sharing sensitive information with healthcare professionals. The BMA recognises, and is supportive of, the many benefits in using healthcare data appropriately, such as for medical research and health service planning purposes, but this must not be achieved at the cost of confidentiality and must be in line with patient expectations about how their confidential information is handled.
I am therefore seeking clarification on two issues. First, the Bill sets out the need to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 but overrules the common-law duty of confidentiality. It states:
“A disclosure under section 30, 31 or 32 does not breach … any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure”.
Compliance with the DPA alone does not offer adequate protections for the confidential nature of healthcare information, and the Bill as drafted could seriously undermine medical confidentiality. Why does the Bill not maintain the existing common-law duty of medical confidentiality?
Secondly, the treatment of sensitive health data under Clause 30’s powers is inconsistent with the Government’s own amendment to Clause 57’s powers in the other place. That amendment will uphold the existing protection for sharing healthcare data for research purposes. The Government said that a similar amendment to Clause 30 is not possible, because health is a devolved issue, but no justification has been provided for why Clauses 30 and 57 are being treated differently in this regard. Why is medical confidentiality not protected consistently throughout the Bill? It will be important for the Bill to be amended or clarified to provide adequate guarantees that all current protections of confidentiality will be upheld.
My second area of interest in the Bill concerns measures to make the internet a safer place for children and vulnerable adults. A number of noble Lords have already spoken about this. The NSPCC has written a very powerful briefing, reminding us that the internet is the place where children go to have fun and to learn. It calls on us to recognise the richness of children’s lives and how they deploy, use and interact with technology as a means of learning, empowerment, self-expression and connecting with others. But there are also real benefits to children and young people with learning disabilities and autism in using the internet to support learning and social interaction. Increasingly, the internet caters for these young people through using accessible design and simplified language, as well as instantly available video clips. However, with access to technology comes the potential for cyberbullying, online grooming and risk of exposure to inappropriate content. Children and young people cite viewing violent and harmful content as their second most common concern in the online world. It is important to remember that pornographic sites are not the only challenge—there are also sites promoting violence, drug use, self-harm and gambling.
This is a risk for all children and young people using the internet but the risk can be more profound for young people with a learning disability as a result of their increased vulnerability, a common tendency towards obsessional or compulsive behaviour and their social naivety. The Anti-Bullying Alliance found that pupils with special educational needs were 12% more likely to have experienced cyberbullying than their peers. Mencap, Ambitious about Autism and Cerebra were sufficiently concerned last year to publish Learning Disabilities, Autism and Internet Safety: A Parent’s Guide, which contains tips for parents on how to support their children to use the internet safely.
Many of these concerns and aspirations also apply to vulnerable adults who are at risk from the same types of intrusive and harmful content. I refer not just to people with developmental learning disabilities but to those who are experiencing a mental health crisis and for whom such material can only add to their troubles. What plans do the Government have to ensure that such vulnerable adults are also protected through the measures in the Bill?
The continued provision of the default-on adult content filtering regime is very important, including in relation to public wi-fi. While filters are not completely watertight, they will help to make the internet safer for many children and, indeed, vulnerable adults. So a great deal hangs on the promised government adult content filtering amendment, which I look forward to seeing in Committee.
The NSPCC is also calling for a statutory code of practice, with a set of minimum standards to keep children safe online. These minimum standards would set out responsibilities for anyone developing or hosting online content or services to ensure that there is parity of protection for children between the offline and online worlds.
Finally, I will speak about the possibilities offered in the Bill to protect the public from some of the harm caused by a media which refuse to regulate themselves adequately, despite cross-parliamentary acceptance of the Leveson inquiry recommendations. This country has managed broadcast regulation rather well, and Ofcom has a good track record. We do not hear of the Government being bullied by broadcast licence holders, or holding secret meetings in London hotels with ITV’s owners, or of the BBC Director-General entering No. 10 Downing Street through the back door for a quiet chat with the Prime Minister. But the same cannot be said of press regulation. This House knows the history of decades of failed press regulation—Leveson described it as a “pattern of cosmetic reform”.
Since Leveson part 1 reported, there has been an unprecedented propaganda war by the large newspaper companies opposing its moderate recommendations. We have witnessed a disgraceful retreat by the Government, reneging on promise after promise made to victims, the public and Parliament, including a willingness to abandon the incentives for the royal charter scheme that were enacted by Parliament, and a desire to cancel part 2 of the inquiry into the newspapers’ corporate cover-up and possible police corruption.
Lord Justice Leveson was alive to that happening, and warned of it in his report. He said that previous press promises to reform,
“have often not been followed through with meaningful action”.
Crucially, he said that if the press reject this final opportunity for voluntary, independent self-regulation, Parliament must act to protect the public interest and legislate. He said,
“if some or all of the industry are not willing to participate in effective independent regulation, my own concluded view is to reject the notion that they should escape regulation altogether. I cannot, and will not, recommend another last chance saloon for the press”.
I hope that this House will take up the challenge in the Bill. As Lord Justice Leveson pointed out, the news media move their position only when faced with the prospect of legislation. As Leveson found in his inquiry:
“Ultimately, the one incentive that we have heard about that has been demonstrated to be effective is the realistic threat of press standards legislation if an adequate voluntary body with full coverage is not forthcoming”.
I am still exploring what amendments will be possible, but noble Lords will recall that I was encouraged by Ministers to amend this Bill, rather than the Investigatory Powers Bill, despite the huge support in this Chamber for a mechanism to implement outstanding Leveson recommendations. I have asked Hacked Off to assist me with briefings on this matter.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests, such as they are these days at my great age.
I thoroughly welcome the Bill. It is a bold attempt to do what legislation rarely does: to keep pace with technology. Technology is moving so fast, and this is a bold attempt to try to get legislation in line with what is happening in the real digital world. I welcome it for that, and I have no doubt that the importance of the Bill will become more apparent than it already is during its progress through this House, given the level of expertise that we have already heard—and we are not halfway through this debate.
While it is fresh in what passes for my mind, I pick up on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and his ambitions for statutory underpinning for the BBC. As a former chairman of the BBC, I have some experience in these matters. This is not the time, but there will come a moment in Committee and after to debate in detail the case that he outlined today. I just ask your Lordships to remember one thing. Whatever arguments we may have about the way the BBC is structured, governed and so on, I think we can all agree that it remains independent. I do not think there is any doubt in the public’s mind that the BBC is independent. The cornerstone which underpins that independence is that there is never a vote in either House on the detail of the management or governance of the BBC. That separation—the royal charter and the agreement—has stood the BBC in very good stead.
The best defence of the BBC’s independence is its staff, in the first instance, and the British public—who would be very angry indeed. Indeed, I walked out with the staff on a famous occasion back in the 1980s because there was an attempt at political interference with the editorial processes at the BBC. I do not think there is any doubt that the BBC is more than capable of defending its own independence. The last thing it needs is statutory underpinning because, as we all know, statutes can be overturned in Parliament. I look forward to the debate with the noble Lord.
There is an old saying in Westminster and Whitehall that nothing endures like the temporary. In 1988, a Bill became an Act which was an attempt to prop up, ensure and help the fledgling and very fragmented cable sector which was in its first throes of expansion and growth—and it was a perfectly sensible piece of short-term legislation at the time. It has endured since 1988, and I am thrilled to see that the Government have finally listened to the argument and seek in this Bill to repeal Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is good news indeed. The public service broadcasting sector of this country needs every penny that it can get today—and that includes not only the BBC but Channel 4, Channel 5 and ITV. They are under threat from so many different directions and are leaking value all the time through copyright infringements by Google and others. They are leaking value because they are in deep competition with the internet for advertising; internet advertising has now overtaken broadcasting revenues for the first time. They are under threat everywhere, and it is absolutely crucial that we scavenge every penny that we can and protect their ability to invest in content. The creative industry is one of the few sectors of the British economy that has gone on growing through periods of recession, and we must continue to do that. This measure is very much welcome.
I was somewhat depressed to hear that there may be what have been euphemistically called transitional arrangements, which may delay the repeal for a couple of years. I can see no reason whatever for that delay, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the appropriate time why they have suddenly decided that there needs to be some transitional arrangement. Pace the BBC, the arrangements should be left to the free market to determine and, in the event of a dispute, Ofcom is more than capable of stepping in, banging heads together and sorting it out. If you look at the American broadcasting sector, you can see that companies such as 21st Century Fox rely heavily on retransmission fees from the cable networks in America, which are more than capable of paying fees for content that has been invested in by other people. So the argument is well made and has obviously been heard by the Government. I would be very interested to see why we need any form of transitional arrangements other than to appease the giant cable companies that now exist through consolidation. It is no longer a fragmented and embryonic sector; it is a mature and very wealthy sector.
On broadband, there is a lot of talk about speed and reach, but anybody who ever has to drive anywhere in central London and tries to use their phone suffers the same problems that people do in rural areas. Coverage is absolutely shocking; we are way behind countries such as South Korea, and so on, where the wi-fi works at 100 megabits on the underground, in the street or wherever you go. I drive from Wandsworth to the West End every day, and I cannot get a signal for a phone call, never mind the internet. I do not phone when I am driving, I hasten to add—just in case. So there needs to be some concentration and emphasis on improving coverage, even in urban areas. If we are trying to get people to come off the roads and use public transport, for goodness’ sake give us what we need, which is internet connectivity, which might go some way to improving productivity, on which so many of us rely. So many businesses and people involved in wealth creation and so on rely to such a great extent on connectivity, so please give it to us as well as looking after the cottage at the end of the lane.
One of the great surprises of my broadcasting career has been the success and efficiency of Ofcom. Against all my better judgment in the early days, it has turned out to be a super-efficient and very effective regulator of so many different aspects of vital parts of our life. Ofcom has an increasing role to play and it is time it had oversight of the BBC. This is a sensible solution. We have been through a transitional phase—one that I can support—and Ofcom is now more than capable of managing the BBC’s affairs in the way that is described in the Bill. It is a very good thing and I look forward to it happening.
Ofcom has an incredibly different task in reallocating frequencies. There is huge pent-up demand for this valuable national resource. I declare an interest as I am involved in live theatre productions. The theatre community, broadcast, film and conference facility industries are all very concerned about the effect of the reallocation of frequencies on radio mics. I know that the department and Ofcom are very involved but there is no solution yet. This is vital to tourism and the creative industries in this country and I hope we can get to a solution. The importance of the Bill is going to be enhanced by the debates in your Lordships’ Chamber, to which I am looking forward.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, one of the most pleasing aspects of this Green Paper is the alacrity with which everyone in your Lordships’ House accepts the importance of access to fast and reliable digital connectivity, whether it is delivered through broadband or wireless telephony. This wide-ranging Bill rightly identifies how important this is in setting up jobs and in the growth of the creative and fintech industries. Yet the Bill seems unambitious—a word already used by many noble Lords—and fails to embrace what world-class really means. It also studiously ignores one of the key elements that drives wireless performance and service levels, namely the wireless spectrum allocation which is coming up.
The Government’s proposed creation of a broadband universal service obligation is a very positive development. We are obviously waiting to see what Ofcom’s response to this will be, not just on download speeds but on upload, latency, consistency and stability. In that regard, I support my noble friend Lord Foster, who described 10 megabits per second as insufficient. The overall effect of broadband reach was very elegantly illustrated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Although it might, on the one hand, have a 10 megabit label on it, what is actually received in the sitting room or office is often very much less than that. Even if 10 megabits became the accepted minimum, for many people in far-off areas it would also be the maximum. A target of 24 megabits per second has to be our first objective. Parliament should require Ofcom to develop a USO to deliver this as soon as possible; and delivered to the front room, rather than to a box in a road or, indeed, to one of the noble Earl’s hedges somewhere out there. Therefore, we do not think it unreasonable for all of the UK to have access to superfast broadband, and this should include more consistent upload speeds. My fear is that Ofcom and, indeed, the Government are limited in their ambition, and at the heart of this timidity is the fact that they both know that the broadband ownership model is not fit for purpose. This is not directly addressed by this legislation but, in terms of the digital network, it is an elephant in the room.
I apologise for making my next point, which I have made elsewhere, but if you think about what BT is being asked to deliver through Openreach, you will see that the current ownership model of Openreach is the equivalent of asking a consortium comprising Network Rail, Eddie Stobart and Tesco to build our roads. We would not do it, but that is what we have. Until the digital highway is a proper utility, and one that is independent from a company which is a digital service provider and, indeed, a telephony provider, Ofcom will struggle to deliver these requirements. Therefore, we welcome recent announcements about the partition or segregation of Openreach, but we believe this has to be a step towards full partition of Openreach from BT. In the meantime, it is for the Government through this Bill and, obviously, through their relationship with Ofcom, to make sure that the highest possible standards are delivered in the shortest possible time.
Ownership is also an issue when we come to the wireless spectrum. Recent competition decisions have very clearly indicated that the regulator wants four players in this market, yet currently the market is not balanced, with two large players plus two much smaller players, which, we should remind ourselves, were recently prevented from merging. That means that, from what had been a rather balanced distribution of spectrum, we now have a very unbalanced spectrum—by some accounts, the least balanced spectrum distribution in western Europe. BT/EE has the largest proportion of the available spectrum currently allocated at around 39%, Vodafone has 27%, with Three and O2 having just 14% and 13% respectively. Currently, the situation is asymmetric, but with the potential to become more asymmetric as the next round of spectrum sales comes up.
Ofcom will decide the terms of its next spectrum auction, which will be the 2.3 and 3.4 gigahertz sale sometime around the end of next month. We believe that it plans to restrict BT bidding on the 2.3 gigahertz but, as I am sure your Lordships know, that is a small part of the overall band width that is for sale, and BT will still have access to the larger part of that 3.4 part of the spectrum. Therefore, even with more complete restrictions on BT, there is then also an opportunity for Vodafone to clean up on this. So, far from there being four competitors, there is a lot of work to do to enable there to be more than just two large competitors and two very weak ones. Therefore, we believe that this Bill should concern itself with the equitable distribution of spectrum as well as just ensuring the smooth management of spectrum that has currently been allocated.
In summary, we welcome the introduction of the USO but absolutely challenge the very unambitious 10 megabit per second target. A higher target of 24 megabits per second with good upload, latency, consistency and stability targets is very important. We need to make sure that this is available at the point of use in the farthest-flung parts of this country.
On wireless, we believe that the path to adequate competition lies with equitable distribution of spectrum. The Minister should interest himself vigorously in how to ensure that this equitable distribution can be achieved when the next spectrum round comes up. I would be grateful if he would let us know how he plans to do that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, at this Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill in your Lordships’ House it is a pleasure to speak today on a subject that I have regularly brought before the House in recent years through a considerable number of my Online Safety Bills. It is remarkable to see that the concerns raised several years ago about the number and nature of the foreign websites that are being accessed by the UK’s young people are finally being addressed. We are beginning to witness the offline protections that parents expect for their children being applied online. So it is rather an historic day. I begin by congratulating the Government, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, on Part 3, on which I have spent quite a lot of time with her.
I am also delighted that the BBFC has been appointed as the age verification regulator. Having met, with other noble Lords, a number of leading age verification providers, I am reassured that the available technology is robust and developed on the basis of the principle of privacy by design, which means that complete anonymity can be preserved.
As we have heard, on Report in another place the Minister indicated that the Government would introduce an amendment to the Bill in your Lordships’ House on adult content filters. However, adult content filters should not be confused with the age verification checks proposed in Part 3. The checks relate specifically to pornography, whereas the adult content filters are network-level filters that offer to filter out adult content in the round: violence, drug use, gambling, self-harm, and so on. The adult content filtering regime was promoted very effectively by the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, who acknowledged that it was being undermined by the EU net neutrality regulations on 28 October 2015, when he stated that,
“we secured an opt-out yesterday so that we can keep our family-friendly filters to protect children. I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that our children will be protected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/15; col. 344.]
In responding to my Question for Short Debate on adult content filters this year, the Minister explained that the Government have now received new legal advice that suggests that it is not actually necessary to change the law—but, to put the matter beyond doubt, she confirmed that an amendment will be made to the Bill before us today. The noble Baroness, Lady Shields, said:
“We have examined the regulation in detail, and the potential for the network-level parental filters currently offered by providers to conflict with it. We have now received clear legal advice that such network filters that can be turned off are compliant with the regulation. Article 3.1 of the regulation states: ‘End-users shall have the right to access and distribute information and content ... of their choice’. Filters that can be turned off are a matter of consumer choice. Therefore, they are allowed under the regulation”.—[Official Report, 1/12/16; col. 411.]
I am most grateful to the Minister for this clarification—or rather, I was—but I fear that it has generated a number of follow-on questions.
First, when I read the relevant sentence from Article 3.1 in full, it seemed that the reference to “choice” upon which the Government are depending relates to “terminal equipment” rather than to “content”. The full sentence says:
“End-users shall have the right to access and distribute information and content, use and provide applications and services, and use terminal equipment of their choice”.
In other words, an ISP cannot say that you must use a particular type of router to access the service that it supplies to you. Can the Minister explain why the Government believe that “choice” in Article 3.1 refers to choice about network-level filters? If I am right, and the reference to choice pertains to terminal equipment rather than network-level filters, Article 3.1 would not lift the central obligation in the regulations, described by the European Commission in these terms:
“Every European must be able to have access to the open internet and all content and service providers must be able to provide their services via a high-quality open internet. Under these rules, blocking, throttling and discrimination of internet traffic by Internet Service Providers … is not allowed in the EU, save for three exhaustive exceptions (compliance with legal obligations; integrity of the network; congestion management in exceptional and temporary situations) and users are free to use their favourite apps and services no matter the offer they subscribe to”.
Given that the “integrity of the network” and “congestion management exceptions” do not apply in the case of filtering, this leaves us with “compliance with legal obligation”. In other words, in order to be justified, filtering would need to be the result of a “legal obligation”. However, the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, described the legislation made it sound as if the proposed amendment would merely clarify that it was legal to provide unavoidable choice or default-on adult content filters if an ISP wished so to do. Specifically, she said:
“We will bring forward an amendment to the Bill in the Lords, to the effect that providers ‘may offer’ filters”.—[Official Report, 1/12/16; col. 411.]
There was no suggestion of an obligation on ISPs to provide this service. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what the requirements will be on ISPs and, if they are less than mandatory, how they can hope to comply with the net neutrality regulations.
Secondly, I will ask the Minister about the impact of the net neutrality legislation specifically on the use of adult content filters in relation to public wi-fi in the UK. Last year, the Minister set out the Government’s achievements in child protection on the internet. She said:
“The major public wi-fi providers have made family-friendly wi-fi available wherever children are likely to be accessing the internet unsupervised. These are significant achievements”.—[Official Report, 17/7/15; cols. 859-60.]
I strongly agree, but if the criterion for being net neutral is indeed that the user can turn off the filters, I ask myself: who should be able to turn the filters off with respect to public wi-fi for their use in this context to remain legal? I hope the Minister’s legal advice covered that point and that she will be able to reassure the House that neither net neutrality requirements nor the Government’s amendment will place family-friendly wi-fi in jeopardy.
The third question that arises from my consideration of the net neutrality regulations relates to mobile phones. The definition used in the regulation, where an,
“‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides access to the internet, and thereby connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used”,
suggests that net neutrality applies to ISP filtering and MPO filtering. Will the Government’s amendment consequently apply to mobile phone operators as well as internet service providers to protect filtering on mobiles?
Finally, as so many of these questions rely on legal advice, would the Minister be willing to place a copy of that advice in the Library so that your Lordships can have a full understanding of the expectations that need to be met through the net neutrality requirements and of where there is latitude for child protection measures?
I do not expect that I will be given all the answers tonight, but no doubt there will be other occasions for them during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. In any event, I very much took forward to the Minister’s response and to discussing the amendments in Committee.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a trustee of long standing of the Ewing Foundation for deaf children, a charity that helps deaf children to make the most of the technology that can help them in schools.
I sympathise with my noble friend the Minister in having to deal with the complex interface between legislation and technology, especially as technology is changing so fast. For example, a lot of attention will focus on Part 3 of the Bill, on the subject of online pornography, but I feel that noble Lords who, like me, depend on teenage children or grandchildren to set up a new television will fail if they believe that they can write legislation that makes it impossible for teenagers to access whatever they want online. Certainly, Part 3 will go some way to making it more difficult for tech-savvy teenagers to access such material, and that is to be applauded, but I do not doubt that many noble Lords will propose amendments to attempt to make such access impossible, rather than just difficult. Such amendments may only reduce the already low level of respect teenagers have for the law in general. Surely the answer is education, as many noble Lords have said, rather than technical prohibitions.
The Bill deals with sectors with rapidly changing technology. That means it will soon be out of date, so there is, in this case, a good argument for regularly reviewing not only its effects—such as the possible increase in credit card fraud as a result of Part 3—and the number of dwellings with superfast internet access, but the creation of new technologies that will make existing technologies obsolete.
I will be attending the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas between 4 and 7 January 2017. It is said to be the largest exhibition of any kind in the world, and I should pay tribute to the far-sighted and high-tech usual channels for making sure that the House of Lords will not be sitting between those dates. I have no doubt that I will see more advanced methods of accessing the internet than copper wires or even fibre optics. I have read reports about, and heard lectures on, low-flying satellites and high-flying balloons—known, bizarrely, as Project Loon—that will continuously transmit wi-fi-type signals to eliminate not-spots. That would enable the isolated shepherd’s hut in the highlands of Scotland to get better coverage than we do in central London, and certainly better signals than we get in the Palace of Westminster. If such technology exists, is it right that the broadband universal service obligation should continue indefinitely? Certainly this obligation is needed now in the short term, but we have to write legislation that will last.
The lives of all of us have been changed by new forms of communication. I have no doubt that noble Lords of 50 years ago would have been incredulous at the communication that comes to today’s noble Lords by texts and emails. But much more important are the changes to communication that technology has brought for those with sensory disabilities, enabling their greater connection with the outside world.
Part of the change has raised the importance of literacy in the lives of deaf people. Text phones and email have radically improved the opportunities for communication. Indeed, the use of technology masks many a disability and can offer independence and equality. Noble Lords will know that deaf children use a lot of equipment based on the 2.40 to 2.48 gigahertz frequency. Many deaf people are concerned that the tests being undertaken by Ofcom before it sells the adjacent frequency—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—will be insufficient. These frequencies are vital for connecting deaf people to society generally.
A simple acceleration of this process of connectivity could come from the subject raised in another place—regulating to ensure that all television programmes carry subtitles. In 2003, I gather, Parliament gave people with hearing loss equal access through subtitling on analogue TV. However, how we watch TV has changed. There is no legislation to provide subtitles for catch-up, video on demand and streaming, so the legislation lags far behind the technology at the moment.
TV remains one of our strongest cultural focal points, and frustration and social isolation can occur when people are excluded from programmes that their friends, families and colleagues all enjoy. Most broadcast programmes do carry subtitles, but the way we watch television nowadays, with catch-up TV and minority channels, makes it desirable that this is more widespread. It is necessary to consider how to ensure greater access. I am grateful for the help of the National Deaf Children’s Society and Action on Hearing Loss, which briefed me on this subject. Will the Minister agree to meet me and his Bill team to discuss the commitment that an amendment will be brought into this House to achieve this?
Many people who use subtitles on TV programmes are not diagnosed as deaf—not least those whose problem may be one of processing language, rather than hearing sounds, as well as those confounded by sound itself. Even those watching the post-match analysis on a TV in a noisy bar or around a family TV may use subtitles to accompany the pictures. So a wider use of subtitles will help ease the very serious problem of isolation that often accompanies any form of disability.
Of course, much more can be done to alleviate that feeling of isolation. As well as extended use of subtitles and much better internet connections from sources we have not yet heard of, things like autonomous vehicles will connect those with disabilities with the rest of the world like never before. The common theme here is technology. So I hope that, as the Bill is debated, we will be mindful that we should facilitate technological progress, rather than slow it down.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I am happy to declare a number of interests, which can be found in the register. Among them is the fact that for the past five years I have enjoyed the role of Digital Champion for Ireland, working in that country and in Europe to wrestle to the ground some of the problems created by the digital world, as well as taking advantage of the many benefits it brings.
I have also, for 10 years and more, taught in Singapore and watched the anticipatory way that country plans for and addresses technological and social change. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that in Singapore and elsewhere, Ofcom is regarded as very much the poster child for responsible regulation. That delights me, as I had the privilege of chairing the Joint Scrutiny Committee of both Houses for the 2003 Communications Bill, which set up Ofcom and in which all things digital were firmly placed in the “too difficult” box, to the frustration of all of us at the time. With what result? The result was that we have been engaged in a dozen years or more of effectively playing catch-up.
There is much that is good and timely about this Bill, so I will focus my remarks on what is not in it in the hope that we might avoid at least some of the lost opportunities of 2003, so many of which were entirely predictable, including the role of the ISPs in respect of many things from pornography to piracy.
That the world of work is changing is little more than a dull truism, but the issue that seems, for the present, to have been sailing under the legislative radar is the nature and sheer pace of some of these changes and the impact they are having and will increasingly have on the people most likely to be affected by them. I will not rehearse the history of industrial change in the second half of the 20th century, but it is pretty safe to say that it was a time of turbulence and job insecurity right across what used to be called our “blue-collar workforce”. Jobs vanished from the production line as automation bit, and indeed in some industries, continues to bite hard.
However, I believe that we are now faced with a somewhat different crisis as new forms of intelligence-driven processes threaten—and in some cases will obviate—what until now have been considered “safe” jobs in many of the professions. I give by way of example the law, accountancy, architecture and indeed even some areas of education—areas in which a decent degree seemed to assure a job, if not for life then at least for the foreseeable future.
By my reading, this Bill takes little account of the threat to individuals and to the economy as a whole of what is likely to be a wave of digitally created redundancies. I bow to no man in my belief that, over time, the digital world may be capable of generating more jobs than it lays waste to. However, the important words there are “over time”. As the Minister will no doubt tell us, the development of digital skills does receive attention in this Bill, and will receive further attention by amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act. But I would argue that there is a significant mismatch between the issues of training and reskilling currently identified in this legislation and the actual crisis that sits just around the corner, just a few years from now, when possibly hundreds of thousands of livelihoods could be lost to the incoming wave of intelligence-driven digital innovation.
Given sufficient thought and legislative support, it may be possible to retrain and reskill accountants to become data analysts, conveyancing lawyers to become digital copyright specialists or architects to become cybersecurity designers. However, that will not be achieved overnight and without a great deal of thought and, if I dare suggest it, preplanning. I understand that the Governments of the Netherlands and Germany, along with those of some of the Scandinavian countries, are already very well seized of this issue and have governmental task forces in place to address the myriad possibilities of a world of work that is, at least for the present, veiled in a great degree of uncertainty. When he comes to reply, will the Minister reassure the House that Her Majesty’s Government are similarly preparing themselves for these eventualities—actually, they are not eventualities, they are inevitabilities? I will not delay the House by reciting the evidence for my assertions, but I suggest that the department take a long, hard look at recent reports on the subject by Deloitte, McKinsey’s and the Bank of England, as well as numerous articles in the Financial Times and elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, indicated, this problem is not science-fiction: it is real, it is now and it is not going to go away.
In conclusion, I will quote a short extract from a book entitled, “The Future of Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts”, by the British academics Richard and Daniel Susskind. In their book they say:
“We anticipate an ‘incremental transformation’ in the way that we produce and distribute expertise in society. This will eventually lead to a dismantling of the professions”.
If they are even half right, the impact on the taxpaying, mortgage-owning middle class of this country could be immense. I believe that any responsible Government should prepare themselves for such an eventuality, and have the legislation in place that enables this particular workforce to avoid falling victim to the combined impacts of advanced technology and globalisation.
In her introduction to the Bill, the Secretary of State said:
“We will make sure all adults who need it can receive free training in digital skills to equip them for the modern world”.
That is an entirely laudable ambition, but, try as I might, I can find nothing on the face of the Bill that might turn it into the type of complex and potentially expensive policy tool that, if I am right, the situation five years from now will unquestionably demand. I hope to gain support from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others during the Committee stage of the Bill to achieve agreement to amendments that might have the effect of transforming the Secretary of State’s ambition into a working reality. However, to do so, the means will have to match the aims.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child confers upon children the right to protection from all forms of physical and mental violence and abuse. I want to look at this in relation to the Digital Economy Bill. I guess that neither Berners-Lee nor the signatories of that convention could have predicted the degree to which technology has become such a significant part of the daily life of children and young people—a transformation which has brought both benefits and real vulnerabilities. With the introduction and increased availability of internet-enabled smartphones, the nature of children’s engagement with the digital world has been transformed. Children can have constant access; they are able to communicate and to access online material free from parental supervision. Of course the internet can empower children and young people, giving them opportunities to learn, explore the world around them, access information, have fun and socialise with their peers, but going online can also pose a significant threat to the protection of children’s rights by exposure to online grooming, cyberbullying and inappropriate violent or sexual content, and the distribution of child abuse images. We must always be vigilant in our efforts to protect as many children as we possibly can.
That is why I welcome an age-verification requirement on pornographic sites, but it must be an age-verification system that works. I have seen at first hand, as a head teacher, how young children, encouraged sometimes by older brothers and sisters, have joined inappropriate sites and, whether through bravado or innocence, regularly visited them and then bragged about it to their friends. The harmful effect to young minds of seeing, for example, a pornographic enactment of rape, is unimaginable. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was set up to ensure that any form of cruelty does not occur to children. Now, in a digital age, it sees the danger of these sites to young children and young minds. As we have heard, its research shows that 53% of 11 to 16 year-olds have seen explicit material online, and almost all of them by the age of 14. That is 94% of all children. Often, this material is stumbled upon through, for example, pop-up advertisements. More than half of young people in the research reported accessing pornography inadvertently. This easy access to pornography has harmful effects on children and often leaves them upset and confused. Childline has seen a 60% year-on-year increase in the number of counselling sessions with children left worried after seeing pornography. The Government are right to say that a tick-box exercise is not sufficient and that an age-verification procedure that works is required to ensure that children are safe and protected—and if we can get anonymity, even better.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that sex and relationship education in our schools is vital. It seems slightly bizarre that the Government are rightly concerned about young people accessing pornographic sites while, at the same time, presiding over an education service in England that allows schools not to teach sex and relationship education.
I want to raise two other issues that affect children. Currently, a large number of families are entitled to claim free school meals. For each pupil receiving a free school meal, the school receives the pupil premium to provide extra support for pupils who need it. Many families do not claim this entitlement, for a number of reasons: ignorance of the fact that they need to apply for it, language difficulties, stigma or perhaps a chaotic home environment. In this digital age, why cannot local authorities alert schools to families that would be eligible for free school meals, allowing for auto-registration rather than the need to apply? That would mean that more children would be eligible for a nutritional free meal, saving families up to £400 a year. At the same time, school budgets, which are stretched, would get an extra £1,320 per pupil, per year. As Russell Hobby of the National Association of Head Teachers said, auto-registration for free school meals would ensure that,
“more children would get the support they are entitled to”.
I also add my voice to those expressing concern at the positioning of UK children’s programmes on the electronic guidance system, as my noble friend Lord Foster said, behind a battery of American cartoon channels.
Finally, from a region which is rich in TV, film and television production, I welcome the Government’s decision and plans to repeal Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. Considerable harm is being done to the industry by companies live-streaming the content of PSBs, placing their own advertisements around them and monetising that content, and, of course, taking funds away from further investment in the UK’s creative economy. The Government have talked about transitional arrangements in the repeal of Section 73. Perhaps, as has already been said, the Minister could tell us in his reply what these transitional arrangements are.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I speak briefly about two issues that have been brought to my attention and that concern me—the listed events regime and the prominence in electronic programming guides given to particular public service broadcasting channels and services. I welcome the fact that the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Foster, Lord Gordon and—most recently—Lord Storey, all referred to one or both of those matters already, but I hope that it will do no harm if I deal with them as well. Before I do, I must say that I welcome the Minister saying that he will bring forward an amendment to deal with hearing-impaired subtitling. Will that cover audio description as well? If there is any doubt about that, perhaps the Minister would be prepared to meet me to talk about the matter.
The listed events regime is hugely important to millions of people who enjoy watching sport, from the FA Cup final and the World Cup finals to Wimbledon finals and the Olympics. These major sporting events bring people together, united in support of their team, their country or just their favourite player. Everyone can be a part, no matter who they are, how old they are or whether they are disabled. During the Olympics earlier this year, I am sure that no day passed in any workplace without people talking about how exciting the diving was the previous night, how nervous they were about that night’s 100-metre final or how proud they were that Team GB did so exceptionally well overall. Likewise, Wimbledon brings out the competitive spirit, with friendly office sweepstakes held up and down the land, while “Match of the Day” brings friends and families together to watch the day’s highlights and to celebrate or commiserate.
Without the listed events regime, more sporting events would almost certainly move away from free-to-air television, excluding many people from watching and being part of national events. Far from uniting families, friends, colleagues and even strangers, losing the listed events regime would divide people into those who can afford to pay and those who cannot. As noble Lords have recognised on many occasions, families all over the country already struggle to pay their bills. It is hardly going too far to say that to do anything other than upgrade the listed events regime would simply be to promote inequality. We have to protect the listed events regime to allow people to watch Andy Murray lift the Wimbledon trophy and to be a part of Team GB winning another record medal haul in 2020.
The listed events regime has been a success, which is why I am worried that it is now at risk. I understand that the public sector broadcasters agree about that risk—they agree that an update to the legislation is needed and believe that this Bill could help with that. What plans are there to ensure that this legislation is updated to protect something that has considerable importance for all of us?
The second issue that I am concerned about and believe that the Bill could help address is the prominence given to particular public service broadcasting channels and services. I know from first-hand experience and from talking to others how frustrating electronic programme guides and user interfaces can be. Navigating one’s way through and finding a particular channel can be challenging to say the least, and people with a sensory impairment find it particularly difficult. Interfaces are all different and different programming guides have channels in a different order. Finding BBC News or BBC Parliament on the iPlayer can take a considerable time. If we believe in the value of public service broadcasting, it should be easily accessible. The BBC produces some of the most informative and highest-quality programmes in the United Kingdom and as licence fee payers we should all be able to find BBC channels and programmes more easily than we can now.
In its 2013 report on media convergence, your Lordships’ Communications Committee called for legislation on prominence to be updated to take into account how people now access content, including on-demand content such as the BBC iPlayer. I believe that the Bill provides a vehicle for doing that by updating existing legislation. Does the Minister agree that this is an issue and what solution does he have in mind? Depending on his answers to the questions that I have asked, I may wish to return to these matters in Committee with amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Bill before us today takes significant steps towards a more digitally inclusive future, and I welcome it. I particularly welcome measures relating to pornography, fraud, copyright and disability issues. I pay particular tribute to the work undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, on many of these matters. It was good to hear her speak today about them. However, I have some reservations about whether the Bill resolves areas of concern expressed to me by various stakeholders and by constituents of Plaid Cymru’s three MPs on specific matters of this Bill.
I intend to mention four main areas of concern communicated to us, three during the House of Commons stages of the Bill and one thereafter. I will briefly outline them today and return to them in Committee. The first relates to the disproportionate neglect faced by people in rural Wales when it comes to mobile coverage. The second refers to the inability of the Bill to respond to technologically important developments relating to online abuse. The third addresses the limited bilingual services available on government websites. The fourth relates to public sector broadcasting’s prominence rules, which have already been mentioned.
In recent years, demand for voice and data services has grown exponentially. Mobile data traffic across western Europe is predicted to grow sixfold by 2020. Mobile devices are a vital part of modern life, wherever one lives and works. The 2014 deal with mobile companies, trading national roaming for a commitment to 90% coverage by 2017, has served rural businesses and communities particularly badly. Not-spot localities in rural Wales remain at chronic levels, with 4% of homes in Wales without any services from any mobile network operator. Ofcom’s Connected Nations 2015 report identified Wales as the country in the UK with the least 3G signal. Outdoor voice 2G and 3G coverage on A and B roads by all four operators is around just 50%, with only one operator reaching 76%. Rural Wales is hit disproportionately by this not-spot phenomenon, with north Wales in particular continuing to lag behind the rest of the UK. The percentage of premises getting basic voice calls coverage from all the big four networks in 2015 was just 65%, compared with 85% for the rest of the UK. The industry’s requirement to deliver near universal voice and mobile internet coverage underlines the need for new ideas. Clearly, the way in which mobile coverage is failing rural businesses and communities needs to be addressed. The issue of fast broadband availability in rural areas is a parallel concern and is a major consideration in the economic well-being of rural areas. I declare a personal interest as we are so challenged by that matter. My colleagues in the other place tabled amendments that sought to include practical ways of improving coverage in Wales, but they were not debated. I will table amendments along those lines in attempts to rectify this problem, and I hope to engage in a thorough and comprehensive debate in Committee.
The second area of my concern is abusive behaviour on social media platforms. The way in which we communicate with each other and with the world has changed dramatically over the past 10 years, with 37 million social media users in the UK. Last year, the then Education Secretary reported that,
“convictions for crimes under a law to prosecute internet trolls increased eightfold in the last decade, with 155 people jailed”.
Twitter’s top lawyer has himself admitted that the company has been “inexcusably slow” in fighting off vicious online crime. There is no incentive for social media platforms to implement robust processes to deal with criminal online abuse. We must therefore ensure that a statutory requirement is placed on social media providers to do all they can with regard to dealing with criminal online abuse. Plaid Cymru MPs tabled amendments in the other place to give this Bill the ability to hold social media platforms to account for their vital role in tackling the surge of online abuse, much of which is of a criminal nature. The amendments were not given very much attention in the Commons, certainly not as much as they deserved, and I hope to pursue this issue further.
The third matter I want to raise is the lack of bilingual services from English to Welsh on UK websites. Despite gradual gains in language equality and despite a statutory framework being in place following the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, bilingual services being provided by the UK Government are not advancing in line with technology. Often, services and content are available in Welsh only by specific request for translation, which inevitably deters users and limits access by Welsh speakers. Since the UK Government’s website was centralised into GOV.UK, the situation has substantially deteriorated. This concern has been expressed by Meri Huws, the Welsh Language Commissioner. She has criticised the UK Government for weakening their Welsh language services on the GOV.UK website since its 2012 launch. Following a review of GOV.UK websites and online services, she concluded that access to forms and information in Welsh is deficient and is affecting people’s experience when using the UK Government’s online services. Why should the 700,000 Welsh speakers in the UK be prevented from accessing the content available to English speakers in their preferred language? I intend to table an amendment that will help to ensure that essential communications in Welsh are made as accessible as possible in the Government’s own services as they move online. I will take a reasonable and practical approach to this matter, and will do so building on the concerns of the Language Commissioner, to which I have referred.
There is one final matter that has been raised with me by friends in the BBC and which I want to flag up today and address in detail in Committee. This Bill presents a rare opportunity to modernise public sector broadcasting prominence rules so that they are appropriate for the digital age in which we now live. Currently, there is a requirement for PSBs to have only what is called “appropriate prominence”. While this has generally ensured that that the main PSB channels are high on the listings, BBC1 being at the very top, for example, channels like CBeebies and CBBC do not have such high prominence. This is a particular issue for S4C and BBC Alba, of which I was very much aware when I was a member of the S4C Authority. I also believe that we need to modernise the current system to ensure that it covers on-demand services such as catch-up TV as well as connected TV on-demand menus. This is the way the public, particularly young people, increasingly access public service content. It would add services like BBC iPlayer to the list of those given prominence, as a number of speakers have mentioned in the debate. The BBC’s on-demand services provide a platform for S4C and BBC Alba as well as TV channels such as BBC1 and BBC2. Here I warmly identify with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in opening the debate.
I shall address all of these matters in greater detail in Committee, but I certainly recognise the merits of the Bill and very much hope that, in an amended form, it will proceed to the statute book.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register and I would like to make it clear that while the House of Lords Communications Committee on which I serve is in the middle of an inquiry into “Children and the Internet”, I speak not on behalf of that committee but as an individual—albeit one who has spent a great deal of time over the past six years thinking about the relationship between children, young people and digital technologies.
I want to make some general observations about the Bill as a whole and then I will return to the question of children. Like others, I welcome the notion of broadband as a utility, and along with that the establishment of a universal service order providing for the introduction of a minimum speed. However, I am aware of the argument against regulation in all parts of the value chain of the tech industry, with one of the major points being the speed of technological change and the expectations of those using the technology. It races ahead of the pace of legislation. Rather than enshrining the suggested 10 megabits in the universal service order, which will shortly look paltry, perhaps we might look at enshrining the principle of a minimum speed with a mechanism to set it at appropriate levels at appropriate intervals.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, set out in great detail some of what I was going to talk about in the world of work, so suffice it to say that I was disappointed not to see much more ambitious intervention as regards skills and training in changing practices at work and measures to tackle the enormous deficit of skills that we anticipate. If we are to get the workforce we need and want for the future, I should mention in particular the need to take a more proactive look at supporting the acquisition by women and girls of digital skills.
I am also disappointed by Part 4, which provides new protection for intellectual copyright, but it seems to be a fairly undisguised battle between Google and major players from other areas of the media industry that make content. What I do not see in this part of the Bill is any attempt to protect user content. It is worth remembering that the vast majority of content on the internet is created by users, most of whom unwittingly transfer their pictures, words, behaviour patterns and intimate thoughts by way of those interminable terms and conditions to companies which sell the information to third parties for advertising. While I acknowledge the need for film studios, recording companies, media conglomerates and the like to be supported in this way, the poor user has not been served. I would have liked the Bill to tackle the question of terms and conditions head on.
The same attitude is evident in Part 5. Personal data are to be collated and shared across public departments. As other speakers have said, there are good reasons for doing so given some of the positive outcomes, but in a world where anything from the result of the American election to the records held by one’s bank or mobile phone company—or indeed the activities of the security services—are all rather insecure, the assurances that such data will be anonymised and individuals protected by the current status quo in the form of the Data Protection Act seem to be fairly absurd. I hope I will be forgiven if I am ignorant, but I could not find in the detail of the Bill a clause dealing with opt-out and how that might work. To allow data collection and sharing by services that one has no choice but to use seems to be setting out on a path that we will need to look at as the Bill goes through its stages in order to get a little more in the way of assurance. Given that we are in the middle of what is an unstoppable trend of outsourcing public services such as prisons, health and social services and even child protection to commercial companies, how does the compulsory sharing of data in the context of public/private partnerships protect the rights of citizens? I feel that we may need to look at this area more carefully.
I turn now to the BBC. I found it wryly amusing that one of the great travesties has been quietly laid out under the title of “Miscellaneous”; it is quite funny. The transfer of policy to the BBC for payment of the over-75s’ free licence is of course an essential piece of housekeeping: he or she who pays must indeed have their hands on the policy. However, as others have said, the BBC is a broadcaster, not a government department. While I am sure that others will join with me, and while I am equally sure that we will be collectively whistling in the wind, we have a new Prime Minister, a new Secretary of State and a new Chancellor. I urge them to distinguish themselves by reversing this unseemly raid on the coffers of the BBC by dropping both the policy and the effective funding cut.
Before I return to the subject of children, I agree with others who have outlined the prominence of the PSBs. The letter of the law is indeed set out in the Communications Act 2003, but it refers to a different technological time. If the commercial companies cannot deliver on the spirit of the law, then those of us in this House should find a way to change the letter of the law.
Part 3 fulfils the Government’s pledge to make commercial pornography sites subject to age verification. The right honourable Matt Hancock said in the other place that the Bill would give children,
“the same sorts of safeguards online as they have offline”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1274.]
I welcome this effort at age verification. I dismiss the previous Secretary of State’s assertion that this is in any way an,
“infringement of the civil liberties of individuals”,—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1301.]
who want to access this same material. However, I feel the Bill is too narrow. I have the dubious privilege in my life as a film-maker of having watched a significant amount of pornography over several decades. I have watched it change over that period. Whatever the pros and cons of watching pornography are as an adult, the one thing I am entirely certain of is that it is a really bad way of learning about sex. That is what is happening.
The accessibility and ubiquity of violent sexual content is transforming young people’s attitudes towards sex. Some of this material is deliberately sought out, but much of it is accidentally thrust upon children, causing distress and confusion—another noble Lord used that word. It is important to remember that young people are not fully formed. They do not know the rights and wrongs and cannot make these fine judgments for themselves. I find it horrifying that a third of 13 to 14 year-olds say that they want to act out the scenes they have viewed. If, like me, noble Lords have seen those scenes they would not wish children at the age of 13 or 14—indeed, possibly at any age—to act them out. There is a statistic from the NSPCC that 53% of boys said that pornography they had seen had depicted a realistic view of sex between two people.
I am going to labour this point. When I was making a film part of which dealt with the relationship between online pornography and teenagers, I came across some emerging trends: increasing and large numbers of young men with erectile dysfunction, desensitised by the constant viewing of extreme pornography; rising numbers of young women presenting at health centres with anal injuries, sustained in sexual relationships with hazy notions of consent and mutuality; and quite ghastly tales of very young children coming across graphic pornography that they could not unsee. Most of all, I was struck by the overwhelming sadness at the number of very young people, boys and girls, who articulated the way that watching pornography was intruding on their ability to form intimate relationships in the real world.
In Committee we will have to look very carefully at what constitutes pornography and exactly how the mechanism of age verification will be applied to preserve the privacy of individuals, because there is not quite enough clarity on either of these things. We will have to do that in the context of realising that a vast amount of porn is user-generated, not from commercial sites. Where does that sit in this picture? We have to recognise that this will not work 100%, but part of what is important about this measure is the adult world suggesting what a social norm might be. For a young child, transgressing and breaking the boundary is an important act in accessing this material. People who say that this is not important because it will not work have the wrong end of the stick.
Others have said but I must say also that, although it obviously will not form part of the Bill, the Government must undertake to take seriously the desire of parents, teachers and young people themselves to have statutory, age-appropriate, well-funded and well-designed SRE in all schools, whatever their status. It must be SRE that takes account of the multitude of good resources that exist for young people online, but which offers a robust and sophisticated alternative to learning about sex from online pornography. Blocking violent sexual content without putting in place positive and uninflected SRE will not serve the nation’s children. It is a developmental imperative to find out about sex; we need to find a safe and secure environment in which to do so.
I return to the Minister’s statement that this is a Bill that will harmonise children’s experiences online and offline. If that was the intention, the Bill as it stands is severely lacking. Children enjoy many more rights. A noble Lord already mentioned the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are rights that protect them from commercial exploitation, give them privacy and demand that we take their best interests as paramount. There are rights to the highest goals in education, as well as protection from violence and harm. Those rights and our laws—EU laws and national laws—are consistently thwarted in online and digital settings. We allow profiling and wholesale data gathering. We tolerate hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of underage children using social media sites that have an age limit of 13 years old. As I mentioned, terms and conditions for almost every online business—educational, business or social—are designed to obscure the commercial relationship that a minor is unlawfully entering into.
We have failed to conduct any meaningful conversation, let alone take action, on false news, transparency of search algorithms, gender disparity in the online experience and, most importantly for the young, the constant alerts, interruptions and encouragement to share personal information that are deliberately designed to keep the user using. The evidence is out there and growing. It is becoming very clear that young people are finding it harder and harder to put down their devices. They are tethered to the flashing of the latest alert. This is not an unintended consequence but a deliberate design feature, mirroring the very same design as casino slot machines, with their random rewards setting off dopamine in the brain. There are measurable outcomes that include anxiety and mental health issues at epidemic proportions.
We have to consider this, because this is an opportunity. For young people, the digital world is the world. Our young people will be the workforce, the parents, the teachers, the leaders and the entrepreneurs in this new world. When we consider anything at this level we have to consider how we want to bring them into this world and how that world is designed to treat them.
The Bill was an opportunity to deliver the commitment that Matt Hancock made: to harmonise the online and offline worlds; to make digital services conform to the standards we uphold offline; and to recognise children’s special status as minors, with some measures to protect their data, to have high privacy settings by default, to put digital literacy at the heart of our school system and to take a broader view of the challenges they face. The digital world offers us an unparalleled opportunity for a new and improved world, but we have more than a duty to protect. We have a duty to design the digital world in a way that benefits and empowers our young people.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this welcome Bill. Increasing the maximum sentence for online copyright infringement to 10 years, making it the same as that for physical copyright infringement, is a long overdue recognition of reality. To some extent, therefore, Clause 27, while most welcome, is merely playing catch-up. For many years, serious offenders in the area of online infringement have been prosecuted for offences such as conspiracy to defraud, rather than under the 1988 Act, as the only way of securing an appropriate penalty in excess of two years’ imprisonment.
As a former Minister in this area, I admit that I must take some responsibility for this. I must also, however, urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that, going forward, we are not simply playing-catch up in a world of rapid technological change. In this respect I agree fully with the former Secretary of State, the right honourable member for Maldon, who said in another place that although the Government are sending a clear message about the seriousness of online infringement by equalising the penalties, more must be done. The Government need to get ahead of the curve on online infringement fully to build on their promise to support our creative industries, which play such a vital role in promoting jobs and growth in our economy, contributing more than £84 billion to it this year alone.
By “get ahead of the curve”, I mean that the Government must do more than just equalise the penalties for physical and online infringement. They must ensure that online infringement is deterred in the strongest possible terms. The scope for damage caused by online infringement can be much greater than for physical infringement. This trend will only become more significant as people continue to consume ever more content online, whether legally or illegally, rather than in physical form. Indeed, this year, consumers for the first time spent more money on streaming and downloading films than on purchasing or renting them on DVD.
As a result, the scale of the challenge posed to our creative industries by online infringement is vast. In the second quarter of 2016 alone, 78 million music tracks and 51 million films or TV programmes were accessed illegally online. Within a matter of seconds, infringing content can be uploaded to the web with the potential to be downloaded millions of times, causing vast losses to rights holders. By comparison, it is hard to see how physical infringement, perhaps in the form of counterfeit DVDs, unless done on an industrial scale over many years, could have such an impact.
I note in this regard a case raised in the other place by the Secretary of State, that of Paul Mahoney, a Londonderry man who set up websites which facilitated the illegal sharing of films online. In convicting Mahoney, the court found that he had caused losses to rights holders of several million pounds. The prosecution suggested a figure as high as £12 million, with up to £120 million being put at risk though his activities. All this was done by one man working alone from his bedroom.
I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will consider further measures, either in this Bill or going forward, to ensure that never again is the law behind where it needs to be in order fully to protect our creative industries, the contribution they make to our economy and the almost 2 million people they employ from the growing and potentially devastating threat posed to them by online infringement.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am usually very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, because she is usually the champion of the consumer. One of my few credentials for speaking in this debate is that, nearly 10 years ago, I fell out quite badly with the last Labour Government over their Digital Economy Bill because I felt that they were paying too much heed to the rights of rights owners and not enough to those of the new form of consumers. I still feel that, and shall return to that issue at some point in my speech, so I am departing from my usual terms of agreement with my famous predecessor as chair of the National Consumer Council.
My other credential for speaking here is that, only a few months ago, my sub-committee of the EU Select Committee produced a report on digital platforms. It was debated in the Moses Room on the last day before the Autumn Recess and had a distinguished but rather limited presence, including that of the Minister, whom I thank for his response then and for his subsequent letter. However, very few of the issues raised in that report are reflected in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Gordon described it, seasonally, as a Christmas-tree Bill with a lot of different things hanging from it. The trouble with Christmas trees is that some of the baubles are quite pretty and some are pretty ugly, but the real problem is that the parcel you expected to see at the bottom is not there. That seems to be a problem with this Bill. There is an elephant in the room: the role of large-scale digital companies, which dominate the market, dominate choice and therefore dominate consumers’ possibilities.
On the other hand, I welcome large sections of the Bill. I welcome the enactment of a USO in this area—very necessary if slightly belated. I agree with other noble Lords that the obligation is less than totally ambitious and that there are still problems with making sure it effectively covers rural areas, but in principle it is a major and important step. We are still well behind highly digitalised economies such as Korea and Estonia.
I welcome the provisions on consumer rights relating to switching and compensation, but they do not completely address the need for consumer control over their own information, nor do they deal with the issues of privacy and individual data. I also welcome the provisions on unsolicited electronic marketing by telephone or online, but, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson said, the only real way of dealing with that is by default. That is not enacted, but I welcome the provisions as far as they go. I welcome Ofcom’s powers relating to mobiles and telephones. I regret that the Government did not take the opportunity also to legislate for caps on individual consumer spending, which could then be enforced by regulatory action via the companies. There are therefore several bits of the Bill which deal with the interests of consumers. I wish that they went a bit further, but they are important and I welcome the Government’s move in those directions.
I welcome also the provisions on online pornography and age verification. I recognise the limitations and the extraordinarily complex issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has just spelt out, but the Bill is a step in the right direction. However, underage children’s exposure to pornography is not the only issue of content that needs to be addressed in the online world—I will return to that in a moment.
I can also give a general welcome to the provisions on data sharing between public authorities and certain other bodies, provided that the right qualifications are put in. My interest in this area is that mentioned by the Minister: identifying people who are in fuel poverty for interventions such as the warm home discount and for local action to improve their living situation and reduce their energy bills. What is basically DWP information will need to be shared with energy companies. I hope that the list of public bodies can be extended to include GPs and public health bodies, because health professionals frequently recognise the impact of fuel poverty on individuals and their families. I would also like to see included the companies with which they deal, not just the retailers but district network and gas network operators.
For the reasons I have started to spell out, I am a little dubious about the intellectual provisions in Clauses 27 to 29, an issue on which I fell out with the last Labour Government—not a thing I did all that frequently. Since then, a number of market developments have taken place which change the scene—at that time, Spotify was almost the only place where you could provide mass access on a legal basis with some return to rights holders. I opposed then the proposed penalties for every user who, following warnings, downloaded illegal content which was covered by intellectual property rights. I thought that was overkill and still think so. I tried at that time to distinguish between those who, perhaps for their own entertainment, may have downloaded quite frequently but made no money out of it and those who made huge amounts out of it. I am glad that the Bill moves some way in that direction, while hugely increasing the maximum penalty. The penalty is probably a bit high and I would like the distinction between commercial benefit and normal consumer use made a bit clearer, but in principle I do not object to raising the penalty.
I now come to the real elephant in the room. It is the need to recognise and, if necessary, confront and intervene in areas where the dominance of large digital markets, particularly platforms, is restricting the range that business and consumers have, while greatly increasing their apparent—and real—access and transforming the speed with which we can transact. They identify options, markets, providers and consumers that we could not otherwise identify. For example, we almost regard using Google as a free public service—except that it is not free. We are all providing our information. That information can be used by search engines and other large platforms for their own and related companies’ purposes—in the case of conglomerates such as Google—by those to which they pass on information or with which they have commercial deals, and, above all, by the advertisers on those sites. Those valuable data from consumers and small traders are then combined and aggregated into an economic resource, which is the basis for the network effect and therefore the worth and increasing dominance of such companies.
The way in which companies use those data—not just selling them on but to prioritise their own rankings—is key. This Christmas, while we look on Google for sources of information on presents, on Amazon to buy our Christmas presents or on booking.com for our new year trips, the way in which the ranking comes up will be prioritised internally by those companies. This raises quite serious issues because, even within those companies, nobody understands the totality of their algorithms, yet the results are sometimes very distorting. They can put companies out of business, ruin reputations and distort the market. When the committee did its report, we found that these new technologies and large companies are not only disruptive in the positive sense—in that, through interactive technology and the internet, they provide a huge new ambit for us to operate in—but deeply disruptive of the previous traditional regulatory regimes for competition, mergers, consumer protection and data protection. We covered all those areas in our report and touched on intellectual property, along with issues as mundane as employment—as the recent Uber case showed in respect of the gig economy—let alone the rather wider employment implications which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to.
As I say, the elephant in the room is that that dominance, those transactions and the way companies prioritise information to the final consumer is an enormously potent force in our society and economy. The regulatory structures have not caught up with that and, because of their dominance, it is unlikely that competition or changes in technology will easily do so. They may catch up one day, but not yet. There are sinister sides to this, as we have seen, for example, with the dominance of right-wing propaganda on Facebook and the terrible revelation today that if you type “Holocaust” into Google, the first 10 results are for anti-Semitic sites. That is a side-effect of what is otherwise a deeply benign movement for many people, which extends their lives and improves our commerce and trade. We need to address that at some point and I hope we will at least begin to do so during the passage of the Bill. I hope that we will also address some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, raised regarding the impact of changing technology on society.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as my colleagues have said, there is much to be welcomed in the Bill and we support many of the measures in it. I will confine my remarks today to the areas of the Bill relating to digital government in Part 5 and new Clause 85, which particularly relates to digital exclusion. I will also flag up the issue of counterfeit products, in the hope that we can raise this through possible amendments in Committee.
Those of us who have served in local government know that the effective sharing of information is essential to the delivery of joined-up public services. Local authorities are key local service providers, working across multiple agencies and in particular supporting vulnerable and disadvantaged people. The ability to better co-ordinate information and reduce bureaucracy and delays in providing much-needed support will be welcomed by many people. My noble friend Lord Storey mentioned the immense benefit of automatic registration for free school meals, which will be based on benefits data shared with schools. It is argued that more children will receive their entitlement and schools will get better pupil premium receipts based on real data, whereas currently parents must register their children and so schools very often do not get their full entitlement. I hope that we might be able to explore that in Committee, as it seems a very real benefit.
The draft codes of practice published in October are intended to provide clarity and transparency on how the powers in the Bill will operate. However, the contents of these codes are not legally binding, although public bodies will be required to have regard to the codes when making use of the powers. The codes make it clear that all information shared and used under the new provisions must be handled in accordance with the framework of rules set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. There must, however, be concerns that the Bill could authorise unconsented mass data-sharing for the administrative and low-level policing functions of local government. This could become a disproportionate interference with citizens’ right to a private life.
We would like to see the principle set out in the Better Use of Data in Government: Consultation of June 2016 being adhered to. We would also like assurances that there will be no new large and permanent databases or collecting of more data on citizens; that sharing of data within government will be strictly managed and scrutinised; that there will be no amending or weakening of the Data Protection Act; and that current safeguards which apply to a public authority’s data, such as those that apply to HMRC, should continue to apply to those data once they are disclosed to another public authority. There must be restrictions on further disclosure and sanctions on unlawful disclosure.
Liberty has raised concerns that the Bill does not provide adequate safeguards or transparency mechanisms on data sharing, including the sharing of highly sensitive medical data between authorities and/or service providers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke earlier of the concerns of the BMA that the Bill does not offer adequate protection of patient confidentiality and sensitive health information. There is a disparity between Clauses 30 and 58 in Part 5. The duty of common law does not apply in Clause 30 but the Bill has been amended in Clause 58, which relates to medical research, so that the common-law provision applies. Can the Minister say why Clauses 30 and 58 are being treated differently? What assurances can the Government provide on the protection of sensitive medical information under Part 5?
On digital exclusion, Clause 85 was added in Committee. Its states the Government’s commitment to provide publicly funded basic digital skills training free of charge to adults in England who need it, with courses to be delivered by colleges and other adult education providers. This of course is very welcome. However, training will be funded from the existing hard-pressed adult education budget. For many areas, this funding will be very stretched, particularly in places with high unemployment and low skills levels, where a large proportion of the budget will be spent on statutory entitlements. Digital exclusion is also a major feature of these areas. Will the Government provide clarity about how this programme will be funded?
European social funding is due to end in 2020, and between now and then stricter spending criteria have been imposed. How will the Government ensure that the adult education budget has adequate additional funding to match the new commitment without further cuts to adult learning, such as English as a second language or level 2 skills for 19 to 23 year-olds? It is essential that poor communities, currently excluded because providers have not considered it profitable to provide coverage, should have full digital access. Will the Government consider the introduction of a social tariff, in a similar manner to the telephony USO, for those who would face undue hardship if they had to pay for broadband services?
The third area I shall cover is raised by the Electrical Safety Council and concerns counterfeit electrical products sold online. The ESC would like the Bill to provide measures that would reduce the opportunity for counterfeit goods to be sold through online portals and asks that the Government conduct an inquiry into the extent of the problem with counterfeit electrical goods, including the cost to the economy, the amounts being imported and the extent of the problem online, and introduce a statutory obligation on online retailers to report to the police or trading standards people repeatedly selling counterfeit electrical products.
One issue that the Electrical Safety Council report includes is the fact that many consumers believe that when they purchase goods from legitimate online retailers they are from a trusted source. This is not the case because these sites act as a portal for vendors. Of people claiming to have purchased counterfeit goods, 64% purchased them online. Counterfeit electrical products are particularly risky as they often contain faulty parts and can catch fire or deliver a fatal electric shock. It is estimated that fires caused by faulty electrical products are responsible for more than 7,000 domestic fires a year. The average cost of a house fire is estimated to be £44,000.
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions I have asked today and that we can explore these complex areas in Committee and improve the Bill to the benefit of the public to ensure that everybody is able to benefit from an improved quality of digital coverage.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, this Christmas-tree Bill offers some appealing packages and I hope that when the Minister comes to unwrap them for us they do not prove disappointing, and that some of those that are missing may have been restored by then. I strongly support many of the aims of the Bill, notably wider access to broadband, at increased speeds; better and faster mobile network coverage; expansion of digital public services; and improvement of digital skills. I also applaud the Government’s intention to tackle online pornography and to clarify the regulatory role of Ofcom.
I have several questions and concerns about the specifics of how these issues are addressed in the Bill. In its report of February last year, the Digital Skills Committee, of which I was a member, highlighted two main requirements for enhancing the UK’s productivity and competitiveness in the increasingly digital world economy. The first was having the right physical infrastructure in place in terms of both broadband and mobile capability, and the Bill represents a welcome step forward in addressing both these areas. The second was the need to enhance the digital skills of people across the UK, from basic users to advanced creators of digital systems. I share the disappointment of other noble Lords that the Bill gives not much more than a nod in this direction through the new Clause 87.
Part 1 of the Bill seeks to improve access to digital services through the proposed 10 megabit universal service obligation, with a provision for compensation when performance standards are not met. Of course 10 megabytes would be a great deal better, but I think we are talking about 10 megabits. This should provide a useful safety net or floor to ensure that no one is deprived of a minimum level of broadband access, but its focus should be quite specifically on those areas—increasingly few nowadays but none the less significant—where broadband services even of this low speed are not currently available and on the final few per cent of households which lack any broadband connectivity. The longer-term goal should be to provide significantly higher capacity, so there should be regular reviews of the USO, and the minimum speed will need to be increased over time and should cover upload speeds as well as download speeds, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested.
To keep ahead of our competitors we need to be thinking in terms of ultrafast and even gigabit broadband services, at 100 megabit-plus speeds. The announcements in the Autumn Statement of £1 billion of funding for improved broadband services, rightly based on fibre to the premises, and for piloting mobile networks capable of meeting 5G standards, may be as or more significant in achieving the levels of connectivity and speed we need than the USO provisions in this Bill. I was shocked to discover that only something like 2% of premises in the UK are served by fibre, which is way behind most of the rest of western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, who mentioned poor mobile phone coverage, may be disappointed to hear that the RAC apparently thinks that we have 4,400 miles of road without mobile phone coverage.
Part 1 also includes a provision to make it easier for users to switch providers. The greatest difficulties in achieving this, as I know from personal experience at my home in London, arise from the fact that broadband and telephony services are often sold as part of a package or bundle of services also including television. I understand that fewer users currently switch from pay TV suppliers, such as Sky, than from telecoms suppliers, such as BT: only 2% against an overall average of 6%, which is itself half the rate for electricity or gas consumers, although the bundled services they receive are similar. Switching should be equally straightforward for everyone, whether moving from a provider licensed as a telecoms or a pay TV operator, and I would expect to see this principle firmly embodied in the Bill. I also point out that from the perspective of my other home in Wales, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the ability to switch providers at all is something of an irrelevance, since I count myself extremely lucky that I have one supplier of decent broadband services.
Part 2 has the key aim of promoting greater investment in digital infrastructure. The challenge is to provide the right environment to promote investment in new digital infrastructure, particularly for mobile network connectivity, while treating fairly all the different interests involved: landowners, on whose property equipment is sited; mobile network operators with extensive existing hard infrastructure, notably BT; alternative network providers, often smaller-scale companies offering local connectivity services such as the one that provides my broadband service in Wales; and wholesale infrastructure providers—WIPs—which provide electronic infrastructure on a shared commercial basis. These last, notably Arqiva and Wireless Infrastructure Group, provide about a third of the UK’s digital infrastructure, considerably less than the equivalent in the USA, where the figure is more than 80%, and in most other countries. None the less, they provide more than half of all rural infrastructure sites. Typically their facilities are shared by three or four separate networks, providing higher capacity and greater efficiency than structures belonging to individual mobile network operators, so perhaps the Minister will indicate how the Bill will promote this kind of shared approach.
The overall approach of the Bill, it seems to me, should be to promote competition to drive investment in better, faster, higher-capacity digital infrastructure, and to do this by recognising the provision of digital connectivity as equivalent to a utility service. The proposed new Electronic Communications Code takes some important steps towards realising this concept. It makes clear that the definition of land should exclude electronic communications apparatus that may be installed on it and seeks to give infrastructure suppliers easier access to land in order to install their equipment. During later stages of the Bill, I shall be looking to see whether the balance seems right between the interests of established suppliers—notably BT, with its already large portfolio of wayleaves for its own equipment—and those of other providers of digital infrastructure, particularly those offering shared facilities with higher specifications.
All I will say about Part 5 on digital government is to welcome the aim of making government services digital by default and to emphasise the importance of building and maintaining public trust in this process, so as to avoid any repeat of the NHS care.data debacle. There are many potential benefits of sharing government data, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned one in the form of auto-registration for school meals. But there are evident concerns about the disclosure of civil registration information in Clause 39, the possible disclosure of identifiable healthcare information, the need for appropriate controls on government data sharing and compliance with the EU’s general data protection regulation, which comes into effect next year.
In Part 6, I am worried about the proposed new approach for appeals against Ofcom decisions in Clause 75. This involves moving from a standard of review based on the merits of such decisions to a judicial review standard, which is likely to significantly limit the grounds on which decisions can be challenged. In a field as technically complex and fast-moving as this, it seems to make little sense to restrict the scope of appeals in this way, and I am struck by the range of organisations that have expressed concern about this move, including not just BT and Virgin but Sky, Vodafone, industry associations such as techUK and the CBI, and other more specialist players in the digital arena such as CityFibre. I find their arguments that the proposed change would not in fact benefit consumers, nor even be likely to reduce the time and cost involved in appeals—which seems to be the Government’s main reason for introducing this clause—persuasive. This is an area that the Government should look at carefully again before moving to put Ofcom in a privileged position of immunity from merits-based appeals, which I understand would be effectively unique among regulatory bodies.
Finally, I am pleased that Clause 87 has been added to the Bill to address the issue of basic digital skills training. I hope the Government will explain how the extra funding needed for the adult education budget to deliver this will be provided—as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, mentioned—and will ensure that the training is available right across the UK. This training should be clearly linked to the technical education digital pathway recommended by the Sainsbury skills review and thereby overseen by the proposed new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. I also agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and others that there is a need to promote demand and take-up for digital services, not just the supply side. I would like to see a lot more in this area of skills training.
I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how the laudable aims of the Bill will be delivered and some of the gaps highlighted today filled. The Bill should be a key element in enhancing UK competitiveness in the post-Brexit global marketplace, building on the many strengths we already have in the digital sphere but which will need to be constantly improved and developed if we are not to be overtaken by others. I trust it will emerge from the process of scrutiny in this House even better attuned to that aim.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the Second Reading of this most important Bill, and in doing so declare my register of interests.
I am nothing short of ecstatic that we have a Digital Economy Bill in our House this evening—not because it is perfect or because it has the level of ambition I would like, but because it goes to the heart of a fundamental truth, which is that we are in the midst of a digital revolution which will make the Industrial Revolution look like a kids’ tea-party. Many people may still think that they can have an interest in health, defence and education, and that there is a separate world of digital “over there”; this Bill speaks to the truth that digital will transform every element of our lives and of our economy. It is beholden upon all of us to ensure that that transformation is a change for the better.
I was fortunate, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to be part of the Digital Skills Committee that reported last year. It is gratifying to see so many of our recommendations in the Bill that is before us this evening, not least that the internet and access to it has to be viewed as a utility. A utility provides a number of basic services, but in a sense that is the base of this. Only high-speed internet access will not just enable people to get online but enable our economy to really boom in the future that is ahead of us. Similarly, there is what my noble friend the Minister said about digital literacy being seen as significant as numeracy and standard literacy. We have to grasp this, because digital literacy and everything around character education will be what our young people—the next generation—require to go forward into the labour market which will face them and which we are already in the midst of today.
We are probably only two-thirds through the debate this evening, but I will put on record my thanks to noble Lords who have already spoken, who have done much of my work for me. I am reminded of a quote from one of our greatest Britons, Churchill, which I will add to my comments this evening: “The brain can only store what the bottom will endure”. Your Lordships will note the brevity which follows.
I will concentrate on a number of issues which have already been touched upon but which fall within my areas of interest and are worth rehearsing, not least PSB prominence. What is the Minister’s view on that? I think it is absolutely essential that PSBs continue to have prominence across all their offering, not just the main channels. I am delighted that a number of noble Lords have already raised this issue, not least in terms of children’s broadcasting. There were a number of comments on this earlier, including from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the Liberal Benches have the absolute honour of having among their number probably the greatest children’s television broadcaster of all time, who we will be hearing from later in the debate. It is absolutely fantastic to focus on ensuring the prominence of the PSBs, not least the children’s channels.
Similarly, noble Lords may be unsurprised that I would focus on the protected list. It is absolutely essential that we take the opportunity of the Bill to revisit the list. The reasons why it came into being in the first instance are obvious; now it is absolutely ready for review. The great shared moments have already been mentioned. There are so few things now that truly unite us across society, but the events on that list are certainly some of those key moments—not least last summer’s Olympic Games, which drew communities and individuals together. That is surely a positive thing, and it is surely good to revisit that list. It is probably worth noting that PSBs’ output of sports coverage is 5% but their viewership is 60%. That is how significant it is.
I welcome the clauses in the Bill on digital skills training, but agree with comments already made by a number of noble friends and other noble Lords around the how. This is an important but complex and potentially resource-intensive thing to bring about, so I will certainly be looking to work with noble Lords across the House to ensure that we bring this to life, because it is essential. It is that combination of the hard infrastructure to enable and the superstructure of skills to be built on top of it that will enable people not just to be able to operate in the labour market but to be able to be full participants, full citizens, in society as it is going to be, going forward.
Similarly, as noble Lords have mentioned, not least my noble friend Lord Grade, the repeal of Section 73 is long overdue. Bearing in mind that long overdue nature, what exactly will be necessary in the transition period? Perhaps we can have discussions and assist with that transition period through Committee and Report. I urge the Minister to consider in his response this evening whether, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, Section 73 should evaporate with the commencement of the relevant provision when the Bill comes into force right from the outset.
I come to what is probably the main part of the Bill in terms of its impact on all of us, and it is all about fibre. We need all of us, and people out there, to keep pushing the case for fibre. I call upon the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, perhaps to make a remake of his BAFTA-winning 1981 film. Perhaps we can get some focus around that if we have a movie release called “Chariots of Fibre”. The difference that the addition of a “b” can make to a film is extraordinary.
However, it cannot just be about fibre. As other noble Lords have mentioned, there is a case for the USO at the moment, but we need to keep that under review as well as considering the role of satellite provision and other provisions that we are only starting to consider. I look forward to my noble friend Lord Borwick coming back from the States in January full of ideas to put into the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, because the ground is moving beneath our feet as we speak. Fibre is a key part, but not the only one.
That goes to the heart of my main plea to the Minister to look across a number of elements of the Bill and really work with colleagues to consider just how ambitious we can be. The speeds that are set out are not ambitious. As for where that will lead us, we are where we are today because of a previous lack of ambition. The fibre-to-copper debacle that we have at the moment is absolutely a consequence of a lack of ambition. It is like steaming towards an airport in a jet plane but, a mile out from the runway, we are all asked to disembark and clamber aboard one of Montgolfier’s balloons. Beautiful though they are, that is not the way. As previous speakers have said, this is not a great surprise that we could not have known about; it was known at the outset, but there was a lack of ambition and a sense of, “Let’s do things within a certain envelope”.
We have no option but to be ambitious. We are facing one of the greatest challenges that this nation has ever faced and the greatest economic challenge that this nation has faced in our lifetimes, but with a phenomenal opportunity within it because we are at the forefront of digital innovation and fintech. We need to ensure that we are ambitious across all of that and more. We understand what the next generation need in order to be full participants of society so that they are able to fully play their part in a phenomenally fragmented and complicated labour market. If we can have that ambition and put that into the Bill, this truly could be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that we pass this Session.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome Part 3 of the Bill. Government data reveal that in May 2015 there were 1.4 million unique visitors under the age of 18 to pornographic sites from desktop computers. These visits equate to 20% of all under-18s and 13% of children aged between six and 14. This is deeply disturbing, especially as, according to the latest Ofcom research, most children and young people access the internet via a tablet computer or mobile phone, not a desktop computer.
The Government must be congratulated on introducing the age-verification provisions in the Bill. They must be further congratulated on responding positively to the amendments tabled in another place by Mrs Claire Perry, the honourable Member for Devizes, and Mrs Fiona Bruce, the honourable Member for Congleton.
Clause 23 gives the nominated age-verification regulator, the BBFC, much-needed leverage in relation to sites based outside the UK and in relation to those providing free pornographic material. This is vital because the vast majority of online pornography accessed in the UK comes from sites based in other countries and because a significant amount of pornography is free. Once this legislation becomes law, every pornographic website, no matter where in the world it is located, will have a real incentive to treat the UK regulator with respect because they will know that if they ignore it, they risk being blocked.
I understand, however, that although the Government have accepted the need for IP blocking, they continue to promote the alternative means of enforcement provided by the Bill and have indicated that, where possible, these will be used in the first instance. So what are those other options? On my reading, there are two, but it is unclear how one can work at all internationally and the other seems extremely weak.
First, Clause 20 provides for a fine, which can be either a maximum of £250,000 or 5% of the qualifying turnover. When the Bill went through another place, the question arose: why would any pornographic site located outside the UK listen to the UK regulator and, if it decided to ignore its directions regarding age-verification checks, what chance was there that it would then dutifully pay the UK regulator a £250,000 fine? Indeed, an amendment was actually tabled to remove from the regulator the option of issuing fines to overseas organisations. The amendment was probing and, as I understand it, the motivation of the person tabling the amendment, Mrs Claire Perry, was to say, “Let’s be honest, this enforcement mechanism will only work in dealing with sites located within the UK”.
In response, the Minister, the right honourable Matt Hancock MP, acknowledged that fines would not always work abroad but said that there were international mechanisms for enforcing them in some countries. Specifically, he said:
“We want to be able to fine non-UK residents—difficult as that is—and there are international mechanisms for doing so. They do not necessarily reach every country in the world, but they reach a large number of countries”.—[Official Report, Commons, Digital Economy Bill Committee, 20/10/16; col. 217.]
What are the “international arrangements” on which the Government are depending for enforcing the fines? Which jurisdictions in the world can be reached by these arrangements? How easy would it be in practice to use these mechanisms in relation to a site in a foreign jurisdiction to which the said international arrangements apply?
The second alternative enforcement mechanism that the Bill hints at is financial transaction blocking, although it seems to me that the provision is only half present. Although Clause 22 is lengthy, at the end of the day it gives the regulator only the option of informing financial transaction providers that a site seeking access to the UK market is operating in violation of UK law by not having age-verification checks. Clause 22 does not require the regulator to relay this information to financial transaction providers, nor does it empower the regulator to require them not to process transactions with the site nor, consequently, does it empower the regulator to follow through to ensure that the financial transaction provider has complied.
I understand that the Government have suggested that this very limited power to inform the financial transaction providers is sufficient because they are already required by their terms and conditions not to facilitate illegal transactions. This, of course, is not a new argument. It is the same one that was deployed by the Government in response to the financial transaction blocking amendment brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill in 2014. The House was told that there was no need to make statutory provision because the Gambling Commission would tell financial transaction providers when a site was operating illegally without a Gambling Commission licence. My difficulty is that the process completely lacks transparency, so we do not know how effective it really is. The only information that we have after nearly three years is the answers to the Parliamentary Questions which suggest that transactions have been blocked to 11 gambling websites. That seems a very low number to me. I do not find it remotely reassuring.
The benefit associated with giving the regulator an express obligation to inform about non-compliance and an express power to require action to block transactions—similar to the requirement for action in Clause 23—is that it would underline the implicit responsibility on the financial transaction providers not to process illegal transactions. Clause 22 also applies to ancillary service providers which support websites with services such as advertising. It is not clear, however, whether the Government are relying on the good will of these organisations or whether they would argue that there is regulation that would require companies supporting websites to withdraw their services if non-compliance came to light. At the moment, the obligations of ancillary service providers are very opaque. Yet making the obligations on the regulator, payment providers and ancillary service providers explicit is really important, because research suggests that without robust enforcement there will be little incentive to comply with the age-verification requirements.
A review of age-verification systems for gambling websites by University of Oxford academics notes that where there are,
“strict audit and enforcement requirements”,
there is an incentive to invest in,
“high-assurance identity and age-verification processes”,
but,
“where enforcement is patchy and uncertain, the incentives to invest in expensive authentication systems are less clear”.
According to the review, that is,
“especially true for smaller or less well-known companies who are also less likely to receive reputational damage if any illegal selling is revealed”.
I believe that there is a very strong case for amending Clause 22 to require the age-verification regulator to tell financial transaction providers of non-compliance and to place an enforceable duty on them not to process transactions between people in the United Kingdom and sites operating in violation of the digital economy legislation. I also think that there is a very strong case to be made for an amendment giving the regulator power to require ancillary services such as advertisers not to advertise on sites operating in violation of UK law.
I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions I have asked and the points I have raised about enforcement.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I believe that in practice this welcome Bill will be one of the most pervasive in its impact of any legislation we are currently considering in this House. It is in a sector where the world is probably changing as fast as anywhere. Indeed, these days, the future is closer to us than it has ever been before. Hence, it will not be the last word on anything, but it matters because it sets the framework for the development of the operation of the digital economy in the foreseeable future. We must, of course, remember that that economy works through and across legal jurisdictions without paying much heed to traditional boundaries.
The Bill’s detailed provisions will take effect in all kinds of ways, probably many of them unexpected, which in turn may radically affect everyday life in this country and beyond it. This will be especially true in the age of the internet of things, which is already dawning. In this brave new world, communications, which are traditionally perceived as person-to-person transactions, will be replaced by devices talking to other devices, instructing myriad tasks with little or no human intervention. It will go far beyond computer dealing in the financial markets or robotic milking of dairy cows, or even adjusting the level of central heating in one’s Cumbrian home from a Spanish golf course, as a friend of mine does.
The detail of all this involves science and processes way beyond my own expertise, and my knowledge is too scant fully to understand it. Having said that, I know that the starting point is connectivity, as has already been mentioned in the debate—in particular, connectivity coupled with adequate bandwidth. That is why the clauses on the universal service obligation in respect of broadband are, in my view, so important.
When I had the honour and good fortune to chair your Lordships’ Communications Committee, one of the first reports for which I had any responsibility was on the rollout of broadband. In drafting that report, we anguished, as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, commented, about whether a universal service obligation should be legally enforceable. After considerable deliberation, we concluded that it should be a political obligation, not a statutory legal one. However, like the noble Lord, with the benefit of hindsight I think we were wrong.
Now that 2016 is drawing to a close, political commentators are all discussing the revolutionary events of the year that is about to pass. They include Brexit, Trump’s election in the United States and the Italian referendum. On one level, each event is quite different, yet on another they are the same—an uprising by those who feel they are being left behind by the world as it evolves. They have nothing directly to do with the apparent subject matter of the poll behind them. In this country, there is no bigger division than between those who have decent broadband and those who do not. I should declare an interest: I live in rural Cumbria, in a near mobile not-spot—if I want to get mobile from one operator I have to go out of the house on to the lawn—and I have lousy broadband. The consequence is not merely that I cannot read the Sunday papers at breakfast on my iPlayer—that does not really matter. Rather, there are myriad entrepreneurs and, quite simply, ordinary households who cannot enjoy the connectivity of much of the rest of this country. This kills off many small businesses and erodes the quality of life and the economic potential of these disadvantaged areas. Rural Cumbria is not alone, and neither does this apply only in the countryside. Even a short distance from where we are now, there are very disadvantaged areas measured by this criterion.
It is often said that the modern world is a huge, complex network, but it is not if you cannot join it. Anyone who doubts that should look at the correspondence columns of local papers in these areas, where the anger, frustration and disillusionment of those who live there is plain for all to see. Equally, I am quite sure that such views are to be found in MPs’ incoming mail. It is some satisfaction to me that it is not my responsibility to have to read it.
Governments trumpet their successes in the rollout of superfast broadband—itself a rather weasel phrase—and the availability of squillions of megabits in the favoured corners of south-east England and the metropolises. But that is absolutely no help if you are not connected. In this respect, much of the contemporary UK is like that of Disraeli’s. There are two nations in digital connectivity: those who have it and those who do not; and those who can use it, and those who cannot. If you are in the second category, underprovision and lack of availability create a real sense of alienation and antagonism.
No one is suggesting that it can be identical everywhere, but I believe that there is a dawning recognition that a necessary degree of equivalence consistent with an even-handed approach to the provision of essential national infrastructure is important. As I said, this is not achieved by proclaiming wonderful successes in further improving what the “haves” have got, while the “have-nots” still have more or less nothing. It is for this reason that the provisions which provide a legal basis for USO are to be welcomed. I would like to think that they represent a political commitment much stronger than the legal phrases in which it is drafted. That is how I interpreted my noble friend the Minister’s opening remarks.
I turn briefly to a different topic for the second and final part of my remarks. In the debate in this House on the BBC charter and agreement on 12 October, I expressed the opinion that the BBC charter should be set in a statutory framework. I still subscribe to that view and the approach that I and others have endorsed on that and other occasions, and on which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, elaborated. There is no point in repetition, but I endorse what he said and suggest that the opportunity of this Bill to take it forward should be grasped. After all, nobody needs to be reminded that the use of the royal prerogative is a rather controversial political topic at present; we are living at a time when the desirability and requirement to consider whether checks and balances should surround it is prevalent. In my view, there are a number of areas where this is so, and this is one of them.
Finally, I might have discussed a huge number of other points that have been discussed by other speakers this afternoon. I have said enough for now, but I may well come back to some of them later. In conclusion, this is a desirable and necessary Bill which I support, despite having a few reservations about certain aspects—to which I shall, if I may, return on another occasion.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston (Lab)
My Lords, two years ago, when your Lordships debated the Deregulation Bill in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Grade, moved an amendment to repeal Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and almost all noble Lords supported repeal. The noble Lord, with his wide media experience, highlighted again today how broadcasters in the United States are able to invest billions of dollars from retransmission fees paid by cable and online streaming services to boost their programme outputs, which now include many excellent big-budget drama series sold and transmitted worldwide. However, here in Britain, this Act, introduced 28 years ago with the good intention of stimulating our emerging cable industry through Section 73, has become the loophole which denies our public service broadcasters the ability to negotiate retransmission fees for the right to carry their PSB channels on cable or, increasingly, online.
As the Minister will know, the PSBs asked the Intellectual Property Office for the repeal of Section 73 back in 2008. Since then, they have spent a lot of time and money on litigation on the issue. Meanwhile, the proliferating online streaming services have been able to retransmit BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 programming and sell advertising around programmes which are largely paid for by UK viewers. Bear in mind that the commissioning budget for original UK-made programming totalled about £2.5 billion a year. At long last, the Bill promises, in Clause 29, repeal of Section 73.
As any arrangements post-repeal will, I hope, be reached through individual commercial negotiation between parties across global media markets, it is hard to quantify how much our public service broadcasters might gain from the retransmission of their products, but it could over time be a substantial sum. My concern in this regard is that the Government have said that they might favour a “no net payments” approach, suggesting that cable and online services might pay no money in return for the PSB channels continuing to be given prominence near the top of cable and online electronic programme guides. That does not seem a sensible long-term solution in such a rapidly changing digital marketplace.
A related concern is that, even after all this time and all the litigation and consultation, it is being suggested that there should now be a further two-year transition period. The Minister will recall that, in the Commons, there was cross-party support for repeal without delay, and I echo other noble Lords in saying that, to make up for lost time, the Government should implement the repeal of Section 73 immediately on Royal Assent.
The new charter and agreement for the BBC is a much better settlement than many of us thought likely last year. Although the requirement on the BBC to bear the cost of free television licences for the over-75s is still understandably criticised, we should not risk unravelling the agreed deal at this late stage when we debate Clause 77. With the Government compromising on many of their more radical proposals for a new charter, and with agreement on an inflation linking of the licence fee and an end to top-slicing to fund pet government schemes, it appears that the BBC would prefer to bank what it has won and move on. I think noble Lords should support its pragmatic approach.
The role of Ofcom as the BBC’s regulator has also been widely welcomed. Last week, it published Ofcom’s Preparation for Regulation of the BBC. Noble Lords may recall from recent debates in this House on diversity that the BBC accepts that it could have done more during the previous charter period to ensure greater diversity across the breadth of its operations. The new charter and agreement requires the BBC to reflect the diversity of the UK, with particular regard to underrepresented communities. Ofcom can now hold the BBC to account on how it meets those obligations. I note that the Campaign for Broadcasting Equality responded positively to the statement from Ofcom on diversity, which says:
“We will measure and scrutinise what the BBC is doing, and report on its delivery. We will also have the power to set appropriate regulatory requirements on the BBC’s output in this area”.
However, as we have heard, concerns have been expressed about the new regulatory powers given to Ofcom in other sectors covered in the Bill, particularly in Clause 75. At present, appeals against Ofcom rulings by communications companies have a review standard to be judged, in legalese, as “on the merits” grounds, which allow a complete review of Ofcom’s decisions. The Government believe that the “on the merits” test is overly burdensome and that the delays caused by constant, costly and extended litigation inhibit effective regulation—a view shared by the consumer group Which?, which described the present effect on Ofcom of the “on the merits” approach as “chilling”. By contrast, large incumbent operators such as BT and Sky are strongly opposed to replacing the present test with one that sets the judicial review standard, which they say is too weak and narrow. Ofcom supports the proposed changes, saying that it wants an appeal standard that allows bad or wrong decisions to be challenged but which makes regulatory progress less difficult.
In the Commons, Labour Members supported these changes, which were set to bring Ofcom into line with the standards set for other utility regulators. Can the Minister confirm in his reply that that is the case? Are any amendments to Clause 75 in prospect to address the concerns of BT and Sky, which highlight the potentially large cost of bad Ofcom decisions for them and other companies across the UK communications industry? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may address that question in further detail when he sums up for the Liberal Democrats.
Finally, like the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Holmes, I was a member of your Lordships’ Digital Skills Committee, whose report we discussed earlier this year. I welcomed the late addition to this Bill in the Commons—namely, Clause 87—which will allow for basic digital skills to be publicly funded in training and offered to adults over 19 free of charge in England. That is a start. In our Digital Skills report, we concluded that a key objective of government should be to ensure:
“The population as a whole has the right skill levels to use relevant digital technologies”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said earlier, the current estimate is that 10 million adults in the UK lack basic digital skills. In a recent Written Answer, he said that the intention was to put digital skills on the same footing as maths and English as part of the common core of adult education, and funding would come from the adult education budget of the Department for Education. Can the Minister give more information on how and when this commendable initiative will be rolled out?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in this wide-ranging debate and would like to concentrate on issues concerning children. I declare an interest as per the register.
First, I address a matter regarding BBC children’s television and its prominence on the EPG—that is, the electronic programme guide. I am concerned that it is becoming more and more difficult to find BBC children’s programmes on new connected televisions. Believe it or not, on one new platform it takes at least 22 clicks on the remote to get from the home screen to CBBC. Parents know that BBC content for children is of the highest quality; it is entertaining as well as educational yet, worryingly, it is not easy to find on many platforms and televisions, especially for new parents. The legislation with regards to PSB UK-produced content prominence is already out of date. As my noble friends Lord Foster and Lord Storey and others have said, on one platform CBBC and CBeebies are buried beneath 14 commercial channels on the EPG, many of which predominately show American content. Will the Government commit to updating the legislation to ensure that BBC children’s content is prominent on all platforms?
I turn to children’s television provision. Recently there was the launch of Save Kids’ Content UK, and I believe that the Digital Economy Bill would be a timely and effective vehicle to introduce legislation that puts an obligation on commercial PSBs to meet quotas for children’s programming here in the UK. Historically, the Broadcasting Act 1990 required public service broadcasters to devote specific amounts of provision for children, from the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. However, the Communications Act 2003 downgraded children’s content from tier 2 to tier 3 programming. This relieved commercial PSBs of their obligation to meet quantitative targets of children’s programming. This unforeseen consequence saw a dramatic decline in children’s programming, compounded in 2006 with the advertising ban on high fat, salt and sugar foods during children’s programmes. Since then, investment in children’s content over the past 10 years has collapsed by 95%. This dramatic decline has created a situation in which the BBC has the monopoly on producing children’s programming by default, because commercial PSBs are no longer obliged to commission children’s content. The recent decision of ITV to cut the role of head of children’s programming is a further sign that original children’s production will continue to fall and that foreign content and repeats will continue to rise.
We need to reverse this decline, because our children deserve to see themselves and their roles in society reflected in UK-produced programmes. Children have the right to access content that is rich in cultural terms, inspires their imagination and enriches their development. We need to create content that reflects them, their lives and their aspirations. Therefore, I believe changes to legislation, introduced through the Digital Economy Bill, in Part 6 relating to the powers for Ofcom, would give Ofcom the tools to actually improve commercial PSBs’ compliance. Will the Government consider this proposal to bring in this legislation?
I turn to Part 3 of the Bill, which covers age verification for pornographic content. As I said many times in this House, childhood lasts a lifetime. What children see and experience stays with them for ever. At the moment, some children are viewing graphic and horrific sexual images—children as young as four. So I am so pleased that the Government have tackled their manifesto commitment to,
“stop children’s exposure to harmful sexualised content online”,
with the proposal that pornographic websites that are accessible in the UK must have age-verification measures in place. Thank goodness for that. It is something that I have campaigned for over many years, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, should be congratulated, because she has brought her Private Member’s Bills to this House asking for this legislation for years. It brings the online and offline worlds on to a level playing field. I am so pleased to see Clause 80, which was introduced on Report in the other place. It means that age verification will apply to 18-rated video on-demand pornographic material live-streamed from this country to people in this country, in just the same way as the legislation has always required that of 18-rated video on-demand pornographic material streamed into this country from sites based abroad. This introduction could not come soon enough.
I sit on the Lords Select Committee on Communications, where we are conducting an inquiry on children and the internet. I am very aware of the benefits of the internet, but also of the potential difficulties of bringing in effective regulation. However, I have become more convinced than ever—as I have read about the impacts of pornography on our children and young people, with more and more of them suffering from anxieties, depression and trauma—that we would be doing them a grave disservice not to enact the measures in Part 3 of the Bill.
We expect offline protections to restrict access to certain goods that are inappropriate for children and young people, and we should expect them in the online world as well. I commend the Government for taking this action. However, I have worries about how the Bill will be enforced. Clause 20 allows the age-verification regulator, the British Board of Film Classification, to impose fines upon non-compliant websites, which is very welcome, but I am concerned about how the Government will be able to ensure that overseas sites will pay these fines. The Bill, as drafted, does not require these providers to take any action in relation to the website, although the Government’s assumption is that they will. Will there be legal certainty in place if there was an express requirement on these providers to block payments and withdraw services? I fully support the ability of the regulator to require ISPs to block access to websites that are not following the law in the UK. ISPs can block access to sites that are in breach of UK copyright law, so why not do it to protect children? Business rights are not more important than children’s rights. So Clause 23 is to be supported.
In seeking to protect children from stumbling upon pornography, it is particularly important that social media is covered by the Bill. That is one of the primary ways in which children are exposed to pornography. There has been some debate about the scope of Clause 15 and the ancillary service providers, but it seems clear to me that social media should be covered by this. I was particularly delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, confirmed to the Lords Communications Committee on 29 November that:
“The Bill covers ancillary services. There was a question about Twitter. Twitter is a user-generated uploading-content site. If there is pornography on Twitter, it will be considered covered under ancillary services”.
Can the Minister confirm that this will be the case and also the case for all other social media, including, Facebook, Tumblr and Instagram? I know that there are online issues beyond pornography that parents are concerned about, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce an amendment to ensure that family-friendly filters offered by internet service providers will continue with legal certainty. One of the central pillars of our adult content filtering regime refers to public wi-fi. Will the Minister please confirm that the amendment which the Government intend to introduce will make space for the use of adult content filters in relation to public wi-fi?
Finally, the NSPCC, CEOP, CARE, the Children’s Media Foundation and many others all believe that the internet should be a safe place for children by default in the same way that other media, and indeed life, is. The Bill is an opportunity to ensure this happens and to truly protect our children. This is going to be an important debate on the future of child protection in the online world. We are world leaders in putting protection in place for children; the world is watching us and will follow suit. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the Bill.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, my interests in television can be found in the register. I will speak about the clauses concerning public service television. Like many other noble Lords, I have been shocked by the way the previous two BBC charters have been negotiated and finalised behind closed doors, in discussions between the BBC and Ministers. Public opinion and parliamentary debate seem to have played little part in the process. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Grade, that the BBC and the public seem to be able to defend the organisation alone. That has clearly not happened. I support the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to put down amendments which provide statutory underpinning for the next BBC royal charter settlement. It is important that the noble Lord suggests that this should not be a statutory straitjacket, devised by either the Government or Parliament, but a truly constitutional framework which will safeguard the BBC’s political independence and future viability.
I am very pleased for Parliament to play a role in the shaping of the next royal charter settlement, but I would like noble Lords to think about what that role might be. The BBC is one of the great unifying institutions in our country. In the post-referendum world, that role cannot be underestimated. Its output is consumed by 97% of the population every week. It reaches even the most remote communities and people of all backgrounds. I fear that parliamentary scrutiny will start the process of atomising the BBC. MPs rightly fight on behalf of their constituents and all parliamentarians on behalf of their pet projects. As we are already seeing, the Scottish Government are demanding that all licence fees raised in Scotland be spent in that country. I fear that parliamentarians will want to do the same thing in their local areas across the country. The BBC does indeed serve local audiences with its network of local radio, but the majority of its money is spent on national projects which bring the country together, such as the splendid “Planet Earth II” that we have been seeing on Sundays. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when he tables his amendment, to look very carefully at the constitutional framework so that this atomisation is not allowed to happen.
Clause 77 goes to the heart of the BBC’s biggest problem: funding. It is all very well the BBC being independent, but without sufficient funds to make wide-ranging and high-quality programmes, that does not mean much. Last summer’s shocking decision by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer to force the BBC to take on funding of and responsibility for the concessionary licence fee for over-75s represented a 20% cut in the corporation’s funding. At the time, my noble friend Lord Hall represented the move as a flat funding settlement, leaving the BBC no worse or better off. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the massive cuts faced by all sectors of the BBC. There is an aim to cut £800,000 a year from the BBC’s budget by 2021, 10% of which will come from BBC News. That seems to refute any kind of claim that this is a flat funding settlement. The draft charter is about to be finalised, so trying to unpick the settlement at this stage will not be very helpful. However, in the long term the BBC should not act as an arm of the DWP by administering the concessionary licence fee policy. I hope that some sort of sunset clause can be worked out to ensure that this welfare role ends at the next round of interim negotiations or by the next charter renewal.
Funding is central to all public service broadcasting at the moment and we see all the channels suffering from powerful competition in this multi-channel, internet-streaming era. So I welcome Clause 29, which repeals Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said, we are not quite sure how much money that will raise, but there is a promise of it providing up to an extra £200 million in fees for PSB content providers. I am concerned that Clause 29(3), on possible transitional arrangements, could delay the implementation of these negotiations. I have been told that the “must carry” obligations on the platform to broadcast PSB channels render any negotiation impossible. However, the original Act does state that “must offer” is subject to the “need to agree terms”— in other words, to provide fair negotiation between the content providers and the platform. I am convinced that these negotiations bring a welcome boost to content providers and should be started as soon as possible.
At a time when Rupert Murdoch and 21st Century Fox are trying to take over complete control of Sky and when American and Japanese companies have turned many of our finest independent television producers into money-spinning format factories, it is time to strengthen the independence and financial viability of British public service broadcasters.
Lord Mitchell (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Digital Economy Bill does very little for the digital economy. Of course, it addresses subsidiary issues that certainly need to be changed, but in its key objective to launch the UK into the next phase of the tech and digital economic revolution, it fails. We are entering a new, post-Brexit era in which we are told we will be taking on the world in the exciting challenges that face us. Digital has to be part of that, but what are we offered? A Bill so limp and so pedestrian, so uncoordinated and so patchy and, as many noble Lords have said, so lacking in ambition that it proves the old adage that it you set the bar low enough, you might even achieve it.
The digital world is growing fast, very fast; certainly faster than most politicians understand. If we are going to lead in a world of driverless cars, the internet of things, digital health and a host of other data-dependent technologies that require massive connectivity speeds, we need a digital infrastructure that matches our ambitions. I hear Ministers making proud statements that we will achieve 100% coverage in 10 megabit per second speeds by 2020. Do they realise just how embarrassing this is? I hear them talking about a megabit economy, but in the world around us megabits are becoming obsolete. In tomorrow’s brave new digital world, gigabits will be king. That is one thousand times faster. Without a Government commitment to a gigabit infrastructure, we have not got a prayer of meeting our digital objectives. So, my first question to the Minister is: will the Government make such a commitment to encourage the building of a gigabit infrastructure? After all, that is what South Korea, Japan and Finland are doing. We have to think big.
Nearly 50 years ago, I joined what was then called the data processing industry. I have seen an industry grow to become the world leader. If nothing else, it has given me a perspective on this industry and what it is set to offer in the future. Five of the biggest companies by value in the world today barely existed 20 years ago. Indeed, three of them—Google, Amazon and Facebook—did not exist at all. Microsoft has been around a little longer, and Apple, in 1996, was close to bankruptcy—now look at it. This is an industry which continues to experience phenomenal growth, and to many people’s surprise we in the UK have done really well. There are some powerful statistics provided by Tech City. The UK digital tech industry is worth £161 billion, of which London contributes £62 billion. Over a four-year period from 2011 to 2015, the digital industry grew 32% faster than the rest of the economy. UK Digital tech employs 1.56 million people, of which London employs 328,000. Jobs are created nearly three times faster here than in the rest of the economy. In London, one in four new jobs are in tech. There are 58,000 digital tech businesses in the UK. Finally, it is worth remembering that 41% of all digital tech jobs are in non-digital industries; it is not all apps and data management.
In usage, we are the world’s leader in online shopping, with a spend of £1 billion a week, and 35 million of us log on every day. Dare I say that 5 million of us use online dating agencies, although I point out that that does not include me? Who books travel except online? We are a tech savvy country and this is a huge success story. London has become a digital exemplar to the world. Today, it sits there right at the top, behind Silicon Valley, it is true, but certainly on a par with New York. Nowhere in Europe comes close. Why has it occurred? I would say it is because of convergence. Two of the world’s top 10 universities—Imperial and UCL—are based here. Only one other city, Boston, can match that. Then, throw in the close proximity of Oxford, Cambridge and King’s College, and it can be seen that London is a scientific and intellectual powerhouse.
Then, look at where London is also a world leader—music, fashion, media, sport, theatre and, of course, banking, insurance and financial services. These are the ingredients in the cocktail that makes London such a digital leader. This bringing together of science and the financial and creative industries is critical to London’s growth, particularly in the world of smartphone apps. Medicine is a good example. We have the universities, but we also have the Wellcome Foundation and the newly opened Crick Institute. MedCity has been created to commercially exploit the exploding world of digital health. It is a rosy position and, as I say, no country in Europe comes close, but we have to stay ahead of a very fast-moving game. That is my plea for today. The usage of internet connectivity is not a gradual process; it is exponential. Billions are being invested in new technologies, which are going to require huge data capabilities. Driverless cars will happen. When Google, Amazon, Apple, BMW and the Japanese car companies are investing tens of billions of pounds in this area, it cannot fail. A grid of driverless cars and lorries will require undreamt of levels of mobile data connectivity. So too will the internet of things, which is just in its infancy but about to become ubiquitous. Without ultrafast connectivity it does not work.
However, there is one company which on its own is restricting our digital growth and holding us back, and that is BT. The way things are going, BT will soon control a very high percentage of the access to things digital in our country, both broadband and mobile. Broadband provided on its ancient, dilapidated copper cables seems to be its solution to our short-term problems. “Sweat the assets” is its mantra, then delay and obfuscate. In the mobile sector, it has purchased EE. In the 5G spectrum, it will end up with over 40% of this key mobile technology. When you group broadband and mobile together, you see the giant that BT is becoming. To give it a historical slant, it owns the roads and it owns the railway lines. It is demolishing the competition. Its level of investment is low and that is why our connectivity is equally low. It could have diverted much more funding into digital, but it chose instead to set up BT Sport.
Speak to friends about BT’s services. Speak to MPs and hear what they say their constituents and small businesses say. It is awful. BT is holding us by the throat. Its performance is dismal. That has profound consequences for us all. It displays all the attributes of a predatory monopoly. My question to the Minister is: will the Government encourage the Competition and Markets Authority to pursue BT for anti-trust and monopolistic behaviour? Secondly, will the Government and Ofcom force BT to sell Openreach so that it can make its own way without BT holding it back? I am sure the Minister will divert my questions, but will he at least concede that BT in its digital activities is displaying monopolistic behaviour—a monopoly acting against the public interest? We are poised for spectacular growth. We are not starting from the beginning. We have done very well in digital. However, our success could slip in the proverbial nanosecond if the gigabit infrastructure is not in place. We cannot allow that to happen.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, who so clearly demonstrated the importance of pushing ahead with digital entrepreneurism, if I can put it that way. I will comment on three aspects of the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, the Bill is very broad. I shall comment on broadband, Part 3 on pornography, where I shall take up one or two comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the slightly different area of data protection, which one or two noble Lords have spoken about. I remind noble Lords of my family farming interests, although with regard to this Bill I do not think we have anything to declare.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has just said, broadband is absolutely key and its success or lack of it has great implications for many people’s lives. Noble Lords will be aware that I have for many years raised this issue with regard to rural areas. We talk about gigabytes but there are still some areas of the country where there is no coverage at all, which is absolutely appalling, and some areas where the connection is very slow, and therefore the service cannot be used in the way that people in London and other areas can use it. Providing many of these rural areas with broadband access would enable them to diversify and create new businesses, which at the moment they cannot do. So for many people, companies and organisations, the whole question of broadband is one of complaints, arguments, disappointment and charges to do with its coverage, speed, maintenance and cost. I have spoken often about that in this House.
Coverage by broadband services is far from universal, in that there are many tracts of the UK where it is simply not available. There are also many places where it exists but the speeds are too slow, making it an impractical tool for many who want to create businesses, or even fill in government forms.
I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the application of the universal service obligation. The Explanatory Notes cite the telephony obligation whereby any customer can request a service but they will have to pay the extra if it costs more than £3,400 to provide. What is the base cost for broadband? What parts of the country will cost more than that: for example, ground above X metres, or buildings more than Y kilometres from a given point? As the population expands, is there a danger that the location of their dwellings will be dictated by the practicality and the cost of broadband installation?
Connection to broadband is at the moment a serious cause of anxiety, cost and time waste for many people. Consider the work/life balance of the farmer who travels many miles to fill in government forms, which is now required, to claim his entitlement to the single farm payment or to report the many statistics demanded of him. Think of the families required to manage all school contact using a two megabits per second service. Rural children are already handicapped by the length of their journeys to and from school, especially where rural bus services have been reduced. Surely they should not lose out on sleep because it takes so long to download and return homework.
This does not happen just in rural areas. I will give an example with which I am directly involved as a past Master of the Worshipful Company of Farmers. We and the Fletchers have a hall in the City of London. In September 2015 we quickly realised that the simple broadband service and wi-fi we had installed in the hall was just not adequate. We duly ordered a fibre-optic cable-based system through Onecom, a respected supplier, which would give us an uncontested 20 to 100 megabits per second service. The order was placed by email on 25 November 2015, and contract documents were signed on behalf of the hall the following day. Onecom has been helpful, but its—and our—problem is that Openreach has the monopoly on installing the cabling. It has been totally inefficient and seems to stumble from one problem to another. No one person in Openreach can be identified with the ownership of the case, and we have endured a long saga of engineers calling, being unable to resolve the issue, and disappearing again. That was a year ago, and this is London. Finally, we have been told that the connection is installed and we have been sent a wi-fi router, which we are to plug in, and away we go. As I understand from the secretary, the snag is that they cannot locate the socket that Openreach says it has installed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said that he would advocate the splitting up of BT and Openreach. While that may not be popular with others, I, too, share his view on that case. Too much gets shifted from BT to Openreach and back again, and a clear definition of who takes what responsibility would be a huge improvement.
There is another problem, of which I cannot recall hearing any other noble Lord speak. If you cannot pay your bills, you will be taken to court by the council, cut off by the electricity provider and possibly visited by the bailiffs. What do the Government intend should happen to someone who cannot sustain a credit rating and is refused broadband installation? How will the broadband provider be entitled to deal with the customer who cannot pay a bill? I cannot find the answer in the briefings we have had.
Before I move on to Part 3 I will reiterate what other noble Lords have said about the unacceptable level of mobile reception throughout the country. In some areas you can get it, in others you cannot. It is absolutely hopeless when we can get it very much more regularly and easily when we are abroad.
On Part 3 and the Government’s intentions to look at online pornography, clearly there are those who enjoy access to pornography, just as there are those who enjoy taking drugs or smoking. In all three cases the problem is not only the enjoyment but the urge to involve others, particularly those under the age of consent. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, clearly said. I will not repeat what she said, but this is a huge problem. I would love to see pornography banned altogether, but that is an impossibility. However, we certainly need to make sure that it is controlled in an acceptable manner.
Finally, I will say a few words on confidentiality and personal data. Paragraph 33 on page 11 of the Explanatory Notes states that,
“the Bill will enable access to civil registration data like births, deaths and marriages so that public authorities do not send letters to people who are deceased”.
Having lost my husband three years ago, I very much appreciate any move to stop that from happening. I feel that if this is the level of justification employed by the Government, we should look more closely at both the mania for sharing data and the implications it has for trespass upon privacy.
There is a difference between improving a public service and selection, often by a computer, of individuals deemed to be in need of that service. I am particularly concerned that access to sensitive data is to be extended from those who have always been at the forefront of welfare provision to those whose concern for their own welfare, otherwise known as profit, has been notable. For example, who is to decide that my home is hard to heat? Who is to decree that my income is below some limit that renders it acceptable? Even if they are right, why should that information be passed to service providers whose discretion and public spiritedness is often the butt of ridicule? Freedom of information requests to Ofgem resulted last week in the publication of preliminary figures concerning the amount of money taken from customers’ accounts and held by suppliers. The sum quoted on the radio was billions of pounds.
The Data Protection Act is often quoted and I have no reason to doubt that many organisations abide by its provisions. However, when private data are divulged, how are we to find the person or organisation responsible if HMRC data are to be made available to persons unknown? In this country, personal taxation has been private and this Bill does not set limits. Will the data consist of the names, national insurance numbers and addresses of those who earn less than the tax threshold, or will there be much more detail? Page 74 of the Explanatory Notes lists the Secretaries of State for justice, education, transport, international development and culture, as well as the Duchy of Lancaster, as recipients. Does the digital economy require all this information to be disclosed, and, if so, why? If the Minister cannot answer my questions tonight, I would be grateful if he would do so in due course.
So although I welcome the Bill, I, like other noble Lords, have some questions about its implications. The digital age is opening up new opportunities, most importantly to increase education and learning. There is a whole range of possibilities with new jobs. One or two speakers have said that the Bill lacks ambition, but we need to back it because we really must move forward—and quickly.
Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the provisions around statistics in Chapter 7 of Part 5 of the Bill. Before I do so, I want to say that I—mostly—warmly welcome the Bill. However, as discussed today by your Lordships, there are a few considerable warts which will need to be addressed at a later stage of the parliamentary process. It is indeed a mammoth piece of work. To pick up on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I do not think that it is a Christmas tree so much as a forest of conifers. I would have preferred it to be somewhat divided, although joined at the end, but I dread to think how long it might take to go through the House.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships through some statistics. The Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, and the framework that it established, is extremely close to my heart. I will stop short of saying that it is under my bed but it is very much in my study, although it is now almost nine years later. I shall give the House a brief historical context. Between 2008 and 2012 I had the honour of being the founding deputy chairman of the UK Statistics Authority under the excellent and insightful leadership of Sir Michael Scholar and, latterly, Sir Andrew Dilnot. The authority is very close to my heart and I have never forgotten how important and internationally recognised a legislative instrument it is, promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official statistics for the public good, and, most importantly, doing so free from political interference for the first time.
The 2007 Act delivered on the then Government’s desire to improve public confidence in official statistics. It established the authority as a body independent of government, reporting directly to Parliament, with a majority non-executive board and with two important functions: first, overseeing the Office for National Statistics as our national statistical institute and the UK’s largest producer of economic and social statistics; and, secondly, establishing an independent public regulator, now known as the Office for Statistics Regulation, to ensure that the use and reporting of official statistics remains fair and objective, and to promote public confidence in their trustworthiness. These roles, I suggest, are vital but they are highly complex.
As an independent regulator of statistics, the authority must at times make some very difficult decisions about when it is necessary to intervene to correct the record. This role provides Parliament and the public with the assurance that our official statistics are trustworthy and that we can have confidence in the numbers, produced by professionally independent statisticians, that describe what is actually happening in our society and our economy. As our statistics regulator, the authority watches closely to ensure that all those who use and quote official statistics do so accurately.
As mentioned at the outset, the authority’s other important statutory role is to oversee the Office for National Statistics—to guide it and support it, but also to challenge it to ensure that it delivers the very best for all users of statistics, wherever they may be. Statisticians want to tell a numerical story that is trusted and understood, and to help decision-makers take timely and informed decisions for the prosperity of our country; including, if I may say so, decisions sometimes taken in your Lordships’ House.
I know from first-hand experience just how challenging that work is: measuring the modern economy, counting the population, and producing aggregate statistics and analysis when decision-makers need and expect them. We all rely therefore on the ONS to produce statistics and analysis on the labour market, migration, crime, inflation and the state of our economy, and to keep pace with innovations in world-leading data science and statistical methods. Clearly, to be able to do this challenging task, the ONS relies on data—and now noble Lords might see the relevance of me taking the House through a little historical detail. Those data come from a rich array of different sources, many of them surveys of individuals, households and businesses. However, surveys are costly to administer and place burdens on those who are asked to respond to them. Ensuring that the ONS has a sufficient number of survey responses to report accurately what is happening in the world in which we live is becoming not only more logistically challenging but also very expensive.
In the world of the digital revolution, which everyone keeps saying we are now living in—I am told it is the fourth industrial revolution—surveys seem a little old-fashioned and outdated. The notion of armies of people —and indeed, they are out there—knocking on doors with clipboards and forms, collecting data, feels like something of a bygone age, like punch cards, slide rules and ticker tape. Simply relying on surveys seems to be relying on an analogue instrument in what is now, after all, a digital world. Of course, there will always be a need to undertake surveys, to fill in the gaps that other sources cannot fill. However, so much of the data that statisticians need have already been collected and are held somewhere else, often within government. The problem is that current legislation makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, for the ONS to access those data sources for the purposes of producing statistics. That is precisely what this Bill is designed to sort out—to give the ONS access to the data it needs to produce the statistics we need.
As much as I love my treasured, old, battered copy of the 2007 statistics Act, it has, inadvertently, as the years have passed, put up significant legal, procedural and cultural barriers that currently prevent the ONS from accessing the administrative data sources needed to produce the statistics and analysis we demand of it. These barriers are inhibiting the ONS from transforming, preventing it from playing its full part in the data revolution, and slowing the pace of reform of the statistical evidence base on which Britain relies to take better, more timely, well-informed decisions. I hate to tell noble Lords, but we are now lagging so far behind many of our international partners in making available the sources of data that our statisticians need to produce statistics. We must do better to support them; we must help to sort this out. It is for all our benefit.
As Professor Sir Charles Bean, former deputy governor of the Bank of England, so eloquently observed when he published his recent report on UK economic statistics:
“It’s nonsensical that different bits of the government don’t speak to each other, so that businesses and households have to provide the same information twice. Unlocking the data hoard already held by the public sector will not only save … money but also”,
enable the ONS to,
“produce more timely and accurate statistics”.
As the National Statistician, John Pullinger, said earlier this year in setting out the case for why new legislation is needed:
“If the UK is to succeed in the competitive global marketplace, and if our governments are to make good choices affecting all our lives, they need to be well informed. Better statistics support better decisions. Statistics will be better if they mobilise the power of the data revolution. To do so requires a modern legal framework that enables us to deliver statistics that serve the public good in ways that sustain public trust and business confidence”.
One of the questions raised in the House today by the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford, Lady Hollins and Lady Janke, was that of security and protection. When data are being transferred, they need to be properly protected. Will the Minister assure noble Lords of the robustness of the current safeguards that exist and ensure that it will be a priority that such protection will continue going forward?
We want our professional statisticians to succeed and to contribute their very best so that we can understand our society and economy through numbers. They want us to understand the world in which we are living and our place in it. It is time to give the UK Statistics Authority the tools to do its job and that is why I commend to the House the important provisions on statistics set out in the Bill.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an ex-BBC governor and a former BT employee—in the days when you could hear a call go through a telephone exchange. I have a sense of déjà vu all over again, as someone once said, about this Bill, as I endeavoured to get the previous one through the House. Despite a total of about 700 amendments, it fell into the wash-up—an ignominious fate for any Bill. I wish the Minister a better experience. Like the previous Bill, this one is complex and covers a wide range of issues. Given the time of night, I will cover only a few of them.
I am somewhat disappointed that my noble friend Lord Mitchell is not with us after his barn-storming contribution. I want to deal with the issue of broadband. We should ensure that we do not fall into the trap that we sometimes do. I heard the first cry of what I could call the megabyte cuckoo. It is megabits not megabytes. There are eight bits to the byte. If only we could deliver 10 megabytes rather than bits, that would be a vast improvement. Some say that this is not ambitious enough and in some ways I share that view, but if we could deliver a true 10 megabits, it would be a good start if we could guarantee minimum speed, quality and price, which a lot of people understandably complain about.
I did not agree with my noble friend Lord Mitchell on his silver-bullet solution, which suggested BT and Openreach as the cause of all the problems. We do not need a monopolies commission to deal with this, because Ofcom has the powers if, as it has already indicated, it feels that there should be a greater degree of separation between BT and Openreach. In fact, a lot of fibre has been delivered to this country. Does it go far enough? No, probably it does not, and it is still a work in progress. But I was fascinated to hear the criticism that BT should not have invested in BT Sport. So it is quite okay for Sky to have a monopoly. That seems to be a strange analysis. Of course, getting it right on broadband is key to our economy.
There is broad agreement on the role of Ofcom, which is important, for a full external regulation of the BBC. The charter is done and, personally, I do not see the point in endlessly replaying the issue of the over-75s. I did not like it any more than anyone else did, but I would welcome the Minister’s perspective on the five-year review. I also welcome the modernisation of the licence fee, which now includes programme downloading and watching on demand, and phasing out the ring-fenced £150 million to support broadband rollout. Increasing the licence fee in line with CPI over the next fee period to 2021-22 is also good news. So surely was the £200 million-plus to expand the work of the BBC World Service in recognition of its importance. It still makes for a challenging environment for the BBC, but I think that the corporation is equipped to meet it. I would like the Minister to reassure us that, as many other speakers have said, future licence fee settlements will be more transparent, with adequate time for consultation.
I am not sure about statutory underpinning, but I welcome the debate. It is an important issue and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will deal with it with his usual flair and careful analysis. However, I do not accept that it is absolutely the answer; the noble Lord, Lord Grade, was right to sound a note of caution.
The importance of public service broadcasting being given prominence on electronic programme guides and listed events has been well and truly covered, and I do not intend to go over those again.
Clause 29 of the Bill will repeal Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to safeguard the intellectual property rights of public service broadcasters and their huge investment in content, but why do we need to wait two years, as other noble Lords have asked? Can the Minister agree to a short consultative process to ensure faster implementation, recognising that the creative industries contribute something like £84.1 billion to the UK economy?
Last but by no means least, I turn to the question of digital skills. I welcome the Government’s recognition that these skills are just as key as literacy and numeracy, and perhaps we can look forward to some modification of the EBacc if that is the case. However, I will not hold my breath on that one, although the Government are right to acknowledge the importance of these skills. Whether we totally accept the dire predictions of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who is not in his place—I see that in fact he is, and waving not drowning—both noble Lords are right to warn the Government that the workforce has to be prepared for the next phase of the digital revolution.
I look forward to what is going to be an interesting debate in Committee, and I wish the Minister good luck in reply to this very wide-ranging debate.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill because it has some very useful stuff in it—but, like everything else, it might benefit from some tweaking. Many other speakers mentioned the tweaks that need to be made, and if that happens I think that we may end up with quite a good Bill.
I will concentrate on age verification because I have been working on this issue with a group for about a year and three-quarters. We spotted that its profile was going to be raised because so many people were worried about it. We were the first group to bring together the people who run adult content websites—porn websites—with those who want to protect children. The interesting thing to come out quite quickly from the meetings was that, believe it or not, the people who run porn sites are not interested in corrupting children because they want to make money. What they want are adult, middle-aged people, with credit cards from whom they can extract money, preferably on a subscription basis or whatever. The stuff that children are getting access to is what are called teaser adverts. They are designed to draw people in to the harder stuff inside, you might say. The providers would be delighted to offer age verification right up front so long as all the others have to comply as well—otherwise they will get all the traffic. Children use up bandwidth. It costs the providers money and wastes their time, so they are very happy to go along with it. They will even help police it, for the simple reason that it will block the opposition. It is one of the few times I approve of the larger companies getting a competitive advantage in helping to police the smaller sites that try not to comply.
One of the things that became apparent early on was that we will not be able to do anything about foreign sites. They will not answer mail or do anything, so blocking is probably the only thing that will work. We are delighted that the Government have gone for that at this stage. Things need to get blocked fast or sites will get around it. So it is a case of block first, appeal later, and we will need a simple appeals system. I am sure that the BBFC will do a fine job, but we need something just in case.
Another thing that came back from the ISPs is that they want more clarity about what should be blocked, how it will be done and what they will have to do. There also needs to be indemnity. When the ISPs block something for intellectual property and copyright reasons, they are indemnified. They would need to have it for this as well, or there will be a great deal of reluctance, which will cause problems.
The next thing that came up was censorship. The whole point of this is we want to enforce online what is already illegal offline. We are not trying to increase censorship or censor new material. If it is illegal offline, it should be illegal online and we should be able to do something about it. This is about children viewing adult material and pornography online. I am afraid this is where I slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We should decide what should be blocked elsewhere; we should not use the Bill to block other content that adults probably should not be watching either. It is a separate issue. The Bill is about protecting children. The challenge is that the Obscene Publications Act has some definitions and there is ATVOD stuff as well. They are supposed to be involved with time. CPS guidelines are out of step with current case law as a result of one of the quite recent cases—so there is a bit of a mess that needs clearing up. This is not the Bill to do it. We probably need to address it quite soon and keep the pressure on; that is the next step. But this Bill is about keeping children away from such material.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made a very good point about social platforms. They are commercial. There are loopholes that will get exploited. It is probably unrealistic to block the whole of Twitter—it would make us look like idiots. On the other hand, there are other things we can do. This brings me to the point that other noble Lords made about ancillary service complaints. If we start to make the payment-service providers comply and help, they will make it less easy for those sites to make money. They will not be able to do certain things. I do not know what enforcement is possible. All these sites have to sign up to terms and conditions. Big retail websites such as Amazon sell films that would certainly come under this category. They should put an age check in front of the webpage. It is not difficult to do; they could easily comply.
We will probably need an enforcer as well. The BBFC is happy to be a regulator, and I think it is also happy to inform ISPs which sites should be blocked, but other enforcement stuff might need to be done. There is provision for it in the Bill. The Government may need to start looking for an enforcer.
Another point that has come up is about anonymity and privacy, which is paramount. Imagine the fallout if some hacker found a list of senior politicians who had had to go through an age-verification process on one of these websites, which would mean they had accessed them. They could bring down the Government or the Opposition overnight. Noble Lords could all go to the MindGeek website and look at the statistics, where there is a breakdown of which age groups and genders are accessing these websites. I have not dared to do so because it will show I have been to that website, which I am sure would show up somewhere on one of these investigatory powers web searches and could be dangerous.
One of the things the Digital Policy Alliance, which I chair, has done is sponsor a publicly available specification, which the BSI is behind as well. There is a lot of privacy-enforcing stuff in that. It is not totally obvious; it is not finished yet, and it is being highlighted a bit more. One thing we came up with is that websites should not store the identity of the people whom they age-check. In fact, in most cases, they will bounce straight off the website and be sent to someone called an attribute provider, who will check the age. They will probably know who the person is, but they will send back to the website only an encrypted token which says, “We’ve checked this person that you sent to us. Store this token. This person is over 18”—or under 18, or whatever age they have asked to be confirmed. On their side, they will just keep a record of the token but will not say to which website they have issued it—they will not store that, either. The link is the token, so if a regulator or social service had to track it down, they could physically take the token from the porn site to where it came from, the attribute provider, and say, “Can you check this person’s really over 18, because we think someone breached the security? What went wrong with your procedures?”. They can then reverse it and find out who the person was—but they could still perhaps not be told by the regulator which site it was. So there should be a security cut-out in there. A lot of work went into this because we all knew the danger.
This is where I agree entirely with the Open Rights Group, which thinks that such a measure should be mandated. Although the publicly available specification, which is almost like a British standard, says that privacy should be mandated under general data protection regulation out of Europe, which we all subscribe to, I am not sure that that is enough. It is a guideline at the end of the day and it depends on how much emphasis the BBFC decides to put on it. I am not sure that we should not just put something in the Bill to mandate that a website cannot keep a person’s identity. If the person after they have proved that they are 18 then decides to subscribe to the website freely and to give it credit card details and stuff like that, that is a different problem—I am not worried about that. That is something else. That should be kept extremely securely and I personally would not give my ID to such a site—but at the age-verification end, it must be private.
There are some other funny things behind the scenes that I have been briefed on, such as the EU VAT reporting requirements under the VAT Mini One Stop Shop, which requires sites to keep some information which might make a person identifiable. That could apply if someone was using one of the attribute providers that uses a credit card to provide that check or if the website itself was doing that. There may be some things that people will have to be careful of. There are some perfectly good age-checking providers out there who can do it without you having to give your details. So it is a good idea; I think that it will help. Let us then worry about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made so well about what goes where.
The universal service obligation should be territorial; it has to cover the country and not just everyone’s homes. With the internet of things coming along—which I am also involved in because I am chair of the Hypercat Alliance, which is about resource discovery over the internet of things—one of the big problems is that we are going to need it everywhere: to do traffic monitoring, people flows and all the useful things we need. We cannot have little not-spots, or the Government will not be able to get the information on which to run all sorts of helpful control systems. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, referred to mast sharing. The problem with it is that they then do not put masts in the not-spots; they just keep the money and work off just one mast—you still get the not-spots. If someone shares a mast, they should be forced to have a mast somewhere else, which they then share as well.
On broadband take-up, people say, “Oh, well, people aren’t asking for it”. It is chicken and egg: until it is there, you do not know what it is good for. Once it is there and suddenly it is all useful, the applications will flow. We have to look to the future; we have to have some vision. Let us get the egg out there and the chicken will follow—I cannot remember which way round it is.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that the problem with Openreach is that it will always be controlled by its holding company, which takes the investment, redirects it and decides where the money goes. That is the challenge with having it overseeing.
I do not want to waste much time, because I know that it is getting late-ish. On jobs, a huge number of jobs were created in earlier days in installing and maintaining internet of things sensors all over the place—that will change. On the gigabit stuff, it will save travel, energy and all sorts of things—we might even do remote-control hip operations, so you send the device and the surgeon then does it remotely, once we get super-duper superfast broadband.
I want to say one thing about IP. The Open Rights Group raised having thresholds of seriousness. It is quite important that we do not start prosecuting people on charges with 10-year sentences for trivial things. But it is also sad how interesting documentaries can disappear terribly quickly. The catch-up services cover only a month or so and if you are interested, it is quite nice being able to find these things out there on the internet a year or two later. There should somehow be a publicly available archive for all the people who produce interesting documentaries. I do not know whether they should make a small charge for it, but it should be out there.
The Open Rights Group also highlighted the bulk sharing of data. Some of the stuff will be very useful—the briefing on free school meals is interesting—but if you are the only person who really knows what might be leaked, it is very dangerous. If someone were to beat you up, an ordinary register could leak your address across without realising that at that point you are about to go into witness protection. There can be lots of problems with bulk data sharing, so be careful; that is why the insurance database was killed off a few years ago. Apart from that, I thank your Lordships for listening and say that, in general, this is a good effort.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, we are rapidly getting to the point where the egg is hatching and the chicken is emerging. I refer the House to my interests as declared on the register. We have had a superbly wide-ranging debate. I thank the Minister for his introduction, and for the meetings and briefings that he and his team arranged for us, including the material that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke about so glowingly.
The digital economy in the UK is of huge importance to our future and the Bill needs to take full account of new developments and the pace of change, which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, spoke about. All that makes connectivity vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, emphasised, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, illustrated so well. We expect a full report from Las Vegas by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick.
Even in the last few years, the rate of change has of course been extraordinary. With drone development, the internet of things, driverless cars, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, cloud computing and virtual reality it is difficult for legislators to keep up, let alone to determine the skills needed in future. When two of our most digitally savvy Members of the House talk about the hollowing-out of jobs in the future, we have to sit up and take notice. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was rather more optimistic but we have to address the issues raised by the fourth industrial revolution, which were so graphically described during the debate.
Despite a fair degree of debate in the Commons, particularly in the Public Bill Committee and on Report, many matters in the Bill are unresolved, as we have heard in today’s debate. There was a very strong measure of agreement on this, given which, on these Benches our welcome to the Bill can only be conditional and dependent on the information and assurances given by Ministers, and the amendments to be made during its passage. For instance, while we welcome action to ensure that superfast broadband will be available within a short time to all UK households—driving the final mile, as discussed by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—we are not yet convinced that a USO as opposed to vouchers is the way to do it.
Even if were persuaded of the merits of a USO, we are not convinced that setting a modest 10 megabits per second will be adequate for future increases in demand for speeds and capacity. As we have heard throughout the debate, why should there not be a higher rate of 24 megabits per second if nearly 90% of households will have that next year? My noble friend Lord Fox described this as a very unambitious goal, as did the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, while the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, described the Bill as generally lacking in ambition. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, made the most futuristic speech in the debate; I rather liked his phrase “Gigabits not megabits”, which should be the slogan as we go forward.
We on these Benches also want a requirement for a minimum upload to be included, and to have standards of latency, resilience, reliability, consistency and contention also spelt out. They are every bit as important as speed. We will question the Government further on the review process for the USO. What will the criteria for change be? When will the first review take place and what will the new funding model be? Will there be an open tendering process for the delivery of the universal service obligation? Will Openreach be the main instrument of rollout again? Despite the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Young, we are not convinced that Openreach, even as a separate legal entity within BT, is the right instrument, and I know that that view is shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and my noble friend Lord Fox. They made a strong case for structural separation. We are definitely not convinced that government investment is sufficient. However, I am reassured by the recent speech of Sharon White at the Institute for Government that full structural separation of Openreach could become a reality if the proposed level of separation is demonstrated to be inadequate.
Again, although we have a high regard for Ofcom and the way it has performed its duties since formation, we want to be extremely careful in Clause 74 that we are not handing it far greater power with less corresponding accountability than its European counterparts under Article 4.1 of the European framework directive or indeed other UK regulators. That was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Macdonald. We appreciate the consumer arguments put forward by Which? and that opinion is divided, but the Government are going to need to give chapter and verse, real evidence of why we should make such a radical change to the appeals process from a merits approach all the way down to a judicial review test.
Above all, our aim on these Benches is to ensure that in a holistic way we bear down on digital exclusion in the most effective way. Of course we welcome Clause 87, as far as it goes, but it is not sufficient and we need more information about the funding aspect. As my noble friend Lady Janke asked, do the Government accept the arguments for a social tariff for broadband? Many have argued that it should be equivalent to that in other forms of telephony.
On the other hand, when it comes to the new electronic communications code dealing with phone and internet infrastructure, we broadly welcome the new version set out in Schedule 1. We will, however, want the Minister to explain, as my noble friend Lord Foster pointed out, where we have got to on the definition of electronic communications apparatus because of its importance to the various operators. We need to ensure that investment incentives for independent and wholesale infrastructure are maintained, as the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Aberdare, pointed out, so that there cannot be free piggybacking on the infrastructure investment of others. This is vital if we are to get the infrastructure we need for 5G in the future.
Having campaigned for some years on the subject, we welcome the higher penalties for online piracy and the proposal to allow web-link marking for design rights. I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to better protection from online piracy. We will however question why the Government are not using the Bill to outlaw the supply of devices designed to infringe copyright, such as IPTV streaming boxes, which are a growing threat to pay-TV services. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a very interesting point about better protection for user content.
Depending on progress on a voluntary agreement with search engines to ensure that sites infringing copyright are not listed, we will also want to explore the benefit of giving a power to the Secretary of State to require search engines to adopt a code of practice. We welcome the new powers for Ofcom as regards gaining provider-led switching provisions. I argued for these rights to be included as long ago as the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, but should these provisions not be wider and include so-called quad-play bundled services which include pay TV? Similarly as regards Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which I have long argued should be repealed, we will want to hear assurances from the Government—these were requested by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lords, Lord Grade, Lord Macdonald and Lord Gordon—that commercial PBS channels will be able to negotiate retransmission fees as a result and that the repeal will take place without delay. We will also want to know from ITV that any fees will go into new production—children’s programming, for instance, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Benjamin.
As regards Part 3 of the Bill, some very fine speeches were made, including by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I pay tribute of course to the long campaigning of my noble friend Lady Benjamin and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on these issues. My noble friend Lord Storey was also very eloquent on the subject, and I was very taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, saying that pornography is a really bad way of learning about sex. That will stay with us for some period.
We strongly share the desire of all parties to ensure that children and young people are not able to access pornography online, but we are concerned that the current requirement for a verification process does not explicitly provide for proper protection of people’s personal data. As my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael said in the Commons:
“My real concerns centre on the holding of the data. As I put it to the Minister when he was at the Dispatch Box, there are no provisions in the Bill to secure the privacy and anonymity of those using these sites. He said that the data will be held in accordance with the Data Protection Act, but as we saw in the Ashley Madison leaks, that was of no great assistance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/16; col. 1304.]
We believe that the answer is to make sure that the type of verification required for pornography sites is itself specified in the Bill, so that personal data acquired by any verification process have to be held in an anonymised form. I did not agree with everything that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said in his contribution today, but I thank him for some of the technical advice he gave to enable us to demonstrate that that anonymity in terms of verification and authentication is perfectly feasible. The Government Digital Service itself has developed Verify, and there is the Certificate Transparency, or CT, system which uses distributed ledger technology to mitigate this problem. Other verification systems are becoming available, such as Yoti and VeriMe, that would meet the objections of many to this clause, which we all concede has the best of intentions.
My noble friends can of course see the merit of site-blocking being available as a last resort—although I hope this would be after Clause 22 has been invoked, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, made some very interesting points about the efficacy of that clause. However, it should be a last resort, at the instigation of the age verification regulator, the BBFC, if pornography sites do not provide adequate age verification—which should be anonymised, as I have argued. But it is a different matter altogether, as the current Clause 23 makes it, for the regulator to act as a censor of “prohibited material’' on internet pornography sites in general. This goes well beyond the harm test in the Video Recordings Act 1984 and includes material covered by the CPS guidance on the Obscene Publications Act. To us, that is disproportionate, and has no relevance to access by young people and verification.
We welcome the promised government amendment to confirm that default parental filtering does not fall foul of the EU’s open access regulation, although I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised some extremely interesting points on that. It is also of huge importance and central to protecting children in this context—this was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Borwick, and by the right reverend Prelate—that we introduce compulsory, age-related, sex and relationship education in our schools.
Moving on to other parts of the Bill, we welcome the fact that the Bill updates the regulation of the BBC by making Ofcom responsible for the regulation of all BBC activities, although as we have expressed on previous occasions we have great concern about Schedule 1 to the framework agreement. My noble friend Lord Lester was extremely eloquent about the issues involving the independence of the BBC, and quite a number of noble Lords lined up behind him in support, including the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It was interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, did not support that. I felt he was perhaps coming on a little like Anthony Joshua, so we have some quite interesting debates coming in the future.
In Part 5, we welcome increased digital government provision but we have a number of concerns. I will not adumbrate them here but we are particularly concerned about personal healthcare information. We think there are opportunities, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, had an interesting description of the need for better statistics, but there is some tension between better statistics and personal data confidentiality and we need to resolve that.
The former Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, aptly described the Bill as a Christmas tree at Second Reading in the Commons. That has been echoed today, although I think by now we have a forest of conifers, which may be the new epithet that we are going to have to use. There are quite a number of additional matters that we will want to see included, such as the listed event amendments. We want to see EPG prominence tackled, along with the whole issue of bots with regard to ticket purchase. I see that Congress has just passed a BOTS Act that will soon be signed by President Obama. We want to see a level playing field on spectrum, the extension of remote e-lending and of course improved transparency of the reporting of royalties to creators in a variety of creative industries.
For some time we have been promised a new communications Bill, a new digital Bill, but I am afraid this is a bit of a disappointment; as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, pointed out, it does not really deal with all the challenges of the future. It may deal with the here and now but there is nothing really future-facing in it. For instance, in the report Distributed Ledger Technology: Beyond Block Chain the Government’s own scientific adviser says:
“Government needs to consider how to put in place a regulatory framework for distributed ledger technology”,
but that is absent from the Bill.
I hope my noble friends and I have given the House a comprehensive picture of what my party supports in this Bill but also of where the Bill is deficient. We look forward to the Minister’s reply and to the Committee in the new year.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I sense a good deal of commonality in the views that have been expressed today.
We on our side welcome many of the objectives of the Bill. This is a fast-moving industry, and clearly the current legislation is no longer fit for purpose. Like others in the debate today, though, we are concerned about the Bill’s lack of ambition. It was an opportunity to reach into the future, to design a strong and healthy digital sector that would have secured its reputation as a market leader in the world. Inherent in that model would have been robust systems and checks to address concerns about issues like data privacy, cybersecurity, big government and a lack of digital resilience. The Bill ducks many of those issues, although they are in fact undermining people’s trust in the online world.
The Bill also fails to address the revolution in jobs and skills that was very eloquently flagged up by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and a number of other noble Lords in the debate. Instead, it merely addresses a series of relatively uncontroversial provisions. A number of people have described it as a Christmas tree Bill—in fact I think we have got as far as a forest now—on which a number of disconnected policies have been hung. We agree with that analysis. It leaves us with a strong sense of frustration and the inevitability that we will be back here next year and the year after with further iterations of the Bill, which can best be described as a “patch and mend” approach to the challenges that we are facing. This approach has been compounded by the late changes to the Bill on issues such as age verification and net neutrality, which clearly will need a significant input from this House to perfect. I am sure that as ever we will rise to this challenge and the Bill will leave this House in better shape than when it arrived.
I turn to some of the specific policies in the Bill. First, a number of noble Lords raised concerns about the broadband universal service obligation. This is not surprising as it is an issue that has caused massive frustration over the last few years, peppered as it has been with failed government promises and missed targets. This is our opportunity to get it right. As many noble Lords have said, though, the Government’s objectives in the Bill are simply not ambitious enough, and I am sorry to say that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Young on this matter.
The proposal for 10 megabits per second is less than half what is needed to achieve the updated definition of superfast broadband. It will leave some households in the slow lane and others completely out of range of the new offer. That is why we will be tabling more ambitious amendments for a future-proofed state-of-the-art broadband provision, as well as independent evaluation of the speed of delivery.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others that we should be embracing the future technology that mobile can deliver, particularly in reaching the most isolated communities. We believe that we should be setting similar ambitious targets for mobile, which are so far missing in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Gordon made a compelling case for the sharing of mobile masts and the need to reconsider roaming, particularly in those dead zones where no provision is currently available.
Secondly, we welcome the Government’s initial steps to control children’s access to online pornography. We have, of course, rehearsed those arguments many times in this House. I pay tribute, as others have done, to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her tenacity in continuing to pursue this issue. However, we are concerned that many of the proposals have been introduced late in the proceedings in the other House and we have not had the chance to give them sufficient scrutiny. We recognise that no system of parental filters or age verification can provide the perfect answer to this huge social challenge. However, during the course of the Bill’s proceedings, we hope to work with the Minister and the industry to produce a robust system that, on the one hand, protects children and, on the other, addresses the legitimate concerns of adults regarding privacy and the right to access pornography legitimately. In particular, we want to be assured that websites which flout the system cannot find simple tricks to circumvent the system that we are establishing; that age-verification providers are properly regulated; that on-demand material is subject to the same tests as those of other online services; and that the new role allocated to the British Board of Film Classification is properly overseen by an independent body.
We are also aware that the relationship between the new EU rules on net neutrality and the systems in place for parental filters needs to be resolved by the new amendments promised by the Minister in the other place. We look forward to scrutinising those amendments when they appear to make sure that they are fit for purpose.
There has been a widespread view around the Chamber today that we will not sort this problem by legislation alone. We have consistently joined with others in the House to press the case for compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, and we will continue to press this case during the course of the Bill’s proceedings. We hope that the Government, belatedly, will come to see the sense of those arguments.
Thirdly, we want to address the real concerns about digital government and data sharing. We can all think of areas of government where improved data sharing makes perfect sense, but we need to make sure that it does not become the default option. Proper controls need to be put in place to safeguard access to personal data and ensure that information is used only for the purpose originally requested. We will be tabling amendments to make sure that proper independent controls are in place to sign off and oversee the use of data.
We are also proposing the establishment of a big data commission to review the collection and use of data by government and by commercial bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, quite rightly raised particular concerns about private bodies increasingly being involved in delivering public services. There need to be controls over how they use publicly accessed data. We will want to see a public register where all disclosures of data will be logged so that everybody has the right to see what is going on. We would also like a requirement for breaches of data security to be reported as a matter of course.
We would like the Bill to include measures to tackle online abuse and trolling, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. In particular, we want to look further at how to control abuse on social media which, as we know, is an increasing scourge on our society.
Fourthly, we want to revisit the unwarranted decision by the Government to transfer responsibility to the BBC for setting the over-75s concessionary TV licence. We are not ready to let this issue lie, as some noble Lords have suggested. Apart from the fact that it is a clear breach of the Conservative manifesto, it sets a worrying precedent by passing part of our welfare system to an organisation with no direct accountability to the electorate.
As part of the scrutiny of the BBC’s new royal charter, we will also want to check that the new powers of Ofcom to regulate the BBC are proportionate. In scrutinising these clauses, we also want to ensure that the predominance of public service broadcasters on TV listings is protected and extended to online on-demand services.
Several noble Lords mentioned the importance of providing audio-visual services for those with disability across all on-demand providers. We very much welcome the Minister’s commitment today and look forward to receiving details in due course.
Like others, we welcome the proposed repeal of Section 73, with all the benefits that it will bring to PSBs. We would like to follow it up by ensuring that any profits that occur from it are reinvested in programme development. We are also concerned about the concept of a transition, and we would like to explore exactly what is intended by it, as we feel that speed is of the essence in introducing the changes.
In the spirit of equalising offline and online transactions, we also welcome the Minister’s commitment today to extend public lending rights to e-book lending; again, we would like to explore its reach. On the basis of parity, we also look forward to exploring whether VAT should continue to be paid on downloaded books.
Finally, our colleagues in the Commons played a significant role in the cross-party initiative to tackle automated ticket touting, or bots. We will be tabling an amendment to end the use of digital ticket purchasing systems which buy event tickets in large numbers through automated systems, thereby blocking access for real fans, whose only choice then is to buy them on the secondary market at inflated prices. As I understand it, the Minister in the Commons raised concerns about the wording of the amendment tabled there but expressed some sympathy for the cause. I very much hope that the noble Lord will agree to work with us on this issue to find the right words to end this rip-off in ticket sales.
On that issue, and on many others, we look forward to working with the noble Lord as we follow these changes through the course of the Bill, and we look forward to his response.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the fact that this is a wide-ranging Bill is not surprising when you consider how the digital economy is transforming the world before us, and it has certainly been a wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today, particularly those who have come to see me in the past week to discuss the legislation. Before the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asks me, as he usually does, I will of course write to those whom I fail to answer this evening, and there will be many of them, because I think there have been hundreds of questions.
Starting with the universal service obligation, broadband and connectivity, I think that there is clearly a strong consensus in the House that we need faster broadband and better mobile phone signals, especially in the less well-served rural parts of the country. The Government agree, and we have been working to achieve it. Only 8% of premises in the country have access to broadband at speeds of less than 24 megabits per second, and that number is likely to halve by the end of the year. The broadband USO provided by the Bill will be a safety net, should anyone need it, by 2020. I was grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord Holmes and the noble Lords, Lord Gordon, Lord Whitty and Lord Young, for the broadband USO.
Many Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Fox, my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, queried whether a 10 megabits per second USO is sufficiently ambitious. It will be Ofcom that recommends the speed and provides the technical advice on upload, download, latency, and so on. The Government believe that 10 megabits per second should be the minimum speed but have ambition for more—so we agree there—as we complete the superfast delivery programme.
The Bill provides powers to review and to increase the speed. In fact, 10 megabits per second is adequate for most households and allows high-definition video streaming as well as simultaneous video calling and web browsing, according to the Ofcom Connected Nations report and the digital communications review in 2016. We have ambitions for the future, but we think that it is adequate for the safety net—and, speaking personally, I can tell you that, if you had 1.5 or 2 megabits per second broadband and you were given 10 megabits, you would think that it was a tremendous difference.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
But that is if you are given a true 10 megabits per second, is it not? The complaint so often is that you are told that that is what the speed is going to be, but they fail to deliver—so that is the important thing. It is delivery that counts.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Yes, I quite agree—that is why I mentioned that Ofcom will provide technical details and advise on latency, upload, download and average speeds. The consultation paper is, I think, coming out at any minute.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether there should be a social tariff in addition to the USO. Ofcom is reporting on possible approaches for a USO; the report will include consideration of measures to take account of those for whom affordability is an issue.
The Electronic Communications Code and infrastructure and apparatus and things like that were mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Aberdare, Lord Gordon and Lord Clement-Jones. In the interests of time, I am going to duck the interesting discussions of when a water tower is a communications mast and when it is apparatus. We will deal with those things a lot in Committee.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was concerned about the new land valuation model in the ECC. We have consulted widely on this and employed experts to allow government to strike the right balance between landowner rights and the need for better digital communications. We expect the parties to negotiate a fair outcome. The code valuation applies only when parties cannot agree terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked whether there should be a public record for when rights are granted over land under the ECC. The Law Commission considered this as part of its review of the code; the Government consulted on the issues subsequently and concluded that code operators should not be required to register their rights. This maintains the position under the existing code, but prospective buyers will be able to ascertain what code rights might apply to land by inspecting the land and making appropriate inquiries before the contract.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, talked about the change in the appeals mechanism for Ofcom. I have spent many happy hours in your Lordships’ House talking about the extent of judicial review and its applicability. We think that there is a wide consensus that reform is needed, and the Government believe that judicial review is the right remedy. Direct comparisons to other regulated sectors are helpful but, for example, where one sector has a full “on the merits” appeal, there is another example showing the opposite. This is because every regulatory regime is quite different from the next. Communications is currently the most litigated sector, and it is holding up reforms and investment and delaying consumer benefits. That is why we are forced to act—but I accept that we will probably spend some time on this issue in Committee.
Another thing that we might talk about, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Mitchell and Lord Clement-Jones, was the position of Openreach. A number of noble Lords suggested that the way in which to reach a competitive and effective market in telecommunications is through the structural separation of Openreach from BT Group. Ofcom is the independent regulator for the sector and there is a process available for it to pursue structural separation, should it consider that necessary. We have made it clear that Ofcom should take whatever action it considers necessary and that structural separation remains an option.
Several noble Lords mentioned digital exclusion and digital skills. The Bill provides for free training for adults in basic digital skills, which was mentioned by many noble Lords. We have set up the Council for Digital Inclusion, which brings together leaders from business, charities and government to come up with innovative ways to help get everyone online. Some people cannot use online services independently. The Government Digital Service works with services to ensure that those people get the support that they need. More than £9.5 million has been spent by the DfE and the NHS since October 2014 to support almost 750,000 people to gain basic digital skills. The DfE will be investing a further £1.5 million in the remainder of this year to support 100,000 more.
My noble friend Lord Baker made an interesting speech, echoed to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about the digital revolution, skills and employment. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned this as well. We are establishing 15 routes to a technical education post-16, including engineering and manufacturing, digital health and construction. Students will be able to learn through an employment-based route—apprenticeships—or a college-based one that will ensure they can progress into employment or further study. For pre-16s, we will continue to equip schools to embed a knowledge-based curriculum as the cornerstone of an excellent academically rigorous education. We will continue to embed reforms to assessment and qualifications, including more robust and rigorous GCSEs, and the ambition that at least 90% of pupils in mainstream education enter GCSEs in maths and science. In 2016, 62,100 pupils entered for a computer science qualification, up from 33,500 in 2015.
Many noble Lords—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe, Lady Kidron and Lady Benjamin, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Storey, Lord Gordon, Lord Whitty and Lord Morrow, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and there may have been others—talked about and approved of the age-verification regime, at least to a certain extent. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment but there is always more to do and we think that is possible. I look forward to debating this in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked what oversight there will be of the BBFC to ensure that these powers are used responsibly. We are pleased that we are working with the BBFC; it has a strong track record as an independent regulator. We recognise that age verification brings challenges and we must provide the regulator with the framework to succeed. We are already working closely with it to implement this ambitious policy and it is not the case that the Government’s role will then be finalised. The Bill provides for the designation of funding of the regulator by the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied, for instance, that arrangements for appeals are being maintained. In the case of blocking, the regulator must inform the Secretary of State whenever it intends to notify an ISP.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Benjamin, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked a valid question about social media and Twitter. The Government believe that services, including Twitter, can be classified by regulators as ancillary service providers where they are enabling or facilitating the making available of pornographic or prohibited material. This means that they could be notified of commercial pornographers to whom they provide a service but this will not apply to material provided on a non-commercial basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked some very detailed questions about net neutrality and family filters which I am not going to answer today. First, I will read carefully what she said and will certainly write to her. We believe that family filters that can be turned off are permitted under EU regulation. To support providers, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will amend the Bill to confirm that providers may offer such filters. This will ensure that the current successful self-regulatory approach to family filters can continue.
ISPs are best placed to know what their customers want and we do not intend to lay down mandatory rules for family-filter provision. The current approach works well, engaging parents to think about online safety, but applying filters where parents do not engage. As far as public wi-fi is concerned, we believe that filters on many types of public wi-fi are likely to be compliant with EU regulation. Coffee shops, hotels and restaurants, for example, where the end-user is the proprietor, can turn filters on and off. I am afraid that noble Lords may not be surprised to hear that we do not think it is right to share legal advice on these matters.
There will be a lot of discussion on prohibited material in Committee. It is a complicated area. Free speech is vital but we must protect children from harm online as well as offline. We must do more to ensure that children cannot easily access sexual content which will distress them or harm their development, as has been mentioned. We do not allow children to buy pornographic material offline, and this material would not be classified for hard-copy distribution. The BBFC has a well-understood harm test and would not classify material that, for example, depicts non-consensual violent abuse against women, and it may not classify material which is in breach of the Obscene Publications Act, as clarified in guidance by the CPS. Prohibited material has always been within the regulatory framework of this Bill. We consider that having a lesser regime for prohibited material than lawful material would be unsustainable and undermine the age-verification regime. As I say, I am sure we will come back to this in Committee.
An important point was made with regard to sexual content and the need to look at sex education. We have taken steps to raise awareness of the risk to young people of exposure to harmful content online. E-safety is now covered at all key stages in the new computing curriculum, which was taught for the first time in September 2014. The Government agree that we need to look again at the case for further action on personal, social, health and economic education and sex education provision as a matter of priority, with particular consideration being given to improving quality and accessibility. We are carefully considering the request to update existing sex and relationship guidance.
Many have asked for the intellectual property reforms in the Bill for many years. We need to ensure that valuable assets are protected. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has been working hard to ensure that that is the case. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Grade, the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Macdonald, and my noble friend Lady Wilcox, who supported the Section 73 appeal. My noble friend Lady Wilcox asked what else we are doing to protect IP rights online. The Government’s strategy for IP enforcement published earlier this year, Protecting Creativity, Supporting Innovation: IP Enforcement 2020, outlines the breadth of activity the Government are taking to tackle IP infringement of all types online.
As regards the remuneration issue from the abolition of Section 73, the Government are not seeking to set any retransmission fee arrangements. These will be negotiated in the context of the existing “must offer/must carry” regulatory framework. This will mean there is likely to be some, albeit limited, value extracted in any future negotiations between public service broadcasters and Virgin Media. Coming to the—
Lord Foster of Bath
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as it is late but this is a very important issue. I would be grateful for greater clarification of the Government’s position, bearing in mind that it was only in July of this year that, in responding to the balance of payments consultation, the Government said:
“Government therefore expects that there will continue to be no net payments between all platform operators and the PSBs”.
Has the Government’s position now changed?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We think it should be left to the market to decide that. My noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Lords, Lord Foster, Lord Storey and Lord Macdonald, and probably others talked about the length of the transitional arrangements, and basically said that we should get on with it. The Intellectual Property Office has recently consulted on this, as is right and proper. The Government are considering the responses received and we will state our intentions on how this reform will be implemented shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, asked about counterfeit electrical goods. The Government have committed in their recent IP enforcement strategy to develop a methodology for assessing the availability of and harm caused by counterfeits, which will of course include counterfeit electrical goods. Government officials regularly meet with major online retailers to help reduce the availability of counterfeits on their platforms and to help co-ordinate efforts with law enforcement to take action against sellers. In addition, as required by EU law, most online platforms already have routes to allow suspected IP-infringing content to be reported and promptly removed.
Data sharing is an important part of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, expressed concern about bulk data sharing. Under the powers, data sharing must comply with the Data Protection Act. Information can be shared only for the specific purposes set out in the Bill, and only the minimum data required to achieve these purposes will be shared—a point reinforced in our draft codes of practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether data would be shared without consent. Where possible, consent will be sought, but this is not always possible. These new powers are to allow government to reach out and help. We have given examples of reaching out to the fuel poor and to the vulnerable so that help and support can be offered rather than sought. These people may not have consented to data sharing, but that is partly because we often never know when we might need to help in future. We will, where appropriate, conduct privacy assessments and publish them, and we will always protect personal data under the Data Protection Act.
Several noble Lords raised the question of health data. As noble Lords appreciate, health data are of great value to research, as they address multiple complex issues that affect individuals, households and other purposes. However, great sensitivities are involved in how this is handled, which is why we are excluding the use of health and adult social care data from our powers until the recommendations of the National Data Guardian’s review have been implemented and public confidence in the way the health and care system uses confidential personal data can be demonstrated. I should mention that the Government support Jo Churchill MP’s Bill on the National Data Guardian, which has its Second Reading on Friday.
The BBC is an important part of the Bill and we have debated this as part of official business 18 times since last June—and I suspect we may do so again. When we scrutinised the new charter on 12 October, there was a consensus that enormous progress had been made. The charter has now been approved by Her Majesty the Queen and will soon be in force. The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked about the budget deal last year. This was part of a negotiation with the BBC that is complete. The BBC said only two weeks ago that,
“the overall funding settlement reached with the government provides the financial stability for a strong creative BBC”.
The BBC is clear that reopening the settlement would just create uncertainty and potentially leave it worse off.
With regard to the future process, let me be clear. The charter, for the first time, sets the timing for the BBC’s future financial settlements at once every five years. The charter also requires the BBC to provide data ahead of each licence fee settlement. The BBC will be able to use this to make its case, and the Government of the day will be able to consider that.
The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Foster, mentioned the National Citizen Service charter. I agree that that was a royal charter and that it had a Bill, but we think that is different. I could go into the reasons, but undoubtedly we will talk about that in Committee, so I will not do so at this time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am very grateful to the Minister as the hour is late. I am sure he appreciates that I made it clear that I did not favour undoing the deal that had already been done. However, I am looking to the future. Will he be able to address in some form, before Committee, the reasons why the Government reject any statutory underpinning—if that is their position?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That is their position and I certainly will do that. If that point was not in a specific question, I will certainly endeavour to address it. I expected the noble Lord to raise that point because he warned me during the debate on the BBC that it would be coming.
We are reaching the end of our time and there are still a few things that I could talk about. I will have to write to noble Lords about extending EPG prominence and about subtitles on on-demand and audio-visual services, which we are intending to bring in. A lot of noble Lords asked about ticket bots. We agree that there is a problem and that the Government should fix it. A series of round tables has been held at enforcement agencies and with the sector. The Government will give full consideration to what was said at those round tables, in Parliament and in the Waterson report on ticket bots and harvesting tickets.
I think that we have run out of time. I thank noble Lords for all their constructive and interesting comments on the Bill and I look forward to further discussions. It is clear that the Bill is complex but, despite all the seasonal jokes about its Christmas-tree appearance, I hope that your Lordships can take inspiration from Antony Gormley’s tree at the Connaught, which has not a single bauble upon it.
The Digital Economy Bill will support investment in digital infrastructure and support consumers and businesses in taking advantage of the opportunities of the digital economy. It will also enable the digital transformation of government. I commend the Bill to the House and ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.