House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
At the outset, on behalf of all on the Government Benches, may I briefly echo the Prime Minister’s words on the passing of Dame Tessa Jowell? She gave a lifetime of tireless public service, and displayed incredible bravery and dignity in the final months. I know that there will be an opportunity shortly for colleagues throughout the House to pay tributes.
Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, there have been 242,100 apprenticeship starts and we have seen a marked shift to higher-quality, longer and higher-level apprenticeships.
Mr Dhesi
Employers and providers of apprenticeships, including in my constituency, are concerned that the approvals process for apprenticeship standards is far too slow and bureaucratic. That follows the news that the Institute for Apprenticeships cleared only four standards in April and 10 in March—that is actually down from 21 in February. What extra resources will the Secretary of State give the IFA to address those genuine concerns?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has leading apprenticeship employers, including Centrica, Mars and Telefónica-O2, and they play a leading role in showing what it is possible to do with apprenticeships. The IFA has brought forward a programme called “Faster and Better” to make sure that standards are approved more quickly, and we have seen the number of apprenticeship starts on standards rising sharply. We continue to monitor that.
Eleanor Smith
Last year, the Government set a target of 2.3% of the workforce for public bodies on employing apprentices, yet following a series of parliamentary questions by the shadow Education team we have discovered that the vast majority of Departments, including the Department for Education, are failing to hit that target. If the Department is unable to meet such targets internally, how are we supposed to believe that it is going to meet the 3 million target by 2020?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right to identify the important role that the public sector plays and to say that we have to try additionally hard. She mentioned my Department, and we have opportunities for training assistants and graduates through the teaching apprenticeship.
Judith Cummins
The Government say that they want 3 million new apprentices by 2020, but all the signs are that we are going in the wrong direction. Last year there were 70 fewer apprentice starts in my constituency than the year before, and nationally starts are down by 23%. Can the Minister tell us why that is? Do the Government agree with the British Chambers of Commerce that the apprenticeship levy is “unfit for purpose”?
Damian Hinds
The apprenticeship levy is an important structural reform to the way we do training provision in this country, to make sure that all sizeable firms are contributing to upskilling the nation. We are in a period of change, and some employers are taking longer to bed down what they are going to do with their apprenticeship levy money. We must bear in mind that they have two years to do that with each month’s money, but we are seeing a shift to longer, higher-quality apprenticeships, and that trend is to be welcomed.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend is committed to helping more disadvantaged apprentices. The Conservative manifesto said:
“We will introduce significantly discounted bus and train travel for apprentices to ensure that no young person is deterred from an apprenticeship due to travel costs.”
Will he confirm that that is still a commitment? When will it happen?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend rightly identifies the importance of making sure that apprenticeships are fully inclusive, and we continue to look at ensuring that such facilitation is available.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more women are taking up apprenticeships in science, technology and manufacturing?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is right to identify the challenge that we have in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths. That goes for apprenticeships and for other parts of the education and training system, as well as employment. It is partly about encouraging girls through programmes such as “Girls Get Coding”. We are taking part in the Year of Engineering, and we continue to support improvements in gender representation through our diversity champions network.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising the quality of apprenticeships is just as important as raising the numbers, and that there is evidence that good progress is being made in this area?
Damian Hinds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In reforming apprenticeships, we looked around the world to see what the standards were in leading nations such as Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. Having a lengthy apprenticeship with a significant off-the-job training element is very important.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State looked at the impact of cuts in further education on apprenticeships, particularly in Coventry?
Damian Hinds
Of course, through the apprenticeship levy, the funding available for apprenticeships will be roughly twice what it was at the start of the decade, and further education colleges are among those that can bid for that funding and benefit from it.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) about funding for the levy, is it not right that the levy is an important part of the reforms in this policy area and will ensure that there is long-term investment in apprenticeship training?
Damian Hinds
That is absolutely right. As I said earlier, the levy ensures that all sizeable firms contribute to the upskilling of the nation. It is an employer-led system to make sure that the apprenticeships that are done are those demanded by employers.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
May I echo the Secretary of State’s words regarding our friend, the late Dame Tessa Jowell? I think in particular of her role in the founding of Sure Start centres, not just as the shadow Secretary of State for Education but because when I was a young mum it was the local Sure Start centre that really helped me and my son. For all that is said and done in this Chamber, that is the best that any Member can hope to have achieved.
Last week, Ministers told us that nursing apprenticeships were the answer to NHS staff shortages. They set a target of 1,000 nursing apprentices, but just 30 have actually started training. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many will start this year?
Damian Hinds
Apprenticeships are an important opportunity in the national health service, and we continue to work with the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care on them. Of course, in the health service, as throughout society and the economy, apprenticeships are employer-led programmes, so the health service takes the lead.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Part-time participation in higher education is absolutely important to making higher education accessible to everyone and promoting lifelong learning. We have adopted a number of measures to support part-time and mature students. For example, next year part-time students will for the first time ever be able to access full-time equivalent maintenance loans.
Chris Williamson
The Minister will be aware that since the Government tripled tuition fees to £9,000, the number of part-time student applications has fallen by a staggering 59%. Even the former Universities Minister David Willetts has said that that is a disaster. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to a whole generation of would-be part-time students and outline in a little more detail than he just gave what steps he is going to take to reverse this awful trend?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the downward trend in part-time students, which actually started before the tuition fee changes. The Prime Minister has announced a review of post-18 education and funding, which will look into, among other things, flexible, part-time and distance learning, as well as commuter study options, to boost the options available to those who want to pursue such a course of study.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I declare an interest: I read history. Many graduates see an advantage in returning to higher education to learn a STEM subject. What are the Government doing to aid those people in particular?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend refers to the qualifications required for someone to be able to go back and study for a further degree. We have relaxed the “equivalent or lower qualification” rules to support students who already have a degree and wish to retrain in a STEM subject on a part-time basis. If my hon. Friend is contemplating an engineering degree in his spare time, the way is open.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
First, may I associate myself and those on the Scottish National party Benches with the Secretary of State’s remarks regarding the sad passing of Dame Tessa Jowell?
Last year, more than 38,000 non-UK students enrolled on part-time higher education courses. Such students are important for universities’ income streams and for the wider local economy, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that part-time students from the EU are not subject to harsh immigration rules post Brexit?
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Does the Minister not realise that since tripling HE tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012, Tory-led Governments have been a disaster for mature and part-time students in England? As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) said, there has been a 59% drop in part-time student applications. That has left scores of continuing education centres in HE axed, while our iconic, world-renowned Open University, where I proudly taught for 20 years, is in crisis. What is the Minister going to do now—not after a wait for pittances in the 2019 review—to protect the OU, where students will not benefit from the loans he talks about, and others from policies that have become both socially and economically insane?
Mr Gyimah
Of the £1.3 billion of grant funding that the Higher Education Funding Council for England allocated to support teaching in higher education last year, £72 million went to part-time study. The Open University received £48 million of that, and 47,000 students have steady part-time courses there. We are supporting the OU. It is going through restructuring at the moment, but as I have often said, the review is looking at that and we will ensure that it continues to deliver excellent education for part-time students.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
We have protected the 16-to-19 funding base rate until 2020 to make sure that every young person can access an excellent education. There are also the 16-to-19 bursary funds, which can be used to help disadvantaged students meet the costs of participation, including transport costs, and of course there will be an extra £600 for every additional student taking level 3 maths.
Laura Pidcock
That is not the reality in my community. To me, it is unjustifiable to provide £50 million for grammar schools when Wolsingham School, in the heart of rural Weardale in my constituency, has been forced to suspend its sixth form, which means that young people may have to travel up to four hours for access to post-16 education. The issues are inadequate per-pupil funding combined with historical debt from years of cuts and the failure of the funding formula to allow for smaller pupil numbers owing to rurality, not a lack of grammar school places. Will the Secretary of State please come to Weardale, and will the Minister also look into this case with urgency and provide some assurance to young people, teachers and parents in Weardale that they will have a sixth form come September?
Anne Milton
I know that the hon. Lady met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that the Department for Education is working closely with Durham. The Secretary of State will keep closely in touch with her, because I appreciate that her concern is about the learners in her constituency.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent work that she is doing in this area? Is she aware that the absolutely first-class sixth-form college in Haywards Heath is now closed, in an area where there is a desperate need for a sixth-form college to cater for the ambitions and the further education of many young people coming out of our local schools? Will she do her very best to work with us, Mid Sussex District Council, West Sussex County Council and the local universities to put together a really original idea to reopen Haywards Heath sixth-form college?
Anne Milton
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Indeed, I was at school on that campus. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It was a grammar school then. The Department for Education is working very closely with others on the matter, and I have to say that not only my right hon. Friend’s input but that of the district council has been brilliant. I would dearly love to see an innovative and a really groundbreaking project on the site.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Minister is to get to the heart of these things, she must come to Huddersfield and see that we have not only two excellent sixth-form colleges but a further education college. We need all those facilities to be as good as they can be, but at the moment all of them are struggling under financial cuts.
Anne Milton
I look forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman’s constituency at the earliest opportunity. I am spread rather thinly, and there are many colleges for me to get round. [Interruption.] I missed a football match yesterday.
Anne Milton
Well, Mr Speaker, I know quite a lot about sixth-form colleges and FE colleges, although I am due a visit to the hon. Gentleman’s, and a great deal less about football, so I will not be drawn into making a comment.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: having sixth-form colleges, further education colleges, independent training providers and higher education institutes all working together is how we can raise standards to the levels that we all want to see.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
In both educational performance and value for money, sixth-form colleges are the most successful institutions in our education system, so when will the Government fund existing colleges properly and take steps to establish many more sixth-form colleges across the country?
Anne Milton
We are looking at the resilience of the FE sector across the board to ensure that it is as efficient and effective as possible. Learners are at the heart of all that, as we want to ensure that young people have all the opportunities possible. Sixth-form colleges do a brilliant job, and I am looking forward to visiting Godalming College on Friday.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
On the subject of resilience, how long does the Minister think it is sustainable for 16 to 18-year-olds to be funded 21% less than those who are 16 and under, and 48% less than university students?
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman is a doughty campaigner in this area; we have had many debates across the Chamber on the issue. There is a post-18 review under way, and we are looking at the resilience of the FE sector. What matters is that we ensure that every learner, whichever route they choose to take—further education or training through an apprenticeship—has the best possible training and education.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
My local side Ashton United, who do a lot with local schools, were promoted recently.
Funding for 16 to 19-year-olds has been frozen or cut every year since the formula was set in 2013. Will the Minister confirm that the real-terms cut to the base rate for 18-year-olds will be more than £1,000 per pupil by 2020? The Secretary of State can find £50 million a year for grammar schools, but what can he offer the sixth forms reaching crisis point?
Anne Milton
Once again I will not be drawn on football, I am afraid.
As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), there is a post-18 review going on, and we are looking at the resilience of the FE sector, which includes sixth-form colleges. Opposition Members are banging their knees, but I am very aware of the funding pressures. I praise all those teaching in the sector, as they are doing an excellent job. There is more money available, including the additional £600 per person per annum for maths and the bursary funds that I mentioned. I have heard the hon. Lady’s point, and I am aware of the excellent job that sixth forms do with quite constrained finances.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Of course, this is not a new issue; we are simply shining a light on it. We recently published extensive data showing the poor educational outcomes for children in need. A call for evidence has been launched to develop our understanding. My Department is also working with three What Works centres to build our national evidence base on improving those outcomes.
Derek Twigg
That was a bit of a poor answer. The number of children’s centres has halved since 2010, 350 Sure Start centres have closed, children’s services departments in local authorities are struggling with budgets and getting enough staff, and more children are being taken into care, so that answer is quite frankly not good enough. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we have more early intervention to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are determined to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. The early years are crucial to getting that right. The gap continues to narrow, having gone from 19 to 17 percentage points. In our ambitious £800 million plan, “Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential”, we committed £100 million of investment to help close the gap further. Councils decide how they use children’s centres in the overall provision, and I have seen great work being done in Wigan, Hackney and Staffordshire. It is not simply about bricks and mortar.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the excellent review of the outcomes of children in need will look not just at educational outcomes, but at employment and other outcomes?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I would like to associate myself and the Liberal Democrats with the tributes paid to Dame Tessa Jowell. She was an inspiration, particularly in the area of early-years provision.
Looked-after children in Oxfordshire could have to wait for up to six months to get into the secondary school that they need to, primarily because local authorities do not have the directive powers over academies that they do over maintained schools. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the most vulnerable children do not miss a day of school?
Nadhim Zahawi
I also pay my own tribute to Dame Tessa Jowell, who was a constituent of mine and helped me in this place when I arrived here as a young novice.
Those most disadvantaged children, to whom the hon. Lady referred, are actually given priority during the admissions process.
Mr Speaker
Well, we cannot mention Shakespeare in every question, but I am sure that the Minister will take his opportunity ere long.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
We fully fund maths and English provision for adults and will do the same for digital from 2020. A record number of 19-year-olds now hold a level 2 qualification in English and maths. We perform to above the OECD average for literacy, at 14 out of 34, but we perform below the OECD average for numeracy, at 20 out of 30, and we have to change that.
Thelma Walker
When I met representatives of businesses in my constituency, they told me that many apprentices are missing core skills such as English and maths. What plans does the Minister have to address these concerns without placing additional pressure on young people through yet more testing?
Anne Milton
The new primary maths curriculum that came into effect in 2014 focuses on ensuring that children are fluent in basic arithmetic, including their times tables. The objective is for every child to leave primary school ready for the demands of secondary school. These reforms are already starting to yield results. Anecdotal evidence shows that fewer children are without these basic skills going into secondary school. My job, with responsibilities for post-16 education, is to make sure that those who missed out on that type of reformed education get an opportunity to catch up.
Kate Green
Government funding for ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—has fallen by 53% in real terms since 2010, and participation rates have fallen by 36%. Home Office-funded regional ESOL co-ordinators say that there is severe pressure on provision at pre-entry level. What additional funding are the Government going to put into ESOL?
Anne Milton
Funding matters, absolutely—I am not disputing that; but this is also about the innovative ways in which people—
Anne Milton
The hon. Lady raises her eyes to the heavens, but this does make a difference. I have seen some extraordinary examples of adult education providers working with local primary schools to make sure that people who need English language skills get the support they need.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why did the Minister not proceed with the grants for year 7 catch-up projects?
Anne Milton
I will have to write to my right hon. Friend about that. It is an area that falls between my portfolio and that of the School Standards Minister.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Daily Mile initiatives are good for our young people’s physical and mental wellbeing, attainment, and readiness to learn in the classroom. Will the Minister therefore undertake to look at how these initiatives can be more widely rolled out in schools and also supported across Government?
Anne Milton
The School Standards Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question. This is not just about classroom learning—there is no doubt about that. There are all sorts of initiatives that make a difference not only to how much children learn but their readiness to learn.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
This Wednesday is National Numeracy Day. Speaking as a mathematician—not a historian—I welcome the fantastic work that the Government are doing to increase critical basic maths participation for longer in our schools, especially for girls. Does the Minister agree that, as our all-party group on maths and numeracy report on early years highlighted last year, we need to invest more in basic skills in maths-focused learning and teacher training for early years education, so that through the development of number sense, all children can flourish in maths once they get to school?
Mr Speaker
It is also Mental Health Awareness Week, colleagues, as I am sure you will all be aware. I commend the ribbon to you—on top of the important point that the hon. Lady has made.
Anne Milton
I fear that when I take the national numeracy test on Wednesday, as I intend to do, my stress levels will be rising; I gave up maths at 15 after I took O-level. We should be shocked that one in two adults have the numeracy skills of an 11-year-old or younger—the figure is one in six for English—and that 11 million adults lack basic digital skills. We live in a rarefied atmosphere in this place, and some of us find it quite extraordinary to appreciate those facts. The test on Wednesday is a must for every Member of this House. I hope that they will join me in taking it, tweeting the picture, and making sure that everybody understands the need to be numerate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, it is planned that Christ Church Church of England Secondary Academy will open in September 2021. Feasibility studies have been completed on the proposed site on School Road in Yardley Wood and will be shared with local residents at ward meetings in advance of the formal planning application in the late autumn.
Steve McCabe
I am grateful for that information. About this time last year, Ministers and officials told us that they could afford to close Baverstock school in Druids Heath because they had more than sufficient places in south Birmingham. Now it transpires that around that time they were planning to build another school a mile and a half down the road on playing fields used by local residents, including Maypole Juniors FC, for a variety of recreational activities. Can the Minister talk us through the economics of his decision?
Nick Gibb
The decision to locate and build the new school in Yardley Wood rather than on the Baverstock site is supported by Birmingham City Council, as that location will help address the need for new secondary school places not only in the Selly Oak area but in the neighbouring Hall Green area. The feasibility study shows that the site can accommodate a school and make greater use of the playing fields, and will significantly improve sporting facilities for both pupils and the local community.
Mr Speaker
No, no. Gainsborough in Lincolnshire is a splendid place, but it is a considerable distance from south Birmingham. I know that I can rely on the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to give us his thoughts on another matter at a later point in our proceedings, but not much later, I am sure.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It was wonderful to see “Three Girls” triumph at the BAFTAs yesterday, and that was also a demonstration of what happens when agencies fail. Schools and colleges must have regard to the Department’s statutory safeguarding guidance, “Keeping children safe in education”. Ofsted has published a document setting out the approach inspectors should take to inspecting safeguarding. Inspectors will always report on whether arrangements for safeguarding children and learners are effective.
Fiona Onasanya
In my constituency, the schools that serve our 16 and 17-year-olds and that have sustained the biggest cuts were graded level 3 by Ofsted, which means that they are now deemed to require improvement. Does the Minister agree that the average of £300 less per pupil is having a negative impact?
Nadhim Zahawi
The same safeguarding duties apply for 16 and 17-year-olds as for children of any age. That would be the message that I would send to the hon. Lady’s school.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Sixteen and 17-year-olds are overrepresented in the secure residential estate. Instead of addressing capacity issues, last year, in the face of opposition, the Government changed legislation so that the most vulnerable children from England and Wales can now be placed in Scotland, miles away from their families, friends, schools and the health professionals who support them. Written questions that I have asked show that the Minister has made no attempt to look at the impact of this dire legislative change. Why is that?
Nadhim Zahawi
Placing any child or young person more than 20 miles away from their area requires the agreement of the director of children’s services. Children should always be placed where appropriate and the director of children’s services must make that decision.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
We protected the 16-to-19 funding base rate for all types of further education providers in the 2015 spending review. I should point out that the additional investment for the new T-levels to increase hours of learning from 600 to 900 per session will result in £550 million by the time of their roll-out. We are also spending £20 million to help teachers with T-levels, and there is a host of other funding going into FE, not least the restructuring fund—£726 million was made available by the Treasury. There is also the local growth fund for capital and the strategic college improvement fund.
Gareth Snell
What the Minister really said there, in a very long-winded way, was that there is no new funding. T-levels do not exist yet, and the funding she has re-announced already exists. Some £1.3 million would have been available to the colleges and further education establishments in my constituency had the Department not redirected the underspend between 2014 and 2017. I simply ask her: can we have it back, please?
Anne Milton
As I pointed out earlier, we have a post-18 funding review going on and we are looking at the resilience of the FE sector—
Anne Milton
The hon. Gentleman was shaking his head, but perhaps he just had a fly buzzing around his ears.
We are looking at resilience. I was at Leicester College last week—it was a fabulous visit to a fabulous college—and, interestingly, it said that employers and universities are now coming to it. The opportunities for FE colleges to generate income through apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy have never been better.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that work has now started on the new £17 million high-tech and skills centre at South Devon College in Paignton. Does she agree that this funding makes the college the ideal place to be one of the first to deliver T-levels?
Anne Milton
I do not want to jump a stage in the announcements, but I have to say that South Devon College is clearly doing a wonderful job putting in that new facility and, I have no doubt, working very closely with local employers.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, Hull College has been one of the recipients of Fresh Start funding. However, a condition of the funding is that the college can spend only 60% of its income on staff, which has led to its having to get rid of 231 full-time equivalent posts—one in three jobs going from Hull College. Will the Minister explain where the figure of 60% came from, and how will she make the process more transparent so that people can actually understand what is happening?
Anne Milton
I am very aware that Hull College has had record amounts of funding put in, and we are working very closely with it to make sure that we get a sustainable solution for learners in the hon. Lady’s area. Good colleges, and I see this as I go around the country, are about having good financial management and good leadership, both of which are crucial. I know that the FE commissioner and my team in the Department for Education will continue to work closely with the hon. Lady to make sure that we get the right solution for Hull.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
At the beginning of the year, we invited views through a call for evidence on the status and content of personal, social and health and economic education, and we spoke to a range of expert groups. We are considering the evidence we have gathered, and we will make an announcement on the subject later in the year.
Philip Davies
Will the Minister work with Gamble Aware and other problem gambling charities such as YGAM—the Young Gamblers Education Trust—to ensure that schoolchildren understand gambling and the dangers of gambling addiction, especially given that the Government, wrongly in my view, currently allow 16-year-olds to gamble on the national lottery and scratchcards?
Nick Gibb
Some schools already choose to teach about the dangers of gambling in their curriculum—for example, in their PSHE provision. During the recent call for evidence, we heard from a number of problem gambling charities, including Gamble Aware, and we are considering the evidence that they submitted.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of integrated user-friendly programmes is crucial to delivering good PSHE in primary schools, and will he recognise the work of organisations such as 1decision and Headway, which I have the pleasure of hosting in Parliament today?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Government recognise the important role that family and friends play in caring for children who are unable to live with their parents. We have set clear duties on local authorities to support children living with family or friend carers, regardless of their legal status.
Melanie Onn
I find that answer particularly interesting because that tells me that the Government are doing absolutely nothing. Three quarters of kinship care families experience severe financial hardship. Does the Minister agree with me that kinship carers should get the same rights and allowances as foster carers, and will he take a first step by agreeing to discount tax credits from the benefit cap for kinship carers?
Nadhim Zahawi
Kinship carers actually have access to benefit entitlements in the same way as birth parents.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
On Friday night, I held a crime forum in Corsham, and outreach to carers and parents by schools was regularly discussed. Corsham high school already employs a person to do this outreach, and a lot of charities also work in this space. Are there any plans by the Government to review support and to share best practice, which can encourage social mobility?
Nadhim Zahawi
As part of our social mobility action plan, we are looking at all these issues. I would be very happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
Official data shows that there were 4,600 fewer English full-time undergraduate students receiving equipment from disabled students’ allowances. This is expected, because we knew the numbers would fall once students had to pay £200 towards the cost of computer equipment. Evaluation of the impact of this change is currently under way.
Marsha De Cordova
The truth is that the number of students in receipt of the disabled students’ allowance for essential equipment has fallen by nearly 30% since the £200 up-front fee was introduced. Given that this charge is clearly preventing disabled students from accessing the essential equipment they need to further their studies, will the Minister commit today to reversing that £200 fee?
Mr Gyimah
I think the hon. Lady misunderstands the situation. The fact that the number of students who are accessing the £200 has gone down does not mean that they are lacking in equipment. The truth is that computer ownership is now common among all students, with students spending on average around £250 on computers. As DSAs are not intended to cover all student costs, we think it is reasonable to ask students to contribute towards the cost of computer equipment.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Social mobility is at the heart of our programmes and my own priorities. We have announced a number of steps, including delivery plans for a further six opportunity areas, and a pilot scheme to help parents improve their children’s early language and literacy skills at home.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. As we rightly pay tribute to the amazing Dame Tessa Jowell, who pioneered Sure Start centres, is now not the moment for us to come together across this House and recognise that boosting the early years is the route to social mobility in this country? Even George Osborne said that to the Education Committee the week before last. Will the Secretary of State work with me and others in the all-party parliamentary groups to look again at how we restart the Sure Start programme and to give life to maintained nursery schools, which do so much for quality early education in some of our most deprived communities?
Damian Hinds
We absolutely come together in recognising the fundamental importance of the early years. I am afraid it is all too depressing a fact that, from what happens from age zero to five, so much is predictable of what will happen in later life. Addressing that involves a number of different strands, one of which is what happens in the home, and that is perhaps what has had least attention hitherto. The work of children’s centres is also important, and there are over 2,000 children’s centres across the country. It also matters what happens in childcare and early years settings, and we now have many more young disadvantaged children—71% of eligible two-year-olds—benefiting from the 15 hours at age two.
Sammy Wilson
I congratulate the Government on the additional funding that they have made available for the expansion of grammar schools, especially since grammar schools have traditionally been the mode by which many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to improve their education chances. To access funding, what steps must schools take to show that they are genuinely improving access to academically gifted youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Damian Hinds
That is an incredibly important question. Northern Ireland has a particularly strong record on educational outcomes when we look at the international tables. The right hon. Gentleman asks specifically what schools need to do to bid into the capital fund for selective schools. They would have to submit a fair access and partnership plan and, at a minimum, commit to prioritising pupil premium pupils in their admissions criteria. They would also have to re-examine their admission or testing arrangements and undertake outreach to support access for disadvantaged pupils.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
By 2019-20, we will be spending an extra £1 billion annually on higher funding rates to deliver 30 hours of free childcare. The rates are based on our review of childcare costs, which was described as both thorough and wide-ranging by the National Audit Office. We have commissioned new research to understand providers’ current costs.
Afzal Khan
According to Ofsted, the number of childminders dropped once again in the last three months of 2017. We now have over 15,000 fewer childminders than there were in 2012. Does the Minister believe that funding levels have played a part in this dramatic drop-off? If not, how does he explain it?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are spending record amounts on childcare—£6 billion in total. If we look at parents who got their 30 hours of childcare for three and four-year-olds, we see that 377,000 codes have been issued for the summer term. The system is working.
Dan Carden
Evidence to the Treasury Committee shows that the Government’s scheme is making childcare cheaper only for those already using it and failing to bring parents into work. How have Ministers created a system that pushes child carers into poverty and out of business, and prices out the poorest families in most need, like those in north Liverpool?
Nadhim Zahawi
Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised that I disagree with those words. A lone parent has to earn just over £6,500 and a couple just over £13,000 to be eligible for the 30-hours three and four-year-old offer. The Secretary of State spoke about the two-year-old 15 hour disadvantage offer and that same 15 hours for three and four-year-olds as well. The evidence is clear that the money is being targeted at those who are in most need.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The latest evidence that the 30-hours policy is underfunded came in the shape of a survey of providers conducted by the National Association of Head Teachers. It showed that a quarter of providers believe that 30-hours children have displaced three and four-year-olds who are entitled to only 15 hours of free childcare—the children most likely to be disadvantaged. Will the Minister tell us whether this was in the plan for this policy? If not, does he not agree with the chorus of voices telling him it is time to relieve the financial pressures on providers so that the poorest children do not miss out?
Nadhim Zahawi
This year, we will be enhancing our annual survey of childcare and early years providers with more detailed research on provider finances and childcare costs. This will provide us with robust, up-to-date evidence on childcare costs. I remind the hon. Lady that funding to local authorities for three and four-year-olds, delivered through the early years national funding formula, has increased from £4.56 to £4.94. As of April 2017, our funding rate to deliver the entitlement for two-year-olds increased by 7% in every local authority.
Mr Speaker
We move on to Topical questions. I give notice to the House that I would like to move on to tributes to Baroness Jowell at 3.30 pm, so it is important that colleagues are either characteristically or uncharacteristically, as the case may be, brief.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Last week I announced the drive for more good school places at selective schools, free schools and faith schools, alongside others, to meet local demand and to strengthen partnership between independent schools and the state sector. This will build on our investment in creating over 800,000 new schools places since 2010. Great education is all about great teachers, and this month I announced plans for a clearer system of accountability, freeing up teachers to focus on what really matters in the classroom. If children arrive at school struggling with language they are at a disadvantage and that hampers social mobility, as we were just discussing. I have announced two new schemes to help to close the word gap, including a pilot to provide practical tools to parents and funding for local authorities to share good practice.
Luke Graham
Currently, Scottish universities receive about £560 million research and development funding from the UK Government. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to guarantee that investment post Brexit and to support spin-off companies spreading wealth across the UK?
Damian Hinds
In the industrial strategy we have set out a long-term ambition to raise UK investment in R&D to 2.4% by 2027, and our guarantee of Horizon 2020 funding for UK participants remains in place.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
A hard Brexit could see Scotland miss out on millions of pounds in European research funding, damaging the success of our universities. The Universities Minister said that we will not participate in Horizon 2020’s successor programme at any price. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much would be considered too much?
Damian Hinds
We have to look at this and consider value for money. My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to say “not at any price”. The UK, including Scotland, remains an extremely attractive destination for these research projects.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The Department provides a range of support to schools, including a national deal to help schools to save money on such things as energy, where there is a 10% saving, or photocopiers and other computer equipment, where there are savings of up to 40%. We are also providing buying hub advice in pilots in the north-west and the south-west and a new framework from this September to help to drive down the costs of agency supply staff.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the unintended consequence of the Progress 8 assessment system, as The Times Educational Supplement put it this week, is that all the losers look the same—they are schools in white, working-class areas with high levels of pupil premium. On the current measures, this will result in Ofsted having no choice but to downgrade these schools, compounding the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, and putting off prospective academy sponsors. What action is the Minister taking?
Nick Gibb
Actually, Progress 8 carries widespread support in the sector. It is a far better method of assessing schools than the previous method—five or more GCSEs of A* to C—because it measures progress and takes into account the starting point of pupils when they start secondary school. We think it is a good measure. We are looking at some of the details of the outliers when we calculate Progress 8, and we will have more to say on that in due course.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
That is a really important question. We are piloting new approaches to mental health assessment for children in care. The pilots seek to address concerns about the current mental health assessment for children and young people entering care, and to build on the recommendations of the expert working group on mental health.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to identify the challenge in the north-east—a region with particularly strong primary schools and early years settings, but with more of a challenge at secondary school. She is absolutely right that we need to work doubly hard, and I look forward to working with her.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend the Skills Minister is in very regular contact with the IFA, and I also met it last week. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is absolutely correct to identify that if we are going to make the step change that we need in the skills and productivity of this country, it is going to be all about driving quality.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
Yes, the money we announced was for those schemes, but we are spending £500 million between 2016 and 2020 on music and arts in our schools. We value music and the arts in our schools—they are hugely important—and those schools with the best academic results also tend to have very strong arts, music and sports facilities and offer that as well.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on with her question. Institutions and students need information on the support students are entitled to. We will be making information available for the 2019-20 academic year as soon as possible.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister for sixth-form colleges be willing to meet me to discuss some of the financial and capital needs facing Britain’s best sixth-form college, St Dominic’s in my constituency?
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr Gyimah
The issues of mental health in our universities are extremely concerning, and I am working with the National Union of Students on its plans. Universities UK’s step change project, which calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority, is an important one, and one I support.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that when the hated 1% pay cap is lifted, the balance will be paid entirely from central funds and will not be foisted on to the schools themselves?
Nick Gibb
The Government’s position is clear: the public sector pay cap is no longer in place and we have adopted a more flexible approach to public sector pay. We have asked the School Teachers’ Review Body to use this flexibility to target the next pay award to promote recruitment and retention.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
What more can be done to help companies such as Turnock Ltd in my constituency and its owner, Gordon Stone, who has apprentices busy making Christmas lighting for cities and towns across the country?
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
I congratulate the firm on my hon. Friend’s patch and am delighted it has apprenticeships. The National Apprenticeship Service is there to help at any time.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
On Monday 7 May, one of my constituents was stabbed in a local park. Today, he would have been sitting his GCSEs, but instead he is in an intensive care unit in a London hospital having undergone life-saving surgery. Does the Secretary of State agree that my constituent, having been a victim of a serious knife crime, should not suffer now or in later life as a result of not being awarded GCSE grades, and will he put pressure on the exam boards to allow my constituent to be awarded the grades he was predicted to get?
Damian Hinds
All our hearts go out to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family. I do not know what is possible, but I will meet him as a matter of urgency, if he wishes, to discuss the matter.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
What changes is the Minister considering to ensure that the apprenticeship levy can be used to fund the type of training schemes and shorter courses that employers are demanding and which will help to get more people back into work?
Anne Milton
The apprenticeship levy is designed to make sure we get the money into training and end-point assessment and is critical to driving up quality. One year of 20%-off-the-job training for apprenticeships will ensure a rise in the quality of training.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sure that a brain of the brilliance of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) can produce a question of fewer than 20 words.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Whitworth School in Spennymoor has had to close its sixth form. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Anne Milton
I hesitate to say I can change the world, but I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the details and make sure we protect the needs of learners in her constituency.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
West Oxfordshire schools are frequently small and rural. What is being done to help them?
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
On Friday, the University of Chester Academies Trust wrote to its staff at two schools in my constituency, University Academy Kidsgrove and University Primary Academy, to announce savage cuts. Will the Minister meet me and other colleagues with UCAT schools in their constituencies immediately to talk about an urgent solution?
Damian Hinds
The schools Minister and I will be delighted to meet the hon. Lady.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Has the Minister given any further consideration to my call for a review of the pupil premium to ensure it is an even more effective tool for fostering social mobility?
Damian Hinds
The pupil premium is a really important structural tool to make sure that funding is skewed towards those who need it most. We keep it under review, taking advice from the Education Endowment Foundation, and I promise my hon. Friend that we will continue to do so.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
What progress has been made towards the development of a memorandum of understanding between the devolved and UK Governments clarifying how higher education institutions in Wales will be accorded adequate representation in UK Research and Innovation structures?
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
In the light of information obtained recently by the National Deaf Children’s Society, will the Government review their funding decisions as a matter of urgency to ensure that an entire generation of children with special educational needs are not let down?
Nadhim Zahawi
This Government have launched the most ambitious reforms of special educational needs and disabilities provision in a generation, and are committed to improving outcomes for children with SEND, especially those who are deaf as well.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I recently met secondary headteachers in my constituency who told me that they were almost at breaking point as a result of cut after cut after cut. When will the Government fund all our schools properly, for the sake of all our children?
Damian Hinds
Funding for our schools is at the highest level that it has ever been, and we have committed ourselves to protecting per-pupil real-terms funding for the system as a whole over the next couple of years. I recognise that there have been cost pressures on schools, and I am committed to continuing to work with them to do what we can to bear down on those costs.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Time is short, but I wish good luck to all the young people who are starting their standard assessment tests and GCSEs this week.
The Government claim that they have increased funding per pupil in my constituency. Does that increase take account of inflation and national pay increases for teachers and staff?
Nick Gibb
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are spending record amounts on school funding: £42.4 billion this year, rising to £43.5 billion next year. We recognise that there have been cost pressures on schools, and we are giving them a range of help and advice on how to deal with those pressures. For instance, there are national schemes for buying energy, computers and other equipment to help schools to manage their budgets at a time when they are having to do so.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
How does the Secretary of State expect local authorities to retain special services for vulnerable children, let alone share them, when they have faced—on average— 40% cuts in total funding in the last eight years?
Nadhim Zahawi
We have made £200 billion available to local authorities in the spending review, and high-needs funding has actually risen from £5 billion in 2013 to £6 billion this year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In the last few weeks, we have tragically seen the deaths of another three students at Bristol University. What are the Government doing to ensure that the NHS and universities work more closely together to improve student mental health services?
Mr Gyimah
I am aware of the tragic deaths of students at Bristol University. The Government’s Green Paper on mental health for students—that is, children aged between 16 and 25—is focusing particularly on how tertiary education and the NHS can join up their services to prevent such tragic incidents from happening again.
Tributes: Baroness Jowell
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We come now to tributes to the late Baroness Jowell, former Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood. While there is not time today for many right hon. or hon. Members to speak, I know that many of you would like to record your memories of her, and her contribution both to Parliament and to the nation. I am confident—I repeat, I am confident—that there will be other opportunities for you to do so in the coming days and weeks.
Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, colleagues in all parts of the House: in offering my own heartfelt condolences to Tessa’s family, together with my own deeply felt personal tribute, I shall attempt for once to lead by example, and be uncharacteristically brief.
The embodiment of empathy, a stellar, progressive change-maker, and a well of practical compassion without rival, Tessa Jowell was the best of us. I rue her tragic and untimely passing, which leaves all of us in this place, and countless others beyond it, infinitely and permanently poorer. May Tessa rest in peace.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Before I pay tribute to Baroness Jowell, may I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House that I may not be able to remain to hear all the tributes as I am due to welcome the President of Panama to Downing Street this afternoon?
I am sure the whole House was deeply saddened by the passing of Dame Tessa Jowell this weekend. She was a most extraordinary politician, colleague and campaigner, but she was also a loving mother and wife, and our thoughts and sympathies at this time must be with her family: her husband David, her children Jess and Matthew, and her stepchildren Eleanor, Luke and Annie.
Jess said this morning: “It is the greatest honour of my life to be her daughter,” but, Mr Speaker, we were all honoured to share this Chamber with Dame Tessa, and we are here to pay tribute to her life and work—to her warmth, her compassion and her incredible strength of character.
I was fortunate enough to meet Tessa while she was confronting her illness, and her dignity and courage were as humbling as they were inspirational. She was resolutely brave, not only in how she faced her treatment, but also through the way in which she spoke so openly about her illness and campaigned tirelessly for greater brain cancer research. Even at what must have been some of her most difficult moments, her compassion for others shone through.
Like many across the House, Tessa began her career in politics as a councillor, becoming an MP in 1992 and entering Government in 1997. Whether as councillor, a Back Bencher or a Minister, she was defined by her devotion to public service.
Throughout her time in Parliament, she would always reach out to an MP of any party who was going through a tough time; whether it was personal or professional, she would be there for them. For Tessa was a person first and a politician second. And nowhere was that humanity greater than with the support she provided to the loved ones of those who died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and 7/7. Her advocacy was so compelling because Dame Tessa was never one to take no for an answer, something I believe she put down to her Scottish roots.
Dame Tessa certainly refused to take no for an answer when many said that London should not even bid for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. As Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, she persuaded Tony Blair and the Cabinet, the civil service and ultimately the whole country to get behind the bid. That historic summer of 2012, which brought us together so powerfully as a nation, would simply not have happened without her.
Tessa Jowell’s political achievements were outstanding. But those who know her will also never forget her sense of humour. For many years after London won that Olympic bid the screensaver on her phone was a photo of her and David Beckham after the announcement—hugging. As she said: “You can be a feminist but still be susceptible to a David Beckham moment.”
Dame Tessa brought all those qualities of compassion, passion and determination to her final, and perhaps most important, campaign: on brain cancer. Her impact was reflected in yesterday’s announcement of the Tessa Jowell brain cancer research fund, and it will live on in an annual Tessa Jowell global symposium, to be hosted by the UK, to bring together the best clinical, scientific and academic minds on brain cancer.
No one who heard her extraordinary speech in the House of Lords when she spoke about her own brain tumour could have failed to be moved. As she said in that speech:
“In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it is lived, but how it draws to a close.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
Dame Tessa lived out those words. To the end, she fought not for herself, not for her party, but for everyone affected by this most cruel of diseases. It was typical of the spirit with which she approached her whole life.
The outpouring of tributes this weekend, from those who had the privilege to know her and those who did not, shows the extent to which her courage and service inspired us all. Her legacy will live on.
Mr Speaker
Thank you, Prime Minister. Colleagues, it is typical of our beloved Chaplain, the Rev. Rose, that she joins us for these exchanges. I call the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for arranging this half hour of tributes to Tessa Jowell. We are grateful to you for that, and we are grateful to the Prime Minister for what she has just said about Tessa. Right across the House, people were devastated when they heard the news of Tessa’s death. Like the Prime Minister, I send my condolences to her family and friends and to everyone who knew her well. The media coverage yesterday and this morning goes way beyond the coverage of the death of a normal politician. It goes way beyond that because it brings in the way in which she lived her life and the way in which she died.
I knew Tessa for a very long time. She was a warm and compassionate person. Prior to coming to this House in 1992 as the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, she was a councillor in Camden in the 1970s, which is where I first met her—I in my role as a union organiser and she in her role as a councillor. There is always a basic synergy between the two. She was Labour’s candidate in a by-election in Ilford North in 1978, and many of us trudged along many streets in support of her at that time. Unfortunately, she was not elected then, but she came into the House sometime after that. In Camden, Tessa was instrumental in trying to bring an end to the pay dispute in 1979 by offering us lots of money. When we wanted a national settlement, she offered us a local one. It was very kind of her. It was an attempt to try to support low-paid workers in her constituency in Camden.
In Government, Tessa was absolutely determined to bring about Sure Start, which was one of the great achievements of that Government. The idea was that all children and all families should have a place and be supported in the difficult times that they were going through. Sure Start helped to lift 1 million children out of poverty, and I thank her for that. I also thank her for being an active NHS campaigner in London from the moment she entered this House in 1992. I worked with her on that, and I was very happy to do so.
Tessa’s pivotal moment was helping to win the 2012 Olympics for London, when she persuaded a probably reluctant Prime Minister, an undoubtedly reluctant civil service and a probably reluctant just-about-everybody-else with her amazingly penetrating stare, saying, “Well, you’ve got to do it!” And of course, everyone had to do it and they did. She then showed her skills in diplomacy by putting together a team consisting of Lord Coe, Ken Livingstone and herself to deliver the Olympics for London. I have never forgotten her describing the chances of a British gold medal in taekwondo to a meeting of Labour MPs. I do not think that any of us knew what taekwondo was, but we did not want to admit that to her, so we all said, “Well done, yes, it’s bound to go well.” She actually tried taekwondo, and she was just as formidable at that as she was later in putting her case to the House of Lords. So, well done Tessa on that.
Tessa’s recent speech in the House of Lords was just amazing. We live our lives and enjoy our lives and none of us wants it to end, but she was able to convey to the House and to the world that living your life is also about how you end your life and about the legacy that you leave behind. It was such a brave and selfless speech, and it took so much out of her, but she was determined to do it. Using her platform as a Member of Parliament in the House of Lords to raise awareness of brain cancer was truly amazing: well done her. She will be remembered for her passion, for her sense of social justice, for her sense of inclusion and for her sense of fun in dealing with people. Above all, she will be remembered for the manner of her leaving us. Her children and family are obviously totally devastated, but I think they can also be very proud of the legacy she has left behind. It is wonderful that we now have the Tessa Jowell brain cancer research fund, and I hope that we will all support that so that others do not have to suffer in the awful way that she suffered. She taught us how to live, and I think she also taught us how to die.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said and for the way in which he said it. I call Sir Hugo Swire.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I have been in this House since 2001—far less time than some colleagues—and I have come to distinguish between when the House comes together to lament a former colleague because it feels it ought to and when it comes together to lament a departed colleague because it feels it wants to. There can be no doubt that the latter is the case this afternoon. Many people in the House knew Tessa far better than I did, worked with her far more closely and were far more ideologically wedded to her beliefs, but it was my privilege—as much as being in opposition can be a privilege—to be the shadow Culture Secretary when she was Secretary of State, and I want to take a few seconds to thank her for her extraordinarily unpartisan behaviour.
Tessa embodied the best in a Minister—one who goes about their business trying to do what they believe is in the best interests of the country, not necessarily of the party. It was of course my job to rubbish the Olympic bid and to rubbish the dome, both of which I did extremely unconvincingly, I am sure. However, Tessa was unfailingly courteous to me and my family, and I miss her as much as anyone else.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On behalf of the Scottish National party, I express my deep condolences to Dame Tessa’s family and friends and note the passing of one of the truly great parliamentarians of the past 30 years. I had the great pleasure of shadowing Tessa at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport from 2001 and for the Olympics from 2005, and it would be impossible to find a more accommodating, supportive and open colleague. Even if she furiously disagreed with me, as she quite often did, she was able to do so in the most charming and personable of ways. I liked Tessa immensely. I enjoyed her company, and she was always immensely knowledgeable of every detail of her brief.
I remember when the London Olympic games were first announced, and I can say now that there was not a huge amount of enthusiasm among the SNP group for what we saw as further spending in London, but that was important to Tessa, and she had to ensure that the whole UK bought into the project. She selflessly went around the UK in order to recruit people as champions for the London Olympics, and she even convinced us of the merits of the case.
The games will be her enduring legacy, but so will all her work on Sure Start and the incredible, brave ways in which she faced the months at the end of her life. I only saw Tessa a couple of times during that period, but she was still the same Tessa—determined and feisty, but always personable and charming—and she would always remind me of the contribution of the UK music industry to the economy. I will miss her, and I wish her family all the best. Rest in peace, Tessa.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Tessa Jowell was the embodiment of that old women’s movement saying: “The personal is political.” For Tessa, the personal and the political were completely intertwined. Her devotion to her children and her stepchildren was what underpinned her drive for Sure Start children’s centres, with parenting support at their heart. Her enjoyment of her family and their prowess in sport was what lay behind her wanting to get the Olympics for the UK. She wanted them and the Paralympics to be shared and to inspire every child and young person across the country.
Tessa had a unique personal style. She befriended people who were struggling, had difficulties or were powerless, whom she felt she could support, but she also befriended the powerful in order to get them to back her progressive causes. She was no softie, though. Everybody has quite rightly said how charming and nice she was, but there was steel behind those clear blue eyes. As her constituency neighbour for 23 years, we went to countless meetings together and worked together on countless campaigns. She was always courteous and polite to the police, the schools, the hospitals and the council, but if ever she felt that they were obfuscating or letting people down, she would be tougher than anybody. She was true Labour, as an activist, as a councillor, as a Member of this House and as a Member of the Lords, but she was never afraid to work cross-party for the causes that she supported or to forge friendships across parties. We are so sad for her family, especially David, Jess and Matthew, but I know they will be strong because she will have prepared them for the loss they faced, just as she supported, on behalf of the Government, those who faced loss after the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. We send them all our sympathy.
All around the country there will be people who are listening to these tributes and who have heard of Tessa’s death who worked with her, who knew her and who will be feeling sad but also immensely proud that they can say, “I knew Tessa Jowell.”
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a privilege to pay tribute to my predecessor as MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, Baroness Tessa Jowell of Brixton, on behalf of the thousands of my constituents whose lives she touched.
Tessa served our area as the MP for Dulwich—later Dulwich and West Norwood—for 23 years from 1992 with a commitment to making a difference every single day. Her legacy is extraordinary, from five brilliant new schools to Sure Start centres, the turnaround of King’s College Hospital and the countless community groups she championed. Tessa is much loved across the constituency for the things she delivered, but perhaps even more for her deep empathy and compassion, her ability to connect with people and the way she worked collaboratively to empower others.
Tessa’s legacy is national as well as local. Sure Start was born of her passionate belief in the need to address the disadvantage affecting children at the earliest opportunity, and Sure Start centres have transformed the lives of countless families. It was Tessa’s vision, which she nurtured from idea to completion, that the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics should be not just a singular sporting event but the vehicle for transformative long-term investment in east London and the most authentic and glorious celebration of London and Londoners that we have ever seen.
I last saw Tessa a few weeks ago, when her presence lit up this Chamber as she attended the debate in her honour led by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). Tessa’s commitment to using her devastating brain tumour diagnosis to campaign to make a difference for others was no surprise to anyone who knew her, but it was nevertheless extraordinary and extremely brave. At a reception following the debate, Tessa was determined to speak. Although her language was much affected by her tumour, among the words she managed to articulate were “determined,” “love” and “lucky”—the essence of Tessa, whose determination and love led her to deliver so much and who leaves so many of us feeling lucky to have known her.
Tessa’s legacy in Dulwich and West Norwood is in our schools, our hospital and our community, and it is in our culture of campaigning, which puts people at its centre. We are grateful to have had so much of her time. Our thoughts and love are with David, Jessie and Matthew and the rest of Tessa’s family on their deep loss. I hope they will take some comfort from knowing that Tessa leaves the world a far better place than she found it, and that there are many in Dulwich and West Norwood, and across the country, who will ensure that her tremendous legacy lives on.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On behalf of Liberal Democrats in Parliament and, indeed, throughout the country, I offer our condolences to the family and friends of Tessa Jowell.
Tessa was already a Cabinet Minister when I was first elected in 2001 so, unlike others, I cannot claim to have had a close association with her as she made her way up through the ranks. When I speak to my colleagues and former colleagues who did know her well, either from her time in office here or from working on the 2012 London Olympics, I get the same messages time and again: always cheerful; good at building consensus; boundless energy; and a natural team player. Perhaps less well known and less remarked upon is the fact that all those qualities were displayed towards not just MPs, peers and Ministers, but all others with whom she worked in Parliament and in the civil service. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I acquired a member of my private office who had previously worked as part of Tessa’s private office in the then Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Despite it being more than four years since he had worked as part of Tessa’s team, he always spoke warmly—and with very little prompting—about how great it had been to work with her. Like so many others, he spoke with pride and affection. He was always kind enough never to draw a direct comparison with his experience working for me; for once, I was sensible enough not to ask.
Although one would not have known it to listen to her speak, Tessa had a long- standing association with the north-east of Scotland. She was educated there, in St Margaret’s School for Girls in Aberdeen and later at Aberdeen University, where she was both a graduate and an honorary graduate. The university principal, Professor Sir Ian Diamond, spoke yesterday of her helpfulness and humanity. Unlike some universities, the University of Aberdeen has never been over-represented on these Benches but—I declare an interest as an alumnus—I like to think that what we lack in quantity we have been able to make up for in quality. I have never been able to think of a better way of advancing that argument than by reference to Tessa Jowell.
Tessa Jowell leaves a legacy that is substantial in politics, and it will be enduring. I think that she would be a little frustrated to think that her life might be defined by the way in which it ended but, as a member of the all-party group on brain tumours, I want to comment on the enormous impact she has made for those who suffer from brain cancers. A couple of years ago, I raised with David Cameron at Prime Minister’s questions the subject of funding for brain tumour research. I was astonished at the response I got—emails and messages from people thanking me for raising the issue and saying that this was something that affected their son, daughter, husband, wife, friend or neighbour. They came from people whose lives had been touched by the condition—some of whom I knew quite well—but who never felt able to talk about it. For some reason that is well beyond my understanding, brain cancers seem to be the last cancer taboo in our society, but because of the way in which Tessa Jowell dealt with hers—with courage and candour—I am sure that that taboo is weaker today than it has ever been. The money for research will doubtless help us to find better cures, but Tessa’s courage will be the biggest hope and encouragement to thousands.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Last month we held a debate on cancer and paid tribute to Tessa. Just before that debate, Tessa said to me, “This is not about me; this is about what comes next.” She would therefore not forgive me if I did not both welcome the new Government money that has been announced today and say that together we can go further. I look forward to working with the Government on the data sharing, clinical trials and research to come.
Having been helped by Tessa, having been friends with her and having been her employee, I saw the velvet and the steel in Tessa Jowell. She always got what she wanted, but she always wanted the best for others. The best advice she ever gave me—and gave anyone—was, “Never take no for an answer.” She never gave up. I wish to repeat the words from Tessa that I read out in the debate here last month:
“It was the honour of my life to be one of you, and I shall cheer on from the sidelines as you keep fighting the good fight. So remember our battle cry: living with, not dying of, cancer. For more people, for longer. Thank you.”
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I first really got to know Tessa when we were both very pregnant—I with my last child, and she with her first, Jessie. In those days, we did try to cuddle each other, but we were both slightly vertically challenged, so with these big bellies, it was—
Dame Margaret Hodge
It was jolly hard to get your arms around her, but that was what you always wanted to do with Tessa: you did want to give her a cuddle. I remember the early days of our relationship, when we would spend the time talking about nappies and sleepless nights on the one hand, and on the other discussing how we would make Labour electable and our latest very good idea. That was her, really; as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said, the personal was very much the political with Tessa.
Tessa was already a successful politician before she came into Parliament. I knew her when she was chair of social services in Camden, and she chaired the social services committee at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. She did incredibly radical things on diversity and on care for the elderly in the community. I well remember that she worked for a while for Birmingham City Council and tried to devise its policy for caring for the elderly outside of old people’s homes. She did what Tessa would always do: she spent endless nights in those homes so that she could really feel what the people who were living that life felt. That informed the way in which she devised policy.
As well as being a feminist—she was a feminist with many of us during the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s—Tessa was incredibly feminine. Her home was always filled with fresh flowers, and Friday was Tessa on the splurge, going to buy lots of flowers. While her husband David cooked the meals, she created the ambiance that made people feel positive and comfortable, with beautiful things around the room. She was the go-to person if you wanted any advice on style: for hair—we shared the same hairdresser; for fitness—she went to this absolutely ghastly place in Austria where they really pulled it out of you; and for the most beautiful clothes. When we went to Pontignano for an annual get-together of the Italian and UK left, we would go off for an afternoon to see what was in the Siena shops.
Tessa was a people-focused politician and a feminist, and she showed awesome courage all the way through her life, but particularly in her last years. Death is a part of all our lives, but the people who were with us yesterday remain a part of all our present and our future. Tessa touched countless people’s lives when she lived; their experience will form part of the legacy that she leaves behind. We salute her and celebrate who she was and what she achieved.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Tessa was the mother of Sure Start, and also Britain’s first Public Health Minister. She started some amazing things, including the teenage pregnancy strategy, which worked, and Sure Start itself, into which she threw so much of herself—literally. I was lucky enough to follow her into the Public Health job and to see some of the amazing work she had done. The things that were most valuable in Sure Start—not only the warmth, the empathy, and the focus on families and whole communities, but the ambition, the aspiration, and that wider support and emotion—were also all the things that we valued about Tessa and her life. What she saw in her own family, with David, Jessie and Matthew—all her family, for whom we now feel so much—was what she worked so hard to provide for other families throughout the country.
I know that when we think about Tessa and the Olympics, we are supposed to think about her steely determination in getting the games to happen. We are supposed to think about her amazing values of inclusion and diversity, which she infused throughout the Olympics, whether in the amazing Danny Boyle opening ceremony that she commissioned, the games makers she championed, or the sending of the torch all around the country. All that is true, but I cannot help but keep remembering a meeting before the London Olympics in which she briefed us in some detail, and with great frankness, about her plans to distribute condoms throughout the Olympic village. She said, “Well, there are going to be all these athletes with their beautiful bodies, and when they finish their races they’re going to have a lot of sex, and we have a responsibility to keep them safe!” That, in the end, along with the twinkle in her eye, was Tessa. She was completely down to earth and practical; she had no qualms or squeamishness about all aspects of people’s lives. That was what made her so remarkable—that down-to-earth quality and also the great visions that she had. We know that she leaves a huge legacy not just around cancer, not just around the Olympics, not just around Sure Start, and not just in the hearts of all those who met her and were inspired by her, but for all those who did not meet her but whose lives were changed for the better by the work that she did.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
In following my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as a former Public Health Minister, I can say that I was so glad that Tessa put the public health case for condoms during that briefing—once a Public Health Minister, always a Public Health Minister.
Tessa was a lovely and delightful person, but she was not a saint. There were a few off-the-record conversations and discussions that we had when she let rip with a few choice swear words. We were part of a relatively small group of colleagues—Hazel Blears, Jacqui Smith, Ruth Kelly, Baroness Scotland—who had a “Come Dine with Me” club. Occasionally we would try to escape this place, and one of us would cook for the rest of the group. I remember the papers got a sniff of this somewhere and said that we were plotting some terrible overthrow or what have you. To be honest, we just got together to have a nice glass of wine, give points for the food that we were being served by the person whose turn it was, and to have a good gossip about this place.
Tessa was a great listener. She was always hands on in every job that she did. In many respects, she sets an example for Ministers today and in the future. One thing about the jobs she did—whether it was Minister for Public Health, for the Olympics or for London—was that she put her heart and soul into them. She was not looking to the next job or the next promotion. She devoted herself to the job in hand. Truthfully, Tessa had so many firsts to be proud of, but she would have been a great Secretary of State for Health. Actually, she would have been a great Foreign Secretary, given her talent for bringing people together. At this very sad time, emotions will be raw for her family, but she will live on through them and their children. For all of us, she will live on in our hearts.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I first met Tessa in a stable. It was the 1992 general election, and I was the shadow Home Office Minister—the deputy to Roy Hattersley—covering policing. Roy said, “Go down to the stables where the Metropolitan police have their horses and get a photo opportunity with this candidate.” I pitched up somewhere, which must have been in the constituency, and saw this very lovely young candidate standing near three enormous horses snorting—there was not exactly fire coming out of their noses, but it was pretty close. If anyone has been close to one of those horses, they will know how big they are. The PR person said, “One of you has to get on that horse for the photograph.” I said, “Well, I’m only here to support Tessa.” I’ll tell you what: Tessa—and she was small—stepped up and stroked the nose of the horse, and in about two minutes, she was his best friend. She got up on the horse—I remember putting the hat on—and we had the photo opportunity. That was how I first met Tessa. When she arrived in this House, we already had something in common.
I have been in this place for quite a long time. I have seen some really superb parliamentarians on both sides of the House, but there are some who bring a certain sparkle to this place—they are just different. Mo Mowlam was one, and Tessa was as well. David Beckham was not the only person who got a hug from Tessa. If you pleased her or if you did something as part of her team, she gave you a hug. She liked to give a hug. She also brought fun into this place. Sometimes we are a bit dreary in these Chambers. If Tessa walked into a room, it felt like a bit of joy was coming through the door. I remember her with love and affection. I remember her enlivening this Parliament, which can sometimes be a bit dry and dusty. I especially remember that she had that quality of sparkle. Although I am a bit of a bad Christian, I still think of both of them—Mo Mowlam and Tessa—up there smiling and bringing joy wherever they are.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
There have been many wonderful tributes to Tessa. One of the many that would have pleased her hugely was yesterday’s from the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. He described in detail the rigour with which Tessa put forward her case in the now famous meeting at which she pitched the Olympics to him. Tessa described that same meeting to me a few years ago, and it was identical to Mr Blair’s description—with one addition. She said that at the end of the meeting she turned informally to him and said, “Do you want to be the Prime Minister who had the Olympics within their grasp and chose to turn away?” That, for me, was Tessa. She had learnt to weaponise the male ego, and woe betide any big beast that stood between her and one of her political objectives. That somebody could have an Olympic-sized vision and make it happen, yet do so leaving nothing but a trail of love and laughter, is a modern day political miracle. For those of us who knew her, she was that miracle. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Speaker
That was a very special tribute, and the reaction of the House to the hon. Gentleman tells its own story.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish to add my contribution and heartfelt words on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. I commend all who have spoken so far, including you, Mr Speaker. You have a tremendous grasp of the English language and set things out in a succinct and helpful way—we all appreciate that very much.
I may have only been here a short time, but I recall Dame Tessa Jowell’s wise and helpful contributions in this House both while I was here and before I came to the House. She had an everlasting smile. I always felt that she was a lady who I would not want to get on the wrong side of, as other Members have said, but she reached out to people everywhere. One of my constituents phoned me this morning to say that she was moved by Tessa’s life, and by her courage, strength and determination that shone through. Tessa touched the lives of many.
On a Thursday some three weeks ago, we had a debate in this Chamber on brain cancer. You were also present for that very emotional debate, Mr Speaker. Tessa sat right through the debate—very much a campaign warrior—not too far from where I stand now. She was so very obviously in pain, with her head gently resting on her husband’s shoulder, alongside her family, who were there to support her.
At this time of sorrow and grief, I say to Tessa’s husband, family, friends and the many colleagues in this House who knew her much better than I did: we have fond memories of a lady who we will all miss greatly, but we remember with joy what she did in this House right to the very end. God bless Tessa.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
We have heard a lot today about what Tessa did—her outstanding legacy of bringing the Olympics and Paralympics to London, and her amazing work—but I want to talk a little bit about how she did it. I remember a fantastic speech that she gave at the Labour party conference in 2005, when I was a newly elected MP. She spoke about her plans to roll out music education to every child, and mentioned a conversation that she had had with a lady in a tower block in Lambeth. She talked about that lady’s daughter, saying, “I want this music education programme to reach everyone. The test will be: will Rosa learn to play the violin?” I am pretty certain that Rosa, in that tower block in Lambeth, did get to play her violin.
I remember running into Tessa in the middle of the Olympic games, when she was incredibly busy and under pressure. I asked her, “What’s going on? How are you, Tessa?”, and she said, “Well, I’m living here for the next six weeks.” I said, “Gosh, are you not even going home? Do you have enough stuff with you?” and she said, “Yes. Essentially, me and Sebastian Coe are the joint mayors of the Olympic village.” I just knew that she was glorying in that amazing six weeks of tremendous sport.
A friend of mine sent me a text to say that she had been at a housing association trust, where a nervous young man had introduced Tessa as “Jessa Towell”. Tessa had just roared with laughter. My friend said that everybody in the room simply fell in love with Tessa at that moment. That is what she was—irresistible, charming and funny, but with a little bit of steel inside. She loved fashion. She could rock a frock and she liked to shop. In the end, the moments I treasure are the lifts home that she gave me, having some pretty salty conversations on the way as well.
In an era of fast food, fast politics and fast media, Tessa was a slow politician. I mean “slow” in the very best sense of the word: every word, every deed, measured out for kindness, for thoughtfulness and for compassion. Seamus Heaney wrote in “At the Wellhead”:
“Being with her
Was intimate and helpful, like a cure
You didn’t notice happening.”
She leaves a legacy in our hearts. Rest in peace, Tessa.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Tessa Jowell was both a very special person and a very special politician, and the qualities of one reinforced the brilliance of the other. She was the best friend that anyone could wish for: loyal, true, uplifting and empathetic. There are many people in this House and outside it who, when they found themselves at a low ebb, would know that Tessa was there for them, holding out love and support: never your judge and jury, always your friend and shelter in a storm.
She was quite simply full of love—full of love for her family, her friends, and the causes she believed in. She loved London, our great capital city. She loved it for its openness, its diversity, its endless opportunities, and its focus on tomorrow rather than yesterday. As a politician, she was a change-maker, a moderniser. Her mission was not to preserve Britain or seek illusory solace in nostalgia but to change it for the better—and always, always in a progressive direction. For her, Sure Start—the mission to give every child from whatever background the best possible start in life—was not just a Government programme but a symbol of what she believed the United Kingdom should stand for.
For the London Olympics, she not only played a vital role in winning the bid but helped to shape the character of what, for many of us, was the greatest moment of Britishness and the coming together of the country in our lifetimes. She understood more than anyone that how we hosted the games was as important as what happened in the competition itself. She gave us our golden summer. She gave the country our united golden moment.
Her love and empathy were there for the families of the victims of terrorism on 9/11 and in the 7/7 London underground bombings. There was Tessa, full of love and the desire to help—the human embodiment of the total antithesis of the hatred that had caused those people their grief.
And in her final illness, she was determined not to go quietly into that good night. She fought for better treatment for cancer sufferers and for international collaboration on how to treat the disease, and—as the Secretary of State can testify—used all her firmness and charm to ensure that Ministers backed their words of support with the very welcome new resources announced for cancer research today. She was both proud of what she had achieved and immensely grateful for having had the opportunity to achieve it. She was thankful for the era that she lived through—the modernising movement for progressive change and social justice of which she was such a vital and brilliant part.
At a time when there is so much that divides the country, and when demonisation of others is all too readily reached for and transmitted in the world of politics, we should remember that Tessa Jowell represented the opposite of all that. Let us give thanks and remember her not only for the wonderful things that she did, but for the way that she did them, and for the many lives that she changed for the better along the way.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us walked around yesterday slightly dazed and deeply saddened by the news of Tessa’s passing. She was funny, kind, strong, generous, warm and brilliant, and she was always there for any of us. She was a great support to me and, I know, to many others when we were first elected to this House, and her advice on politics and, indeed, the practicalities of being an MP was incredibly helpful.
Winning the Olympics and all that did for our country, our pride in each other and our place in the world, owed much to her vision, her passion, her integrity and her determination. It was a story of the best of our country, a story of the best of politics and a story that showed the best of Tessa. She was an inspiration, and in her final months she gave voice and comfort to those who have been suffering from brain tumours and their families, like our friends Tara and Michelle Brady, who lost their teenage daughter Addie to brain cancer just a few months ago and who will be visiting me in Parliament tomorrow. We had hoped that they would be able to meet Tessa and, had she still been here with us, she would have hoped to meet them.
We send our love to all Tessa’s family. I hope that she would be as proud of how we take her legacy forward as we are of her.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Tessa Jowell was one of the greatest entrepreneurs in public life that we have seen in this country for decades. She was such a brilliant idealist not because she could talk with people late into the night about the newest ideas or the latest trends in thinking, but because she thought that the best thing to do with ideas is turn them into action. She was a practical idealist unlike any that we have seen for many years.
She was tremendously persistent, but with that persistence came the wisdom to know that sometimes progress did not always happen in a straight line. She had one of the best political sat-navs in the business. She knew that if you hit a roadblock, that was not the end of the story. You just had to figure how you went on round it.
She had tremendous passion, but she matched that with her compassion. She knew that this business is a contact sport and that many of us are perfectly capable of self-inflicted wounds sometimes. She was never one to judge. She was always the one—the first—to ring you, to hug you, and to tell you reassuringly that it is always darkest before dawn.
Above all, though, it was her political style that many of us will remember. I was taught at the beginning of my political career that there are two kinds of politicians: those who try to divide us and those who try to make change happen by bringing us together. With the Olympics, as with so much in her life, she brought the whole world together to make progress. Sometimes we on this side of the House ask ourselves how futures are really built. Tessa Jowell provided the example, not just with her words but with her deeds.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
For all that Tessa achieved on the national and international stage, she never forgot the local. It was as a local campaigner and politician that I first knew Tessa, when I was leader of the opposition and then of the council in Lambeth, where she was one of our fantastic local MPs. Whether it was the young people, like Solomon and his friends who set up the Brixton Soup Kitchen, or the women—it usually was women, formidable, generous women—who were running the residents associations on the estates she represented, or the parents she worked with to set up the country’s first parent-promoted secondary school, the Elmgreen School in West Norwood, Tessa’s love was with people and the communities they were part of.
Yesterday I spoke with Andy Troke, who for 20 years was Tessa’s organiser in Dulwich and West Norwood. Andy said to me that a very important part of Tessa’s legacy is that there is a little bit of Tessa in thousands of us around south London and around the country. We have been inspired by her vision, her passion, her love and her empathy, and we will take that legacy forward. As fantastic as Sure Start is and as the Olympics were, those people are Tessa’s legacy.
Tessa did me the enormous honour of asking me to chair her mayoral bid—not with enormous success, it has to be said. It is funny how things work out sometimes, because instead of sitting in City Hall, she spent the past two years with her family. Who could begrudge them the precious, treasured moments that they spent together in what turned out to be her last two years?
If I may, I would like to address my final comments to Tessa’s family. Thank you for sharing Tessa with us. Today, we stand with you in love and respect for this remarkable woman.
Mr Speaker
Before 2010, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care shadowed Tessa Jowell, and Tessa later came to shadow him, so I think it is fitting that the final words in these exchanges should go to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for graciously allowing a second contribution from the Government Front Bench.
Some people may wonder why a Conservative Government are so determined to mark the legacy of a Labour Cabinet Minister, but those who know, or knew, Tessa will not be surprised at all, because she had an incredible gift for bringing people together and breaking down barriers in a way that was unique and inspiring. As many have said this afternoon, we saw that in London 2012, when as Culture Secretary I had the terrifying responsibility of making her dream come true—and faced with Tessa, I never dared to put a foot wrong. What an incredible success that was: real Tessa magic, bringing the whole country together.
We saw those qualities latterly, and more tragically, when almost as an aside in her final harrowing few months, she decided that the Government needed to tear up our policy on brain cancer and start again, so basically we have done so. Thanks to her, and many other campaigners from this House and outside this House, we are proud to announce today the Dame Tessa Jowell brain cancer mission, which seeks massively to increase research and improve the treatment of this most challenging of cancers. Today, the thoughts of all of us are with David, Jess and Matthew. We hope and pray that, as a result of her efforts, many more will survive this terrible disease—a final and most wonderful gift of Tessa magic to the nation.
Mr Speaker
Thank you, colleagues, for what you have said and the manner in which you have said it, which has witnessed the House at its best.
Schools That Work For Everyone
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Schools That Work For Everyone consultation.
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
By 2020, core school funding will rise to £43.5 billion, the highest ever figure and 50% higher per pupil in real terms than in 2000. On Friday, I announced measures to create more good school places in a diverse education system, and this includes our response to the Schools That Work For Everyone consultation.
As previously announced to the House, we will not be enabling the creation of new selective schools. However, selective schools are one important part of our diverse education system, and it is right that they can expand, as other schools can, where there is need. The autumn statement in 2016 announced funding for the expansion of existing selective schools. On Friday, I launched the selective schools expansion fund for existing selective schools that commit to improving access for disadvantaged children and to working in enhanced partnership with local non-selective schools, and £50 million is available in 2018-19.
We are retaining the 50% cap on faith-based admissions in free schools. I recognise the positive role that faith providers play and that some have felt unable to establish new schools through the free schools programme. We are developing a capital scheme to support the establishment of new voluntary-aided schools. We will continue to work with universities and independent schools to encourage them to work in lasting partnerships with the state sector. Our joint understanding with the Independent Schools Council sets out how independent schools will support that. Overall, this package of reforms will help to ensure that we are delivering a diverse education system, providing choice and opportunity for all.
Angela Rayner
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
May I start by asking the Secretary of State whether he agrees with himself? In the last Parliament, he thought grammar schools—I notice he uses the term “selective schools” now—were “not the answer” to social mobility, and he said he would not want one in his own town, as it would be “divisive”. His own Schools Minister has said:
“I never get people asking…‘Why don’t you bring back the secondary modern?’. And in fact…most children would go to a secondary modern school…if we brought back selection.”
Why do they now believe it is right to spend £50 million of taxpayers’ money expanding selective schools? Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is the same funding announced in the 2016 autumn statement and that £200 million is budgeted overall?
Will the Secretary of State tell us what the evidence was that convinced him that this policy works? Can he share it with us? He has not published a breakdown of responses to his consultation. Is that because he did not get the right answers?
The Secretary of State said schools will have to submit fair access and partnership plans, but what will need to be in those plans? What changes to admissions policies will be required? Will schools continue with the 11-plus? Will he commit to publishing all the plans submitted?
Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether it remains Government policy to keep open the option of changing the tax status of independent schools, or is this another manifesto pledge abandoned? Will he confirm whether the Government are finally giving up their plan to remove the cap on faith admissions? He has committed to new voluntary-aided and free schools. How much funding will be available? How many new schools will open, and in what areas will they be?
The previous Conservative Prime Minister once said he had a simple message for Conservative Members who wanted more selective schools:
“Stop your silly class war.”
He also said:
“this is a key test for our party. Does it want to be a serious force for government, or does it want to be a right-wing debating society”.
Has the Secretary of State forgotten that advice?
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Selective schools, of course, include grammar schools; they also include partially selective schools. [Interruption.] Well, they do; that is the distinction.
The hon. Lady asked whether I agree with myself and with things I said in the past. I am happy to confirm my agreement with myself. When she says I was quoted as saying that I did not think grammar schools were the answer to social mobility, it is patently obvious that there is no one single answer to the challenge we have in this country of social mobility. However, there are many things that can play a part, and we want this type of school—existing selective schools, if they wish to expand—to do more to contribute towards social mobility.
The hon. Lady asked specifically whether the money involved was as announced at the autumn statement 2016. I believe I did cover that in my opening statement. She is right that it is £200 million over a period of time. Initially, we are talking about £50 million this year.
The hon. Lady asked what evidence we had. There are parts of the country—the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) represents part of one of them—that are performing well right across all the types of school where there is a selective school system in place. On progress measures, when we look across Progress 8, we see the gap narrowing in terms of children who are able to attend grammar schools, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, this is only one part—and a relatively small part—of our overall school system, which is a diverse system.
The hon. Lady asked about independent schools, and many already do good work in partnership with the state sector. We want to see more of that, and we announced that on Friday as well. On faith schools, I cannot say exactly where they will be or how many there will be, because that depends on the faith groups and others who will sponsor voluntary-aided schools.
Overall, this package is about making sure we continue to provide good-quality school places. More than 800,000 school places have already been created since 2010. We want to make sure we carry on with that record.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I am not against grammar schools and I wish them well, but they have a poor record on social justice. Only 3% of those who go to them have free school meals and the proposals will benefit only a few thousand people. Has my right hon. Friend considered that the £200 million would be better spent on one-to-one tuition for our most vulnerable pupils, including the 33% who do not get free school meals? Some 285,000 children could be helped, through the Education Endowment Foundation, with 12 weeks one-to-one tuition for our most vulnerable children.
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is of course right about the variety of interventions that are important in this area. He is also right to identify that not enough children on free school meals are able to go to these schools. I want to see that number go up, which is why we are insisting on enhanced access arrangements. I should clarify that this is capital funding—it is not the same as per pupil funding—following the creation of a place. Places will be created at all sorts of schools, the vast majority of which will be comprehensive intake—[Interruption.] I am not sure why the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) shakes her head. The vast majority will be comprehensive intake schools and the funding will follow in that way.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is regrettable that we are having to have this debate yet again. The grammar school the Secretary of State attended, St Ambrose in Trafford, has just 25 children on free school meals. Across the whole of Trafford, less than 2.5% of children are on free school meals. That compares with 25% in Manchester, where the attainment gap is narrower than it is in Trafford. In fact, the attainment gap for those on free school meals in Trafford is twice that in Manchester. The same pattern is true for any selective area. This is about not just the individual, but the systemic impact of these schools. What percentage of free school meals will a school need to have to access funding? What attainment gap adjustment will need to be made to the whole area for schools to receive funding?
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. I totally acknowledge—I think I have already acknowledged it—the point that not enough children who are eligible for free school meals are able to attend these schools. We are trying to get that number up, which is why to bid into this capital fund schools need to come forward with a proposal for how they are going to make their admissions broader and more accessible. At a minimum, that must include priority for pupil premium recipients, ensuring outreach to specific primary schools and looking again at admissions criteria to make sure they are as broad as possible.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What justification is there for the Secretary of State reneging on a solemn Conservative manifesto commitment, on which we all stood, to drop the totally ineffective 50% cap on faith schools? He has reneged on that commitment. He knows perfectly well that the only new free schools that will not now open are Catholic schools. Catholic schools are the most diverse, the most inclusive and the most prone to operate in deprived areas, so why has he reneged on the cap? He knows all these arguments, because he made them when he was a Back Bencher before he became a Minister. He knows there will now be faith free schools all over the country, except for Catholic schools. Before he says that we are now going to open voluntary-aided schools, he is shackling us to a model that has not been encouraged for 10 years. He can give no commitment that local authorities will want to use them or that the funding will be available. This is a disgraceful announcement.
Damian Hinds
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the value of faith schools as part of our overall diverse school system. There are thousands of faith schools across the country, and they do get slightly above-average results at both primary and secondary. He specifically mentioned Catholic schools—it is true, again, that they get a slightly better set of results than the faith school average, and I totally value their contribution. I also acknowledge, as I think I did earlier, that some groups—the Catholic Education Service is chief among them—have not felt able to take part in the free schools programme because of the admissions criteria. We are very conscious of the sensitivities and the need to make sure that we promote societal inclusion, including in narrowly defined local areas. Having published the integration strategy, we have taken the decision to retain the 50% faith cap on new free schools, but it will also be possible to open voluntary-aided schools, of which there are thousands across the country. They have existed since 1944. It has always been possible to open new voluntary-aided schools—it just has not happened in recent years, because the money has not been there, but it will be possible under these proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate all colleagues, but there are a lot of you, so brevity is of the essence.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The absolute tragedy is that there is more evidence available to Ministers now than there has ever been about what will improve the life chances of the most disadvantaged, so why on earth do the Government persist with targeting funding on selective education? That may theoretically benefit the pupils who attend Ilford County High School or Woodford County High School for Girls, which serve my constituency, but what will it do for every other school in my constituency, not least the schools that serve some of the most disadvantaged communities but whose buildings are in dire need of refurbishment? This statement does absolutely nothing for them, and that is the absolute tragedy of the Government’s education policy: it is elitist in the wrong sense of the word.
Damian Hinds
I fear that there may be a misunder- standing. We are talking about either £200 million over a period, or £50 million over one year for selective schools expansion, but that is in the context of a much, much larger capital budget for school expansion overall of £1 billion this year, and an even bigger capital budget again, if we are talking about how we address the existing condition of schools—over a period of four years, that is something in excess of £20 billion.
Mr Speaker
Brevity will be exemplified as always by the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome the extra money to expand grammar places. Kendrick School and Reading grammar school, which serve my constituency, need to provide more places, and I hope that they take my right hon. Friend up on it. Will he confirm, however, that there will also be more money for the very good comprehensives in my area under his fairer funding?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend is right to identify that where there is a demand for places and where schools are popular with parents, it makes sense to be able to expand them. I can confirm that that absolutely applies to comprehensive-intake schools, of which there are, of course, vastly more than there are selective schools.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Government’s consultation paper states that the educational benefits of attending a grammar school are twice as large for pupils on free school meals than others, but has the Secretary of State actually read the sole report that is cited in the consultation paper? It states that the advantage is “certainly not large” and that
“we should be cautious about interpreting this as a strong endorsement of grammar schools.”
Does he accept that his evidence base for selective schools is itself rather selective?
Damian Hinds
I see what she did there—but no. Selective schools are part of the diverse school system that we have. We allow schools in general to expand. The vast majority, as I say, are comprehensive-intake schools. Where there is a basic need, parental demand, and when the schools commit to extending their inclusivity in very practical ways, it makes sense to allow them to expand as well.
Mr Speaker
I call the author of the standard textbook on brevity, Sir Desmond Swayne.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What argument persuaded the Secretary of State to drop the manifesto commitment on the cap for free schools?
Damian Hinds
What persuaded me was that we have to balance a number of different things. That is just a reality, as I think most right hon. and hon. Members would accept. We have just published our integration strategy, and it is right that in that context we retain the 50% faith cap on new free schools. However, there has always been a model of school—always, it never went away; it has been there since the Education Act 1944—to enable faith groups and others to do the admissions for a school if they contribute part of its capital funding. The amount used to be higher, but it is now about 10%. To be clear, never in the history of our country has there been a general route by which to open a school that is 100% state funded but for which a church group has 100% control over admissions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that Trafford schools, both grammar and secondary, perform extremely well in our selective system, but that is despite, not because of, selection. Were it because of selection, we would see similar results in schools in selective systems around the country. What they certainly do not do is act as engines of social mobility: of the children in grammar schools, just 6% are looked-after children, 3% are on free school meals and less than 1% have special educational needs or disabilities. What figures does he intend to require those schools to meet for each of those categories of disadvantaged children?
Damian Hinds
I share the hon. Lady’s appreciation of grammar schools and high schools—and other schools indeed—in Trafford and other high-performing areas of the country. She asks what figures I will require. I will require ambitious plans, but they will be specific to individual schools and their circumstances. I want more children from deprived backgrounds to be able to take advantage of this funding.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
A free school in my constituency, the Europa School, has proved very inclusive in providing good places for children. Is this not a good example of a school that adds value to the network and provides more choice for parents and children?
Damian Hinds
The free schools programme has added enormously to diversity and innovation in our school system, which is why it is important that we continue to expand their number, through our plans for another 110 or so over the next few years.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
This has been described as new money. In areas such as mine in Wales, where we have no grammar schools—proudly—and no selection, will the Government’s announcement bring a consequential that we can spend on all our children?
Damian Hinds
This is all part of existing capital funding. I mentioned earlier the much larger figure of which this is one part.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on wave 13 of the free school application process and the fact that free schools have created 212,000 places since 2010. Applications for two new free schools, which I am keen to support, will be coming forward from my constituency. Will he meet me and a delegation to discuss those plans so that I might continue to support educational provision in my local area?
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
How can the Secretary of State justify £50 million to increase the number of grammar school places when schools in my constituency are facing a £3 million cut?
Damian Hinds
First, our overall revenue funding for schools is increasing, not decreasing. Secondly, I fear there might be a misunderstanding: this is about the provision of new schools, not about the ongoing per-annum funding, which will follow the creation of school places, wherever that may be, including in Colne Valley and elsewhere.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In contrast to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thoroughly welcome the retention of the 50% cap on faith-based submissions and the fact that it was clearly linked in my right hon. Friend’s statement to the importance of integration and community cohesion. I am concerned, however, that new voluntary-aided schools will be able to get around that rule, in return for a contribution of only 10% of the capital costs, which is about 1% of a school’s whole budget on a long-run basis. How will he ensure integration and community cohesion in the new voluntary-aided schools?
Damian Hinds
Voluntary-aided schools have been around since before my hon. Friend and I were born. There are thousands of them in the country and they play an important role in local communities.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The pupil premium has been in existence for seven years now, yet the percentage of pupils in grammar schools receiving free school meals is less than 2.5% on average. What evidence is there that grammar schools play any role in social mobility or have any intention of doing so?
Damian Hinds
There are some particularly striking examples of individual schools that have gone rather further, including the Schools of King Edward VI in Birmingham. We know that when children from disadvantaged backgrounds go to selective schools, they make more rapid progress. I want more children to have that opportunity.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thomas Bennett Community College in my constituency was rebuilt in the early 2000s, but the only option was the private finance initiative, and it is now spending about a quarter of its revenue budget on servicing that loan. I appreciate that this is new capital spending, but what can be done to help schools in such a position restructure such loans?
Damian Hinds
I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend again to discuss that situation.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Sheffield’s schools are losing out in comparison with those in similar cities under the new funding formula. Money is being shifted away from primary schools, and there is simply not enough for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I shall be meeting Sheffield primary heads on Friday to discuss the crisis in their schools. Does the Secretary of State understand why they will feel that providing £200 million extra for grammar schools is simply the wrong priority?
Damian Hinds
There is no extra revenue funding for grammar schools. Let me be totally clear about this, lest there be any doubts. The revenue funding formula works in the same way for the different types of school. In fact, grammar schools will on average receive slightly less money per pupil. I do understand some of the cost pressures that schools have been under, and I am committed to redoubling efforts to work with them to bear down on some of those costs.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I welcome the measures that the Secretary of State has announced to enable children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds to gain access to selective education, but can he ensure that children on free school meals and looked-after children benefit from those measures?
Damian Hinds
Indeed I can. We owe particular attention and focus to looked-after children, and we have been discussing specifically with the Independent Schools Council what more we can do to help that cohort.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
This morning three excellent primary schools in my area, including The Spinney and Mayfield Primary School, announced that, after two years’ work, they are pulling out of their plan to form a multi-academy trust because
“the recent change in education policy now makes the current educational climate too ambiguous for us to proceed”.
I am pleased that they are staying with the local authority, but does the Secretary of State really believe that ambiguity is a good way to run our school system?
Damian Hinds
I suppose that for us here in the House, managing politics, ambiguity is a daily feature. I think that converting to academy status, becoming part of an academy trust and having the opportunity to share good practice and learning across schools is a very positive action. Many thousands of schools have benefited from it, and I want more of them to make that positive choice. However, individual schools may have different criteria.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
There are many excellent faith schools in my constituency, and I believe that a third of all schools are now faith schools. They are popular with parents and achieve good results. Does my right hon. Friend agree that parental choice should be central to any successful education system?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A third of state-funded schools in the country are faith schools. That is, perhaps, a higher proportion than people tend to expect, but it is a matter of parental choice, and faith schools are very popular with some parents.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Students on free school meals in selective areas do less well than those in non-selective areas. At this time of scarce cash and difficult choices, would it not be better to support the dissemination of best practice from the non-selective areas, where we know that it works?
Damian Hinds
I do not think that it is a case of either/or. As I said earlier, we know that children from disadvantaged backgrounds who go to selective schools can make more progress, but the hon. Gentleman is also right—as he often is—to say that the dissemination of good practice, which is completely separate from the question of selective or non-selective schools, is fundamental. That is why we supported the Education Endowment Foundation, and that is why sharing that best practice is at the heart of what we do.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that selective schools will have to prove that they are improving access for the most disadvantaged pupils. Will he also look into how we can make progress on the proportion of children just on the other side of the free school meals line, who have been found to be under-represented at selective schools as well?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right, and we must look at all groups of children. The most important fundamental underlying reform is to how we measure what happens in secondary schools, and it is not possible to overstate the importance of moving to the progress measure in ensuring that the progress and performance of all children is taken fully into account.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
If we are to have more investment in grammar schools, will the right hon. Gentleman at least treat them according to the same standards as other schools? Will he start by amending the Education and Adoption Act 2016 so that if a grammar school is deemed to be coasting, it will, just like any other local authority school, be converted to an academy instantly?
Damian Hinds
Recently I was able to make an announcement on our future direction of travel on the accountability system. We must clarify it—[Interruption.] Yes, including that. I set out the direction of travel in my recent speech to the National Association of Head Teachers.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Recent data shows that children from disadvantaged backgrounds were 50% more likely to enter full-time higher education in 2017 than they were in 2009. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is testament to the strength of the Government’s focus on this area, and will he assure us that this announcement will further strengthen that agenda and priority?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right that we must redouble efforts at all stages. She is also right to identify what happens in higher education admission at age 18. The attainment gap has been narrowed by 10% at secondary and primary school, and we are redoubling efforts in the early years. Making sure we have good provision of more good school places is certainly part of that effort.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
As a south London grammar school boy, I welcome this announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree that all the evidence suggests that children from deprived backgrounds do better in grammar schools than in non-grammar schools, and that grammar schools are massively oversubscribed, and therefore that allowing them to expand meets parent choice? Does he also agree that no one is suggesting returning to the 1950s, and that today’s announcement represents only 0.1% of education spending, so nobody should get too exercised about it?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend rightly identifies the importance of diversity and choice in our system. He is also right to remind us that although these are important announcements, in the scheme of things the vast majority of new places created in secondary schools are of course going to be for comprehensive-intake schools, and having this variety in our schools is a great benefit to our system.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s announcement will be very welcome in Rugby, where there is huge demand for our two selective schools and our one bilateral school, and I know parents will be very supportive of his principle of prioritisation for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, but does he agree that that objective will be assisted if every single child in our primary schools has the opportunity to be considered for a place?
Damian Hinds
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely vital that this opportunity is presented as widely as possible and to all primary schools.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will keep under review the removal of the cap on faith schools? I appreciate the point about integration, but was a drop to 25% considered as a compromise?
Damian Hinds
We keep all policies under review. As I said earlier, having published the integration strategy we thought very carefully about this issue and determined that the best approach was to retain the 50% cap. There are of course various other requirements on new free schools to demonstrate their inclusivity, but there are also thousands of faith schools in this country not subject to a cap, and through the voluntary-aided route it will be possible to open them.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the many comprehensive-educated Members on the Government Benches will always support any education policy that enables more children to reach their full potential? The expansion of selective schools, especially when targeted at the most disadvantaged, will achieve precisely that.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is entirely right. We should value diversity and choice in our system. There is no single type of school that will be right for all children, and we need to find new ways of ensuring that every child can reach their potential.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Contrary to the doom and gloom espoused by the Opposition, I welcome this announcement, which puts more money into new school places, whether selective ones such as those across the county boundary in Berkshire or new free school places in Hampshire. In doing so, may I put forward the case made by local residents in North East Hampshire for a free school in north Hampshire that will be academically rigorous but open to all?
Damian Hinds
I hear my hon. Friend’s pitch and I know that it is heartfelt. We have an open process for the making of applications, and there can be mainstream and special free schools throughout the country. We want to ensure that, in particular, parts of the country that have not benefited from free schools to the same degree in the past have the opportunity to do so, but that does not mean that any part of the country should be out of the picture.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I always welcome more money for education funding, but the Department always focuses on expanding places when it comes to revenue and capital expenditure. Has the Secretary of State thought about areas such as mine, which have too many school places but still need capital expenditure? I am thinking about a primary school in my area that has 17 free spaces, and the impact on that primary school’s budget.
Damian Hinds
There is capital money available not only for expanding places but for school condition, and there may be occasions when other moves are required for the school estate. I cannot comment in detail right now on the case that my hon. Friend has raised, but I will be happy to discuss it with him.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Speaking as a former Kentish grammar school boy, I too welcome this funding. This is one of the few occasions on which I can recall extra money being made available specifically for grammar schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should never aspire to a one-size-fits-all education system? Grammar schools have a crucial role to play in achieving the diversity that he speaks about, and they tend to be good or outstanding schools, so it makes absolute sense that we should allow them to flourish and expand.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. One size does not fit all. The grammar schools in this country are a relatively small part of the overall diverse schools system.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Amber Valley is an area with no free schools and no selective schools, and sadly attainment is lower than we would like it to be. How will my right hon. Friend’s welcome suggestion of prioritising such areas work in practice? What can he do to encourage new schools into areas like that?
Damian Hinds
I am afraid there was a crucial word in my hon. Friend’s question that I did not hear. He talked about prioritising something.
Damian Hinds
Prioritising areas with low attainment is at the heart of narrowing the gap. It is what we are doing with the 12 opportunity areas around the country, for example, but it has to go far beyond that. What we are doing in the opportunity areas is partly about what happens for the areas themselves, but it is also about learning from good practice, bringing together partners in those areas and seeing what can be spread more widely throughout the system.
Points of Order
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the High Court in Belfast ruled that a civil servant who had granted planning permission for an incinerator in Mallusk in County Antrim had acted beyond his powers. The specific event does not concern the House today, but there is now an implication for all decision making by civil servants in Northern Ireland. You will be aware that there has been no devolved Assembly or governance in Belfast for nearly a year and a half. On the back of this ruling, we now need certainty about how decisions can be taken forward. Have you had any indication as to whether the Secretary of State plans to make a statement to the House or whether there are, in any case, other ways in which I can pursue this fundamental constitutional question?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order which, as he knows, is not a point that I can answer now from the Chair, but I appreciate the importance of the matter that he has drawn to the House’s attention. Those on the Treasury Bench will have paid attention to his important point, and it will undoubtedly be conveyed to those who have responsibility for such matters. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that if he wants to attempt to bring the appropriate Minister to the Chamber to answer questions on this topic, various routes are open to him to do so.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will have gathered that quite a deal of concern has been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about the general data protection regulation, which comes into full force on 25 May. Some of the training that was provided last week by another organisation on behalf of the House authorities gave MPs’ staff the impression that they should be deleting all electronic information relating to their constituency casework from before the 2017 general election. Indeed, the organisation, IT Governance, encouraged Members’ staff to do so and organised for the material to be deleted.
I do not know whether this is your impression, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my anxiety is that our casework is an essential part of doing our job. Being able to remember and have a record of what representations were made for a constituent 10 or 15 years ago is important, and some cases last a long time. As for our personal security, there are times when we want to know the pattern of who has turned up to our surgeries, how often, what anxieties they had and whether their issues were addressed.
I understand that a letter has gone out from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to some Members, but not all. There is some uncertainty and a lack of clarity about what the proper advice should be, and—I notice that an inspirational piece of paper has been handed to you—I just wondered whether you might be able to provide a bit more clarity. In the end, we have to be able to do our job properly, and we cannot let silly laws get in the way.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. On his last point, there are no silly laws; there are only laws that are passed by this Parliament. Therefore, it cannot, by definition, be a silly law. However, I completely take his point about the importance of Members of this House complying with the rules while continuing to do our work for the people who live in our constituencies in an efficient and correct manner. He has made a good point.
I do not have an inspirational piece of paper, but I do have the knowledge that the House of Commons Commission is due to meet later this afternoon. I would be surprised if the Commission does not consider the hon. Gentleman’s points. In fact, I am pretty sure that the Commission will consider those points shortly, and I am sure that the outcome will be that any Member who wishes further guidance on how to apply the new law will get it and that all Members will be properly helped in ensuring that they carry out their duties correctly.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]
Monday 14th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 View all Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 84-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 80KB) - (13 Apr 2018)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The United Kingdom’s road haulage sector plays a major role in keeping our economy on the move. Each year, UK-registered heavy goods vehicles carry around £30 billion in goods between the UK and the EU, and around 300,000 people are directly employed within the industry. I saw a snapshot of the UK logistics sector’s importance this morning when I visited and opened the new United Parcel Service sorting and delivery centre at the DP World London Gateway logistics site. It is a strong and positive new investment in the sector that is helping British businesses to become more efficient and is, crucially, a vote of confidence in our future as a trading nation. The Bill is important because it is about our future as a trading nation.
The Bill provides a framework that should reassure hauliers that the final Brexit deal agreed with the European Union will be able to be implemented smoothly and will support the continued movement of goods by truck between the UK and Europe. We are committed to maintaining the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. It is in everyone’s interest that there should be a mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU that secures our objective of frictionless trade and is in the interest of both parties.
The Government are moving ahead with the negotiations with the EU, and I expect us to move towards a proper agreement later this year—I am very confident about that. However, it would be irresponsible of this Government not to plan for all eventualities. I stress again that it is in everyone’s interest to secure liberalised access, which is by far the most probable result of the negotiations, but this Bill is prudent planning for the future. It forms part of the Government’s broader EU exit legislation programme and, as set out in the other place, the haulage permits aspect of the Bill provides a framework for the UK to manage permits in all eventualities, including if they are needed as part of our agreement with the EU.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State might be putting a gloss on what is potentially a catastrophic situation. I give him the opportunity, from the Dispatch Box, to give a categorical guarantee that, after exit day, the licences of 318,000 HGV drivers will still be valid to deliver goods across the European Union. Is that right?
Chris Grayling
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman final details of the negotiations at this stage, but let me tell him some straightforward facts: 80% of the trucks that come through the channel ports and the channel tunnel are carrying EU exports to the United Kingdom, so it is pretty evident that it is in everyone’s interest that we reach a sensible agreement for the future. This Bill ensures that we have the legal mechanisms in place to deliver the registration framework that is needed for all eventualities, which is prudent and sensible.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a straightforward question, and I say to him straightforwardly that 80% of those trucks are EU hauliers bringing goods to the UK. I struggle to imagine other EU countries not wanting that to continue.
Mr Leslie
I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but this is quite important. He acknowledges that I asked a straight question about the guarantee. Is it not the case that, even in that worst-case situation, some sort of bilateral agreement with other EU countries would be required and there is no guarantee that such an agreement will come forward? Is that not the truth?
Chris Grayling
I cannot guarantee that EU countries and their businesses will want to continue selling goods to UK consumers, but my best guess is that French farmers will still want to sell their produce through our supermarkets and that German car makers will still want to sell their cars in our car showrooms. No, I cannot guarantee that it will rain or be sunny tomorrow, nor can I guarantee that EU countries will want to continue selling their products to us, but do you know what, I think they probably will.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a timely and good Bill to deal with all eventualities, and on so politely answering idiotic interventions that are trying to create fear where there is no need for it because, of course, goods will move smoothly with or without a deal.
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is right. The fact that this morning, just to the east of London, I visited a £120 million investment in the future of the United Kingdom as a trading nation by a major United States-based company says that I am not alone in believing that trade will continue and flourish in the future, because it will.
There are two parts to the Bill, the first of which is all about the permits. It enables us to introduce a scheme that simply allows trucks to cross borders in a variety of scenarios—this is, basically, like a truck having its own international driving licence. In many circumstances, through a variety of international agreements, that is a necessity in order to carry goods from one nation to another. We are simply making sure that we put in place the legal framework for the Government to establish a system for issuing permits if, after we have concluded the negotiations, it proves necessary to do so. We have designed the legislation to be flexible in response to different circumstances. We do not want to place any undue regulatory or financial requirements on the industry.
Permits are a feature of almost all international road freight agreements outside free-trade areas. The UK already has several permit-based agreements with non-EU countries, including Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia and Ukraine. The UK also has liberal, non-permit agreements with Albania and Turkey. The Bill will also cover non-EU agreements relating to permits, which means that there will be one simple, straightforward administration system that is designed to be as easy as possible for haulage firms to use.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, welcome the Bill. The Government are right to make it clear that in the event of no deal we will still have made preparations. The Bill makes a distinction between international permits with other EU countries, and permits and agreements with the Irish Republic. Why is such a distinction made?
Chris Grayling
We worked on this carefully. The important thing to say is that this is not in any way related to broader discussions about border matters. We are aware that some hauliers travel from Belfast to Dublin to Holyhead to deliver their goods within the UK—we are talking about a UK business delivering its produce within the UK—so this provision is simply designed to ensure that that will not be impeded in any way by the regulatory system. I will say a bit more about that later in my remarks, but we want to ensure that nothing can undermine the integrity of the UK and people who travel from point A to point B within it. That is very important to me.
The final details of the scheme will, of course, depend on the agreements that we reach, and the Bill allows for that. It creates flexibility and allows us to make regulations on the allocation of permits to best meet the needs of the economy. Guidance on the allocation process will be issued to hauliers.
This aspect of the Bill also allows the Government to charge fees in relation to applications for permits and the grant of permits. I stress that our aim is purely to set those fees on a cost-recovery basis so that we minimise the impact on hauliers; this is not designed to be a revenue-raising mechanism. The system is simply designed to cover its own costs, and the amounts involved will be relatively small for anyone seeking a permit. The fees will recover only the day-to-day cost of administering the scheme. The set-up costs of the scheme are being funded as part of a £75.8 million grant from the Treasury to the Department for Transport as part of our preparations for all the different Brexit scenarios.
The Bill provides for the first set of regulations made under clauses 1 and 2 to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the House will be able to scrutinise the new permitting system fully and properly. The first regulations will set out the overarching framework that will be used for the provision of permits under any future agreements. As I have outlined, we are confident that we can maintain our existing liberalised access with the EU, but the Bill will help to cater for any possible future permit arrangement with the EU.
On timing, we plan to have the system for a permit scheme ready by the end of the year. It is important that we make sure that we are prepared for all eventualities. Any applications for permits after the relevant regulations are in force will be dealt with under this system. The first regulations made under clauses 1 and 2 will cover the permits required under existing international agreements, including provisions relating to Armenia and Ukraine. If we then agree a permit-based arrangement with the EU, we will make further changes to the regulations to cover the agreement reached. In the unlikely scenario that we end up with a restricted number of permits to the EU as part of a future relationship, we have committed to providing a report to Parliament. That report must assess the effects of such restrictions on the UK haulage industry during that year. That assessment is, of course, vital, but I reiterate that this is about a flow that is more inward than outward, both in goods terms and in haulage terms, so I remain confident that we will reach a sensible agreement for the future. The permit scheme is necessary to make sure that trucks have their equivalent of the international driving licence to cross borders. I will not allow us to get into a position in which the industry does not have the administrative basis to take its business forward in all eventualities.
Before I move on to part 2 of the Bill, let me touch briefly on the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which the UK signed 50 years ago and which the Government have recently ratified. The convention will come into force here before 29 March 2019. It was introduced by the United Nations to enable international road travel and to increase safety by establishing common rules for roads around the world. It builds on the earlier 1949 Geneva convention on road traffic and, indeed, the 1926 Paris convention, which was the first in this policy area and which the UK has already ratified. Why does it matter? Because we need to make sure not only that trucks can come across borders, but that we are able to line up with the rules in other countries, such as Germany, on trailer registration.
The second part of the Bill gives the Government powers to establish a trailer registration scheme to meet the standards in the 1968 Vienna convention. Many EU countries have similar schemes. It will mean that UK operators will be able to register trailers before entering countries that require trailer registration for travel on their roads. By trailers, I mean not the trailer on the back of a car that carries a tent, but full HGV trailers that cross borders to carry goods from point A to point B. The Bill will allow us to set the scope of such a scheme’s coverage.
The detail will be set out in regulations, but our intention is to require only users travelling abroad to register their trailers. It is not UK-only, but purely about those travelling internationally. Only commercial trailers weighing more than 750 kg and all trailers weighing more than 3.5 tonnes will need to be registered. As was clearly set out in the other House, the duty to register will apply almost exclusively to international hauliers. Virtually all private-use trailers, such as caravans and horse trailers, will not fall within the scope of mandatory registration, because it is rare that trailers of that kind weigh more than 3.5 tonnes.
We will consult on the scope of the trailer registration scheme over the next few months, and we will try to make sure that we are in good shape later this year to put in place the right scheme, depending on the nature of our agreements and what is required to ensure the smooth flow of trade across borders. We plan to recover the costs of running the scheme by charging fees, which we expect to be lower than those currently set out for the registration of motor vehicles. It is of course important that the new arrangements are complied with; if they are not, we will apply existing penalties to those who transgress.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Many hauliers hire trailers for specific uses. If trailers are used predominantly in the UK, they obviously will not be registered. What sort of timescale does the Secretary of State think would be reasonable for registering a trailer before it embarks on an international journey?
Chris Grayling
In all this, we will want the process to be as rapid as possible. There will inevitably be a surge at the start when hauliers look to register trailers that will be used internationally, but my hope is that once that initial surge is over, it will be possible to carry out the registration very quickly when there is a change of circumstance. We do not expect to have a system that is so expensive that it deters somebody who wants to register a trailer in case it is used internationally. We want to ensure that there is only a small cost to businesses. Many people will want to register their trailers in case what my right hon. Friend highlights happens.
We listened carefully to the debate in the other place and we are working on a report on trailer safety, which is a policy area in which proper analysis will be beneficial and will help safety on our roads. Off the back of the report, we will be able to offer a clear and comprehensive analysis of the complex issue of trailer safety and towing-related accidents. That was a constructive element that came out of the debate in the other place, and we will certainly engage with it.
On the question of the island of Ireland, the Bill covers the whole United Kingdom, other than two provisions that amend legislation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively. Road haulage policy and trailer registration are devolved in Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland and Wales. We have been working with all the devolved Administrations as the Bill has developed. With regard to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Bill supports the commitments made in the December 2017 joint report to avoid a hard land border. This is an enabling Bill, and the Government will preserve the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom.
The Government are committed to ensuring that trade and everyday movements over the land border continue as they do now. The Bill does not create a permit regime in relation to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, nor does it create a hard border between them. It means that trailers travelling only between the UK and Ireland will not need to be registered. It also avoids the situation that I described earlier in which someone who chooses to go via Dublin to come over to the UK finds themselves needing a permit even if they are moving purely within the United Kingdom. I can confirm that the Bill will not impact on border arrangements and that there will not be, as a result, any new transport-related checks at our borders.
Sammy Wilson
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether there will have to be a separate agreement between the UK Government and the Irish Government covering people who are taking lorries across the border, whether through Ireland to the rest of GB, or simply carrying loads from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot speak for the Irish Government. We are putting in place a mechanism that ensures that there is no issue on our part. The Irish Government, like any other Government, are of course perfectly able to put barriers in the way of trade, but we will not do that. We will not create a regime that affects those travelling into the Republic of Ireland or those travelling through the Republic of Ireland into the United Kingdom. I cannot give guarantees on behalf of the Republic of Ireland, but I cannot for a moment believe that people there will want to put in place administrative systems that we do not put in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I understand that the Secretary of State cannot speak for the Irish Government, but can he tell us what discussions he has had with the Irish Government about this, and therefore give us an indication of what the position might be?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Irish Government are part of the European Union negotiations. We continue to discuss this and other transport issues as part of those negotiations, and I am entirely confident that we will reach a sensible place at their conclusion.
Let me sum up. As I have outlined, we are committed to ensuring that the road haulage industry can continue to prosper as we leave the European Union. As part of our programme of EU exit legislation, this Bill prepares us for a range of scenarios. It will ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and will be ready when we leave the EU.
The Government have been supported by the industry in bringing forward these sensible measures, and we have talked extensively with it over the past few months. I believe that this represents prudent planning for different eventualities. I personally want to lead a Department that is prepared for all those eventualities and that can deal with whatever circumstance lies ahead, notwithstanding my view that we will reach a sensible partnership agreement for the future this autumn that will enable us to remain good friends and neighbours of the European Union, and that will allow the trade between us to carry on flowing as it does today. I commend the Bill to the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Bill presents a long overdue opportunity to consider the importance of the transport and logistics industries to the United Kingdom and the commercial road haulage sector in particular. The industry employs more than 2.5 million people and is the fifth biggest sector of the economy contributing £124 billion.
One of the privileges of my job is to meet people from across the transport, freight and logistics sectors. In the course of those discussions around transitional and post-Brexit arrangements, I hear an increasing frustration and anger at the cavalier “it will be all right on the night” approach from this Government, and rightly so, because there is no evidence that economic self-interest will prevail.
As we debate the prospect of a permit system for the haulage industry in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it should be recalled that the UK has 600,000 goods vehicle driving licence holders. There are nearly half a million commercial vehicles over 3.5 tonnes registered in the UK, which are responsible for moving 98% of goods. This is a serious and vital industry and we meddle with it at our peril.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the haulage industry is important to the United Kingdom, especially to Northern Ireland where almost all of our food and goods travel by road? Does he not accept that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, if there is a deal, we are prepared for it, and if there is no deal, we are also prepared for it, and that that should reassure the haulage industry?
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I just do not share his sense of confidence that the provisions of the Bill are anything like adequate in the event of a no deal. These measures will not respond to the needs of the country should that contingency arise.
The Bill must be regarded as the first piece of legislation that provides for a no-deal Brexit. It sets out new powers for the Government to allocate permits to hauliers if required by future agreement or lack thereof, so that UK lorries can continue to operate to and within the European Union. A newspaper headline this weekend—in The Sunday Times, no less—was correct to say that
“this government is failing business at every turn”.
Today’s debate is a further foretaste of the damage that this Government’s prevaricating is doing to the British economy.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Secretary of State—in all his finger-crossing hopes for something to crop up before Brexit day—did not actually update the House on the progress that he might be making towards a comprehensive land transport agreement, which is what the Freight Transport Association is asking for. The Secretary of State did not confirm whether he is personally in discussions with the Irish Government, other Governments or the European Commission. Is it not lamentable that he could not even give this vital industry some level of update on the progress of negotiations towards those agreements?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. It is indeed lamentable that there has been a complete absence of those discussions. It is a question of hit and hope, finger in the air and everything will be alright on the night. This is not the right way to go about it. The Secretary of State has come to the Dispatch Box and said that he does not speak for the other 27 Governments. I sometimes wonder whether he speaks for the one of which he is a member. A damaged and disrupted logistics sector will result in a damaged and disrupted British economy.
John Redwood
Will the hon. Gentleman just tell the House what additional contingencies he would make if he were the Secretary of State?
Andy McDonald
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, that is exactly what I am going to outline during the course of my speech.
I hope that this Bill represents the dawn of the realisation of the catastrophe that would flow from a chaotic Brexit. A few months ago the “beast from the east” left supermarket shelves across the country empty, while logistics problems forced fast food chain KFC to close hundreds of outlets because of supply shortages. These examples provide the merest glimpse of what shocks to the supply and distribution chain will look like for British consumers and businesses if the free flow of trade is not maintained following our departure from the European Union.
The Bill has serious implications for the UK’s music industry, particularly the concert haulage industry, which supports the music industry in the UK and the EU. Concert haulage operators require a community licence for road transport to the EU, which will be lost after Brexit. The Road Haulage Association says that a permit system will not work for concert hauliers, and estimates that the UK will run out of permits in 2.5 days. I have to ask: when will the Government listen to business and accept that there has to be a continuation of the current trading and transport environment, if a massive disruption of the flow of goods and produce is to be avoided?
As an island nation, ports are and will remain vital to our trading relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, so it is quite extraordinary that no Minister from the Department for Exiting the European Union has visited Britain’s most important gateway to Europe—the port of Dover. Half of the UK’s international road haulage traffic comes through Dover alone. I ask the Minister, is transport really a top priority in the Government’s Brexit negotiations?
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Forgive me; I did not mean to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in mid-flow, but I think that I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), visited Dover last week. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a straightforward Member of this House and would not want to mislead the House, so he will probably want to correct what he said. I say this to be helpful.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am just delighted that the hon. Lady got there eventually.
Road haulage is essential to the complex and sensitive just-in-time supply chains that underpin the UK and EU economies. Roll-on roll-off ferries face the most serious impact from a no-deal Brexit. A staggering 10,000 trucks pass through Dover each day. Almost none of these currently requires a customs clearance process. The port estimates that a two-minute delay per vehicle will generate a permanent 20-mile-long traffic jam.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Given the current snail’s pace in the negotiations, with the Cabinet split in two to look for solutions rather than no solutions, should there not have been some contingency in this Bill for customs checks, which are looking increasingly likely due to the Government’s handling of Brexit?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One does wonder why no such contingency has been put in the Bill, and we will have to address that in Committee.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tells me that, on average, 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The UK automotive industry relies on just six major ports for the export of 95% of completed vehicles. The SMMT says that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to component supply issues. A 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers £850,000 per year. Is it not blindingly obvious that the current trajectory of this Government, with Brextremists at their core, means that we are heading for economic and trading chaos?
Chris Grayling
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? If business shares the pessimism that he is laying before the House, can he explain the string of positive announcements of investment in the United Kingdom that we have seen in the past few months by Vauxhall, Toyota and others? If things are so bleak, why are they choosing to make substantial investments in their future in the United Kingdom?
Andy McDonald
If the Secretary of State had looked at the papers over the weekend, he would have seen exactly why. A lot of people are making their plans to get out of the UK if necessary. That is exactly what has happened. He is playing with fire on this, and he really should wake up and smell the coffee.
The Government have done little to help the road haulage industry. They have made a complete and utter dog’s breakfast of contingency planning for the M20 motorway. A lorry park off the motorway has been desperately needed to help alleviate problems during Operation Stack, and it is all the more needed ahead of Brexit next March. Yet the Department for Transport failed properly to undertake the critically important environmental risk assessment before the planning process for the £250 million project and had to scrap it last September. This incompetence will have disastrous consequences. If this Government cannot successfully plan how to build a lorry park in Kent, how do they expect anyone to believe that they are capable of introducing an alternative haulage permit scheme?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman says, rather surprisingly, that this Government have done nothing for the road haulage industry. Is he not aware that the HGV levy brought in to level the playing field between foreign and UK hauliers brought in £96 million in the first two years after it was introduced in 2014, and that the previous coalition Government increased the speed limit on single-carriageway roads from 40 mph to 50 mph, which made a great contribution to improving logistical efficiency?
Andy McDonald
If the right hon. Gentleman had had the pleasure of listening to the Road Haulage Association last week, and the FTA as well, he would probably agree with me that they are not exactly overjoyed by the prospect of the uncertainty that is facing them. A lot of these companies are small companies working on very small margins. He raised the issue of costs that are now going to be put on to those companies. He should be worrying about how that is going to impact on them.
Andy McDonald
No. I am not trying to be rude, but I need to make progress. I have taken a lot of interventions.
The ongoing supply of labour is a huge concern for the road haulage industry. The average age of an HGV driver is now 55 and only 2% of the workforce is under 25. The industry is enormously reliant on the 60,000 non-UK EU nationals and any restriction on the supply of skilled workers will undoubtedly have a negative impact.
Ministers urgently need to reassure the road haulage industry that Brexit will not result in more delays at borders as well as that it will not have to bear additional red tape and costs. The Government need urgently to provide clarity about customs, borders and future regulations, about which there are real and deep concerns. Ministers continually argue that economic self-interest will mean that things naturally gravitate towards protecting British business. That is a naive and irresponsible view that is already damaging UK industry.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords, whose work has improved the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords described the Bill as
“wholly skeletal, more of a mission statement than legislation”,
said that the Committee was
“in the dark because the devil will be in the regulatory detail”,
and urged the Government to provide
“illustrative examples…of at least some of the regulations to be made under the main delegated powers in the Bill”.
As the future relationship is a matter for the Brexit negotiations, this is an enabling Bill that contains little detail and grants the Secretary of State significant powers. The fact that so few details are on the face of the Bill also speaks to the lack of strategy and progress in the Government’s approach to exiting the European Union. The Secretary of State should of course have the powers needed to mitigate the damage to the UK haulage sector caused by a failure to retain current arrangements, but those powers should not be excessive. For example, an argument has been made in favour of a sunset clause so that the powers do not remain on the statute book ad infinitum.
Following pressure in the other place, concessions were made. I am glad that clauses 1, 2, 12 and 17 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, taking account of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to the effect that regulations made under certain clauses should be subject to a vote of both Houses. I am pleased that the Government tabled an amendment introducing a new reporting requirement, requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament annually that assesses the effect on the UK haulage industry of any restrictions that apply to a permit scheme agreed with one or more EU member states. The impact of a future permit scheme has the potential to be far reaching with many unintended consequences, so it is right that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament.
In the light of the Government’s abysmal failure on road safety, which has seen the number of specialised road traffic police plummet while the number killed and seriously injured on our roads rises year on year, I urge the Secretary of State not to attempt to remove Labour’s amendment on trailer safety. The amendment is eminently reasonable, and requires the Government to assess evidence on the incidence of trailer-related road accidents and, only if the evidence justifies action, for a new MOT-style mandatory safety standards testing scheme to be created.
I note that when it was introduced in the other place the Bill would have allowed for permits to be allocated on a first come, first served basis or through a lottery, creating a situation where companies would be left queuing overnight or waiting with their fingers crossed that their company’s name would be pulled out of a hat. I am glad that, after criticism from the noble Lord Tunnicliffe, this was changed.
In Committee, Labour will continue to identify any further unintended consequences of the Bill, and will look to strengthen the accountability to Parliament and restrict the powers granted to the Secretary of State where necessary. Labour believes that getting the right deal for transport and its networks must be the highest priority for the Brexit negotiations. Nothing less than the future of the country is at stake. Only Labour’s clear policy of a customs union with the EU can ensure that trade can flow and grow. The Government should put country before party and provide the same.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I am slightly astonished at some of the points that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made on behalf of the Opposition. I know him well—we often travel down on the train from the north-east together—but he has spent most of the past quarter of an hour attacking the Government for implementing the decision made by 65.5% of the voters in Middlesbrough, and by over 60% of people in Cleveland as a whole, to leave the European Union.
Andy McDonald
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the voters did not vote to be worse off?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the other trap that many Labour colleagues fall into, which is arguing that the people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for. They knew precisely what they were voting for. They knew it would be tough, but they put the interests of the country before short-term economic advantage. I believe that the Government are negotiating to get the best deal for Britain and one that will be to the long-term benefit of our country.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise at hearing the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) say that any attempt to restrict the supply of workers coming in from the EU would be resisted? Labour Members’ support for a customs union and their not wanting any restriction on the freedom of movement of workers shows that they are in denial about leaving the European Union.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend has correctly identified that Labour Members are all over the place on this subject. There was no shortage of “Project Fear” in debates during the referendum campaign—people knew they were voting for something that would be very tough for this country—but, by and large, they voted because they understood the facts. I turn again to the point that Labour colleagues often make, which is that people did not know what they were voting for. Yes, they did: they were intelligent enough to understand the arguments, and to say otherwise is to insult the many people in Yorkshire and the north-east who voted to leave the European Union.
John Redwood
Did my right hon. Friend also notice that Labour Members’ case seems to be that the EU is so nasty and unpleasant that it would deliberately wreck its own exports to us to make a point, yet they want to be more closely aligned with people and an organisation that would do that? I just do not understand what they are talking about.
Mr Goodwill
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is not in the interests of the German motor industry, the French agriculture industry or industry right across Europe to cut off its nose to spite its face. If that were the case, I am sure that German motor manufacturers would be beating a track to Chancellor Merkel’s door to make that very point.
I have not seen one recently, but I remember following lorries down the road and reading a sticker saying, “If you’ve got it, it’s been on a truck”. Although progress has been made in switching freight to rail or short sea shipping, the last leg of any journey invariably involves a truck. We heard from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough about Dover. It had 2.6 million truck journeys last year, with 1.6 million trucks going on Le Shuttle, which is 11,500 per day. Dover represents 17% of all UK trade coming in, worth £122 billion last year.
It is not just on this side of the channel that people are making such a case; Calais chiefs have also stressed the necessity of a frictionless border. Jean-Marc Puissesseau, president and general manager of Port Boulogne Calais, has said that the port boarded 2 million lorries last year. Without an agreed system in place, we could face 30-mile queues on both sides of the channel—every day, not just when the French seamen go on strike. During such a strike, some UK motor manufacturers, and indeed BMW in Bavaria, were three days away from stopping production. As we have heard, Honda relies on 350 trucks a day on a one-hour just-in-time delivery schedule. It is in no one’s interest not to get a deal.
Sammy Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman is making his point very sharply and well. Does he accept that even the permanent secretary of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made it quite clear that the picture painted by the Opposition spokesman is very far from the truth? We can have a frictionless border at Dover, and not need have a lorry park on the M20 or the checks he described.
Mr Goodwill
I will come to that point as I expand my comments.
Turning to trucks and the importance of the road haulage industry, it is currently in vogue to demonise diesels, and Volkswagen must take some of the blame for that. However, if one looks at the trucks operating under the Euro 5 and Euro 6 regulations, one sees that heavy vehicles pretty much perform as expected. The reason for that is quite simple: although the analytical equipment that exposed Volkswagen was not previously small enough to go in a car boot, it has for a long time been small enough to go on the back of a truck, so trucks actually comply very well with the regulations. Indeed, industries have always stepped up to the mark when a higher level of regulation has been proposed, and there is no reason whatever why the regulations will be slackened once the UK leaves the European Union.
As one of the few Members, I suspect, who holds what used to be called a class 1 heavy goods vehicle licence, I spent many hours driving HGVs—transporting potatoes to make oven chips or, as part of the family business, transporting sulphuric acid. I have also driven 44-tonners in France, Belgium, Germany and Holland, so I know a bit about their haulage system—indeed, I wish we had motorway service stations as good as theirs. We rely on our haulage companies, our 320,000 drivers and our logistical organisations to literally keep the wheels of business turning, and they are equally important in cross-border trade.
The Bill could be described in part as a just-in-case Bill—a safety net in case the Brexit negotiations fall off the trapeze—although the permits will also be useful in how they apply to non-EU states. It is unlikely that we will not get a deal, because I think we all understand that it is in everyone’s interest to get a good deal in place for the other side of Brexit.
International trade relies on the capability of vehicles, as well as the goods they carry, to cross international borders. To ensure that vehicles minimise empty running, logistical operations need to be flexible. That is why we have cabotage rules in place, so that non-EU trucks can carry out work here before returning, hopefully loaded with exports, to their home country. When there are short-term capacity problems, the rules can be lifted temporarily, as was the case when a shortage of car transporters coincided with the new registration plate.
The single market for transport services is one baby that we must not throw out with the Brexit bathwater. Yes, we are leaving the single market, but we must keep the flexibilities, liberalisation and competitive elements that benefit trade and jobs. We have always promoted this mechanism, often in the teeth of opposition from member states such as France that see competition from eastern European hauliers as “social dumping” rather than as a competitive element that raises everyone’s game.
In the absence of an agreement, the Bill is our fall-back plan B. In a post-Brexit scenario, one expects the standards that our haulage industry has to comply with not to change radically. Vehicle safety and emissions standards will not be eroded when the UK leaves the EU. Innovations such as autonomous automatic braking, selective catalytic reduction and particulate traps apply to vehicles manufactured and used in Europe. I expect that the Euro 6 standards will be identical to the new UK 1 standards, as I guess they will be called, after Brexit. Similarly, it is in no one’s interest to start a race to the bottom on drivers’ hours.
So much for the vehicles. What about the goods they carry? Whether we have a customs partnership, a so-called max fac or some other custom-built customs solution, the system must operate electronically and without friction, and it must not delay vehicles passing through Dover, Holyhead or Newry, or indeed—this is probably our biggest challenge—goods passing from Spain to our loyal friends in Gibraltar.
I do not share the pessimism of some people who have been known as remoaners—incidentally, I was one of those who voted remain. As Shipping Minister, I visited Southampton and Felixstowe and saw the thousands of containers coming in from all over the world and moving seamlessly through the port. The last thing anyone wants to do is to start opening those containers. The same applies to our biggest port by value—surprisingly, not many people know that that is Heathrow, with the holds of long-haul flights laden with goods inbound and outbound to places all over the globe.
Perhaps the most impressive operation I have seen as part of the Industry and Parliament Trust involved Manchester Airports Group and UPS. The hub at East Midlands airport deals with thousands of parcels every night. Customs duty is collected by the shipper, who navigates a complex administrative system, without the parcel—whether from Beijing, Detroit or Tokyo—stopping for a moment, either on its journey to a UK destination or on its way to trans-shipment on a departing flight. Using the widely recognised “known shipper” arrangement enables truly global trade to function between dozens of jurisdictions and with myriad permutations. For example, some hydraulic components attract a different tariff depending on whether they are destined to be fitted to a tractor or an aircraft. East Midlands is impressive, but nothing compared with the operations in Cologne or Louisville, Kentucky. As I say, this system is already delivering frictionless trade every night. We do not need to reinvent the wheel—or indeed the hub.
I hope such arrangements can be put in place before the end of the transition period. I agree with James Hookham of the Freight Transport Association that the timetable is tight. Until this issue is resolved, however, it will not be possible to initiate free trade, or a freer trade arrangement, with our new global trading partners, so time is of the essence.
Turning to trailers, I note that the UK has now ratified the Vienna convention, which will come into force in March 2019. There have been problems with UK trailers and semi-trailers pulled by non-UK motive units on the continent. The proposals to register trailers will address that. I am pleased that that will not apply to the whole fleet—I must declare an interest in this respect—but only to existing trailers used internationally, and to new trailers as they are registered. I also note the need to facilitate trailer rental, and I am pleased by the reassurance I received from the Secretary of State earlier. We already have a registration system with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, as trailers must pass an annual MOT test, so the Department for Transport will be well aware of the scale of the operation needed.
Belgium—I think uniquely—has a separate registration number for trailers, so the number on the front of a combination will not match the one on the back. Most countries, like us, however, have a plate in the cab that is fixed to whichever trailer is being pulled. The current plating certificate—affixed to the chassis bar of a trailer in most cases—is often hard to find and usually hard to read as well. Has the Minister considered whether the plate fitted to the trailer could have a number or barcode, as is used on shipping containers, that could be read by an automatic number plate recognition-type machine to further facilitate the free flow of vehicles between jurisdictions? I understand that the plate must be fixed to the vehicle, but is there a view on the best position for remote sensing?
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill, but I hope that progress in negotiations will render it superfluous. When we take out insurance, that does not mean that we expect our house to burn down. I think the Government are being prudent. Incidentally, I think the Bill also sends a clear message to EU negotiators that we will not accept a bad deal at all costs and that contingencies are being put in place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who must be one of the very few of us in this place to have a class 1 licence.
I think I will continue the theme of Opposition Members expressing their genuine concerns about what is happening and about how we go forward, while Conservative Members just continue to tell us, “Everything will be all right on the night. Why should we worry? Just believe us. It will all be okay.” The Government’s confidence is indicated by the fact that a Parliamentary Private Secretary has been going round the Government Benches giving out a crib sheet and lobbying for support. I think that tells us how confident the Government really feel.
I understand the need for the Bill, which is a back-up in case there is no deal. For that reason, I certainly would not vote against it, but I hope that the UK Government are doing their best to ensure that part 1 is not required and that the existing streamlined operations we enjoy under the Community licence scheme remain in place. However, we have to look at the current reality. We have a Brexit Cabinet that cannot agree a customs arrangement. The Tories are determined to pull out of the customs union and the single market. They are absolutely all over the place, and the clock is ticking away, so the prospect of a seamless transition becomes more and more unlikely.
In many ways, the Bill is symptomatic of the Government and their approach to Brexit. It is mainly superficial. There is a statement of intent, but we do not know the detail behind the Bill. We do not know what the permit system will look like or how it will operate. We do not know what fees will be applied. We do not even know whether limits will be applied to the number of permits. Like the Brexit process in general, the Bill is just the equivalent of talk but no action.
There is a further irony. The Bill is another example of primary legislation formulated in the other place. When it suits the UK Government they tell us that the House of Lords is only a revising chamber and that it should not get in the way of the business of the Government, yet if it is willing to do the Government’s bidding, we are supposed to laud its expertise. However, when it applies its expertise and says there is a need for a customs union, a vote to stay in the single market and a meaningful parliamentary vote in this place, somehow we have to ignore that expertise and wisdom. That shows the hypocrisy of Government Members when it comes to the House of Lords.
Another aspect of the Bill is that it is a part of the no deal preparations. The Brexiteer argument is that preparing for no deal will show the EU we are ready to walk away, thus strengthening our negotiating position. However, I am pretty sure that the Bill is not going to have Michel Barnier quaking in his boots. This is the first Bill going through Parliament in preparation for no deal. I suggest there is a long way to go to strengthen the Government’s hand. We are only a couple of months away from summer recess and a whole load of other legislation will be required for the Government to be in a competent place in terms of no deal arrangements. There is no way that the Government are strengthening their hand. If anybody thinks that we are in a stronger negotiating position, they are kidding themselves.
The Government have not even published their transport priorities in a single policy or place, so we do not really know their overall hoped for direction of travel. We know in theory that they want frictionless trade. They want extensive free trade agreements without any meaningful show of what that means in reality and how it would be implemented—that is a key issue.
On haulage, we know that the supposed preference is for things to remain much as they are under the Community licence arrangements, but where are we on those negotiations? If agreement is reached for arrangements to continue as is, or if a reciprocal licence arrangement is agreed, that means few extra checks will be required. There is still, however, the fundamental issue of the customs and border arrangements, which is far more relevant to hauliers and businesses reliant on the import and export of fresh goods.
What will be the timescale for a new IT system? Has any work actually started on it? How much of the £75.8 million allocation for transport Brexit preparation has been spent so far and what has it been spent on? What is the planned programme of work for the fund for the rest of the financial year? Is the renting of Manston airfield as an emergency lorry park part of the Brexit preparations and expenditure? As the shadow Minister said, they cannot even get their plans for a car park correctly in place. That is £13 million down the drain.
Chris Grayling
It may be helpful to the House if I say that the preparations for any disruption, not necessarily Brexit-related, of the Channel ports are well under way. Work on the M20 will begin in a matter of weeks, either late this month or early next month, to ensure that we have greater capability than we did in 2015 to store more lorries. We are not relying on Manston airport. It remains available to us in the short term, but it is not included in our long-term plans.
Alan Brown
The Transport Secretary says that the work is going to start shortly. Can he give me a timescale for the completion of the lorry park?
Chris Grayling
I will go into detail another time, but we are putting in place plans that will enable us to store at least as many lorries as we did at the worst of the situation in 2015 without creating a situation where the motorway cannot flow in both directions. Those plans are well advanced and we will have them in place before next March.
Alan Brown
I remain to be convinced. That seems to be another example of, “Believe me, it will be okay. We’re dealing with it, just trust me.”
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I just wonder if perhaps this is the hidden agenda behind the Foreign Secretary’s proposed bridge, because that would create 20 miles of road between Britain and France. Perhaps the lorries could be stacked along that as well.
Alan Brown
It would certainly provide additional space. I wonder how long the bridge would take to complete, right enough. It is something else I would not trust this Government to implement.
On the Government’s overall preparations, the reality is, as James Hookham, the deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association stated:
“There is a lack of any progress in agreeing new systems for avoiding customs checks.”
He also explained that there is much detail to be agreed in two and a half years, a tiny period in business terms. His comments assume a transition period up to December 2020. If there is no deal, however, the transition period falls and that takes a year and a half out of that timetable. Time really is ticking on and we do not get a sense of urgency from the Government.
Our reliance on road haulage is confirmed by the fact that in 2016 3.7 million tonnes of goods were exported from the UK and 4 million tonnes were imported. For Brexiteers—we have heard the arguments already in interventions—this apparently shows how much the EU relies on the UK for its exports and so it will do everything it can to make sure its exports get here. What it actually shows, however, is how much UK businesses rely on EU imports to put food on the shelves and for it to be a reasonable price. The UK is far more reliant on EU imports. In terms of export value, it is 27 countries versus only the UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point. I suspect that when we talk about the import of food into this country, the Government will be reliant on the American market. If they do that, they will be held to ransom. That is what I suspect they are up to.
Alan Brown
That is a valid point. There have been mixed messages from the UK Government. The Trade Secretary says he will get a free trade deal with the United States. The Environment Secretary says we will get a deal but he assures us that there will be no chlorinated chicken or hormone beef. If we trade under World Trade Organisation rules, we cannot impose those welfare standards.
Sammy Wilson
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to find a negative in every argument. He talks about the importance of food imports for the United Kingdom. Does he accept that those food imports come from farmers in Spain, Ireland, France and Italy? Does he think that they want transport to be disrupted to the point where their goods sit and rot in lorries? Is that not an incentive for their Governments to do the kind of deal that the Secretary of State is talking about?
Alan Brown
First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying I can find a negative in any argument? I can assure him that I have a wife who agrees wholeheartedly with that sentiment. He makes my point for me. There will be a whole raft of countries coming together, so the potential hit on them is much less than the potential hit on the UK. It is easier for them to play hardball. Government Members say that they will not play hardball, but why would they not? The UK is trying to play hardball with the EU, so it is quite clear that the EU is going to have to play hardball back.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My point would be that the hon. Gentleman finds the cloud in every single lining. Perhaps his wife would also agree with that. He talks about food policy and agriculture. When will the Scottish National party release its agricultural policy? The rest of the UK has been waiting for months for the Command Paper. When will the SNP finally come up with policies and make a constructive contribution to the debate, rather than haplessly hitting at the Government?
Alan Brown
For a start, the UK Government have delayed the agriculture Bill. The SNP wants control of immigration to support the farming industry. There are big concerns about agriculture, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. There are concerns about the power grab and the attempt to override devolved policy matters. We heard at the weekend about the much promised review into common agricultural policy funding. The UK Government kept money that was due to Scottish farmers. They held on to it and we heard at the weekend that the review has been delayed again. I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on agricultural policy.
For the benefit of the House, I will try to return to the Bill. Part 1 covers the haulage permit system, as stated earlier. This is just an enabling Bill, so the real proof of the pudding will come from a combination of Government negotiations and the secondary legislation that is required as part of the Bill. At the moment, we really do not know what we are getting from the Bill.
The Government have stated that they intend to consult on fees later this year when the negotiations are much clearer, but that does not give me much confidence either. The reality is that we should be there or thereabouts with the negotiations already if we are going to get systems in place and advise hauliers and the Freight Transport Association what the future looks like for them, and what they need to do to comply. Clause 2 also introduces further uncertainty by referring to possible random selection or selection on a first come, first served basis, if permits are limited. If that is the outcome, it will cause further uncertainty for businesses.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituency is home to W.H. Malcolm Ltd, one of Scotland’s largest hauliers. When I met its staff, they said that the industry has gone through a tough time for a variety of reasons over the last few years. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State’s gung-ho, “It’ll be all right on the night” approach gives little comfort to hauliers such as W.H. Malcolm and to exporters across the UK?
Alan Brown
I completely agree. I am sure that the haulage company that my hon. Friend referred to—it is clearly a massive haulage company—will have concerns about how the licence will come about, how vacancies will be filled in future and, as we heard earlier, the rising age profile of drivers. Something else that the UK Government have refused to do is help to pay for drivers to be trained so that they can get into the industry. Individuals cannot afford the £3,000 that it costs to train for an HGV licence.
Just to surprise the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), on a slightly positive note, I welcome the fact that clause 9 comes from the Government accepting a Lords amendment about future reporting on the impact on the UK haulage industry of the restrictions that apply to a permit scheme. What I find curious about that is that when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down, so I hope that this will be a precedent for other future legislation. I welcome these provisions on future reporting.
Clause 12 covers Northern Ireland. Despite assurances from the Minister in the Lords that this legislation will not result in a hard border in Ireland—we have heard that from the Secretary of State—we need to know how the powers will be enforced and how it will not lead to a hardening of the border. I notice that the Secretary of State could not state clearly how the Irish Government see this operating. The Bill also specifically requires the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, as I am sure he is aware, has not been operating for 16 months, so will the Minister or the Secretary of State explain how consent will be sought in the absence of a devolved Government?
Overall, the Government may continue to assert that there will be no hard border, but they need to answer difficult questions about the broader picture regarding not only the Bill, but the customs arrangements and how they will do checks with this mythical “no infrastructure.” The Secretary of State talks time and again about how there are no checks on the US-Canada border, but I remind him that there are. Lorries have to stop there, so that model cannot be followed or else it will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland.
Part 2 of the Bill covers trailer registration as a consequence of ratifying the 1968 Vienna convention. Again, this is a series of enabling clauses with the detail to follow, so we do not know how this will be implemented or what the costs will be. The UK Government have stated again that private-use trailers such as caravans and horse trailers will not fall within the scope, yet those exclusions have not been put in the Bill, so how can we guarantee that that is the case? The Secretary of State might be aware that the National Caravan Council has raised concerns about the lack of clarity on exemptions for non-commercial trailers. It currently operates its own voluntary registration scheme, which is cost-effective and very successful, so any new scheme should not duplicate what it is doing. If needs be, a new scheme should build on what it is doing. We have also heard that this is only a registration scheme, yet clause 14(4) suggests that the regulations may make
“provision for a periodic mandatory safety standards testing scheme”.
What are the Government’s intentions regarding road safety measures for trailers? Is there a planned timescale for implementing them?
In conclusion—everybody will be pleased to know that I have come to the conclusion—we do not know if part 1 of the Bill is required, and if it is, we do not know what the secondary legislation will look like. We do not know what the fees will be. We do not know what the application process will be. We do not know whether there will be limits on the number of permits available. We do not know what additional checks will be required and how the situation will be managed regarding the Irish border. To borrow from Donald Rumsfeld, it seems to me that there are still a lot of known unknowns as regards the Bill. I also suspect that there are further unknown unknowns to follow. Having said that, the Government must be delighted with the progress they have made on taking back control, so I absolutely welcome the Bill.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The central role of good Government is to anticipate, prepare and act. In practice, of course, Governments spend a good deal of time responding to things to which they are obliged to react. Nevertheless, it is important that, as Ministers anticipate, they prepare legislation accordingly, and that is really what we are talking about today.
As I read the Bill, I could not help thinking that it is yet another piece of legislation that had its genesis during my time at the Department for Transport. We spend a great deal of time debating Bills that I had a hand in. When I was a Minister, I suppose that excessive humility meant that I did not fully accept the plaudits from the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but now I realise just how inventive I was in the Department. It was that combination of perspicacity and imagination that led to so much legislation, including this Bill.
As has been said, the essence of the Bill is to create a framework. The first of the Bill’s two parts deals with establishing a permit system that will allow the continued movement of goods across Europe by hauliers, and the second deals with trailer registration. I do not want to go exhaustively into that—it was described very well by the Secretary of State, and others have made reference to it—but some points of amplification are worth making. I emphasise again the significance of haulage and why the measures that we are debating really matter. Both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State drew attention to the scale of the industry. It is worth something like £13.1 billion to the economy and directly employs almost 200,000 people but, of course, there are many more jobs in the logistics industry, as we like to describe it in the modern idiom. Around 2.35 million people have occupations that relate to the transit—the movement —of goods.
Through haulage, for the vast majority of goods are transported by truck, the things that we want and the things that we need—they are not necessarily the same, by the way—are brought to us, and the things that we make and sell are taken from us to other places. It is critical that the process is as seamless as possible. I note that there was mention of fresh produce. When we move things around, it is important that we do so quickly, and no more so than in the case of fresh produce. The just-in-time culture that we have created means that the lead times involved in acquiring, transporting and retailing goods are very short indeed, and were they to suffer as a result of any change, it would mean not only a considerable disruption to what we have come to expect, but significant additional costs to the haulage industry, which works on very narrow margins—typically something like 1% to 3%. I have spoken to the RHA about that, both since and while I was a Minister, and it is conscious of the need to maintain that free flow of goods not only for its own sake, but for the sake of all those it serves through the industry including, ultimately, consumers—those who buy and use the goods, and whose lives are made better by their acquisition.
It is therefore important, as the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have both emphasised, that we make the process as seamless as possible. The optimum outcome, of course, is that it be as much like it is now as possible. As the Secretary of State said, that is what he anticipates will be the product of the negotiations in which we are engaged, and his argument is compelling, because it is in our mutual interest that that is the case. It is absolutely in the mutual interest of countries across Europe that they are able to sell and buy goods as they need them.
Andy McDonald
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that while a principle of solidarity exists in an EU comprising 28 countries, once we are a third country, that principle of solidarity will obtain across 27 countries and their duty will be to each other, not the UK?
Mr Hayes
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I suspect that the commercial interests of those countries and the pressure that commercial interests put on them will, in the end, be irresistible. For example, as was argued a few moments ago, farmers, growers and food manufacturers across Europe—whether in northern Europe or, as we heard, in Spain and Italy in the south—will want their goods brought here, much as they are now. I think the pressure to do a deal in our mutual interest will in the end rule the day.
Now, I do not know that, and the Secretary of State asked, very honestly, “How could I predict that?”—he would not want to, and he did not—but I think a deal in our mutual interest is the likely outcome. He called it his best guess; I would go further and call it my considered estimation.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The right hon. Gentleman touches on a fundamental point. Does he not agree that, if we do not get this right, it will affect costs and quality, certainly for transporters and producers?
Mr Hayes
That is why it is vital that the negotiations go well and why it is important to put in place this framework legislation. It is right that the Government prepare for all eventualities. In opposition, I spent half my time saying the Government were being too precise, too dogmatic, too determined to specify, and the other half saying they were being too open-minded and too flexible. The trouble with all Oppositions is that they meander between those two positions: on the one hand, they want the Government to be specific; on the other hand, they want the Government to be flexible. I slightly sense that that dilemma prevails in respect of the existing Opposition. This is a framework Bill—there is no need to apologise for that. The detail will come forward when we know the shape of the negotiations and how much of the Bill will be necessary. That is a straightforward and honourable position for any Government who want to anticipate, prepare and act.
The shadow Secretary of State made an additional important point about haulage that I also want to amplify. On skills and employment, he is entirely right that, irrespective of our relationship with the EU, there is a pressing need to recruit more people into the industry. As he was speaking, I was looking at notes on this very subject. He will know that the strategic transport apprenticeship taskforce, which has been looking at just these matters, published a report last year, off the back of its earlier consideration, and although there have been improvements across each sector of transport—road, rail, and so on, including haulage—there is still more to do, particularly to recruit people from under-represented groups in the sector.
When I was a Minister, work was being done, which I know is continuing under my successors, to encourage more people into the industry by, if you like, recasting or rebranding it—something I discussed with the RHA many times. That is vital not only on the purely numeric grounds the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but because we want people to have worthwhile careers in logistics. It is an important sector, and there are many good jobs to be had and many important skills to learn and use, so there is an efficacy in this as well as a necessity. To that end, I hope the work will continue through the apprenticeship taskforce. I gather from its report that there are 15,000 apprentices in road freight this year. I hope that that number will continue to grow. I established an education advisory group in the Department to advise on how we could cast out more widely in attracting people into the industry, and it seems to me that that work should also continue—but far be it from me to bind the hands of my successors.
Andy McDonald
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that this is not only about attracting people into the industry but about retaining them? The figures show that many young people coming into the industry do not hang around but go on to pastures new, and that requires urgent and focused attention.
Mr Hayes
It does require focused attention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is about retention as well as recruitment. We must recruit from different sources, which might mean people coming back into the industry, and address the rate of attrition. We must draw on people from other sources—a good example is the armed services, where people, having learned to drive, could re-enter the private sector—and we must attract more people from minority communities, which are very sparsely represented in haulage and road freight, and more women drivers. To do that, however, we have to change some of the working conditions. That is critical to both recruitment and retention.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you did not mind my digressing a little from the specifics of the Bill in order to amplify an important point that I know is keenly felt by shadow Ministers and Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I just want to raise two points. First, might one way of attracting more young people into the business be for the Government to provide a financial incentive to companies, tied into some contract of employment, to enable us to keep people in the business? Secondly, business is changing and many married people do not want to be away for long periods, so might it be worth trying to engage with single people, and those with more free time and who do not have the same obligations at home? Those are probably two things we need to look at.
Mr Hayes
As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in an earlier phase of my celebrated ministerial career, when I was apprenticeships Minister—I expected at least a titter when I said that, but clearly people take it very seriously, which I am actually rather relieved about—we looked particularly at smaller businesses and their commitment to training and introduced a grant scheme for small businesses that took on apprentices. I think there is a case for looking at that again, particularly in sectors with the most pressing demand—and haulage might be one of them—but I will say no more than that, because I do not want to commit my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to anything they do not want me to commit them to; I simply endorse his thoughts.
The Bill does two things: it provides powers that will support Britain’s hauliers to continue operating internationally after the UK leaves the EU; and it gives the Government the necessary framework to introduce new administrative systems if needed after exit. It provides the kind of flexibility I have described and, as has been said, under provisions in part 2, puts in place a trailer registration system in line with the Vienna convention, which, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, came to pass in 1968. It is a UN treaty designed to facilitate international road traffic and increase road safety by establishing uniform traffic rules, and has been signed and ratified by 75 countries. The Bill will allow us to apply it more comprehensively.
I do not want to delay the House any further, because I know that others want to speak—
Mr Hayes
No. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I really feel that it is only fair to others to give them the opportunity to emulate my style and content.
Cardinal Newman—who, in my experience, is given insufficient attention during debates on road haulage—[Laughter]—said:
“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”.
Of course there will be difficulties in the process during the period following our departure from the European Union. It will be a cathartic process, and all kinds of challenges will have to be met. However, that does not of itself make an argument for not taking the right action now; it does not of itself add up to the profound doubts that some seem to have. I have confidence in the capacity, skills and determination of those in the industry, working with the Government, to continue to deliver what they currently do so well.
Let me end by mentioning an important haulier in my constituency with whom I discussed these matters this morning. That gentleman, Mr Robin Hancox, runs a business called FreshLinc. His fleet of vehicles brings fresh produce—food and flowers—from the continent to this country. He is determined that his business will continue to work post Brexit. He recognises that that will present some new challenges, but he is confident that the Government are doing the right thing in taking the necessary action to make the process as seamless as possible. I am confident too, which is why I can enthusiastically say that I not only endorse the Bill, but am willing, ready and able to support it.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I will try my best to emulate some of what he tried to say.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the merits of trailer registration and to highlight the rationale and importance of clause 13(3), (4) and (5) and clause 14 (3) and (4), as amended in the House of Lords, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his earlier comments. The subsections require the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report. I welcome that, because the Department for Transport’s current reporting methods do not give us a true picture of the risks posed by light trailers in this country.
The subsections also give the Secretary of State the power to introduce compulsory trailer registration and mandatory testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kg. I accept that as a long overdue step towards improving trailer safety—although it is a compromise—but my work on the issue over the past three years has drawn me to the overwhelming conclusion there ought to be a compulsory register of all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, and that they should be subject to regular testing. I shall say more about that later.
My interest in trailer safety began soon after I was elected to this place in 2015, when my constituents Donna and Scott Hussey came to see me about their son, Freddie, who had been tragically killed in January 2014. Three-year-old Freddie and his mum were walking along the pavement when a two-tonne trailer came loose from a Land Rover, sped straight towards Freddie, and killed him. The trailer’s tow hitch had not been secure, as the position of its handbrake had prevented it from being locked down.
If the trailer had been subject to mandatory roadworthiness checks, the problem with the hitch might have been fixed and the tragedy might never have happened. Currently, trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, known as categories 01 and 02 or “light” trailers, are not required to have any such roadworthiness test, although trailers and their vehicles must be roadworthy when used on the road under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. That is a loophole: without the licensing and hence the testing, there is no enforcement system.
I do not need to tell the House that the family continue to suffer a life sentence because of the horrific events of that day. However, I have been inspired by their courage and resilience, and we have been working together on a campaign to improve trailer safety ever since.
In the last three years, I have initiated a Westminster Hall debate and had meetings with two transport Ministers: the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and the current Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). I have held two trailer safety summits, which were attended by representatives of key national organisations and Government agencies; I have spoken at the National Trailer and Towing Association’s annual conference; and I have met various experts with insights into trailer safety, including members of my local police force. The result has been the #towsafe4freddie campaign, launched by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to raise driver awareness, and an awful lot of hard work by the National Towing Working Group, spearheaded by Highways England and others. The National Trailer and Towing Association has set up a free trailer safety-checking initiative, and Avon and Somerset police have begun trailer awareness training for officers to enable them to spot unsafe trailers on the road.
That work commands cross-party interest and support. I am grateful to the Ministers for their attention to the issues, and for meeting the Hussey family: that meant a great deal to them. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire and his team for attending my trailer summit in Bedminster last month, and for his willingness to engage with the experts. Despite that good work, however, we continue to underestimate hugely the safety risk posed by unchecked light trailers on our roads—which brings me to the Bill, and its importance.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with the establishment of a trailer registration scheme that would allow UK trailer users to meet the registration standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. Registration is critical to trailer safety, because it constitutes an essential requirement for regular safety checks, and prevents unsafe trailers from being sold and resold. However, non-commercial, leisure-use trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes do not fall within the scope of the Bill, because they are not included in the convention. I believe that that is a missed opportunity.
In Committee in the House of Lords, Lord Bassam tabled a probing amendment that called for the registration scheme to apply to all trailers weighing less than 3.5 tonnes.
He referred to the Government’s impact assessment, which stated that the Bill represented
“an opportunity to improve safety through better regulation",
and asked why the Government would not take advantage of it to widen the scope of the scheme. That raised an important point. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s digital service is now in place to facilitate the registering of trailers. It presents a good opportunity for the registration of all trailers, not only those weighing more than 3.5 tonnes. The Government fear that expanding the scheme would create an unnecessary administrative burden, but that needs to be balanced against the dangers posed by these vehicles. I remind the House that Freddie Hussey—aged just three—was crushed by a two-tonne trailer, heavier than the average car.
The issue of “proportionality” arose several times in the House of Lords, which is why, should the report referred to in the Bill conclude that trailers ought to be registered and subject to mandatory safety checks, the rule would apply only to trailers weighing more than 750 kg. That is a compromise. It is still very much my view—based on evidence that I have seen—that faulty trailers weighing less than 750kg represent a huge safety risk, which is why I believe that all trailers should be registered and checked.
I was delighted that the Lords supported the amendment that compels the Secretary of State to collate comprehensive data on the number and nature of trailer-related road accidents in the UK, and to include those findings in a report, but the key word is “comprehensive”. It would not be good enough for the Government to commit themselves to a report, but to give us what already exists. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification of how the Government will define “comprehensive” and how his Department will go about collecting the data. I am certainly not alone in believing that data on the safety of light trailers is currently lacking. During the Lords debate, Baroness Sugg, speaking for the Government, admitted that, having looked at the Department for Transport’s road accidents report, she agreed that the Government could and should consider the way in which they report trailer safety, and that it could “definitely be improved”. I welcome that assertion.
In the report, the Department highlights the huge gaps in the data that they currently collate for road accidents generally. They include only accidents that are reported to the police, that involve a personal injury, and that occur on public roads. The true number is of course much higher. The report states:
“These figures…do not represent the full range of all accidents or casualties”
in Great Britain, and goes on to describe the large proportion of non-fatal casualties not known to the police.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is talking eloquently about safety in relation to trailers and vehicles. We must have a high level of safety, so does she agree that those with licences from other countries, such as eastern Europe, should have the same high driving standards as our drivers in this country? Some, although not all, of the events the hon. Lady has been talking about involve drivers from other parts of Europe who do not have the driving skills that they should have.
Karin Smyth
I agree that we want all drivers to be of the highest standards. I cannot comment on the number of accidents caused by trailers that involve drivers not of that high standard, but in the work I have done over the last three years I have been shocked to discover how many trailers, in agriculture and across the piece, on our roads do not meet the requirements we would ordinarily expect, and I hope this Bill helps to improve that situation.
The current method of reporting a road accident means that there is no real way of knowing whether, and how, a trailer contributed to an accident. The details of incidents involving trailers are largely dependent upon the subjective viewpoint of the police officer on the scene, which the Department’s own report admits poses difficulties. The STATS19 form filled in by the officer is complex and gives 78 contributing factors for them to choose from. We currently have several police forces testing new reporting systems because of the huge inaccuracies and the inadequacy of this method.
In contrast to the statistics on trailer-related incidents presented by the Department for Transport, a growing body of evidence from industry organisations and case studies indicate the true scale of the problem. In July 2017, the National Trailer and Towing Association introduced the free safety checks initiative, the first of its kind in the UK, in which light trailers are offered a free inspection at members’ premises. Since rolling this out it has found an astonishing 93% failure rate. I hope the work being done will help highlight to Members that they can encourage people in their constituencies to take advantage of these free safety checks and promote their use. Avon and Somerset police have also been carrying out checks and they broadly substantiate these findings; the failure rate is very high.
These initiatives further highlight that what is needed are checks on these vehicles in order to prevent accidents, and not purely the collection of data on vehicles once they have been involved in an accident. With an estimated 2 million light trailers on the road, a large proportion of which are many years old, it is not unreasonable to assume that a significant amount would fail a roadworthiness test. All cars, which in many cases are lighter than trailers, are subjected to rigorous MOT testing each year, so by what logic can the Government argue that trailer safety checks are not integral to improving safety standards?
It is my sincere hope that the Government will accept the measures discussed as an opportunity to move this issue on and demonstrate their commitment to preventing further tragedies such as Freddie’s from happening in the future. We can only do that if we have clearer data on light trailer safety so that the Secretary of State can make an informed decision on whether we ought to have mandatory registration and checks.
In summary, I am grateful for the comments and the work of the Secretary of State and the Minister on this issue and for clauses 13(3), (4) and (5) and 14(3) and (4), but how will the Government define what is “comprehensive”? Also, will the Department initiate new ways of collating data on light trailers beyond the STATS19 form? How does it plan to gather such data? Finally, how does the Minister plan for the data to be gathered to meet the timeframe set out in the Bill—one year from the day the relevant section comes into force?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).
This is a very welcome Bill and demonstrates that the Government are making prudent preparations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and many other speakers this afternoon have rightly pointed out the importance of the UK’s road haulage sector and the contribution it makes to the country’s economy. It is, by any standards, an important British industry: it employs about 300,000 people, and in 2015 some 76% of all goods moved in this country were moved by road. It is therefore entirely understandable that the road freight industry is keen to see an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the future of road haulage.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that road haulage is one of his Department’s top two priorities. He also rightly pointed out in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) that about 80% of the lorries operating between the UK and the continent are owned by EU-based businesses. It is therefore clear that achieving an agreement is, or at least should be, a matter of similar priority to the European Union as it is to us. Indeed, I am heartened by the fact that the EU’s negotiating guidelines, adopted on 23 March, set out the aim of continued transport connectivity between the UK and the European Union. I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend this afternoon that the negotiations are going well, and I have no doubt that it will be to the mutual benefit of the United Kingdom and the European Union, and their respective transport industries, to achieve an agreement that provides for frictionless road transport after Brexit.
However, that being said, the Government are entirely right to prepare contingency measures for the event of there being no deal, and that course of action has attracted the approval of the road haulage industry itself. As part of the process of preparation, Parliament recently ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. The UK was already a signatory to the 1949 Geneva convention; however, five EU member states, including Germany, are party to the Vienna convention but not to the Geneva convention. Ratifying the 1968 convention, therefore, will, in the Government’s words,
“address the lack of a mutual legal basis for road traffic”
with those countries. In other words, it will provide for some degree of continued traffic with the EU in the event of there being no deal. As the Government have also observed, ratifying the Vienna convention will enable the United Kingdom to help shape the evolution and future direction of the convention, which is particularly important in respect of automated vehicle technology.
The Road Haulage Association has indicated that ideally it would wish the UK and the EU to use the current Community licence system and all EU rules for road haulage once Brexit has taken place. That may be the most desirable outcome, depending of course on whether the issue of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice can be resolved. The Department for Transport is no doubt considering a number of other proposals that would result in a similar degree of flexibility without ECJ jurisdiction.
One of the proposals suggested by the RHA is that the United Kingdom and the European Union should set up a new authorising system for international road haulage. That may also be a desirable outcome, but in addition there is always the possibility of the UK and individual EU member states setting up a new permit-based system for international road haulage—in other words, a system of bilateral permits.
The Bill of necessity employs a broad brush: it has to take into account all possible contingencies from the negotiations, from complete agreement to no deal. It is therefore necessarily widely framed, and is no worse for that. Part 1 enables the Secretary of State to put in place arrangements to enable a road haulage permit scheme, should it be required. Clause 1 provides for regulations to oblige road hauliers to carry a permit where international agreement requires it. The expression “relevant international agreement” is defined in the clause as an agreement
“to which the United Kingdom is a party and…which relates to the transport of goods by road to, in or through the country”.
However, in the case of Ireland, an international agreement is expressed as one to which the UK is a party and
“which relates to the transport of goods by road to, in or through Ireland”
and
“which the Secretary of State has certified as an agreement to which the Government of Ireland has consented”.
That is for a very good reason. There has been a long history of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland with regard to transport on the island of Ireland, and I suggest that continued bilateral arrangements are most desirable. In fact, they are equally important for the Irish Republic. The A55 north Wales expressway passes through my constituency, and hundreds of Irish lorries pass along it every day. It is important that the Republic of Ireland’s free access to the roads of the United Kingdom should be maintained. I would be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister what discussions have taken place with the Government of the Republic and whether he anticipates agreement on new bilateral arrangements after Brexit.
Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State to issue permits to applicants and provides for regulations that would detail how hauliers should apply for permits and the basis on which the Secretary of State would decide whether to grant a permit. I understand that those regulations will be the subject of a consultation by the Department, which is sensible and welcome. The clause also provides for criteria to be used in allocating permits, should they be required as part of an agreement with the EU. Subsection (l)(c) indicates that regulations may make provision
“as to how the Secretary of State is to decide whether to grant an application for a permit, including provision specifying criteria or other methods of selection (which may include first come, first served or an element of random selection).”
Concern was expressed in the other place as to the somewhat haphazard nature of the selection provided for in the clause, and the reasonable point was made that it would be difficult for any haulier to make serious business plans on such a basis. Will the Minister give a further indication as to how such a method of selection would operate? No doubt it will be set out in the regulations in due course, but it would be good to know the Government’s current thinking.
Part 2 of the Bill provides for a system of trailer registration. That has been included in the Bill to enable the Government to comply with their obligations under the Vienna convention, which has now been ratified. The Minister, Baroness Sugg, indicated in the other place that it was the Government’s intention to require only operators that take trailers abroad to register their trailers. It would be good if the Minister could reiterate that commitment and further confirm that the scheme would apply only to commercial trailers over 750 kg and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes. It would also be good if he could confirm that the scheme will not apply domestically.
There remains a lot to be fleshed out, but it is understandable that the Bill should be couched in broad terms at the moment. The House will look forward to further details in due course, but this is a sensible, prudent Bill aimed at facilitating whatever agreement may be arrived at with the European Union while at the same time safeguarding the British position against there being no deal. I am therefore pleased to support it.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have really enjoyed this debate, and I hope that the Minister takes seriously all the points that have been raised in good faith. I am also particularly pleased to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth)—thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker—as I wish to support the points she made on towing equipment and trailers. Last week I visited the Rotherham branch of Towing Centres UK, which fits towing equipment to vehicles. As skilled professionals, the centre’s staff were keen to tell me about the serious gaps in the current legislation regarding safe towing—gaps that the Minister has the opportunity to address today.
The Rotherham Towing Centre is the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest suppliers of towing equipment. Customers using such an accredited centre can be sure that a tow bar fitted to their vehicle is safe and secure. The consequences of tow bar failure can be catastrophic, and many of us will be aware of horrific incidents of unsafe towing that have resulted in serious injury or death, yet there is no legal requirement for tow bars to be fitted by a professional. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe, badly fitted tow bar from being used. Even at the vehicle’s next MOT test, a newly fitted tow bar will not be tested. Added to that danger, trailers between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes are subjected to no routine safety checks whatever. Vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are required to have a yearly inspection, so it would seem ridiculous to most people that this does not apply to all trailers. A 3 tonne trailer that becomes detached could easily destroy a building. The dangers to other motorists, and pedestrians, are obvious.
The National Trailer and Towing Association has been so disturbed by those dangers that its members have been offering free visual checks for trailers and then recommending what action needs to be taken to make them safe. Since the scheme began, 91% of the trailers seen have failed the test. The Rotherham Towing Centre gave me an example of a catering trailer that its new owner had brought in last week. It had been bought on eBay and, as it was being towed home on the motorway, a wheel came off. During its subsequent inspection at the centre, staff condemned the brakes, the tyres, the hitch and the lights. The centre owner, Irene, said that the only thing that worked was the deep fat fryer.
The amendments moved in the other place by Lord Bassam would go some way towards addressing the glaring safety omissions, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for acknowledging that in his speech. The amendments do not call for the compulsory registration of trailers or for safety checks, but they would require the Government to collate information on trailer-related accidents and to consider what further regulation is appropriate. As that does not currently happen, we have no idea of the scale of the problem. I am sure we would all agree that evidence-based legislation is always the best approach, and the Bill could ensure that that evidence is robust. Personally, I would push the Minister to go further and to go straight to registration for all trailers.
Finally, I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who has campaigned extensively on this issue and worked closely with the family of three-year-old Freddie Hussey. I would also like to offer my deep sympathy to Freddie’s family. As my hon. Friend said, Freddie was tragically killed when a trailer became detached from a vehicle. The trailer was later found to be unsafe as the tow hitch was not working correctly. Terrible incidents such as that can be avoided, and I urge the Minister to act to close the loopholes in the existing legislation without delay.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
I might not be able to emulate the knowledge and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), the eloquence, erudition and elegance of delivery of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), or the positivity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), but I will equally seek to avoid the pessimism of the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I will seek to address the positives of this important piece of legislation, which is, as Members have said, a sensible preparation for different Brexit eventualities and for the delivery of a smooth Brexit for the people and businesses of this country.
The Secretary of State has been absolutely clear that he expects the UK to secure a good deal, and I share his positivity on that. He is right, however, to bring forward a precautionary contingency Bill. It is the action of a responsible Government to prepare for every eventuality. Indeed, it is also the action of a responsible Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to him for that. Of course, I hope that many of the Bill’s powers prove unnecessary, but it is right that we have them, and the regulation-making powers will allow the Secretary of State to create the regulatory architecture to cater for various scenarios.
My right hon. Friend and others have been clear about the importance of the haulage sector both to our economy and to each of us in our day-to-day lives. Lorries may not always be popular, but they are hugely important in making this country function. For the sake of brevity, I will not recount the statistics referred to by many Members, but they set out just how important the sector is to our economy. Not only is contingency planning important and responsible, but the economic imperative for each of us in our daily lives and for our economy is clear. The UK played a key role, starting in 1988 and continuing through the 1990s, in driving forward the liberalisation of haulage in Europe, and it is right that we are now acting to ensure that that continues. Baroness Sugg set out clearly in the other place our country’s reliance on the industry, particularly for foodstuffs.
At present, hauliers can move freely within the EU with the Community licence, and a standard international operator’s licence is also required for that. Alongside that system runs the European Conference of Ministers of Transport multilateral quota permit scheme. While not without its uses—it is extremely useful—the ECMT quota is small by comparison with the volumes of journeys and hauliers operating within Europe. The Road Haulage Association has expressed reservations about it being too restrictive. While useful, it is unlikely to address the long-term needs of the industry and the country. On our exit from the EU, the Community licence scheme will no longer be available, hence why this Bill is necessary and important. It must not only cover non-EU agreements and any permit-based deal but provide for other eventualities.
Mr John Hayes
The RHA has been quoted at length and repeatedly during this debate, but it has also said that it wholeheartedly supports the Government introducing contingency measures. While it wants seamless transport of the kind that we have all spoken of, the RHA recognises my hon. Friend’s point about the Government’s wisdom in bringing forward these measures.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is correct. The RHA has adopted a constructive, engaged and positive approach, as he will know from his dealings with it when he was a successful Transport Minister. The Bill will also provide the Secretary of State with new powers to allocate permits and to charge fees, and with enforcement powers for different offences.
The trailer registration scheme is an obligation that derives from the UK’s ratification—albeit slightly belated—of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which we had signed but never ratified and which built on the 1909, 1926 and 1949 conventions. The ratification of the convention now is part of our responsible preparation for all eventualities. I suspect the main reason why it was so important to do it now is found in paragraph 3 of article 3, which states:
“Subject to the exceptions provided for in Annex 1 to this Convention, Contracting Parties shall be bound to admit to their territories in international traffic motor vehicles and trailers which fulfil the conditions laid down in Chapter III”.
That will help to provide for the continued free flow of cars and commercial vehicles so that traffic can continue as before, allowing the UK to issue international driving permits.
In order that we can comply with the convention and secure the benefits of it, it is important that the registration of trailers is brought forward. The Department has been clear that it proposes mandatory registration for commercial trailers over 750 kg and all trailers over 3.5 tonnes used for international purposes, but not for domestic use. Such a reasonable and measured approach will ensure that caravans, horseboxes and so on are not necessarily caught by the scheme. However, I note that that is not specifically detailed on the face of the Bill, although the Minister in the other place made the point clear. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations for such a scheme to be brought in.
On the subject safety, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who has done so much in this place with her “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign, following the tragic death of Freddie Hussey. She has been passionate and determined in her pursuit of that cause, as I know some of their lordships were. I hope that the Minister, in his usual thoughtful and sensitive way, will pay due heed to what their lordships and the hon. Lady have said and will address her comments in measured, sensible tones.
I welcome this sensible piece of contingency planning by the Secretary of State—I pay tribute to him for his foresight—and the enabling framework that it provides. I suspect that there may be little actual change and that the powers may prove largely unnecessary following the negotiation of a successful deal, but it is right that we plan for all eventualities and ensure continued liberalised traffic and haulage for the future. That sensible approach reflects not only pragmatism but the Government’s clear and focused determination to secure a good deal for Britain, which is in sad contrast to the chaos and contradiction that characterise the Opposition’s policy as we deliver our exit from the EU. I again commend the Secretary of State for his foresight and sagacity, and I am pleased to support the Bill.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) on his positive speech. I hope that mine will be equally as positive, because almost every time anything about Brexit or leaving the EU is mentioned in this House the naysayers and those who wish to overturn the referendum result will find any excuse to look for faults in what is being presented.
I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing forward this legislation, because it will provide a contingency if there is no deal. Despite what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said about this legislation hardly having Mr Barnier quaking in his boots, an important message is sent out every time that the Government—whether in this Bill or in conversations, interviews or statements—indicate to those negotiating our exit from the EU that we have the option of walking away if they are not prepared to play ball. Regardless of how small this particular warning may be, it is nevertheless part of a picture that we need to present.
Having said that, I share Ministers’ optimism and the optimism of many other Members who have already spoken. There is every reason why the current arrangements —the Community licence and the standard international operator’s licence—should be made available as a result of the Brexit negotiations. As we have already seen, road transport is vital not just for this country, but for every country with which we trade in the EU.
Alan Brown
The Democratic Unionist party obviously has first-hand experience of how good the UK Government are at negotiating. Given the concessions the right hon. Gentleman’s party extracted from the Government, the whole EU saw how the DUP had the Tories dancing on the head of a pin. Does he really trust that lot to negotiate a good deal from the EU?
Sammy Wilson
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. When the Government stuck their heels in with the EU in December 2017, the agreement was changed and the protocols were not insisted on in March 2018. The Prime Minister stuck her heels in when the Irish Government said June was a deadline. The UK Government made it clear that it might not be done by June, and we have now moved to October 2018. When the Government make it clear that they intend to be in the driving seat on these negotiations, I have every confidence that we can get a good outcome for the United Kingdom.
Of course, there is every reason for us to be confident. Road transport is important to every European nation that trades with us, and it is particularly important to Northern Ireland—over 90% of our trade is via road transport. Road transport is not only important to us. If we look at who actually transports the goods we export to other parts of the EU, we see that 85% of the goods that go from the UK to other EU countries are carried in vehicles owned by EU-based companies. That being the case, there is every incentive for nations with lorries, lorry drivers and transport companies to come to an arrangement with our Government to ensure that free movement can happen. Equally, many of those goods are perishable, and it is therefore important that there is as little disruption to road transport as possible, hence why I believe it will be possible to get the kind of deal the Government seek. Nevertheless, it is important that we have this fall-back position.
The second issue is Northern Ireland. Although I heard the Minister’s explanation, I am still not clear on why we need a separate provision in the Bill for agreements on transporting goods to, and on lorries driving through, the Irish Republic and why the international agreements referred to in clause 1 are not sufficient to cover the Irish Republic. I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) that the Irish Government are willing, because of our long-standing arrangements on transport issues, to ensure that a bilateral arrangement can be put in place.
The Irish Government have almost cut off their nose to spite their face on the issue of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They know their own head of Revenue Commissioners has made it clear that there are technological solutions that could ensure there is no hard border so that trade flows easily across the border. The previous Administration in Ireland even started down the route of considering the kind of technology that could be used but, since coming in, the current Irish Government have cut off all the negotiations on those solutions. Only this weekend, they insisted that they will have no cameras, drones or any kind of technology that could make the border a soft border when we leave.
Mr David Jones
Can the right hon. Gentleman say, from his experience of the island of Ireland, whether the Irish Government fully understand the importance to the Irish economy of maintaining free access to the United Kingdom for trade not only with this country but beyond?
Sammy Wilson
It seems that the current Irish Government do not understand. Six times more of their trade is with Great Britain than with Northern Ireland, and more of their trade is with Great Britain than with the whole of the rest of the EU, yet they seem to be willing to pursue a solution that will mean a border and barriers between the Irish Republic and its main market in order to have an open border with Northern Ireland. When it is suggested to the Irish Government that they can have both an open border with Northern Ireland and access to the GB market, they simply put their hands over their ears and say, “We don’t want to hear. Nah, nah, nah, nah.”
I am not as convinced as the right hon. Member for Clwyd West that it will be easy to get a transport arrangement with the Government of the Irish Republic, and I would appreciate further explanation from the Minister as to why the international arrangements covering other EU countries cannot simply apply to the Irish Republic. If lorries from Northern Ireland go through the Irish Republic, they are going through another country, so why would the international arrangements and agreements not apply? Why do we need a specific bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government who, unfortunately, at present seem to be in a temper tantrum and are not willing to listen to too much logic, even if not doing so damages their own economy?
Alan Brown
While the right hon. Gentleman is castigating the Irish Government—he says they have said there will be no cameras and no technology—will he explain what technology he proposes? The UK Government have said that there will be no infrastructure and no cameras, or anything like that, at the border, so what is this magic technology that will rely on no infrastructure whatsoever?
Sammy Wilson
When people talk about infrastructure, they think of red and white posts on the roads across the border. The one thing we know—I do not want to digress too much—is that during the troubles 50,000 troops could not seal the Irish border. If we think we will seal the Irish border to trade with a couple of barber’s poles across a road, we are barking up the wrong tree. That shows a total misunderstanding.
The infrastructure that would be involved is used elsewhere and has been proven, whether it is GPS, telephones, early notification or electronic notification that trade is moving. There are a whole range of things that do not require a physical presence on the border, and that technology could also be used at Dover to avoid the kinds of problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). It is not just a solution for the island of Ireland but a solution between the United Kingdom and the EU when we leave.
Karin Smyth
I fail to understand why there is no co-operation, when 5.2 million tonnes of trade is going north-south and 3.4 million tonnes of trade is going south-north—I think that is the right way round. The movement of freight across the island of Ireland is clearly critical to both economies. It might help the right hon. Gentleman if we had the results of the mapping exercise mentioned in paragraph 47 of the joint report on phase 1 of the negotiations. There are 140 areas of agreement across the border, but the Government are refusing to let us see the results of that mapping exercise so that we can really understand the true impact across the whole island.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady also has to understand that, although there may be 5.2 million tonnes of trade across the Northern Ireland-Irish Republic border, there is six times more trade between the Irish Republic and Great Britain. Yet that does not seem to exercise the minds of those in the Government of the Irish Republic even a little bit, and none of us can understand that. The big prize lies in finding a solution that allows that east-west trade, as well as that north-south trade without any impediments. I believe we have the technology and ability to do that, but the political willingness is not there.
I want to welcome a second thing in relation to Northern Ireland. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government have, in clause 12, taken it upon themselves to amend the legislation; many of these issues are devolved to the Assembly, which is not functioning at present. I suspect it will not function for many a long month or perhaps a year, because of the way in which Sinn Féin has now used its veto to prevent the Assembly being reformed. The Minister mentioned that a legislative consent motion would be sought. In the absence of an LCM, I take it that these powers will simply be taken by the Government.
Many Members have made this next point already, but it is worth noting. In the absence of knowing exactly where negotiations are going, and given the nature of some of the information that is required, I would not expect the detail of the scheme to be set out in the Bill. However, it is important that, at the earliest possible stage, people in the haulage industry know how many licences are going to be available, how they can apply for them, how they are going to be allocated and what is going to be paid for them. If some detail can be spelt out, even though it may not be in the Bill, that would give some certainty to the haulage firms that operate in my constituency.
I shall now turn to the part of the Bill that refers to trailers. We have heard some passionate speeches on that subject—from two Members in particular. As a result of personal tragedies in their constituency, they are concerned about the registration of trailers. The Bill is fairly ambiguous on this matter, simply talking about the registration of trailers, full stop, and not dealing with weight restriction, size or anything else. Despite personal tragedies that people may have faced, legislation must always be proportionate. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the ordinary guy who has a trailer that he uses to take stuff to the dump or uses to collect a few bits and pieces will not be required to go through the process of having the trailer registered and inspected on a yearly basis, with all the cost involved, especially as many of these trailers are used on only an occasional basis. Trailers over 3.5 tonnes, which are used commercially, are probably used more regularly and there is a case for having registration there, but I do not believe that there is a proportionate case for registration for ordinary domestic trailers, which would be affected if we extended this across all trailers.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Government are sending out a signal that, if Barnier and co. decide to dig in their heels, we are prepared to go our own way and that we have made preparations for it. At the same time, we believe that there is a strong case for continuing the current system of Community licensing so that firms that operate a vital part of our economy can continue to provide the service that they do now.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the optimistic and upbeat speech from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome this Bill as a modest, appropriate and measured move by the Government to make provision in case there is not a comprehensive free trade deal with the European Union. I am surprised that the Opposition have not actually stated their case. They sound as though they are just not in favour of the Bill at all but, judging by the absence of Opposition Members, I presume they are not going to vote against it. However, I cannot believe that the Bill is not something we would all welcome. A failure to plan is a plan to fail, so why would we not want this Bill?
The UK is an outward-looking, global trading nation, and I believe this will only be more the case after we leave the EU. As many Members have said, trade with the European Union is important—crucially, it is important to both sides. It goes without saying that it is in the EU’s best interests to maintain the current liberalised trade by road between the UK and the rest of the EU, and it is also in our interests to maintain that situation. We have heard all the statistics about the huge trade deficit with the EU—£72 billion in 2017—and how much that trade means in respect of the movement of goods across the UK. This shows just how crucial smooth access to the UK market for EU countries is. Many businesses across the continent sell their goods into the UK and, more often than not, they transport those goods here by road. We have all rehearsed the statistics as to why we need this modest measure to deliver that access and they are well in our brains now.
As the Prime Minister said,
“No deal is better than a bad deal”.
We cannot allow our UK hauliers to be left high and dry if we are offered a bad deal—if the EU does not come to a common-sense agreement, although we all believe it will do. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he is confident about that, and I share his confidence. The UK must make provision to allow for the outcome and this Bill does just that—it is a sensible piece of legislation.
This issue, like many others the House deals with, has significance in my constituency. Our proximity to London means that several haulage companies are based there, operating across the UK and into EU countries. In essence, the Bill is one that we hope we will never have need to call on. It is our backstop—our insurance position —and it therefore should have a fair wind and sail through its Second Reading tonight. I cannot understand the negativity we have heard from Opposition Members, who somehow interpret the Bill as being a massive piece of legislation that gives huge powers to the Secretary of State. I see it as exactly the opposite: something that is tidied away in case we should ever need it, although I share the Secretary of State’s confidence that we will not need this Bill.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to speak for long on this important Bill. As Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, this is an essential piece of legislation that allows for a smooth and orderly transition out of the EU and gives the Government a degree of wiggle room to take account of how the negotiations pan out. The Bill will certainly have my support.
I wish to talk, in short order, about the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic—that is a sentence I never thought I would hear myself say. The ratification that has taken place, after a prolonged period of consideration of some 50 years, has implications that I wish to raise, because they affect the car industry in my constituency. As hon. Members will know, the convention required that a driver was always in control of their vehicle. The provision was amended in 2016 to allow the vehicle to have a degree of autonomy, provided that there was a driver in place to take over in the event of emergency conditions.
My constituency is home to Ford’s UK headquarters, where some of the most ingenious and innovative design for the next generation of autonomous vehicles is taking place. The problem with the Vienna convention, even as amended, is that it might prevent the development of level 4 autonomy. Such autonomy would, in effect, allow a whole trip to be automated—indeed, it allows for the removal of the steering wheel. In January, General Motors produced its first such model, the Cruise AV fourth generation, which literally has no steering wheel. That means, of course, that a driver cannot intervene, even if emergency conditions are met.
I am concerned that our ratification of the convention will mean that are we are not able to deliver the next generation of automated vehicles in the UK. I am sure that the Department for Transport and the Minister have at their disposal an excellent legal team who will be able to find a way through the issues, but I seek reassurance that the UK will be in a position to continue the excellent work that we have been doing to make us one of the foremost countries in the world for the development of driverless cars.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As a recently elected member of the Transport Committee, and given the significant number of haulage and distribution companies in my constituency, it is an absolute pleasure to speak in the debate.
The liberalisation of commercial haulage has delivered huge consumer benefits in the choice of goods available at affordable prices throughout the UK. Even the smallest corner shops now commonly stock goods that only a generation ago would have seemed impossibly exotic. Trade is a two-way street, and it is the modern haulage industry that has made possible the geographically deep penetration of overseas markets. I note that, according to the Department for Transport, UK road haulage directly contributes more than £13 billion in gross value added and plays a major role in the transport of some £35 billion of goods that are traded between the UK and the European Union. It is therefore only right that as part of our international road haulage policy, we take the need to support the sector seriously.
There is, of course, still some uncertainty about the final Brexit deal. While the negotiations are under way, we must continue to move things forward. I regret to say this, but that uncertainty is compounded by the unfortunate regression in some quarters to the tried and failed politics of “Project Fear”. I have been extremely optimistic about the opportunities that can come from Brexit, and it is important that the Government come forward with actions to mitigate the lingering uncertainty. I am pleased that they are making positive provisions, where they can, for maximum continuity and the utmost clarity, including through this Bill. I welcome that positive action, because optimism, continuity and clarity are the most powerful antidotes to uncertainty, and they will mitigate any possible doubts in the industry about future investment decisions in the UK.
The Government are absolutely right to bring forward comprehensive measures that will reassure the haulage industry with clarity and continuity, and thereby enable it to plan for the future without knowing the final outcome of our negotiated exit from the EU. Nowhere is a smooth and orderly transition for the haulage and trailer industries more important than in Stoke-on-Trent. As a city, we are at the very heart of England and the natural centre for the logistics industry. Indeed, the city is a long-standing confluence of inland freight routes by water, rail and road.
Most famously, the ceramics industry is centred in the Potteries, and the experienced hauliers of Stoke-on-Trent are very good at ensuring that we avoid breakages. The haulage and logistics industry in the city is expanding, providing employment, including apprenticeships, to my constituents. I am delighted to say that S J Bargh, the haulage firm behind the highest-scoring apprentice ever at the Scania training school, has an expanding presence in my constituency, and I hope to visit the firm in the coming weeks. There are distribution centres for Screwfix, Sainsbury’s, Pets at Home and others in my constituency. Last week, I was pleased to visit the Portmeirion distribution facility, where some of the most advanced technology is used for the distribution of its fragile wares.
On the trailer side, the manufacturer Don-Bur is based in my constituency. I was pleased to visit the company over the Easter recess. It makes every conceivable trailer, from the box van and the curtain-side to the wedge double deck, and even the aerodynamic teardrop shape, for which it is famous. Don-Bur is at the cutting edge of innovation, making trailers more aerodynamic, fuel efficient and environmental. It is fair to say that it makes precisely the types and sizes of commercial trailer that are intended to be covered under the Bill’s registration provisions.
It is important that we ensure that UK operators that use those trailers and other trailer brands can comply with the registration standards outlined in the 1968 Vienna convention when they drive on the continent. How does the Department plan to communicate the effect of the Bill, and those aspects that are yet to be consulted on, to trailer manufacturers and to commercial and non-commercial users? I note that the overview to the Bill issued by the DFT mentions the intention that trailer registration with the DVLA will be done “through a digital service”. Is it the Minister’s intention that communication with those who fall under the scope of the Bill will be achieved through purely digital means, or will there be some activity in the trade press, and the leisure press, too? As I stressed earlier, we need maximum clarity for those affected, so it is extremely important that the rumours and fears promoted by some are put to one side.
The Bill is an important addition to the Government’s measures to ensure that we have a smooth and orderly Brexit. It provides for both continuity and flexibility in the face of temporary uncertainty. We need to communicate that message effectively among those whom the Bill will cover. It is important to my constituents, and to hauliers and consumers everywhere, that we make these provisions and that we get them right.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I shall give a Kent perspective on the Bill. Kent is well known as England’s gateway to Europe. On a busy day, around 10,000 lorries pass through the port at Dover and an extra 6,000 lorries pass through the channel tunnel at Folkestone. That is perhaps 16,000 lorries a day passing to and fro through Kent, so people in Kent feel strongly about making sure that we have the right processes at our borders come Brexit day.
I well remember my first summer as a Member of Parliament, in 2015, because that was the summer of Stack, when for 32 days the M20 was largely closed and 5,000 lorries were parked up on the motorway. While those lorries were parked on the motorway, the roads around the area were also at a standstill because so much traffic was diverted through the neighbouring roads. That caused chaos and misery throughout my constituency and in many other parts of Kent, where journeys that would usually take five or 10 minutes were taking hours. Children struggled to get to school to take exams, hospital operations were delayed and patients missed their appointments, people could not get to work, and businesses struggled to do their business, gain income and pay their staff. I heard of one constituent, a 10-year-old girl, who fell off a climbing frame and had to wait for an ambulance, injured, for an hour and a half.
After that summer, my neighbouring Kent MPs and I did all that we could to make sure that that would never happen to Kent again—that we would never again see such misery and, in fact, such an economic cost, because that enormous hit to business was estimated to have cost the Kent economy £250 million. As we never wanted to see it happen again, we campaigned for a lorry park. We appreciate that money was put aside for one, but the project has got into some trouble, meaning it has been delayed. I have spoken to the Minister about the matter, and we very much appreciate the efforts to make sure that, should there be any trouble at the border, there will be alternatives to the closure of the M20. It is important to Kent that we keep the traffic flowing.
In that spirit, I support the Bill, because although we hope not to have to use it, it is about making sure that there will not be trouble at our borders come Brexit day. It is a precaution to ensure that trade will continue to flow and that lorries will be able to travel back and forth as they need to, not only to avoid disruption for my constituents in Kent, but to supply the goods that people need in the EU and that we need here. As others have said, although lorries might at times be unpopular—they are certainly unpopular in my patch for often parking up in lay-bys and country lanes—we know very well that the vast majority of our goods, be they food, drink, clothes or building materials, are transported by lorries. We need a flow of lorries between us and the European Union. We know perfectly well that getting this to work is in the interests of the EU as well as in our own. While we hope that we will not need the Bill, it is right that we have it as a precaution to make sure that we do not have the problems that we saw back in 2015 with Operation Stack.
I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure that we do not have to use Operation Stack again. Opposition Members called that matter into question this evening but, in fact, an enormous amount of work is going on in my constituency to resurface the M20. It is causing some upset, because of the diversions during the night. Lorries are driving through villages such as Bearsted, where they should not be going, and keeping people awake, but at least the work is being done. We know that the hard shoulder will shortly be strengthened so that it can be used in the event that lorries need to park up. I sincerely hope that these Operation Stack measures will not be needed, that the permit scheme will not be needed, and that we will have frictionless trade and free flowing traffic across our borders. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Government are rightly taking the precaution of putting in place these measures just in case they are needed.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long this evening. I welcome the precautionary measures and the purpose behind this Bill. The logistics, storage and distribution industry is a very important component part of the East Anglian economy, with the container business going through Felixstowe and agricultural foodstuffs going through smaller ports such as Lowestoft in my constituency.
I just wish to home in for a few minutes on a particular business in my constituency. Transam Trucking is very much a specialist in storage and distribution, with an important focus on Europe. It was formed in 1976 and is, in effect, a company of roadies. It provides specialist haulage services to the music industry and it takes bands and acts on tours all around Britain and Europe, particularly during the summer months. It has built up a significant business over its 40 years. Its client list is pretty impressive. It includes: Roger Waters, Bryan Adams, Iron Maiden, Guns N’Roses, Judas Priest, the Rolling Stones, Ozzy Osborne, Ringo Starr, Gary Barlow, Katy Perry, Billy Joel, and, bringing us up to date, Taylor Swift.
The company has built up this particularly strong business. What concerns it is a particular directive that came out from the EU in January from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, setting out the requirements for its business post Brexit. It is particularly concerned about the requirement for road transport operators to hold a certificate of professional competence, which must be issued by an EU state. The current certificate, which may be issued by Britain, will no longer continue. Likewise, driver attestation must be provided by the remaining EU states. Furthermore, after 29 March, a driving licence issued by the UK will no longer be valid. There is also a requirement that it must have an established base on the continent. We have also heard the issues related to Community licences, and the questions over whether they will still be valid.
Clearly, there is uncertainty hanging over the industry. It is important to bear in mind that this company is now beginning to take bookings for next year—post March 2019—and a number of clients are questioning whether it will be able to continue to provide the services that it has provided for the past 40 years. In particular, I am told that the Germans are casting very envious eyes on what is a great British industry. Can the Minister clarify whether the concerns of businesses such as Transam Trucking have been taken into account in this Bill? If not, can he provide other assurances to ensure that those concerns are allayed?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an essential debate this evening on a Bill that we really should not have any necessity to debate. Although the title of the Bill sounds somewhat niche, the Government’s complete failure to secure trading arrangements with the EU means that the haulage industry could come to a complete standstill without this Bill. For that reason, we will not stand in the way of its progress to Committee this evening.
The haulage industry contributes £13.1 billion to gross value added, with 3.7 million tonnes exported and 4 million tonnes imported each year. It employs 319,000 HGV drivers. Although it is 45,000 drivers short, and the settled status is also creating uncertainty for EU nationals, Parliament must, without doubt, understand the importance of this sector to both the economy and jobs, especially with all the other uncertainties in the industry over Brexit, such as driver hours, custom borders and many of the issues that we have heard about this evening.
Negotiations should have established that the UK would be part of the Community licence scheme, along with all other EU countries, European economic area countries and others. This would enable the continuation of the free flow of goods to service our economy, and that is Labour’s position. However, even that most basic provision has caused much division on the Government Benches.
Today, the Government have tried to brush over this Bill as a “just in case” measure. The reality is that a no deal scenario, or even a “frictionless as possible” deal, and all things in between, highlight what a complete and utter nightmare our borders will prove to be without Community licensing or a customs union.
Currently the UK has permit-based agreements with Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, the Russian Federation, Tunisia and Ukraine and liberal agreements with Serbia, Albania and Turkey. They are typically managed through the DVLA, which in itself is already overstretched. Similar reciprocal arrangements exist, but now everything is up in the air. Therefore, for a lorry to drive on the continent to a destination, or to drive through another country to reach its destination, or within cabotage rules, the haulier will need documentation to prove that they have permission to be there.
We are debating this legislation when we still have no clarity over what the European negotiators will determine is required in these matters, so it is only a “virtual” Bill on something that the Government have no clue about what will be required. As the Secretary of State said, the Government are still, at this 11th hour, consulting on the content. We may pass legislation here, but without knowing for certain that the EU will accept the UK regime, this Bill could be redundant anyway. It is as if we are passing legislation to guide a negotiation process, such is the weakness of the Government with their chaotic Brexit.
Those of us on the Labour Benches are clear: be part of the Community licensing regime, and remove these completely unnecessary trade barriers and uncertainties. This legislation will give the Government powers to create a permit scheme for UK hauliers to be recognised across the EU. It will establish a trailer registration scheme in line with the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic, which this Parliament ratified on 28 March 2018, so UK trailers are registered for use on EU roads.
If hauliers are looking for clarity over how these new arrangements will operate and how much it will cost them, I have to tell them that they will have to wait until secondary legislation is laid, except, of course, for the £75.8 million from the Government—or should I say the taxpayer—in set-up costs. That is another Brexit expense. Therefore, this is simply an empty Bill, built on a possible negotiated position, with no clarity over how the scheme will operate, or how much it will cost the operator for needing to go to the EU to save our economy—an emperor’s new clothes Bill.
For those Brexiteers who now feel that they can say, “Well, at least this means that our borders will be secure”, I am afraid to say that this Bill does not automatically stop international road haulage either. But they are right to suspect the worst-case scenario: vehicles stacking up without the right documentation. Research already suggests that two additional minutes spent on checks will result in 10 miles of lorries stacking up. Get this legislation wrong and we will have gridlock at our borders.
I have asked the Minister whether licences could be electronic documents. “No”, was the reply. Can Members believe that we are talking about a new system only issuing paper documents? Even in 2018, drivers will be expected to carry paper documents as they cross borders that could be subject to checks. If a permit is not present, fines could be issued. We therefore need an inspectorate. Where will this be based? How will it operate? I am afraid that that is not clarified in the Bill either. We have to wait for the regulations, but that will be all too late to create any certainty for the industry, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has highlighted with regard to the music industry.
Commercial traders over 750 kg and non-commercial traders over 3.5 tonnes will need to be registered with the DVLA and will be required to carry paper, not electronic documents. We are told that most caravans and horse trailers will be exempt, unless owners opt for the voluntary register, which we have not heard about in today’s debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a powerful case as to why we also need comprehensive safety measures for light trailers. The tragic loss of little Freddie Hussey showed why this Bill must be amended in Committee to bring about greater public safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) further highlighted the impact that tow bar safety would have, not least as 91% of trailers have failed basic safety tests. We need another inspectorate of certificates and trailers in order to ensure compliance as well as administration in the issuing of registration certificates. This means more unknown costs to the industry. Failure to comply could lead to imprisonment and/or a fine.
The noble Lord Tunnicliffe of Bracknell rightly won a vote in the House of Lords on improving safety standards and recording accidents. In Committee we must look at measures such as improvements to exhaust emissions, trailer safety and tyre safety in order to keep the public and drivers safe. He also sought clarity that there would be no restrictions on the number of permits issued—this is so vital for trade to flow—and said that we should not create even more obstacles.
I must seek clarity over the Irish border question with regards to haulage licensing. We are being led to believe that there will be no new restrictions that would limit cross-border road haulage on the island of Ireland. This means that EU to UK haulage and UK to EU haulage will flow without checks. However, when probed on this the Minister said that there could be differentiation across the Irish sea. This is completely unacceptable to the parties in Northern Ireland, and is the central point of the whole customs union argument.
As we understand it, road haulage—for example, originating from Germany—will travel into the Republic of Ireland as it does now, and will be able to continue its journey into Northern Ireland without checks, without borders and with “no new restrictions”. However, it will need a permit if it crosses to England, Wales or Scotland. In effect, are the Government saying with this Bill that they are going to create borders across the Irish sea and therefore cross other red lines? Clarity is needed and has not been provided by the Secretary of State. These important issues need to be resolved, particularly across the whole island of Ireland. This is too important for the Minister just to skim over in his reply, so I trust that he will spell out in detail exactly how these borders will work. Finally on Northern Ireland, the Bill requires a legislative consent motion from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but we all know that the Assembly is currently not sitting. I would be pleased if the Minister told us how he plans to handle that situation.
The true cost and chaos of Brexit can be judged by this Bill. We will hold the Government to account throughout its passage, while advising that we should remain within current arrangements. There is no reason for the UK to leave the Community licensing scheme, but this is a matter for negotiation—something so simple to establish, but which appears to be too controversial for the Conservative party to unify on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. We have had an extremely engaging and positive debate in many ways. Cardinal Newman has been invoked, very surprisingly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). There has been catharsis. We have had a Scottish National party Member praising the Lords—Allelujah!—and quoting Donald Rumsfeld, which is always an interesting combination.
I have been surprised not to see, during the entire course of the debate, a single Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber. I was surprised because, as I had understood it, they felt very passionately about the issue of Brexit, and of course this is the first Brexit implementation Bill. At the very least I would have expected speeches and interventions, but in fact not one Liberal Democrat Member has bothered to show their face in the Chamber.
As today’s debate has made clear, the Bill is needed to support the continued movement of goods between the UK and Europe. The Secretary of State outlined well in his opening speech that we are committed to maintaining the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU that secures our objective of frictionless trade is in the interest of both parties. When 85% of trade is carried across the UK border by EU hauliers, we can be certain that EU countries—Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and the like—have a tremendous interest in the maintenance of frictionless trade. It has also been noted that international conventions support it and the EU’s own negotiating objectives demand it.
Today’s debate has focused on the two parts of the Bill. The first part deals with haulage permits and provides a framework for the UK to manage them, including if they are needed as part of our agreement with the EU. We will also be using the powers in part 1 to bring our existing international agreements into a comprehensive legal framework—a point that the Opposition somehow ignored or missed.
On trailers, the debate focused on the scope of the trailer registration scheme that will be established in regulations under the Bill. The Government need to establish a trailer registration scheme in order to support the UK’s ratification of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic. It will ensure that trailer users can register trailers to meet the standards in the convention. We intend to require the registration of commercial trailers over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers over 3.5 tonnes that travel to or through countries that have ratified the convention—it is important to say that. I can give the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked for earlier.
Many other countries have similar schemes, and both of those schemes will utilise the expertise of our agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—to deliver the systems needed. We plan to have the systems up and running by the end of the year, and see no reason why that should not be the case. It is true that we will be charging fees, but they will be on a cost-recovery basis to minimise the impact on hauliers. We are well aware of the tight margins in the industry, and we will do all we can to reduce the cost of any scheme. The fees will only recover the day-to-day running costs of administering the systems and will not be intended to generate revenue. The Government will cover the set-up costs of the systems as part of a £75.8 million funding grant from the Treasury to the Department for Transport. I am delighted that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) recognises the distinction between “Government money”, which does not exist, and taxpayers’ money, which is of course the only money that the Government can draw on.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the Central Registration and Identification Scheme, otherwise known as CRiS—a key local employer in Chippenham—that the Bill will not alter the voluntary registration of UK caravans?
Jesse Norman
I recognise the quality of that scheme, and I have spoken personally to the National Caravan Council to discuss it. My hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority of caravans will not be within the scope of the new scheme as we are currently defining it. Indeed, the DVLA scheme will not concern security, which is the principal purpose of the CRiS regime. We have no intention to replace CRiS, so I do not see that it needs to have any concerns or fears on that account.
I can confirm that the Bill will not have an impact on border arrangements and that there will be no new transport-related checks at our borders. That is perfectly plain. Separately, my Department is working closely with the Department for Exiting the European Union and with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as part of the cross-Government borders working group to manage any impacts there may be on borders after we leave the EU.
Stakeholders have welcomed the Bill and recognised the need for it. As has been noted, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association have given it their support. The Road Haulage Association has said that it “wholeheartedly supports” it and that it is “the right thing” for the Government to be preparing measures for all scenarios. The Freight Transport Association has welcomed the Government’s objective in ensuring that no limits are set on the number of goods vehicles going between the EU and the UK. The Bill provides a framework that should reassure hauliers that the final Brexit deal agreed with the European Union will be smoothly implemented.
With that in mind, let me move swiftly on to some of the many excellent points raised during the debate. As ever, the informed questions, challenges and arguments that we heard are welcome in helping us to strengthen the Bill, and I greatly appreciate the broad support shown for the ambition and energy behind it.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) asked whether the Bill would deter investment. I simply draw his attention to the fact that, as the Secretary of State said, Vauxhall, Toyota and UPS have recently made investments in the haulage and car industries, while Apple, Facebook and many other international businesses continue to invest in this country. He mentioned concerns, also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), about the impact on the music industry. We will look specifically at that issue in more detail, and I am sure I can provide some reassurance on that front. I have mentioned the support that we have already received from the RHA and FTA.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) for sharing his expertise and for the wisdom he brought to his speech. He made a good point about the importance of the Bill in providing protection against over-zealous enforcement—a point that others did not pick up on—and the extent to which it therefore gives reassurance to people who may already be vulnerable. He asked whether plates could be fitted that could be read by ANPR. That will be part of our wider considerations. We will also consult on the display of plates in order to address the other matter that he raised. That will require tweaking or elaboration within new IT systems, but that is well within the scope and capability of the DVSA and the DVLA.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made a worryingly restrained speech in which he chastised himself for his excessive humility in recognising his own perspicacity and imagination. I am delighted that he was able to correct that on the record in the House, and I thank him for his unwonted brevity in doing so. He made an important point about the recruitment and retention of new drivers and apprentices within the industry. I am sure that he shares my view that the Road to Logistics initiative offered by the RHA potentially offers an important and interesting route forward for the Government in future.
The most important speech of the evening, if I may say so, was made by the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). I absolutely salute her work on trailer safety. She has built a reputation across the House for the careful, intelligent and dedicated way in which she has pursued the issue. It was an honour for me to be able to visit her constituency and spend time at the trailer safety summit that she recently organised, and also, of course, to meet Donna and Scott Hussey, the parents of Freddie Hussey, to talk about the experience they have had and measures that we can take to address the issue. We have agreed to report on it within a year of the regulations coming into effect.
As the hon. Lady will know, we have also agreed to consider a recommendation on whether to extend registration. I think it is fair to say that, as she pointed out, the Government currently have quite extensive data through agencies. It is not necessarily, in some cases, the right data to solve the issues that she described, but it is good data. It is also fair to note that, as other colleagues have mentioned, some trailers are used very infrequently, and that extending the scope of the scheme to mandatory registration would potentially include well over 1 million more trailers. We have therefore so far taken the view that given the administrative burdens and other issues that would be involved, a proportionate approach needs to be taken. However, I do not in any sense rule out the proposal that she makes. It is important for us to proceed slowly and carefully and to understand the issues in more detail as we do so.
Karin Smyth
I thank the Minister for his comments. I know that he knows that I will pursue the trailer safety regime with great vigour. I hope that many hon. Members will support me in that work in the coming months and years.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that reassurance, but I do not think it was required by anyone in the House who has seen her at work.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made an important speech in support of the Bill. He asked why we think the agreement will be doable. The answer is simple: because the interests of both parties are well aligned. I cannot comment on the views that will be held in the Irish Republic. This Bill addresses UK hauliers. I can say, however, that the Bill will not result in any impediment to trade between the two sides. We see no reason for concern on that front.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) mentioned the 1968 Vienna convention. We are now a signatory to that. However, like many other contracting parties, we do not take the view that the testing and use of autonomous vehicles is in conflict with either the ’68 convention or the ’49 convention. Nevertheless, it is an important question and I thank him for raising it.
We have heard contributions relating to Operation Stack, on which we will be publishing a response shortly.
Alan Brown
Going back to the Northern Ireland border issue, surely it is incumbent on the UK Government to seek the views of the Irish Government to see how this is going to work instead of continually saying, “We can’t speak for the Irish Government—we don’t know what they’re thinking.” It is incumbent on them to find that out.
Jesse Norman
My officials are of course in regular contact with officials in Ireland and discuss these issues at length, so it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is no interaction between the two parties.
Let me conclude by mentioning the comments of the shadow Ministers. I have to say that the Labour position is very strange. Their strategy seems to be to cloud the issue and scare people as much as possible, and then criticise the Government in calling for clarity. They complain that everything is up in the air but then criticise a Bill whose specific purpose is to act as a sensible, belt-and-braces, common-sense backstop.
We do not think that this Bill is anything other than a thoroughly sensible move. It will ensure that the road haulage industry can continue to prosper as we leave the European Union. As part of our EU legislation programme, the Bill prepares us for a range of scenarios. It will ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations and be ready for what happens when we leave the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 June.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 4 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Local Government
That the draft East Suffolk (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
That the draft East Suffolk (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 March, be approved.
Capital Gains Tax
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Switzerland) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 29 March, be approved.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Uzbekistan) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 16 April, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2018, which were laid before this House on 28 March, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Environment Agency: Enforcement Action
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
This is my first end of day Adjournment debate in a very long time; however, I am glad to have secured it as it gives me the chance to raise an ongoing issue in my constituency that has been a source of great consternation to me and many of the residents of Teal Farm and the areas adjacent to the Pattinson Road waste processing sites cluster, which I will refer to collectively as Teal Farm, as that is quite a mouthful.
For more than two years now, or perhaps even longer, residents and local councillors—especially Councillor Tony Taylor, who has been vigilant and tenacious on this matter—have raised concerns about the activity going on in Teal Farm, especially on the industrial estates that neighbour the residential area. It has been going on for so long that I have been applying for this debate for months now, and my former researcher, Daniel Tye, who helped me prepare this speech, moved on months ago. I wish that the issue had as well, but alas it has not. That is what brings me here.
Let me give some context. Washington new town was built in the 1960s as one of a few new towns across the country to help with overcrowding and population growth in local urban areas. In Washington’s case, that means the neighbouring cities of Sunderland, Durham and Newcastle. Part of the planning was meant to allow it to be a town with residential estates and industrial estates that were side by side but did not interfere with each other’s daily lives. Although the planning was meant to reduce interference between the two, that has become more of a problem as the town has grown and more residents have moved into the area, making the luxury of quiet residential living more difficult than when the town was first founded in the 1960s.
Sadly, the situation in Teal Farm in Washington is a microcosm of that situation; the original idea of residential and industrial being in close proximity but not bothering each other has been thrown out of the window. That has led to tensions between residents and businesses alike, which have extended to organisations such as the local council and the regional branch of the Environment Agency. Unfortunately and annoyingly for the residents of Teal Farm, there seem to be endless cases of problems arising, and local residents have kept me abreast of all the issues through the residents association and the dedicated team of local councillors.
As I just set out, the reason I am speaking today is to document this officially on the record and to prise out of the Minister what more can be done to address the issues of industrial mismanagement that has blighted the lives of many of my constituents in Washington, especially when it comes to environmental issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue forward; these are always very important debates. Does she agree that it is essential that fines given by the Environment Agency should fit the crime, that legislation should also reflect that, and that the council and the Government need to act accordingly?
Mrs Hodgson
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased with his intervention, and I will come on to fines later, as that is the crux of what I am proposing.
To help the Minister understand fully the scale of the problems that my constituents have faced, I want to read a few excerpts from some emails I have received over the years. I assure him that he will find them both troubling and enlightening about the situation that has been ongoing for some time. First, in 2016 I received an email in which a constituent described the following situation:
“Last week when it was exceptionally warm, I left the windows open in the dining room and sitting room to allow some air circulation for my dog, the scene I returned to was unbelievable. Every single room in my house was inundated with flies. To say that there were upwards of 50 flies in my house would be a conservative estimate, and yes, you read that correctly, I said upwards of 50.”
This constituent went on to say:
“I have lived in Teal Farm Village for three summers now and for three summers this pantomime has repeated itself”.
In a follow-up email, after issues were raised with local agencies, the exasperated constituent wrote:
“Nothing is done to prevent a recurrence, nothing is done to compensate those of us who cannot eat, sit, play or venture into our gardens or onto our balconies or even dare to leave windows open when we are in or out of the house. How about those of us who are woken during the night by smells that have to be experienced to be believed.”
However, not just flies and other vermin but the activity of businesses operating in the industrial park are blighting the lives of my constituents. In an email I had passed to me from March of last year, a constituent documented that he witnessed
“several vehicles over the last week, some from Niramax and two others from their contractors, leaving Monument Park and travelling along Pattinson Road to the A1231—then travelling down the slip road towards the A19. All of the lorries were netted but litter was streaming out of the covered areas onto the road behind them.
Pattinson Road is again awash with litter as is the A1231 slip road from the roundabout—this slip road has not been litter picked since the middle of last year at which time it had not been done for over a year.”
This constituent then went on to say:
“The trees alongside the road have plastic streaming out in the wind dropped from lorries, and the verges are an absolute disgrace. It is no wonder fly tipping is on the increase as litter attracts litter”.
Another very alarming and worrying situation that occurred in October of last year, which was raised with me by Councillor Tony Taylor, involved a badly loaded HGV and an incident when a washing machine fell off the back of a van while it was whizzing down the A1231. The Environment Agency said that it was not going to investigate any further as insufficient evidence had been brought to its attention. Someone could have been seriously injured or killed—there could have been a pile-up—if this washing machine had fallen into the path of another vehicle, yet the case did not warrant any further investigation from the enforcement agency that should have been looking into it with urgency.
As I am sure the Minister can appreciate, these are stressful circumstances for my constituents to live in every day, all because of companies that fail to adhere to their responsibility to be good neighbours and keep our local area litter-free, as well as the fact that agencies such as the Environment Agency fail to penalise and fine the offending businesses.
There has been plenty of documentation of visits and activity regarding these issues at the industrial park, including a visit by residents, councillors, council officers and a member of my office who saw run-down premises inviting in flies, smells and vermin and in which they could thrive.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Environment Agency is a toothless tiger, but does she agree that this is not just about the agency but about the fact that it does not work with other Government agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to crack down on illegal activity—not just dumping, but avoidance of landfill tax and other taxes that should be going to the Exchequer?
Mrs Hodgson
Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that is not an issue that I had planned to cover in my speech, so I am pleased that he has raised it. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench heard him.
This issue has gone on for many, many years with many, many complaints and investigations, resulting in significant resources being directed at addressing the problems by the Environment Agency, by my office and by the numerous councillors who have to deal with them week in, week out, trying to take up the cases on behalf of constituents. The Environment Agency has been into my office with a team at least twice, and once into the council offices, and has stressed the amount of resources it is putting in to deal with this one small area in the larger north-east, but the issues returned after breaches occurred and, in no uncertain terms, that has infuriated my constituents—and, I must add, me. It cannot continue.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Environment Agency has additional powers and that the polluters—the people causing the problem—should pay for the time and resources put into resolving these problems? My constituency had a similar problem with litter a couple of years ago, and it devastated our area. The signs are still there. It is really important to local people.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I remember the case she mentions in her constituency of Blaydon. In certain areas, such as driving along the A1231, people can see the plastic still in the trees. We now know that local councils do not have the resources to be picking up constantly after these companies, as they did years ago. It is therefore up to these businesses to be more responsible, and if that means that the Environment Agency has to fine them to make them pay for picking up the litter, so be it.
As I have said, I have convened several meetings with the Environment Agency, which is supposed to deal with these problems, and I have repeatedly been told that it does not have the powers or the authority to do anything other than the bare minimum that it has done. To me, it just seems as though these companies get a slap on the wrist. One constituent, Mr Morgan, has described this sorry saga as
“a badly written Groundhog Day movie sequel”,
and I have to admit that I agree with him. The repeated incidents that have been reported and the breaching of operating permits, with the lack of any apparent enforcement action for so long, have left many constituents and me feeling frustrated and disappointed. I am not blaming the Environment Agency, which is acting within its remit and in accordance with what it is allowed to do under the current law. That is what has brought me to the Floor of the House to plead with the Minister, and I have some solutions about what might be done.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about wanting more powers, but the Environment Agency already has powers—for example, to enforce the storage of waste at waste transfer stations. In my experience, it is very reluctant to use such powers, or if it does, it gives a slap on the wrist, as she suggests, rather than real enforcement action in conjunction with HMRC and local councils, which would be far more effective in bringing these rogue operators to book.
Mrs Hodgson
I definitely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is why I felt the need to bring this debate to the House. I want to seek the Minister’s views on this matter, and find out what more he and his Department can do given the examples that I and other hon. Members have outlined.
I have been trying for many months to secure this debate. It is incredibly interesting that, since I let it be known publicly that I had applied for a parliamentary debate, I have finally seen some activity by the Environment Agency. [Interruption.] I know; it is rather curious. It seems that the threat of a parliamentary debate does wonders for getting things sorted—small wonders at least—but this should never be the case, and this matter should never have been escalated to the Floor of this Chamber.
As I have said, the Environment Agency has finally fined one of the major culprits in this on-going saga: Niramax Group Ltd received a fine of £26,000 in January. However, it is frustrating that the Environment Agency clearly made this out to be a victory for it and local residents, yet, as its own press release stated, the specific issue with Niramax had been going on since April 2015. That was nearly three years previously, so it is hardly a victory. It is safe to say that I was flabbergasted by this announcement and stunned that, after so many years of back and forth with the Environment Agency, it had finally pulled its finger out and done something constructive and punitively necessary to sort out the many breaches that have occurred for far too long.
However, in the words of one of my constituents, Mr Kirkland, following this announcement:
“Although the Environment Agency have brought a successful prosecution it has taken an unacceptable amount of time and done nothing but confirm the inadequate regulation of these and other waste operators in the area. There has been nothing done by the Environment Agency regarding the disgraceful and neglectful disregard of the littering laws by the same companies and the main road routes taken by their lorries are some of the worst roadside littering I have ever seen.”
He went on:
“They should be made to pay for our hundreds of phone calls and hours spent complaining to the Environment Agency and the council, and we must now have grave doubts as to the honesty of any such companies who will— we have no doubt—lie through their back teeth to keep their permits.”
As you can appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, my constituents feel that it is now time for regulatory change and for the enforcement powers of the Environment Agency to be bolstered so that such situations never happen again. My constituents have put up with this for far too long. I therefore want to know from the Minister what it plans to do to look into all the cases involving Teal Farm and to learn from the failures that my constituents have had to endure for far too long.
It is only right and fair that my constituents should be able to live a happy and comfortable life in their homes, not see their lives blighted incessantly by the failures and disregard of businesses operating in the area, and that when such episodes take place, they should have the fullest confidence that the agencies, which they pay for through their taxes, will do all they can to ensure that violations are dealt with swiftly and punitively, with on-the-spot fines for any breaches that occur.
I am therefore calling for increased powers for the Environment Agency, so it can actually do the job that it is there to do, and can issue on-the-spot fines to environmental offenders. After all, environmental litter officers can issue on-the-spot fines to the public for littering and dog fouling. Surely the problems that Environmental Agency officers deal with in regard to such companies are just as troublesome—perhaps even more so—and they should face the same penalty action. There should not be any disparity in our approach to litter louts—be they individuals or businesses.
I would like to gauge from the Minister what support there is in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for conducting a strategic review of charges and fines to businesses that breach environmental permits. It is important that penalties are commensurate with the type of business put under the microscope, but also that they take into consideration the scale of the incidents that occur, often on a regular basis, as I have outlined.
Alongside the idea of reviewing fines, I want to hear more from the Minister about the scope for time limits on business permits—perhaps three to five years—and about making them renewable only if businesses are fully compliant with their permit mandates and there have been no breaches at all during that time. One way for the Environment Agency to monitor any such breaches would be to have on-the-spot fines, which I have already mentioned, to penalise businesses immediately.
Another way would be to introduce a “penalties on your permit” system, not dissimilar to fixed penalty notices for motorists who are caught speeding, which could be used as part of the review of businesses’ environmental permits when they are up for renewal. Currently, when such a facility is up for sale, the licence the Environment Agency grants is automatically kept with the land and sold on by default. This is a very easy way for unscrupulous companies to obtain a licence. Does the Minister agree that that is wrong?
I do hope that the Minister will look into all of this carefully, and will respond with assurances that I can take back to the residents of Teal Farm. I want to bring my speech to a close, but I have one further point to add. It is pertinent as it relates to the application for a waste gasification plant in my constituency. If successful, this will lead to a huge increase in HGV traffic to and from waste processing plants, and I fear—given what I have set out today—that it will bring the inevitable litter and congestion. Having written to the Minister about the safety of this plant, I have received letters reminding me that the body ultimately responsible for monitoring the site’s safety is none other than—you’ve guessed it—the Environment Agency.
I hope that the Environment Agency will live up to its promises, and that I have given the Minister some food for thought about the solutions I and my residents in Teal Farm feel could be implemented. I know that Governments do not necessarily like new regulations, but on this issue I think hon. Members would say that I have—and I hope I have—made the case for them tonight.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on finally securing this debate. I know that she has raised the issue on a number of occasions, both on the Floor of the House and through parliamentary questions, and I am sorry it took her so long to get her debate. The Government do not control the scheduling of these debates, so I can assure her that that was not deliberate.
As the hon. Lady says, a well-functioning and regulated waste industry is essential to ensure that we use our resources efficiently and to minimise impacts on our environment and local communities. The Environment Agency, as she knows, is the lead enforcement agency within Government targeting those who do not comply with the regulatory framework or their permitting conditions.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, badly managed facilities can cause suffering to communities through odour, fires, and vermin or fly infestations, as in the case of her constituency. We therefore take this issue seriously, contrary to some of the points she made.
I will move on to the specifics of the hon. Lady’s case in the Sunderland area and particularly to the waste transfer sites that have caused a problem.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister says that the Environment Agency is the main enforcement body, so why in the last few years has it not investigated the clear breaches we have asked about in parliamentary questions? For example, there have been a number of fires at waste transfer stations, which are clearly designed to avoid landfill tax and are linked to tax fraud. Why have the Environment Agency and HMRC not looked in detail at any of those?
George Eustice
I will describe some of the action that the Environment Agency has taken in the north-east on a number of issues, but I want first to say that I do understand the particular issue that the hon. Lady raised. In my constituency, I have a similar issue with a waste processing centre and waste transfer site located quite close to a residential area. There is a difficult tension, because it is on an industrial site, so on one level that area is designated for industrial use. When the planning went through, it was assumed that that would be okay. While my constituency experience means that I am familiar with the tensions these things can cause, I have to say that, in my personal experience as an MP, the Environment Agency has taken very serious action to try to deal with the problem.
I want to address some of the hon. Lady’s points about enforcement. The Environment Agency has taken clear action in the north-east in recent years. From the start of 2013 until the end of March 2018, it secured 126 prosecutions and 41 formal cautions in relation to waste offences. The agency has also made successful use of confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Orders to a value of nearly half a million pounds have been made. Moreover, since the summer of 2012, the agency has closed 372 illegal waste sites in the north-east. This equates to over one illegal waste site per week. It has also investigated 2,226 reports of illegal waste sites, which is over one per day.
There are also number of operations regarding serious and organised crime in the waste sector in the north-east. As Members will understand, I am somewhat limited as to what I can divulge about ongoing investigations, but I will say that these operations target organised criminals who use sophisticated methods to cheat the system and ultimately take money from the taxpayer.
George Eustice
I am going to carry on if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me.
It is well known that the criminal nature of the groups operating in the waste sector has changed over recent years. Groups are using highly sophisticated techniques to evade the agency. They act violently and threateningly to their legitimate competitors and agency staff, and often use their waste business to mask their involvement in other illegal activities, such firearms or drugs.
The agency therefore works closely with the National Crime Agency to map and detect the extent of serious and organised crime. The agency also undertakes proactive disruption and prevention work. For example, a successful landowner campaign was launched in 2017 in response to the widespread dumping of baled waste in empty buildings. Some 1,300 buildings that were possible targets of waste criminals were identified, and a host of organisations was then contacted.
The EA also works with a range of partners through the Government Agency Intelligence Network. In Teesside, for example, it instigated a local group that includes the police, fire and rescue services, local authorities, HMRC, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, trading standards and UK Border Force. Following on from the positive results of that group, similar area-focused groups are being set up in the north-east.
In the north-east, the agency has a dedicated team of enforcement officers who lead on serious and significant cases of waste crime, and there is a host of resources to draw on for less significant cases. Agency officers use sophisticated surveillance equipment to detect waste crime. For example, officers have recently started wearing body cameras when visiting illegal waste sites.
The Government have ensured that enforcement is adequately resourced. An extra £30 million of funding, which was announced in the Budget in November, has been put into waste crime enforcement. That means that an additional £60 million has been committed to the agency for enforcement since 2014. The additional Budget funding will mean more boots on the ground, with over 80 extra enforcement staff across the country. The funding will aim to reduce the number of illegal waste sites, prevent illegal exports of waste and decrease waste being mis-described.
The hon. Lady made a specific point about additional powers for the Environment Agency. We are working to strengthen the agency’s powers in this area. As part of our continuing to ensure that the agency has the necessary powers and tools to enforce good compliance, we recently introduced regulations to strengthen its powers to tackle problem waste sites. They enable the agency to restrict access to a waste site by locking the gates or barring access, and to require that all waste is removed from a site, not just the illegally deposited waste. That is one example of how we have strengthened the law in this area.
We have conducted a consultation on strengthening the permitting regime. The consultation will tighten up the waste permitting and exemptions regime by raising the bar for people to operate in the sector. It also makes further proposals on fly-tipping. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, which was launched in January and ran for 10 weeks, we will seek to implement the changes later this year. This is an important step to ensure that only fully competent people are able to hold a waste permit. The process will crack down on criminals who choose to operate in the sector while acting under a veil of legitimacy. We strengthened the law on fly-tipping in 2016, introducing on-the-spot fine enforcement notices for people caught fly-tipping. One element of the current consultation is about strengthening that further so that even if we do not catch people in the act of fly-tipping, there will be an opportunity to levy a penalty notice against them when we are able to trace where the waste came from.
Mrs Hodgson
The Minister has plenty of time as we have until 10.30 pm, unless he has a pressing engagement—although what could be more pressing than talking about environmental issues in my constituency?
On that point, the Minister will appreciate that fly-tipping is very different from the issue I raised today. Waste is flying off the back of lorries, which are supposed to be netted, and on to the A1231. One of the problems for the Environment Agency is that that waste will have come from all over the place. Even if the EA or residents see it happening, the waste that they find may come from Joe Bloggs and somebody else. It could be traced back to the lorry and the company to which it belongs, and if an EA officer sees that take place, it should be enough for a spot fine. That was what I was calling for the Minister to bring forward.
George Eustice
I was going to return to that point later, but the type of fly-tipping we are attempting to tackle through the consultation is when a rogue collector of rubbish does not have a permit and then dumps it in a farmer’s field or in a gateway. That is slightly different from litter coming loose from a lorry. That would be an issue of permitting for those who transport waste to a particular site and the operators of those vehicles. It is not so much an on-the-spot fine or a penalty notice that is needed in that case as the power to suspend a licence to operate is incredibly powerful and, I think, the preferred tool. That is why, in the case of operators, we tend to use an improvement notice, an enforcement notice or an actual suspension since that does more damage to them than a penalty notice probably would.
Liz Twist
Does the Minister understand that people in my Blaydon constituency, where two landfill sites have produced their own problems, including with litter, cannot see why the Environment Agency does not have the power to say, “Let’s close this site straightaway—it is not working properly. We need to resolve this issue”? It is absolutely crazy that rubbish is being transported across the country in huge lorries to my constituency when we do not dump our own waste there. The rubbish comes from all over the country. Does he not agree that we need to put right that absolutely crazy system?
George Eustice
As I said, I have experienced such issues in my constituency, so I understand residents’ concerns. The Environment Agency has the power to issue improvement notices and enforcement notices, or to suspend a permit. It uses those powers and, indeed, has done so in some cases in the north-east, which I will come on to.
To conclude my point about the consultation, we are also tightening the waste exemption regime. That is about looking at some of the sites that currently have a derogation and are exempt from requiring a permit—there is particular concern about those that have tyres and the way in which some are handled. We are raising the bar for those who want to operate a permitted site. That includes the requirement for a demonstration of technical competence, for example, and we have even looked at the idea of sites needing to put a financial bond in place to allow for recovery if there is a problem. I therefore think I have demonstrated that, through the consultation—it was launched in January and we are currently analysing the results—we have taken steps to strengthen the law in the way for which the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West has asked.
I turn now to some of the specific points that the hon. Lady raised about her constituency of Washington and Sunderland West, where there are eight permitted waste sites. Although three have had permit breaches in the last five years due to problems with flies in particular, as she described, all the sites are currently performing well and are rated A or B on the Environment Agency’s performance scale—A is the top performance. When there were permit breaches, the agency took the relevant enforcement action. In one case, as she pointed out, there was a prosecution, following which there was a fine of £16,000 and an award of £10,000 in costs.
The most recent of these problems was the 2015 case at the former Niramax site, which the hon. Lady mentioned. That site is now owned by Veolia and is performing better. I stress that the agency and the waste companies concerned work closely to ensure that operators are kept in compliance with permits and to try to overcome problems. For example, in 2014, the agency initiated a permit variation across all eight of the sites permitted to accept waste that had the potential to give rise to fly infestations, which added a bespoke condition on pest management. Sunderland City Council also became involved with breaches relating to public amenity.
The Environment Agency works with other public bodies locally, such as the police and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, to monitor standards and performance relating to vehicles that transport waste in the local area. That is particularly important, given the hon. Lady’s concerns about waste that is supposed to be netted not being adequately secured to the load. In the most recent checks of over 200 vehicles that were inspected on site or observed on local roads, 12 were found to have minor regulatory issues relating to waste, and the DVSA dealt with two non-waste issues.
In conclusion, I recognise the important issues that the hon. Lady has raised. It is important to highlight that the Government have increased spending on enforcement in this area. I hope that I have reassured her both that we have changed the law recently—in the last two years—to strengthen regulations in this area and that we intend to do more. I have talked about the consultation, but we intend to strengthen the permitting requirements further. I also recognise that she has raised others issues, particularly around transport, and I will ensure that these are taken on board.
George Eustice
I will give way to the hon. Lady because I can see she is keen to make use of the time available.
Mrs Hodgson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know he has given some assurances but, with the summer months approaching, I doubt that my constituents—they will be watching in large numbers, even though this debate has been held sooner than might have been thought, so they may be watching later—will be as reassured, given that they are the ones who are living with this day in, day out. As I have said, this has been going on for years. I know the Minister says that some of the new measures have come in within the last two years, but they really are not biting or perhaps having the effect he had hoped. I just wonder if he or his Department could keep an eye on this and perhaps revisit it. I will raise it again in questions, and if things are not progressing and companies are not adhering to the enforcement measures, further regulations might need to be looked at.
George Eustice
As part of our consideration around the consultation, I will ensure that an official in the Department takes note of this debate and considers some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised. As I said, we have specific proposals to raise the bar for those who want to operate a permitted site and with regard to the exemptions. If there is more we can do, working with the DVSA, to strengthen some of the standards for the transporting of waste material, we will certainly consider it.
We have had a very positive debate. It has been timely, given that our consultation recently closed, even if it was not as early as the hon. Lady would have liked. She has now had the opportunity to put her constituents’ concerns on record, and I hope I have reassured her about the action we are taking, although I also take on board her concern that it might not be enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018.
The order was laid before the House on 29 March. It amends the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978 and the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2009.
The European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere—the ESO—was established by a convention in 1962. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the organisation in 2002. In 2012, we acceded to the ESO privileges and immunities protocol, which had been given effect in domestic law by the 2009 order. This order corrects various errors in the 2009 order that unduly limited the privileges and immunities given to British nationals and permanent residents working for the ESO. It is necessary to correct them to ensure that we are fully compliant with our international obligations under the ESO privileges and immunities protocol.
The amendments made by this order concern three issues. First, on the taxation of employees, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to exempt from taxation the emoluments of officers who are British nationals or permanent residents. Secondly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to confer on officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts. Motor vehicle offences and motor vehicle damage are excluded from that immunity. Thirdly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to grant social security exemptions to all officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents. This order does all those things. An earlier version of the amendments contained in this order was laid in Parliament in 2017 but withdrawn when this order was laid, because the earlier version had not exempted all officers of the organisation from social security contributions.
The second organisation that this order concerns is the European Space Agency, which was established by a convention in 1975. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the agency in the same year. In 2009, we welcomed the European Centre for Space Applications and Telecommunications to Harwell in Oxfordshire. With the establishment of that new UK ESA campus, we need to amend the original UK legislation—the 1978 order—that gave privileges and immunities to ESA staff and high-ranking officers.
The revisions contained in this order confirm the immunities and privileges to which staff are entitled and the number of high-ranking officers that the UK will recognise. That number has grown as a result of the new UK ESA campus. Specifically, it confers the status of high-ranking officer on the head of the Harwell centre, and it provides that the ESA director general and a maximum of seven further members of staff working at the centre can also be considered high-ranking officers. That means that they are entitled to certain privileges and immunities, for example relief from taxes and certain exemptions from social security contributions. However, they are not entitled to immunity from suit or legal process, except for actions carried out during their official functions.
The privileges and immunities afforded to officers of both these organisations—the ESO and the ESA—including those who are British nationals or permanent residents, are limited to those that the organisations need to conduct their official activities. They are in line with those given to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is a member. Leaving the European Union will have no direct impact on the United Kingdom’s membership of the ESO or the ESA. The ability of British and permanent resident staff to work for the organisations is dependent on the domestic legislation, which accurately reflects the relevant international conventions and protocols, and the privileges and immunities that they afford to staff.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is nice to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Sharma.
It is my understanding that space research is important for scientific and commercial reasons, and that we will do much better space research if we collaborate internationally. The European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere is one of those international organisations for collaboration, and the statutory instrument will improve its functioning, so we should approve it.
I have just one question for the Minister: why are we using the affirmative procedure, and not the negative, for the statutory instrument?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma.
The Scottish National party has no objections to the statutory instrument. We recognise the importance of the space industry to the UK economy and, indeed, my constituency and the city of Glasgow play an important part in it. The University of Glasgow recently played an important role in the discovery of gravitational waves. It is important for scientists and researchers to be able to travel and benefit from the appropriate amenities.
As to what the Minister said about the European Space Agency being autonomous in relation to the EU, and there being no Brexit impact, I want to press him a little for reassurance that the arrangements being put in place today will be future-proofed against potential fallout from Brexit, in relation to freedom of movement or people’s ability to travel. Maintaining a strong relationship with such European agencies will become even more important in the light of Brexit.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Without delaying the Committee more than 30 seconds, I want to ask a further question—or, really, to make a plea. The Minister gave a blissfully clear account in rather few words of what the order is all about. I tried to read the explanatory note, and then I read the explanatory memorandum; I am not quite sure why there are both. After I had read it three times I dimly perceived what the Minister has explained in a few words, very clearly. Would it be possible in future to have explanatory notes that are actually explanatory?
Sir Alan Duncan
In answer to my right hon. Friend, I believe—but I am ready to stand corrected—that explanatory notes are put together by Parliament. [Interruption.] They are put together by us. I take the entire blame, and I will endeavour to be clearer in the way we publish those bits of paper in future, and try to get them raised to the standard I was able to reach earlier. I rather agree with my right hon. Friend that as far as possible all language should be free of jargon. The measure should be explicable to any intelligent person, and it should be possible to understand every bit of paper in the House.
As I have said, the amendment order simply corrects a number of errors and omissions in, and makes necessary updates to, the orders it amends. It aligns domestic law with the obligations that we have entered into with European partners, with whom we share an endeavour to increase our knowledge of space.
I believe that I can give the hon. Member for Glasgow North the assurance he seeks about future-proofing, and I can answer the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, who speaks for the Opposition, by telling her that the affirmative procedure is required by the parent legislation. If it is stated in the primary law, we must follow that procedure.
This latest amendment order is necessary to give full effect to the UK’s international obligations, so that we can continue our fruitful relationship with both the organisations, to which we remain fully committed. I trust, therefore, that right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that our approach is straightforward and fully support the order.
The Chair
Just to make it absolutely clear, explanatory notes are not prepared by Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Package Travel and linked travel arrangements regulations 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The regulations will update and replace existing legislation by implementing the requirements set out in the 2015 European package travel directive.
Package travel regulations have provided protection to travellers for many years, but they were introduced in 1992 and much has changed since then. The way people purchase holidays has changed. Where once people would buy their package holiday from a travel agent on the local high street—or, the more adventurous, by the exciting new technology of Teletext—increasingly they now purchase holidays online via a computer, tablet or smartphone. That increased choice and flexibility in the travel market, allowing consumers to mix and match components of a holiday to suit them, has also brought about changes in what people purchase: fewer packages and more bespoke travel.
People are empowered to choose from a wider range of accommodation, transport and excursions. According to a recent survey by the Association of British Travel Agents, 83% of consumers bought holidays online in the last 12 months. Such rapid change has left new methods of packaging holidays outside the scope of the regulations, and we want to afford new protections to consumers. It has not always been clear what is in scope of the existing regulations, which has led to an uneven regulatory environment in which traditional package organisers are subject to a level of regulation that many of their online competitors are not. In many cases, the consumer is left unprotected if a company goes bust or something goes wrong. I draw attention to our estimate that, should the regulations not be brought into force, consumers will be at risk of losing out on £90 million of protection each year.
The regulations will address the gap. They are being introduced to ensure that people who book package holidays through travel sites online enjoy the same rights and protections as those who book with a traditional travel agent. That requires a broader definition of “package holidays” to capture modern booking models.
The regulations will introduce a new concept of linked travel arrangements. Those are looser commercial connections than a package holiday, so they have fewer requirements. We are making it a requirement that package travellers be given clear information on what they are agreeing to and what their rights are. We have also strengthened insolvency protection so that consumers can get their money back or be returned home if the company that arranged a package goes bust.
Traders who put such packages together, including those operating through online sites, will now be responsible for the entire holiday, even if services are provided by third parties. One requirement is that the UK must designate central contact points to supervise UK-established package organisers selling into other EU member states. After careful consideration and consultation, we have agreed that the Civil Aviation Authority will take on that role from July. Enforcement of the regulations will be as before, with responsibilities taken on by either the CAA or trading standards.
The Department’s impact assessment, published alongside the regulations, estimates a net cost to businesses of about £100 million a year. However, the changes will level the regulatory environment for all businesses selling travel packages. Companies providing packages not previously covered will be subject to the full range of protections under these regulations, including the organiser taking on liability for all services provided under the contract and providing cover against insolvency.
Right hon. and hon. Members can be reassured that, on the day we leave the European Union, we will maintain our high standards of consumer protection, delivering the stability and continuity consumers need and desire. It is our objective to have effective protections in place for consumers purchasing goods and services cross-border, now and into the future. The way that consumer protections will apply when buying across borders is still a matter for negotiation, but the Government are determined to co-operate closely with our EU partners on matters of consumer protection.
The draft regulations before the Committee have been welcomed as a positive step by the travel industry. Throughout the consultation process and the development of the policy, we sought to strike a balance between increased protections for consumers and minimised burdens on businesses. The measures will ensure a level playing field for businesses and greater clarity and protection for consumers for, we estimate, an extra 10 million package holidays a year. Confident businesses and consumers are an important part of an economy that works for everyone, and these measures will achieve those ends.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hosie.
Consumers often buy package holidays a long time in advance. They often spend a considerable amount of money on a holiday, including flights and hotels, and sometimes more, such as car rentals. According to the data in the impact assessment for the draft regulations:
“Households spend on average £22.10 per week on package holidays which constitutes 33% of total spending on recreation and culture.”
Indeed, with the rise of the internet and the boom in low-cost airlines, the way we book our holidays has changed significantly since the original package travel directive was introduced in 1990.
However, the risks involved are ever present, including the risk of insolvency of the trader, leaving consumers stranded; accommodation providers going bust; and difficulty accessing information, help or redress, to name but a few. It is therefore fitting that the law should change and modernise, to catch up with the changes in technology and in the attitudes and habits of consumers, so that they are protected from such risks.
In a nutshell, the draft regulations will widen the definition of a package holiday to encompass modern methods of purchasing package holidays, particularly online. They will create a new concept of linked travel arrangements, which are looser combinations of travel services, and introduce limited protection for consumers who purchase them. Bookings defined as limited travel arrangements will require financial protection against the risk of a company going into insolvency but will not carry the liabilities of a package.
An important element of the draft regulations is the mutual recognition of insolvency protection. Insolvency protection was an important feature of the 1990 directive and the 1992 regulations. It remains an important feature of the PTD 2015, but has now been overhauled to provide for mutual recognition of insolvency protection schemes between member states. The 1990 directive required only that member states have an insolvency protection regime. As a result, implementation across the EU was inconsistent. The PTD 2015 requires member states to recognise each other’s insolvency protection schemes and prohibits the imposition of additional requirements on foreign organisers. That means that organisers will be required only to comply with the insolvency protection scheme in the member state in which they are established, and in doing so will be deemed to be compliant across the EU.
However, the effect that mutual recognition of insolvency protection will have on regulatory behaviour is unclear. Fears have been raised that member states will engage in a deregulation arms race to attract business, to the detriment of consumers. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of mutual recognition on regulatory behaviour? How can he assure us that this will not in any way hamper consumer choice and protection?
As the impact assessment outlines, businesses will have to become familiar with the changes in PTD 2015 to comply with the regulations. It also estimates that
“businesses offering packages that would be new in scope of PTD 2015 would face costs of £20.88 million for ensuring proper performance of a package.”
I understand that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will develop guidance to inform stakeholders and businesses.
During the scandal that resulted in the cancellation of thousands of flights by Ryanair and Monarch Airlines in 2017, an undercover Which? investigation discovered that vital ATOL—air travel organisers’ licence—protection is misunderstood at some travel companies, including Thomas Cook, one of Britain’s best-known agents. At the time, Which? travel editor, Rory Boland, said:
“Atol registered companies need to improve the accuracy of the information they are providing to their customers, and companies registered abroad must do more to inform customers in the UK about what protections they will be covered by.”
How will the Minister ensure and enforce the policy, so that companies are providing up-to-date and accurate information to consumers? What steps will he take to check whether these standards are being upheld? If they are not, what action will he take against companies that do not provide accurate and correct information?
Part 7 of the draft statutory instrument deals with the enforcement of the regulations. Under this provision, trading standards will be responsible for the enforcement of the following provisions of information: content of package, insolvency protection and offence arising from breach of regulation. The regulations contain a number of criminal offences in relation to failure to provide, and the authority to enforce the regulation falls largely on local authority trading standards departments. Local trading bodies, however, have particularly suffered severe cuts since 2010, when this Government came to power. The Government’s own consumer Green Paper admitted that this has diminished their ability to enforce consumer rights adequately. On page 57 it says that
“the capacity of Local Authorities to take national cases has reduced. Two-thirds of English local authorities have reported not having the expertise to cover fully the range of statutory duties required of trading standards teams.”
Will the Minister announce further funding specifically for trading standards bodies, so that the regulation is properly enforced? If not, the implication is that it might not be adequately monitored and enforced.
As the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, what will this mean for such legislation? Will the Minister outline what representation he is making to the member of the Cabinet negotiating on Brexit with regard to such vital consumer protections? How will they be enforced following our departure? While Labour Members support the objectives and content of the measure, I would be grateful if the Minister responded to the questions I have raised.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson for their contributions. I do not think these regulations are in any way contentious and I am happy to associate myself with the comments that have already been made; I am broadly supportive of them. I have one admission to make, however: I have never booked a traditional package holiday. I have, however, booked many holidays myself and am glad to see that the legislation is catching up with the practice that many of my constituents and I participate in.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I agree very much with what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and, indeed, some of what was said by the Minister. The intention and implementation of these regulations are welcome across the Committee, although I seek one or two further points of clarification from the Minister, which I am sure he will be able to provide.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough has already raised the issue of enforcement and the extent to which those who will be responsible for enforcing these new, more complex and extended regulations will be able so to do. She asked whether there will be specific moneys given, in particular to local trading standards departments, to ensure that they can enforce these new and more complex regulations. I want to reiterate that point.
My experience of local trading standards departments is that they are very hard pressed to meet their current statutory obligations, not to mention having to take on new and complex obligations. I wonder whether the Minister can be precise about the extent to which his Department will, under the new burdens principle, provide some resource to those hard-pressed organisations for them to be able properly to meet the new obligations they are to have under these regulations. He did not say that there would be new money, or give us any idea of how much was going to be available.
In similar vein, the CAA is the new central contact point. Clearly, it will also have new obligations under these regulations and a new function to fulfil across the country, and will therefore have to incur extra costs properly to carry out that function. Will the Minister be clear as to whether it, too, will receive commensurate extra resource to carry out the extra responsibilities that the regulations impose on it? The explanatory memorandum says that there is no impact on the public sector, but there are certainly impacts on those two organisations—local authority trading standards and the CAA—which will be expected to carry out further functions.
The directive’s new requirement for mutual recognition of insolvency protection arrangements across borders aims primarily at ensuring that cross-border trade is stimulated, and that when people are booking packages and putting together visits online in various ways, they can be assured and confident that, if there is insolvency around, they will be protected by whatever the arrangements are and that there will be mutual recognition of those arrangements across borders.
The Minister, to his credit, made some reference to Brexit, which is more than some of his colleagues do when considering the issues that face us in the coming reality of Britain leaving the EU. He expressed some hope that it will all be fine when we get to that point, but we need more information about the extent to which his Department has so far succeeded in making plans for after the UK leaves the EU, to ensure that the mutual recognition requirement is ongoing and can still be effective. He did not really give us any detail about the point that his Department has got to in the negotiations or the state of contacts with our EU colleagues. Although Labour Members note that he is hopeful, I am afraid that he has not given us any reason to be hopeful that the arrangements will be carried over in reality. Perhaps he will say more about that before he asks us to agree the motion.
Andrew Griffiths
I thank all Committee members for their positive contributions. I hope that I can shed a little more light to clarify some of the concerns and to reassure the Committee that we are in a good place in relation to protecting the rights of consumers when travelling in the UK and abroad.
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations. We all agree that booking package holidays and ensuring that people’s rights are protected, whichever way they book, can be a significant issue for consumers, and one on which we need to offer extra protection.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough for the positive way in which she engaged in the debate, as always. It is always a pleasure to debate with her. She asked a number of questions, first about analysis of the effect of organisations in the EU selling into the UK under the mutual recognition principle. The directive will raise the level of insurance protection across the EU and give greater protection. The new directive is far more robust about what insolvency protection must legally be in place. In addition, the central contact points, which I will come on to in a minute, and about which there were several questions, will provide a mechanism for us to monitor other member states’ insolvency regimes, so, in effect, there is extra protection as a result of these regulations.
There were some questions in relation to mutual recognition. Let me be clear: if a UK trader sells a package holiday into another EU member state, he can use the UK insolvency regime, rather than having to comply with the regime of the individual member state. The new mutual recognition principle that is introduced by these regulations makes it easier for UK businesses to sell package holidays across the EU.
Maria Eagle
Can the Minister tell us whether that will remain the case after the UK leaves the EU? What assurance does he have that it will?
Andrew Griffiths
The hon. Lady will know that, way above my paygrade, detailed negotiations are taking place. She will also know the phrase, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” which I must repeat. I reassure her that the UK has a great reputation and tradition of being at the forefront of protecting consumer rights. We do not need the EU to tell us how to protect the rights of our citizens and our consumers. We were at the forefront of the free market and of bringing in these protections.
I reassure the hon. Lady not only that these regulations will be copied across, as it were, on the day that we leave the European Union, but that ongoing and positive discussions are taking place to ensure that our consumers are protected when travelling abroad and buying packages or linked travel arrangements across the EU, and that European tourists can have confidence in buying packages from UK operators in future, knowing that their rights will be protected. UK consumer protection rights are based on EU law and they will be retained wherever practical.
There were a number of questions in relation to trading standards departments and their adequacy in providing the resources to support consumers in future. The hon. Lady will know that, through my Department, trading standards receives an annual budget of approximately £40 million, which has been pretty static in recent years. I agree that there are increasing demands on trading standards in a more complex world, in relation to package travel as well as consumer protections and safety. That is why the Government took the bold decision to set up the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which we debated last week, to give extra resource to trading standards across the country and act as a repository of information and expert advice. This year, the Government are putting an additional £9 million into that office and, in future, that budget will be £12 million. I reassure the Committee that the Government are putting extra resources into supporting our trading standards officers across the country.
Gill Furniss
I would like to ask the Minister what I probably asked him last week when we debated product safety. Clearly, the £9 million is intended to support the functions of the new office, not the functions of the thing that we are actually debating.
Andrew Griffiths
That is absolutely true, but it is an additional resource for trading standards to try to lighten its burden. If we have a repository of information, expertise and advice in relation to product safety that trading standards officers across the country can access, that will make their job easier and, hopefully, free up their time to support their residents on issues such as those covered by the draft regulations.
I will make some progress. Trading standards and the CAA will enforce this legislation—there was a question about that. Their role is to take action where a number of consumers have been put at risk, such as where the provider has committed a serious criminal offence by failing to put in place appropriate insolvency cover or packages. We have not provided additional ring-fenced funding for that purpose. As the Committee will know, the funding of local trading standards is a matter for local authorities.
Let me move on to consumer protection rights post Brexit. We are committed to maintaining our track record of high levels of protection for consumers, and we do not need to be part of the EU to do that.
The Government are committed to implementing the 2015 PTD. It will provide greater protection to UK holidaymakers by bringing more modern methods of booking package holidays, such as through websites, into scope and giving extra protections. The changes in the regulations will ensure that consumers are better protected. The enhanced regulation will protect an extra 10 million UK package holidays each year.
I recognise that you will spend all your recess in Dundee East, Mr Hosie, serving your constituents, and that you will not have time to take a holiday because you are so committed to them. However, if you are able to do so, you can be sure that, because of the regulations, you can book linked travel packages with greater clarity and certainty. I am sure that that will make for an even more enjoyable holiday. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Second sitting)
Monday 14th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2018 - (14 May 2018)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that electronic devices should be switched to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. If any Member would like to take their jacket off, please feel free.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
I thank hon. Members and Clerks for assembling again to consider the Bill. I can only apologise that, again, we will not be able to make any progress.
Colleagues will have witnessed the extraordinary urgent question that I asked the Leader of the House on Thursday. It was extraordinary, first, for the onslaught that she was subjected to from Conservative Back Benchers. Members from her own party lined up to attack the Government, accusing them of: behaving undemocratically; committing an abuse of Parliament; denying the democratic rights of Members; breaching undertakings they gave to the Procedure Committee, and sending out the Leader of the House to defend the indefensible. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough put it, she was
“sent to the wicket not only without a bat, but without pads or a helmet.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 900.]
Any Leader of the House fulfilling her duty as Parliament’s representative in Cabinet would have relayed this strength of feeling to her colleagues and come back with a money resolution. Clearly, that has not happened.
Conservative Members joined colleagues from Labour, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats to universally condemn the Government. I register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Nottingham North and to the hon. Member for Wellingborough for their contributions. I know others would have joined in if they could.
The urgent question was extraordinary, secondly, because it exposed how weak the Government’s arguments really are. After a certain point, the Leader of the House stopped attempting to answer questions that Members put to her and resorted to repeating the same two or three sentences over and over again.
First, the Leader of the House pointed to private Members’ Bills that have made progress in this Parliament. All that shows is that the Government will not block Bills that they already agree with. The function of a private Member’s Bill is to raise issues of public interest. At times, that may involve challenging the Government, if they are in opposition to the majority of Members and the public. The Government should not use procedure to block that, but allow an open and honest debate.
Secondly, the Leader of the House pointed to the financial initiative of the Crown, which is the principle that any spending of public funds must be proposed by the Government. I do not think anyone has proposed that we change that sensible, long-standing principle, but it is deeply disingenuous to claim that the Government are blocking the Bill for financial reasons. The Government do not want to allow the Bill to be debated because it would hurt the Conservative party’s electoral chances. They want to rig the electoral system in their favour and are blocking a Bill that would stop them doing that.
Finally, the Leader of the House tried to defend herself against Members of her own party by arguing that they stood on a manifesto pledging to implement the boundary changes. First, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough made clear, he and others opposed that. Secondly, the Government could show some humility because their manifesto did not actually win them a majority. Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) asked, do the continual references to the Conservative party’s manifesto mean that we should expect Bills on foxhunting, grammar schools and the dementia tax soon?
The Government are starting to embarrass themselves over money resolutions. I urge the Minister to report back to her colleagues the anger in the Committee and across the House. The fundamental constitutional question of how many people should represent the country should be debated in the open, among Members and in front of the public, not in the back rooms of Government offices. If the Government are blocking the Bill because they do not think they can get enough of their Members to vote with them on it, they have more problems than just constituency boundaries.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I associate myself with my hon. Friend’s comments. It makes a mockery of the private Member’s Bill system that we are here again with no money resolution and no prospect of moving forward on the Bill. Last time we met, the Minister said that continuing with the boundary review changes had been in the Conservative party manifesto. That is true, but that manifesto did not win a majority at a general election, whereas this private Member’s Bill passed Second Reading in this House by 229 votes to 44. It is therefore clear that the will of the House is to progress with the Bill. By not presenting a money resolution, the Government are frankly making a mockery of the power we give our Back Benchers to pass legislation in this place.
I hope the Minister will take the message back to the rest of the Government that we want a money resolution, because we want to have the arguments out in Committee and on the Floor of the House and allow Members of Parliament—who, sitting in this Session, reflect the outcome of the general election—to make a decision. I hope she will take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and me and find a way of getting a money resolution so that we can make progress with the Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I have nothing to add to what I said at the previous Committee sitting, nor to what the Leader of the House said last week.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
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
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
(5 years, 11 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
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
We begin the debate with a 72-second silence to mark the lives lost in the Grenfell Tower fire.
A 72-second silence was observed.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered an e-petition relating to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I am grateful to you for that 72-second silence, which I know will be treasured by all involved. The prayer of e-petition 206722 says:
“Bereaved families & survivors call on PM to exercise her powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 to appoint additional panel members with decision making power to sit alongside Chair in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: to ensure those affected have confidence in & are willing to fully participate in the Inquiry”.
The petition goes on to say:
“To secure trust in an establishment we feel has been distant & unresponsive, & to avoid a collapse of confidence in the Inquiry’s ability to discover the truth, it is fundamental that…The Inquiry is not led by a judge alone. Panel members must be appointed with relevant background, expertise, experience, & a real understanding of the issues facing those affected”
and
“Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings”.
As we start this process, it is important to realise that it needs to be a people-led process at every stage, the reason being that real people’s lives are being affected now and real people’s lives have been lost. If you will indulge me for one second, Mr Rosindell, I will read out the names of those whom we are here to commemorate as much as we are here to fight for justice for them: Victoria King and her daughter, Alexandra Atala; Amna Mahmud Idris; Gary Maunders; Deborah Lamprell; Rania Ibrahim and her children, Hania and Fethia; Gloria Trevisan and Marco Gottardi; Fathia Ahmed and her children, Abufars Ibrahim and Isra Ibrahim; Raymond “Moses” Bernard; Mohamed Neda; Hesham Rahman; Nadia Choucair, her husband Bassem Choucair and their three children, Mierna, Fatima and Zeinab, and the children’s grandmother, Sirria Choucair; Hashim Kedir, his wife Nura Jema, and their daughter Firdows Hashim, and sons, Yahya and Yaqub Hashim; Logan Gomes; Abdulaziz El-Wahabi, his wife Faouzia, and their children, Yasin, Nur Huda and Mehdi; Ligaya Moore; Khadija Saye and Mary Mendy; Jessica Urbano Ramirez; Farah Hamdan, her husband Omar Belkadi, and their children, Malak and Leena; Mariem Elgwahry and her mother, Eslah Elgwahry; Mohamednur Tuccu, his wife Amalahmedin and their daughter Amaya; Berkti Haftom and her son Biruk; sisters Sakina and Fatima Afrasahabi; Isaac Paulos; Khadija Khalloufi; Vincent Chiejina; Kamru Miah, Rabeya Begum, Mohammed Hamid, Mohammed Hanif and Husna Begum; Joseph Daniels; Majorie Vital and her son, Ernie; Sheila Smith; Hamid Kani; Steve Power; Mohammed al-Haj Ali; Denis Murphy; Zainab Deen and her son, Jeremiah; Abdeslam Sebbar; Ali Yawar Jafari; Anthony Disson; and the 72nd person, who died a while afterwards, was Maria Del Pilar Burton.
We must absolutely express our sympathy to the families of victims and the survivors, and pay tribute to the emergency services, volunteers and all those involved in supporting those in desperate need.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I would like to make an early suggestion to my hon. Friend, based on the experience I had with a charity set up after the World Trade Centre disaster. We will need to consider a memorial for the victims. Is he aware that when 67 Britons were killed in the World Trade Centre disaster a charity was set up in New York, called the British Memorial Garden, with a small London end, which one or two of us were involved in, and that a memorial garden was built in New York, called the Queen Elizabeth Garden? I strongly commend to him that something similar is done in London now for Grenfell.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know that the community have expressed an interest in doing something along those lines. There is a process in train and it very much needs to be community-based. I know the Minister will take that on board and he may say more about it.
I also thank the petitioners—Adel Chaoui, Karim Mussilhy and Sandra Ruiz—and all those who have signed the petition. As of now, the number of signatories is 156,659. I know that Stormzy and the like had a lot to do with that, but it is more than that—it is a community coming out and expressing solidarity, and a country expressing solidarity. I was going through the names of victims and their stories just yesterday. Nobody can fail to be moved by the stories and pen-sketches that have appeared in the lead-up to this debate, particularly in The Guardian this morning.
I thank Grenfell United, for the dignified and resolute way that it has represented its community, and Inquest, the independent charity that has supported the community with expertise in the investigation of contentious deaths involving both state and corporate bodies, for its work.
Some things have changed since the petition began. I know that Grenfell United is happy with the appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick because of his experience and expertise in regulation and law. It appreciates that that expertise will be valuable in determining what happened, but they believe that the question as to why might not be tested sufficiently without further panel members, in addition to those originally determined by the Prime Minister on 21 December 2017.
However, the written statement by the Prime Minister last Friday was a very welcome move. Appointing two new panel members will add much to the inquiry, but Grenfell United feels that more may be required to ensure that the panel has a diversity of experience beyond that of the two extra members.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman was reading out the names of victims very movingly, one of the things that I think would have struck all of us was the diversity of people in Grenfell Tower, as is the case with North Kensington and in modern London generally. Grenfell Tower was a symbol of diversity. Does he agree that, if this inquiry is to win the public confidence of such a diverse community like the Lawrence inquiry did some years ago, it needs to reflect that diversity at every level, so that all of the communities who were there, and the relatives of the deceased, will know that this inquiry can speak for them?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will discuss the make-up of panel members later, but it is right that at every level we respect and understand the diversity of the community that has been affected, in particular in North Kensington.
Will the Minister tell us whether the number of additional panel members—two have been added so far—will be kept under review? It is important that the panel is not restricted—the panel needs to reflect the investigation, rather than the other way round. We do not want to restrict the questions the panel can ask, the avenues the panel can go down and the expertise that panel members bring just because we do not have enough panel members with the right expertise.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware whether the Prime Minister has responded to the other two demands made by the survivors and the relatives of the victims of this tragedy: first, that legal representatives of the bereaved families are able to see all the evidence from the start of the inquiry; and, secondly, that the families are allowed to question witnesses at those hearings?
Paul Scully
That is something I will touch on later, because I know those things are very important to the Grenfell community—they are the second half of their ask in the petition.
In a statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the extensive nature of the inquiry. Some 330,000 documents have been received so far—many more are expected—and about 183,000 have had a first-stage review by Sir Martin and his team. Will the Minister explain how the Prime Minister can be sure than two additional panel members will be sufficient and offer enough diversity of opinion should the inquiry continue to grow in complexity?
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) mentioned the make-up of the panel. There would undoubtedly be concern if all the panel members were white middle-class Oxbridge alumni, but the community understand that the make-up has as much to do with experience as with ethnicity and background. When I spoke to him last Friday, Adel, one of the petitioners, cited the appointments of Dr Richard Stone and the Most Reverend Dr John Sentamu—then Bishop of Stepney—to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry panel as an excellent example of how members should be chosen. Those individuals had a wider understanding of the community and brought a very different insight to the inquiry from that of Sir William Macpherson, a retired High Court judge—now Lord Macpherson—and Tom Cook, a retired deputy chief constable. Lord Macpherson himself credited his panel of advisers with playing a crucial role in shaping the inquiry’s important recommendations.
Sir Martin has appointed 547 core participants to the inquiry, 519 of whom are individuals from the Grenfell community. They will receive relevant evidence in advance of hearings and be able to make opening or closing statements at some of them, suggest lines of questioning and, with permission, ask witnesses questions through their own legal representatives. That number of core participants is unprecedented, but the petitioners have noted that their role remains limited next to that of a panel member, who can make decisions and ask questions without notice. Such questions are more likely to get a straight answer, rather than one that has been developed while the witness has been preparing for the inquiry hearing.
The second part of the petition asks for greater scope for QCs to be able to question witnesses and review all the evidence. In asking for this, Grenfell United cites the Hillsborough inquiry as an example of how some of the key evidence that helped to get to the bottom of why things happened came from the questions posed by the families’ QCs. The petitioners feel that the impartiality of Sir Martin and his panel means that they will not be able to, or will not think to, ask certain questions that would be required to uncover crucial information, whereas the core participants’ QCs will not have that constraint.
The quick commitment to hold an inquiry is welcome, but the community are clear that they want it to be done properly the first time around, with the process not being rushed, but not being dragged out interminably either. One concern about the appointment of the panel members for phase two of the inquiry only is what would happen if those new members felt they could not make a judgment because they had not been able to analyse all the evidence from phase one and had missed the opportunity to question witnesses during that phase. The petitioners worry that that could risk preventing the inquiry from being able to come to comprehensive conclusions. If phase one needed to be revisited at a later date, there would be considerable impact on the families, with their having to relive everything yet again. Such repeats would also significantly increase the cost and time, which would risk damaging the credibility of the inquiry.
The petitioners believe that the police inquiry may well be the more significant part of getting to the bottom of what happened and why, and of bringing justice to those people who lost so much. With the inquiry starting before the police investigation had finished, there is a further risk that any delays will cause complications for both the inquiry and the police investigation.
I very much value the time that Grenfell United took to meet some 100 MPs in the Speaker’s apartments last week. In the briefing they shared with us afterwards there was a third request: that the Government undertake now to guarantee that any recommendations from the report will be implemented in full. Although I am sure we all understand the sentiment of that seemingly simple request, I would not expect the Government to go quite that far at this stage, before the inquiry has even started in earnest. However, it is important that the Government are open, understanding and responsive at every stage of the process, because the community believe that those three qualities have been lacking, certainly during the period leading up to the fire.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good start to the debate. May I suggest that it has been wonderful how the Speaker has brought everyone together on this important issue and shown great sensitivity, together with Rose our chaplain, when it comes to how we as parliamentarians come to terms with something so dreadful?
Paul Scully
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Speaker. He has shown compassion at every point; many of us saw how powerfully and emotionally he spoke at the reception last week. The Speaker’s office was on to my office last week when there was talk of a possible announcement by the Prime Minister. He is really keeping a keen, close eye on developments. That is as it should be; none the less, it is an absolute testament that we should pay tribute to him.
There is no doubt that we need to do everything we can to build and retain trust with a community who feel left behind. Those of us who spent a few moments on Parliament Square just before the debate will have seen the raw feeling that is still there 11 months on—and we can absolutely understand why. There are so many unanswered questions and so many people still unhoused—an issue I will return to.
Last week, a resident described what had happened as a tragedy in three acts: being ignored during the refurbishment of the tower, the fire itself, and the sense of abandonment at certain times afterwards. The Minister and other members of the Government have updated the House on several occasions about what is being done to rehouse those who lost everything last June. I do not underestimate Ministers’ efforts and the work they are undertaking to allow survivors to rebuild their lives, but we need to ensure that the Government go as far as they can to assure residents that they will not simply kick the inquiry—or any part of it—into the long grass. I dare say that the Lakanal fire will be mentioned a good few times during the debate, but we cannot countenance any situation in which recommendations are filed in the “too difficult” drawer. There can be nothing too difficult to ensure that there is no repeat of the Grenfell fire.
While I was speaking to Grenfell residents, they naturally raised other issues of concern, which I am sure will be mentioned in this debate. I heard that some people were still unable to move into new homes. A number of reasons were given, but the one that struck me were the considerable delays in getting gas certification for the properties. We need to address that sort of bureaucracy in some way, shape or form, so that efforts can concentrate on the more complicated rehousing needs, while the higher duty of care as a social landlord is still being met. I used to be involved with residential properties, and I know that gas certification is a relatively straightforward process that should take days to organise, not weeks, so will the Minister update us on what is happening in that regard?
People living in tower blocks around the country will be following the Grenfell situation carefully. I have been in touch with my constituents many times over the last 11 months, especially those in Chaucer House and Balaam House—two tall, recently clad buildings in Sutton. I understand their fears, and I will continue to be in touch with them until we have all the assurances and the remedial work they need. I hope that the Minister will continue to keep us up to date with fire safety testing. Will he tell us whether the new Secretary of State will continue to evaluate both the merits of banning desktop studies entirely and Dame Judith Hackitt’s recommendation to restrict their use?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is taking far too long to ensure 24/7 security provision for tower blocks where the cladding has been found, and that the Government need to step up and ensure prevention work as a matter of urgency? That is not to mention the private blocks—Ministers have confessed that even they do not know how many are affected. There needs to be greater urgency in dealing with the prevention of future risks. Surely it is vital that the Government take that on board.
Paul Scully
When I was in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and in Newham—I was going around the boroughs campaigning in the local elections—seeing some of the tower blocks was a real eye-opener. There was one with, I think, 20 floors, that had 14 people working in it—one in reception and then fire wardens looking after two floors each. We find ourselves in that extraordinary situation when basic fire regulations should be put in place in those people’s stead. Yes, we can always do more, and I am interested in hearing what the Minister will say.
Paula Sherriff
The two lovely ladies I met at the reception last week had only just been rehoused. I am not familiar with the geography of London, but they said they had been offered homes all over the city. When I asked them if they had lost everything they had owned in the fire that night, they said it was not about material possessions but that they had lost a community.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. On the whole, most of the houses are within a couple of miles of the site. It is a relatively small, incredibly expensive area of London, so it is always going to be a huge challenge to give everyone what they need, but on the other hand, as I have been describing, we must rise to and meet that challenge. It is crucial that we do so.
Lots of people want to speak, so I will conclude. Will the Minister please convey my thanks to the Prime Minister for listening to the community in North Kensington and increasing the number of panel members, which was the right thing to do? The Grenfell community clearly will not have time to keep petitioning the Government, raising significant points of interest. The Prime Minister is committed to supporting everyone affected. The Minister is listening, as did the previous Minister with this portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). I urge the Minister to continue in that vein. The people in the Public Gallery, in the Jubilee Room next door and outside on Parliament Square are looking to us to provide answers.
Within Grenfell United and other organisations are community leaders who are immense in their dedication and resolve. That is because they share the memories, the hurt and the uncertainty over their future, but they are 100% committed to getting their friends, family and neighbours to the other side—to a point where they can start to move on. While we still need to focus on the immediate programme of ensuring that everyone affected has a good home as soon as possible, getting this inquiry right first time is so important to getting answers, securing justice, bringing some closure to a very dark chapter and, yes, ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
First, I thank the Petitions Committee for making this debate possible. As the Committee will know, after the initial disappointing response from No. 10 to the request for a debate, I wrote to the Chair saying that I felt that response was inadequate. I am pleased that the Committee agreed and asked No. 10 to review its response. After months of extra work from survivors and the local community, many feel that this moment could be a turning point towards getting the justice they need.
I will lay out some of the concerns that the community and related local groups and representatives have about the public inquiry. I ask the Chamber to bear with me as I run through a few of the many occasions when the community has been badly let down since the fire at Grenfell Tower changed their lives for ever.
On 15 June 2017—the day after the fire and while the tower was still smouldering— the then Communities Secretary stated that, under the Bellwin scheme, immediate financial assistance would be offered to the local authority to support Grenfell-affected people. The former Housing Minister guaranteed, on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the Government, that every family would be rehoused in the local area. That guarantee has not been delivered. On 16 June 2017, the Prime Minister committed to rehousing those who had lost their homes within three weeks at the latest and as close as possible to where they had previously lived. She set the public inquiry in motion, and assured those affected that they would be able to help shape the scope of the inquiry. Those commitments have not been delivered.
On 17 June, the Prime Minister stated that the support on the ground from Kensington and Chelsea Council had not been good enough and ordered immediate action. She then confirmed the deadline of three weeks for everybody affected to be found a home nearby and announced that the inquiry would be open and transparent and that Government and Ministers would co-operate fully—three further commitments that are undelivered. A week later, the Prime Minister again stated that the support on the ground had not been good enough, and that a taskforce had been set up. She reassured people that the fire would not be used as a reason to carry out immigration checks, and that all victims would be able to access the services they need, “irrespective of immigration status”. Those reassurances have not been delivered.
I have in my file a record of all the pledges, commitments and guarantees made by the Government. So many have not been implemented. Since last June—it has been 11 long and very painful months for all those affected—the Government have been criticising the failures of Kensington and Chelsea Council, saying that it is simply not good enough. The taskforce report was unequivocal in its criticisms of the council’s response and gave a number of recommendations that the council has still not implemented. Despite that devastating report, the Government will not listen to the calls of residents’ groups and the Labour councillors who support them for commissioners to be called in to deal with the council’s frankly shocking ongoing failure to rehouse victims.
Last week I had one of my regular meetings with the team in charge of rehousing. They are on their knees. Finger-wagging from the Government will not help; they need outside assistance now. I take this opportunity to repeat our request to the Government to call in commissioners to take control of rehousing, which frankly is in chaos. It is yet another example of how Grenfell-affected people have been badly let down while the Government refuse to take actions that are within their power.
Let us now look at who has and has not been granted core participant status. More than 500 individuals have been granted the status. Quite correctly, those who have been directly affected—the survivors and bereaved family members—have been granted core participant status. While Kensington and Chelsea Council has been granted CP status, the opposition Labour group, bizarrely, has not. It opposed the Conservative council on so many of its social housing policies, including how the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower was carried out and the location of the school at the foot of the tower. The Labour group of councillors has been considered, in some kind of joint enterprise judgment, to be part of the council. Despite two appeals, Labour councillors—including the ward councillors for Notting Dale, where the tower is located—have been refused separate CP status. While supposedly being considered jointly accountable, the Labour group has no access to lawyers and no access to documents that are part of the inquiry.
I personally requested CP status as MP for Kensington, as someone with experience as a board member of the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation until 2012—I am well acquainted with the dysfunctional nature of the organisation—and as a member until 2014 of the Housing and Property Scrutiny Committee, which is supposed to scrutinise the TMO. I was also refused by the judge, as apparently I have “nothing to add”. The chair of the Grenfell Tower compact—a kind of residents’ association—was directly involved with the negotiations throughout the period of the refurbishment, and they were also refused.
We have heard about some bereaved family members granted CP status whose visas have expired and who have been forced to return to their home countries. They have been told, despite previous assurances to the contrary, that they are not to be afforded extensions to their visas so they can attend the inquiry, as is their right. Shockingly, they have been told that they can watch proceedings on TV. I give those examples to underline the frustration of those concerned at being excluded from the inquiry, which is so important to their grieving, their peace of mind, and their demand for justice.
Unfortunately, there is a precedent for the frustration at the results and recommendations of a public inquiry. From June 2016 to June 2017, I sat on the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority at the Greater London Assembly, which was charged with London-wide organisation and planning of these services. Much of our time was dedicated to lobbying Government for the implementation of the Lakanal House inquiry recommendations of 2013. Six people had died in a preventable fire that involved external cladding and fire spread. If the Lakanal House recommendations had been implemented, Grenfell Tower would not have burned. If they had been implemented, 72 lives would not have been lost, yet to this day—and despite the then Secretary of State’s insistence that they have been—the Lakanal House inquiry recommendations have still not been implemented.
Whether it is our community or the various industries concerned, there is little confidence that the recommendations of the Hackitt report, due within two weeks, will be implemented either. What do we have to do to ensure the safety of those for whom we have responsibility? Do they not have a right to life? How can the Government state that no stone will be unturned and that everything is being done when so clearly it is not? The Government state they have given the council £72 million towards housing and other necessary services. Meanwhile, a fourth food bank is about to open to serve the immediate Grenfell area. I find that shocking and unacceptable. How can the Government stand by and wag their fingers while Kensington and Chelsea Council is so clearly failing in its statutory duties?
Some Grenfell-affected people tell me that they have had enough of hearing that politicians are honoured and privileged to have met them and heard their stories. They have heard enough about resilience and dignity, as if somehow it is a surprise that people living in social housing have any kind of integrity and discernment. They feel they are being told, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—in another context—to
“be quiet, be grateful, know your place”,
and that somehow, if they behave appropriately, according to some unwritten rulebook, they will get their dues. Some people feel they are being played, or that there is a “divide and rule” ploy to split the community. If that is so, it is a misjudgment because in this matter the community is united. Let us have no more platitudes, no more lionising those you wish to control, and no more attempts to pacify, neutralise, sideline and mollify people whose genuine and justified concerns are being ignored.
Grenfell-affected people, represented by Grenfell United, Humanity for Grenfell, and other more or less formal groups, are asking for no less than what they are due. They do not want charity—they want reparations and they want justice. They tell us, “Nothing can bring back our family and friends, but we need justice.” They need to have confidence in the inquiry, and to do so they are asking simply for an advisory panel, with diverse experience, expertise and decision-making powers, to sit alongside the judge and to be involved in both phases of the inquiry. They want an undertaking that they can have some input on the selection of panel members. They want agreement that the inquiry will be carried out with diligence from the outset and that panel members will be fully involved. They want an understanding that recommendations on building and fire regulations are implemented without delay so that we do not have another Lakanal House situation where recommendations are ignored.
There has already been criticism about the very narrow remit of the inquiry and the fact that social, economic and political considerations are not to be considered. Survivors and bereaved family members have expressed their concerns, but were not listened to. The announcement on Thursday that only two additional panel members will be appointed to only the second phase of the inquiry is welcome, but we know they can be appointed at any time. Many feel, after so many disappointments and failures, as I have just described, that there will be full confidence in the inquiry only if the additional panel members are appointed without delay. We ask that that is expedited now.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for presenting this important debate.
Grenfell Tower was quite simply an horrific tragedy that will doubtless have an effect on all of us for the rest of our lives. As someone who served as cabinet member for regeneration on my local authority, I am keen to have concrete answers as to how it was allowed to happen, who must be held accountable, and what will be done to prevent it from happening again.
I am sure that none of us here or anywhere else across the country will ever forget waking up on that Wednesday morning to see those terrible images of that blazing inferno in the heart of our capital city. Lives were lost that should never have been lost, and lives were also changed for ever. It could all have been avoided. That is why I welcome the findings of the Hackitt review’s interim report that calls for a culture change within the construction industry, which should take on much greater responsibility for what is built and how it is built.
The interim report also highlighted several broad areas for change, including improvements to the process, compliance and enforcement of regulations, as well as providing and creating a quick and effective route for concerned residents’ voices to be heard.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the interim report, Dame Judith stated that she would not recommend detailed changes to the technical requirements. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with groups, including the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Local Government Association, who have repeatedly called on Dame Judith to recommend bans on combustible materials on tower blocks and on so-called desktop studies? Does he not agree with me that the only solution is to ban combustible cladding?
Giles Watling
I absolutely agree that we must ban combustible cladding. It should never have been used in the first place. We must move on and that is why I was talking about how the construction industry must take on greater responsibility for what is built and how it is built.
I am pleased that the Government will consider any recommendations made by the review and how they will interact with the requirements of the construction product regulations. That is a step forward, but we still have many steps to take, including the work that Ministers have been doing with local government officials and organisations to provide support to the victims—both in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy and in the long term. The autumn Budget 2017 also committed £28 million of additional community support to victims. It is right that we do all we can to support victims and to ensure that such a tragedy never ever happens again.
I call on all my colleagues to support the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). It is a truly cross-party endeavour. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government helped to draft the Bill ahead of its publication. It will ensure that everyone is entitled to a decent home and that all properties should be free from potential risks to the health and safety of occupants. That really should go without saying. We can all agree that provisions must be put in place to ensure that that can happen everywhere. Having read the Bill, I agree with Shelter that it would help to achieve that aim by enabling meaningful action to be taken on poor and unsafe living conditions for renters.
The Bill will build on a raft of policies introduced by the Government aimed at driving up standards in the private and social rented sectors. Those include empowering local authorities to fine failing landlords up to £30,000. From April, local councils will also be able to issue banning orders to put the worst offenders out of business altogether. Passing the Bill would be another positive step towards ensuring that such a tragedy never happens again.
Although we have done some good work, I am conscious that questions remain unanswered, so it is right that we are having this very important inquiry and that the inquiry panel was expanded. Those we are seeking to provide answers for must feel certain that the inquiry is working for them. An expanded panel will provide that certainty, and all Members of the House must now allow the inquiry to proceed without its being used as a political football. In the face of such tragedy, we should all work together.
I do not say that the issue is not political—everything is political, from planning decisions to housing—but we need rational and responsible politics if we want to do right by the people who lived in that tower and by the countless people who live in other such towers across the nation. By doing that, we may well be left with the type of reasonable, thought-provoking and evidence-based political debate that uncovers all the aspects of Grenfell and moves us towards a better policy for all people in such housing in the future.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I dedicate my contribution today to my friends Khadija Saye and Mary Mende, who lost their lives in Grenfell Tower. This debate does nothing really to convey their lives and their memories. I am sure everybody else whose friends or loved ones were victims will feel that. Nevertheless, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) on her outstanding speech. I associate myself with all of her remarks.
I welcome the decision taken on Friday to appoint two additional panel members to sit alongside Sir Martin Moore-Bick on the inquiry. The decision is testament to the courage and dignity of the survivors and the families of the bereaved, many of whom I have had the privilege of getting to know over the past year. However, I regret that the Prime Minister ignored the calls for a panel for so long. I regret that she ignored the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, in which Sir William Macpherson said that
“the Inquiry would have been infinitely less effective”
without the advisers he had alongside him as chair. I regret that a petition and a debate in Parliament was required for the Prime Minister to finally change her mind. I regret that people who are in grief and suffering so much pain have had to organise and campaign and beg the Government to ensure that their voices are heard. From the start the Prime Minister has failed to recognise who the inquiry is actually for.
Today, almost one year on from the Grenfell Tower fire, and despite all the promises that have been made, 72 Grenfell households are still living in hotel rooms, a further 64 are still in temporary accommodation, and only one third have been housed.
Ms Buck
On the subject of meeting unmet housing need, does my right hon. Friend share my shock that London housing associations are still auctioning properties on the open market in areas such as Kensington, Hammersmith, Camden, Brent and Westminster, when there is at least a possibility that some of those properties might be available to meet those needs?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How can it be that properties are available, and as a country we are unable to bring to bear both the state and the local authority to get those homes and house those people? Why is it that, a year on, my hon. Friend has to make that point as well as she has made it?
We have to ask whether the inquiry for the people who were failed before the fire, and who have been failed after the fire as every promise made to them has been broken. The inquiry is not for the Government, and it is not for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It is for the victims. It is for the people who died in the Grenfell fire. It is for all who managed to get out of the tower, but still relive that night every single day. It is for the bereaved families and their broken hearts. It is for everyone who is grieving and carrying the burden of loss around with them, like a scar burned into their soul. It is for the people who saw the burning, saw people jumping to their deaths, and still have to look at that tower every day. It is for the people who are still living in hotel rooms, 11 months on.
This is about more than just a panel of advisers. The people have been badly let down. Of course there is deep mistrust of authority within the community. Of course they have no faith in the state and the establishment. If the Government lose sight of who the inquiry is for, it ceases to be an inquiry. It becomes a talking shop and an exercise in spin. It is up to the inquiry to ask tough questions and interrogate the authorities on behalf of the Grenfell families. That is why it is so important that survivors and families, and their representatives and lawyers, are able to ask uncomfortable truths of those who give evidence to the inquiry.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman makes some very fair points. Does he accept, though, that the Prime Minister has not ruled out including other panel members at a further phase of the inquiry? She has simply said, in the interests of expediency and getting answers as quickly as possible, “Not at this stage.” Phase two of the inquiry may be open to the addition of more panel members.
Mr Lammy
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I would simply say that we should have had those panel members right from the beginning. That was the evidence of Macpherson, when John Sentamu and Richard Stone were so important to the community. We should have those panel members now. Quite understandably, the community will want to get into the detail of who those panel members are, and how they can have a say and influence that. If we have an inquiry that fails to represent the people in whose interests it is supposed to act, it has failed before it has even begun. I do not want it to fail. I want it to get to those answers, but trust is important within that.
It is important that we understand the role of the state in this, because if you are middle class in Britain, you only really rely on the state to care for you if you get ill, if you send your children to Church schools, maybe because you use a leisure centre, or to take your rubbish away. However, if you live on the 22nd floor of a tower block, the state literally has your life in its hands. It is the state that you rely on for the roof over your head. It is the state that you rely on to come up the stairwell and save you and your family from a burning building. It is the state that has told you to stay put. It is the state that has approved the combustible cladding around your building. It is the state that sets the rules for the regulations that govern your life. It is the state that has failed to install working fire alarms. If you cannot afford to be in the private sector, you are at the mercy of the state. That is the bottom line. It is the state that has failed, so it is the state that has to work hard to regain the trust of the Grenfell families.
Why does trust matter? Because trust in the inquiry is a precondition of justice. If there is no trust, there will be no justice. A lack of trust will affect participation. If those affected do not fully participate, we cannot and will not get to the truth. If we do not get to the truth, we will not get justice. If we do not get justice, we will get injustice—more injustice.
Representation, which is at the heart of this debate, matters. Look at the Grenfell survivors; look at them clearly. Look at the families of the bereaved and the community of north Kensington protesting outside Parliament today, and sat in the public gallery during the preliminary hearings. Then look at the Cabinet—not just this Cabinet, but Cabinets under the Government that I was part of. We do not have representation. We do not have the experience of living in a tower block estate.
Let recent history serve as a reminder of what happens when we do not have that representation. We get residents associations being ignored time and time again when they raise fire safety concerns with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. We get a local authority that cares more about saving money than the lives of people living in social housing. We get a council leader in a local authority in London—a city with 700 tower blocks of 11 floors or more—who had never even set foot in a tower block before she became leader. We get a local authority that cares much more about how the tower block looks in appearance to the rich folk who live around it than the lives of those inside it. We get two thirds of Grenfell households still living in hotel rooms and temporary accommodation.
When the voices of people living in social housing were ignored and marginalised, what did we get? We got a towering inferno, burning into the sky as a reminder of what happens when the state does not listen to those it purports to serve. We got the senseless and avoidable death of people who burned to death in their homes.
At a memorial service for Hillsborough, Professor Phil Scraton read the poem, “Their Voices Will Be Heard”:
“Shattered by loss but unbroken in spirit
In the face of injustice you never backed down
You forced them to listen, you sacrificed your lives,
You bore witness with dignity on the day of reckoning
And their voices, your voices, have been heard”.
The voices of Grenfell Tower have not been heard yet. Their voices were not heard before the fire, and before the Prime Minister did the U-turn that brings us to this point today. This is a test for the leadership of the Prime Minister. Can the Government regain the trust of the Grenfell family? Theresa May talks about burning injustices, and this injustice burned. If the inquiry fails to gain the trust and confidence of the survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, we will not get justice. I remind the Government of what Neville Lawrence said in 2012, almost 20 years after the loss of his son Stephen:
“The loss itself, together with the lack of justice, have meant that I have not been able to rest all this time.”
That point must hang in the air. How do we regain that trust? How do we demonstrate that we really get what representation means? How do we honour those lives? How do we recognise that it is the state that has failed, and how do we ensure that we are not too establishment to put the state and those who assisted it—the private contractors and others—on trial?
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. I advise Members that there will be an informal six-minute limit to speeches for the rest of the debate.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for introducing the debate. It is a pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), many of whose comments I agree with entirely.
There is no doubt that what we witnessed at Grenfell was a complete failure of our system, on the most horrific scale and with the most horrific consequences. Everyone who is associated with the system, including myself—we are part of the system—should apologise to those who lost their lives. There were 72 needlessly lost lives, and hundreds more lives ruined, because of what happened at Grenfell. It is entirely unacceptable that this could happen in this day and age. It is our 9/11, but it is entirely self-inflicted.
I have had the pleasure of meeting many members of Grenfell United and local residents, and I pay tribute to their determination, their composure and their steadfast approach to getting answers and finding solutions. No doubt they feel they have been subject to injustice and discrimination, and that they were treated like second-class citizens in the lead-up to this terrible tragedy. Those are their words, not mine. They now, quite rightly, want answers and solutions, but the first question I would ask if I were in their situation is, why would I trust a system that has already let me down?
The feelings behind this petition, which 156,000 people have signed, are understandable. There is a clear need for additional panel members so that those affected have confidence in the system, to ensure that the people on the panel have the relevant background and experiences, and so that the legal representatives can ask the right questions and see the right evidence. To reiterate what I said earlier, as I read the Prime Minister’s letter, she has not ruled that out. Clearly, we need to get answers as quickly as possible. The letter said “not at this stage”. There are two distinct phases to the inquiry, and phase one is a fact-finding mission: it is about the what, not the why. The most important time to look at the panel members is when we look at why it happened. I have had discussions about that. We must look at why this happened and get to the bottom of that.
Grenfell United applied for a judicial review, which was heard by the High Court on 4 May. Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Edis looked at the question of additional panel members and conceded in their conclusions that there are arguments either way. Clearly, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Hillsborough independent panel are examples of where that has happened, but there are examples of where it has not happened. They said that an initial report is required as soon as possible, and that they therefore understood the current position. Their conclusion said that phase two of the inquiry may be an appropriate time to include different considerations and to cover a larger number of issues. [Interruption.] Those are not my words; they are the words of those judges. That is the right thing to do, and I spoke to a justice chief executive about that point at Mr Speaker’s reception last week.
There are other big questions that need answering, certainly about rehousing, but the important point is that this tragedy must never happen again. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has looked at this issue, and we are very concerned that Dame Judith Hackitt’s interim report seems to imply that there will be an outcomes or risks-based approach, rather than a simple prescriptive approach to completely ban combustible materials. We have had correspondence with Dame Judith Hackitt about that point. In a letter of March this year, she said that in current regulations
“there is currently a choice between using products of limited combustibility or undergoing a full-system test…The former”—
non-combustible materials or products of limited combustibility—
“is undoubtedly the low-risk option.”
I cannot think that Parliament would ever countenance a higher-risk option after what we have been through. It is absolutely critical that that inquiry, which reports on Thursday, also comes up with the right conclusions.
We absolutely need confidence in the inquiry. The request about phase two seems reasonable to me. We must clearly do everything we can to support and rehouse those affected. Future regulations must be as clear and risk-free as possible to ensure this never happens again.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Part of the Government’s response to Grenfell must be to ensure that it can never happen again, but nearly a year later, far too little has been done to give people living in blocks like Grenfell with similar cladding that very important reassurance. In 2009, the Lakanal House fire caused the loss of six lives. In 2013, the coroner reporting on that tragedy told the Government that the fire safety guidance was confusing, unclear and not fit for purpose, and that it needed to be revised, but the Government did nothing. In 2016, flammable cladding was put on Grenfell Tower, and in 2017 Grenfell Tower went up in flames. Had the Government listened and acted, those people would be alive today. Industry figures show that there is still an average of one fire a month relating to that kind of cladding. How long will it be before one of those fires is not put out? Eventually, that will happen unless we take that cladding down.
In the immediate aftermath of the fire, Ministers stood up and declared that the cladding was not compliant with the guidance or the regulations, but the Government’s chief fire safety adviser signed off specification for the same kind of cladding for use on high-rise residential blocks. That emphasises the coroner’s point, after the Lakanal House fire, that the regulations and guidance were unclear and confusing. Ministers did not know, because they cannot interpret the guidance any more than anybody else can.
We will have to wait and see what the Hackitt review comes out with, but there are widespread concerns that it is compromised because there are so many individuals on it representing vested financial interests, and the early reports of what is coming out of the review do nothing to allay those fears. The Government must act without further delay.
My concern, which is widely held in the sector and by people living in blocks that have the same kind of cladding as Grenfell, is that a money-go-round is operating in the fire safety sector. The BRE makes considerable revenue from running fire safety tests for cladding manufacturers, which are able to design their own tests and keep rerunning them, slightly differently, if they fail, until they get the result they desire. They are then able to keep the detail of those multiple tests, and even the fact that they have taken place, secret on grounds of commercial confidentiality. That simply cannot be right. That gives the BRE, which also drafts the fire safety guidance, a direct financial interest in allowing the use of semi-combustible cladding, which is banned in many EU countries, because non-combustible cladding would not require the same level of very profitable testing—of course, it also would not result in so many deaths.
Ministers need to start listening to independent sources of advice. The chair of the Government’s fire safety expert panel is a trustee of the BRE. The culture that allows that is why nothing has changed since Lakanal House or Grenfell last year. One of the reasons why Ministers do not want to recognise these failings is that they do not want to accept their share of the responsibility for the tragedy that happened at Grenfell Tower, but they must recognise failings if they are to put them right. Ministers must now change course. There can be no more Grenfells, but there will be another if Ministers do not act.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have lived in London all my life. I am 42 years old and of a west African background. My mother, who still practises as a barrister at the age of 74, had one or two relatives in Trellick Tower, which is near Grenfell Tower, so I spent time there as a boy.
One of the things that is missed about this whole debate is that that location, Notting Hill, with the race riots and the carnival, is very important to the Afro-Caribbean community. It is an area that I have known on and off all my life, although I do not know it intimately, and many here know it much better. I assure the House and those who hear the debate that I have not really engaged as much with this issue as I might have, given my responsibility in the Treasury as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor—I was appointed just when this tragedy happened—but what I have to say, as a Londoner, is that I found it extraordinary that 72 people died in the tragedy.
I have lived in and around London all my life, but I have never heard of anything similar before. The Grenfell fire was a huge tragedy and a national scandal. People on both sides of the House, but on the governing side in particular, have to be generous and open enough to recognise it for what it was. Frankly, it is a disgrace that that sort of thing can happen—that a tragedy and loss of life on that scale can happen in London. As a governing party, we cannot walk away from it. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea cannot walk away from it either—although I am not saying that it has done. We have to understand the history of London—of that part of London—to understand the resonance for many people in such an appalling tragedy.
What happened over the decades in Notting Hill? Initially, it was the hub of the Afro-Caribbean community, and many people came to Britain from the Caribbean and Africa to make a home there, but over the past 10, 20 or 30 years what people call gentrification has happened. The area originally had a vast connection with people of diverse communities and faiths, but over 20 or 30 years property prices increased and there was a new influx of much wealthier inhabitants. The area changed and— I am not saying that this happened, but there is a suspicion that it did—the priorities, values and interests of the people running the borough changed. As more people with more money came in, there is a suspicion that the people who were left behind commanded less of the attention of the local councillors or even perhaps of the Government.
We have to talk about that context—about North Kensington and Notting Hill, and remembering the Notting Hill race riots—when we look at how scarring the tragedy was. Nothing like that has happened in London before, certainly in my recollection.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am a London MP, and some of the shocking statistics that we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) about the housing situation of the Grenfell families sound eerily and uncomfortably familiar to my casework, given our housing load and the struggle that my local authority has to rehouse people. All of our constituents are entitled to a decent place to live, but the situation of the Grenfell families is particularly egregious, and this goes directly to the point about trust made by my right hon. Friend: if, now, the state locally and nationally cannot mobilise effectively to ensure that every Grenfell family has a decent home to call their own, what does that say to the entire country about the ability of government locally and nationally to deliver the priorities of the people? Housing is such a basic need—I urge the hon. Gentleman as a Treasury PPS to take this message back to the Chancellor—and we need action on housing across London, but for goodness’ sake we should have moved heaven and earth to ensure that those people had a decent home.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I cannot talk about the circumstances in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but clearly housing is a need. Specifically, however, I want to talk about this tragedy and its location, and about how resonant it was. I do not have much time, so my final remarks are addressed to colleagues on the Government Benches. This is an incredibly emotive and resonant issue. In many of the speeches—not perhaps today—and the things that I have read, there is massive compassion but not enough empathy about how important the issue is, and how seriously people of different faiths and communities treat it. There is a danger that people reciting statistics or even facts simply lose sight of the human element.
A national scandal happened in June last year. From my point of view, Grenfell is the biggest challenge that the Government face—forget Brexit and all the rest of it. Grenfell asks us questions about who we are as Conservatives, what our values are, and our ability to connect with people from the wider community and with new immigrants. I shall not mention Windrush—we have talked a lot about that—but I say to the Government and to other Conservative Members: we have to be very sensitive. We have to not just give the impression but feel that we are batting on the side of the people who have been affected. We can make lots of speeches—although I do not question our motives or emotional response—but I warn my fellow Conservative MPs that this is a big question about our own motivations and values. The eyes of the world and certainly of people in London are watching us carefully.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a genuine honour to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and to hear some uncharacteristic honesty from the Government Benches about people who feel left behind. I am speaking about people’s feelings and, if we get this wrong as the inquiry unfolds, about what we will be deciding to do to people’s feelings.
Last week, in Speaker’s House, I met the auntie of Tazmin Belkadi. She is a little girl: both her siblings and both her parents were killed in Grenfell. She is now being raised by her family, who wish for her to have a normal life—a life just like my children’s or the lives of the children of everyone else in the Chamber—rather than having to deal with just having the identity of a kid who was in Grenfell.
I have met children of the Hillsborough disaster who were seven years old when it happened. I have met children of the Birmingham pub bombings families who were nine and 10 when it happened—43 years later the rictus remains, the pain and suffering on their faces: not ever because of the incident in fact, but because of their continuing fight for justice for their families. At every stage, people have not considered their feelings, or how it is never to be able to grieve properly while still also having to fight.
For 43 years, my constituent Julie Hambleton has fought to get some semblance of truth about what happened to her sister. She was a child when her sister died, and every time I speak to her she cries about it as if it is 1974 again. I was not even born, but that is as real to her today as it was all those years ago. Tazmin Belkadi deserves better than that life, growing up trying to ensure that her sisters and her mum and dad get justice. It is in our gift to do that for her—to ensure the passage of facts and truth, and a mea culpa by those who ought to stand up to say, “We did this wrong.” That would stop that little girl from being the future Julie Hambleton or Louise Brookes, whose lives have been changed immeasurably by having to fight the state.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the pastoral skills of Bishop James Jones, who led the Hillsborough inquiry, brought significant closure for some of the Hillsborough victims and their families? He is now leading the inquiry on contaminated blood products, a long-standing injustice for the victims. Although they can never bring the departed back, the correct assembly of skills brought together—particularly those pastoral skills—can assist the families in bereavement. We have every hope that the same will be true for the victims of Grenfell.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady; she has been an ally to the families of the Birmingham pub bombings and she knows a thing or two about how families go through these situations. It is vital that we take real care of the feelings of the people involved. So far, that has not happened. We have come to an impasse where they have already had to fight with a petition to get us to listen to a basic thing that they were asking for. That should never have happened.
Let us grease the wheels and not think that these families are unreasonable in their demands. It was raised with me at Speaker’s House that the building is being covered up, and that the families did not it to be covered in white, as if it would fade away and be invisible. They do not mind it being covered up; they recognise the trauma it causes for children in the community, especially when they have to look up at it—although there is diverse opinion, as one could imagine. They wanted it to be covered in a vibrant colour. That just was not listened to. When they complained, they were made to feel a little like they were being a bother.
I want those people to be told that nothing is a bother. I want us as a group of people who make decisions, and the Government, to be a parent to these people. When my son says to me, “I don’t want to go to school”, or “I think I’m being a bother”, I say to him, “Nothing you need is a bother to me. I’m going to help you in your life, to make sure that you feel that I care and I have your best interests at heart.” We have failed in the past so many times to stop people feeling like a bother.
I will finish on the fact that there is a class issue. People recognise hierarchy and feel they cannot speak up. We have to make sure that we never act supreme over these people, because nobody knows more about what happened, and the what of the initial phase at Grenfell, than the people who lived there. The absolute expert in that is Tazmin Belkadi—and she will be for the rest of her life.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. It is a particular pleasure, and perhaps a daunting prospect, to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). As Brummies, I feel “friend” is the appropriate word. It is appropriate that I should follow her, because I want to open my remarks by talking about the idea of sentiment and feeling.
My understanding is that some people postulate that there are five stages of grief that people move through, beginning with denial, then anger, and ending eventually in acceptance, although as the hon. Lady said, I understand that that period of acceptance may never come. The feeling may diminish over time, but originally, I was approaching this situation from a much more technical position.
I am a civil engineer by degree and a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, so I was giving some thought to the complexity of the panels, how they may be configured and where else they might be deployed. Of course I would do that because, as well as being a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, I chair the board of the housing association in Walsall. We have 20,000 houses. Following the Grenfell disaster, we had to review our buildings in order to determine whether we had any aluminium composite materials—ACMs—in buildings that we were building or cladding at the time. We determined that, in one case, we had exactly those elements present in one of our buildings. Although it was relatively low rise, we fully appreciated that the people living in that building would be concerned. It was not a question that would be answered by referring them to a technical building regulations document that would allay their fears. They needed reassurance on the basis that a tragedy had happened and they wanted to ensure, beyond reasonable doubt, that they would not be involved in a similar tragedy.
One of the things that helped to move me along massively was the opportunity to meet Grenfell survivors last week. I spoke to Hisam, who had lost six family members. The level of grief is incomprehensible to me. I lost my father 18 months ago. That feels like a dreadful tragedy, but he was an 83-year-old man who had a stroke and we had the opportunity to spend time with him before he passed away. It is not a comparable situation at all. I cannot begin to understand the level of grief experienced by those affected.
While speaking to Hisam, I thought, “Are you reassured with regard to the way the Government are handling this situation?” He explained to me that they wanted to bring family members over from another country to offer support to those who were grieving in this country. The barriers that they faced were incredibly intractable. When finally they were given the opportunity to bring family members over, my understanding is that it was for a two-week period. Sometimes we have processes that people follow by virtue of some sort of diagram or detailed specification, and we lose sight, as an hon. Member said earlier, of the fact that we are talking about people, not processes.
Similarly, Hisam had a child who had been affected and who had missed some time from school. He hoped that some one-to-one education might be provided to help that child catch up with the education he had lost. Originally, that was refused by his school. He needed to move to another school before, eventually, the original school said, “Actually, we could have provided some support after all.”
This is not a technical question about composite materials and ACMs; this is about how we treat people. I see at first hand just how complicated that can be. I used to be the assistant chief executive of the YMCA in Birmingham. We had 300 accommodation units for formerly homeless young people. We had a building that we refurbished that used to be a social care building in Birmingham, so we had an architect design a scheme for us and we refurbished it to create 33 flats. That was two years before Grenfell.
In the light of Grenfell, we went back to the fire safety experts—in fact, we brought in new experts—to review the layout of the building and ensure that we would be able to manage a safe and secure building for the vulnerable and frequently chaotic young people that we serviced. Dreadfully, we found that some items in the layout of the building needed to be addressed in order for us to regain that confidence. That building had been designed and refurbished only two years previously, yet there was an opportunity to reinterpret and be more secure in the judgment that was applied.
I sincerely hope, although I fully appreciate that it is unlikely, that we will be able to help people to move through all those stages of grief and to reach a point where they feel a level of acceptance. As a Government of MPs, not just the governing party, it is beholden on all of us to ensure that we provide that support from a people point of view rather than a process one.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad). Becoming an MP is daunting, as I found out three years ago, but at the same time as doing that she had to deal with this enormous tragedy on her doorstep. If I may say so, she has done a very good job. Her speech was very courageous and contained some hard home truths. I hope Government Members were listening carefully.
I led for the Scottish National party when we debated the scope of the inquiry on the Floor of the House in July. Like others, I said that there should be a panel of advisers to sit with the judge chairing the inquiry. That was one of the demands of BMELawyers4Grenfell, which said there should be a diverse panel. Like others, I followed my speech up with a letter to the inquiry and to the Prime Minister, renewing my request for a diverse panel and adding that the terms of reference should be as broad as those of the Macpherson inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s murder.
To be frank, that seemed to me like a bit of a no-brainer. It is an absolute disgrace that it has taken 10 months and a public petition to wring a concession from the Prime Minister on the appointment of the panel. Like others who have spoken, I am concerned that we do not yet know for certain how many people will be on that panel or what background they will be drawn from. Will the Minister reassure us that the lessons from the Macpherson inquiry, which we were all reminded of by the powerful BBC documentary about Stephen Lawrence’s murder, have indeed been learned? When I met survivors and bereaved families last week, they said to me that they felt it was “morally reprehensible” that they had had to campaign so hard to get that concession about the panel while they were grieving and trying to put their lives back together. I fully endorse that sentiment.
The Prime Minister has at last listened to the Grenfell victims on that. We now need assurances that she will listen to the inquiry’s recommendations and that there will not be the same fight to ensure that those recommendations are followed, no matter how uncomfortable they may be for those in government and their friends—including their party colleagues—on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Council.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. and learned Lady is making an excellent speech. I wonder whether she has looked at the aftermath of the Manchester Arena attack, which happened around the same time. Mayor Andy Burnham instigated the Kerslake review very quickly, and put the families and their wishes at its heart. That review has already reported, and every single recommendation has been agreed to.
Joanna Cherry
I of course endorse that. I had hoped that the days of the sorts of cover-ups we saw after the Bloody Sunday murders and Hillsborough were over. I think they are, but I understand why the families of the deceased and the survivors of this terrible tragedy still require assurance.
As a lawyer, I feel strongly that there must—not should, but must—be equality of arms at the inquiry. In a previous life at the Scottish Bar, I represented the families of bereaved people at fatal accident inquiries in Scotland, which are a bit like inquests. In general, I found that unless the family of the bereaved had their own counsel, who was well prepared and able to ask difficult questions, the truth was not got at. The state did not seem capable of getting at the truth without the assistance of counsel fighting for the family. But counsel cannot do that with one hand tied behind their back. As others have said, it is very concerning to hear that only a tiny percentage of documents have been disclosed so far. Can the Government guarantee that issues with disclosure will be addressed?
It is a disgrace that promises to rehouse the survivors of this terrible fire have been broken on no fewer than three occasions. I want to say a little about that before I sit down. This tragedy illustrates the wider, very real issue of the neglect of social housing in this country. When I say “this country”, I mean England. I am happy to say that in Scotland, even under the constraints of Tory austerity, we have taken steps to address that by building tens of thousands of new social homes and getting rid of the ridiculous right to buy. Again, I would like to hear assurances from the Government that lessons will be learned from this tragedy and from the council’s failure to rehouse about the need to build social and affordable housing for everyone who lives in this great city, so that they can live in the area they belong to and in their community in affordable, safe housing.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I would like to add to the debate by drawing the parallels between the fight of the Grenfell survivors and their families—I know some of them are here today—for truth and justice and the synonymous struggle in my city, Liverpool, of the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster, who we can at long last say were unlawfully killed.
The pattern is consistent: powerless people’s voices are ignored by those in power. The parallels are everywhere—prior to both disasters, concerns were raised but ignored; after the disasters, powerless families wrestled with authority and the law for truth and justice. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and the Hillsborough Family Support Group for their role in offering support and solidarity to the survivors and the families of Grenfell. It took them 27 years of tireless campaigning to get the truth about what happened at Hillsborough, and the fight for justice continues to this day. That cannot happen again in this situation.
When bereaved families campaign for justice, they deserve openness, transparency and access to the very same tools that are available to the powerful. That is why we need a Hillsborough law. We need to make it a legal duty for public authorities and public servants to tell the truth and, more importantly, challenge the culture of denial that far too often pervades public institutions.
Although it is a welcome step forward, the appointment of just two panel members to sit alongside the judge in the Grenfell inquiry, and only in phase two, is not enough. Panel members for the families must be brought into the heart of the inquiry right now. The legal representatives of bereaved families must be able to see all the evidence from the start and be allowed to question witnesses at hearings. Surely, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), it is time to call in the commissioners at the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. She raised many questions, which I hope the Minister answers.
Right from the start of this process, there have been too many failures to give families and victims the trust and hope they need in the system. If the Grenfell inquiry is to deliver truth and justice, the Grenfell survivors and bereaved families, more than anybody else, must have full confidence in it. Those necessary steps then might just start to build trust, and the Grenfell survivors, families and friends might not be left to climb the same long, obstacle-ridden route that the Hillsborough campaigners have had to travel, but instead be set on a path that leads swiftly to the truth and justice they deserve.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
This was of course a tragedy—that goes without saying—but, as was put so powerfully by so many people, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), it was also a national shame. It was a disgrace. That it could have happened in our country is unthinkable. It is a matter of shame that we could not keep those people, many of whom came to our country, safe.
We cannot change the past, and nothing that we say or do in this debate can begin to mitigate or soothe the pain suffered by so many families. It is not intended to. Our job is to focus like a laser on ensuring that justice is done, and specifically on ensuring that the inquiry is properly constituted. We have to ensure that one dreadful injustice is not replaced by another.
Alex Chalk
No—I will in a second.
Notwithstanding the points powerfully made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), I want to pay tribute to the dignity of the community in the face of unimaginable pain. Why? Because at the time it happened, I had a child who was five—I am not unusual; many people in the Chamber will have children—and I remember reading about the case of Isaac Paulos. I cannot say how I would have responded if it had been my child, but I doubt it would have been with such dignity.
I also pay tribute to the media, who have told the stories behind the statistics. I do not know whether anyone else in the Chamber read the story of Marco and Gloria, the Italian couple in their 20s who moved to London to find work as architects. Marco’s family and friends have written a children’s book, turning what happened into a fairytale. It is a story of unbearable poignancy, and just one of many tributes, but we must always remember that these are not statistics; these are people.
[Phil Wilson in the Chair]
That, perhaps, all goes without saying. What is really important is that we add value in the debate. The conclusions drawn must have credibility and legitimacy, so we must strike the right balance, ensuring that the panel that considers these incredibly grave matters is not, on the one hand, unwieldy and slow or, on the other hand, too narrow as to lay itself open to the suggestion of having conclusions arrived at by individual whim.
There are precedents, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the SNP spokesperson on justice affairs, showed. I remember the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. Its advantage, in one view, was that it considered matters quickly, between August 2003 and January 2004. However, as everyone in the Chamber remembers, when it published its findings, it had a credibility issue. We must ensure that we do not repeat that mistake.
Many in the Chamber will have spent time in the criminal courts, and we know that jury verdicts have their currency and legitimacy because juries are derived from the communities they serve. They do justice by reflecting the common sense and shared experience of people in everyday life. That ought to be the bedrock of how we go forward.
From my experience, just an appeal from a magistrates court in a relatively modest case will involve a judge and two lay assessors. That is why it is critical that the other members of the panel, which includes Mr Justice Moore-Bick, have decision-making power. They cannot simply be there to be thought of as making up the numbers; they must bring their weight of experience from the community and shared understanding. By the way, over many centuries lay people have shown themselves well able to analyse complex issues and do justice. To those people who might suggest we have simply a single judge, it is no answer to say, “Oh, it’s too complicated, too difficult, too technical.” Lay people are capable of understanding—of course they are—as long as matters are properly presented, and I am sure they will be.
Having decided on that format, we must let the tribunal get on. There must be cool, forensic analysis of the evidence so that the answers we get are valid. Whatever the consequences that flow from the inquiry—consequences there will be—they must be built on solid ground. This is our task. This is our duty. We owe the victims nothing less.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am pleased we are debating Grenfell—though it took 150,000 members of the public to bring us here—and I am also glad that we will debate it again on Wednesday, when it is the Labour party’s Opposition day debate subject. Speaking for myself and my constituents in Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush, we could debate it every day until we get justice for the bereaved, the dead and the survivors, and real assurance—not just words—that it will never happen again.
As a neighbouring constituency, we experienced Grenfell in three separate ways. First, we experienced it directly. I will never forget waking up at six o’clock that morning when Grenfell was still burning to hear messages on my phone telling me what had happened and watch it. I went down there later that day and spent most of the rest of the week there, to try—I do not think I was very useful—to give some moral support to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad). She has shown today that she does not really need that. At the time, I think she had been an MP for four days, and she dealt with it fantastically, as her speech, which pulled no punches, showed. Many of my constituents were there, including volunteers from the al-Muntada mosque in Parsons Green offering spiritual, moral and practical comfort every day. Many of my constituents watched Grenfell unfold from their own high-rise blocks, a mile or half a mile away. It affects us profoundly.
Secondly, it affects us as neighbours. Let me give an example. Our local authority offered help on the day in the form of accommodation and assistance but received no response. We found out later—we were not told—that 52 households were placed in budget hotels in Hammersmith and, nearly a year later, 17 of them are still there. Only six have been made permanent offers of accommodation. Those are real failings, and I cannot help but agree that even now—this is a party political point in a way—I wish the same faces were not still in charge in Kensington town hall, because I do not think they have learnt their lessons. There is still a role for commissioners if we are actually to take it as seriously as Government Members as well as Opposition Members say they wish to do. There were such singular failures by that authority, and they continue to this day.
Given the limited time, let me talk about two aspects—there are many others, particularly on the physical and mental health of survivors and the wider community—of the wider consequences: social housing and fire safety. Grenfell is the result of a systematic denigration and demoralisation of the social housing sector in this country over 30 years. We experience that in Hammersmith, where insecurity is introduced through short-term tenancies and there no longer being a duty to discharge housing duty in the public sector. Social housing is second or third-class, so the people who lived there were ignored. Their views were not taken into account. What was good enough for them would not have been good enough for other people. That continues to happen.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, the sale of social housing properties is deliberately making the housing crisis worse, and none are being built. There has been no money for investment in social housing across London since 2010. Then we are surprised that the housing crisis is as bad as it is.
Let us look at fire safety, which has many aspects. I am still waiting for what I was promised six months ago: information on the cause of the fire. We know it started in a particular type of fridge-freezer in a particular flat. That is a common electrical fault that affects hundreds if not thousands of properties across London and the country, yet we know no more about that.
We know there are substantial problems with cladding and insulation, but the response on that has been entirely inadequate, as it has been on means of escape, and on other fire safety measures and advice such as the “stay put” policy. I do not regard the Royal Institute of British Architects as a radical left-wing organisation, but it is a good organisation and it has asked that we use only non-combustible cladding. Is that unreasonable? Yet I had an instance of a landlord who wanted to replace one type of partially combustible cladding that had failed a test with a type of partially combustible cladding that had passed a test. I am pleased to say that, in response to me and residents protesting, they backed down.
We need buildings with more than one means of escape, but in my constituency buildings on the Grenfell model of design have been proposed and approved since the fire happened. We need sprinkler systems in blocks, and not on the random basis of whether an authority can afford it.
Andy Slaughter
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not, because there is very limited time.
We also need to stop this farce of desktop studies and all of that. It is insulting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) said, that the Hackitt inquiry may propose business as usual, and the police inquiry, leaked to the Standard, may say, “It’s all the fault of the workmen who put the stuff up in the wrong way.” I am sorry; the fault will go far, far beyond that. And we are here today because even now the public inquiry has not got the full confidence of the residents. I support a public inquiry, doing a thorough investigation, but there are more urgent matters that need to be dealt with before that, in relation to social housing and fire safety. We need to get on with them. I have heard warm words today, and have been hearing them for the past year. Frankly they do not get us anywhere. What gets us somewhere is action, which is lacking at the moment. I hope we continue to debate the matter every day.
I apologise for the fact that I shall not be here for the winding-up speeches, Mr Wilson. I wanted to speak because of the close relationship I mentioned, but also, particularly, because I want to say that the debate must continue until the action we require is taken to ensure justice for Grenfell and the safety of the millions of people living in Grenfell-style conditions across this country.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Wilson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing this important debate.
As a former fire officer with 31 years’ service, I pay tribute to the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell fire, and their tireless personal campaign for truth and justice. It is only through justice, answers and accountability that we can ensure that nothing like the Grenfell fire ever happens again, as has been said. I am pleased that the Government have at last listened and agreed to appoint additional panel members to the Grenfell Tower inquiry. That must be a welcome step, but I hope it will not be the final one.
I pay tribute to the London fire brigade and other emergency service personnel, whose response to the fire did much, I am sure, to save many lives. I can appreciate what a vast operation it must have been to bring that horrendous fire under control. We must ensure that the Grenfell community receives the support needed to rebuild lives. The previous Housing Secretary was right to denounce Kensington and Chelsea Council’s slow progress on rehousing those who lost their homes in the fire, and I hope that his successor will redouble the Government’s efforts to accelerate the council’s response to those who need new homes.
It is already clear that a series of failings led to the needless, pointless deaths of 72 individuals last June. I understand that in November 2016, the Grenfell Action Group raised concerns about poor fire safety standards at Grenfell and predicted a catastrophe. It is clear that no one listened. The question is: “Who did not listen?” There are ample and tragic precedents for fires spreading rapidly up the exterior of tower blocks, owing to flammable or unsuitable cladding. In May 2017, the London Fire Brigade warned all London councils about the fire safety risk from external cladding, following a fire in Shepherd’s Bush in 2016. Again, the question is who did not listen to the fire brigade.
It is essential that the Grenfell Tower inquiry, and also Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety, should get to the truth. They must be bold, transparent and wide-ranging. It is a question of truth and justice for the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell fire. A weak or diluted inquiry and review would let the Grenfell community down, and lead to vital lessons not being learned.
As we speak here in Westminster Hall, thousands of people living in tower blocks across the United Kingdom are anxious about the safety of their homes. It is imperative that the inquiry and review set an agenda for change that will deliver justice for the Grenfell community, give tower block residents nationwide the safety and dignity they so richly deserve, and remind all authorities of the importance of fire safety. Fire safety should not play second fiddle to decoration and visual appearance, but should be the priority, where people live and work—and, indeed, in some hospitals where I understand there are cladding issues. Lastly, the inquiry and review should make sure that the horrors of the Grenfell fire are never repeated.
I commend South Ayrshire Council, where I was formally a member, which has three tower blocks that are 42 years old, and which 15 years ago took the wise and important decision to retrofit sprinklers.
Finally, perhaps I may take the House back 45 years to August 1973 and the Summerland leisure complex fire on the Isle of Man, where there were 50 fatalities. It was a tragedy and I am sure that it haunts many to this day. In his book on that event, Dr Ian Phillips described it as
“one of the most forgotten and trivialised disasters in the post war history of the British Isles”.
Neither Summerland nor Grenfell resembled their original designs and specifications at the time of the tragic fires. In the case of Summerland, that was because it was heavily modified—those concerned changed their mind while it was being built. In the case of Grenfell it was because of the recent refurbishment and modifications, and the failure to listen to residents’ concerns. At Summerland the fire spread rapidly, aided by the poor fire resistance of Galbestos cladding and Oroglas sheeting that formed part of the walls and roof of the seven-storey leisure complex. The nation has clearly never paid heed to the Summerland fire tragedy. We must pay heed to Grenfell.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I want to speak about my experience of meeting Grenfell survivors in Speaker’s House last week. I spoke to people who had lost family, and was impressed by the dignity of their reaction. I spoke to a man called Antonio, who had survived the Grenfell Tower fire. Having lived to tell the tale, he wanted to speak to me about his experience. I hope that the House will bear with me as I describe something of what he went through.
Antonio was nodding off when he suddenly got a text from a family member telling him that the tower was on fire. He was on the 10th floor and had not realised it was on fire, but when he looked out of the window he saw thick black smoke circulating outside. He was not sure what to do, and decided to try to escape down the main stairwell. As he tried to do that, he realised that the smoke was so thick that there was no way he could survive. He said he felt he would have choked if he had gone down the stairs, so he went back to his room.
Hon. Members will be able to imagine Antonio’s agony while he waited there. He said he thought about whether he would ever see his friends and family again, so he tried once more to go down the main stairwell and escape from the burning tower. Once again he saw the thick smoke and realised there was no way he could go down the stairs. He decided once again to go back to his room—unsure this time whether he would make it out.
Then, at 6 am, our firefighters came and saved Antonio. They took him outside and he was reunited with his son, whom he lives with on the 10th floor. He told me that after the tragedy and upheaval he had faced, and the dreadful wait in that room, unsure whether he would live or die, he was put in a temporary hotel. He asked the council when he would get a permanent home and was promised that it would take three weeks.
Those three weeks came and went and Antonio was not placed anywhere. He was passed from pillar to post, hotel to hotel and temporary accommodation. Then he was promised that he and his son would get a permanent home by Christmas. The House needs to bear in mind that Antonio and his son were not even together but were in separate temporary accommodation; but he looked forward to being with his son in December. Christmas came and went and he was still not placed in a permanent home. He went back to the council, which said, “If you give us six months we will make sure that you are placed in a permanent home.”
Not only had Antonio had to suffer the fire, and the loss of friends, families and neighbours; he also did not have a permanent home to go to. That is why I appeal to Ministers today to say that we have already failed the Grenfell survivors, and the people who did not survive, once, and that we cannot fail them again by not giving them permanent homes. I make a plea for the council to be held to account on the promises it made, and for the promises of permanent homes to be carried out. The statistics about one in three households not getting permanent accommodation, and a further third being in hotels, can wash over the people who read them, but meeting someone who lived through the fire and still does not have permanent accommodation leads to the realisation of the impact on their lives.
In the time remaining to me, I want to talk about Richard Stone, who has been mentioned a few times. He was an advisor to the judge in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. I have known him since I was a teenager. The inquiry dominated a large part of Richard’s life. I see him often and he has spoken to me about it many times in the past 20 years. He has said that in his mind the inquiry served a few purposes. The first was justice—justice for the family of Stephen Lawrence, but also for all the young black men out there who had faced institutional racism. In the same way, this inquiry must be about justice—not only for the people who died in Grenfell Tower and the families and friends who are still mourning their loss, but for all those families who live in high-rise buildings in London and around the country, and who feel so unsafe.
Anecdotally, I have had Bangladeshi families from across the country emailing me. Many hon. Members will have heard the tragic story of two Bangladeshi young people who refused to leave their elderly parents in Grenfell Tower. Their elderly parents could not move and they did not want to leave them, so they died along with them. Bangladeshi families who live in tower blocks have been emailing me to say that they feel unsafe.
The second thing Richard Stone keeps coming back to is how the inquiry must look into the institutional and systemic failures in society. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry was about institutional racism; here, it is about our collective failure to make people feel safe in tower blocks and the fact that we have not tested the claddings in tower blocks and private blocks across the country.
In Camden, we did test one of our high-rise blocks. There was immense disruption to residents, but the council took them out and replaced the cladding. It cost £40 million, but you cannot put a price on people’s lives, and now people are back there. We know that we caused immense disruption to the residents, but it was the right thing to do, because if we want to address this failure, we have to test the cladding in all tower blocks and not just in a few.
Finally, Richard Stone comes back to one thing over and over when he talks about the Stephen Lawrence inquiry: that there is no point in conducting an inquiry such as this if it is just about giving politicians a pat on the back, saying we are doing it because we have to, making ourselves look good or getting votes. The reason why we do it is that we want to address the injustice of what has happened. If the Government do not commit now to implementing the report’s findings, there is no point in having an inquiry. The whole point of implementing the findings of a report is to show that all lives matter, that black lives matter and that, whether people live in a mansion in Chelsea or a tower block in Kensington, all lives are equal for us politicians in this room.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has just said. I rise to say that we in this place should be ashamed at the lack of progress that has been made to date. Saying that it can never happen again and saying to the survivors, “We understand and we’re here to support you” cannot just be warm words.
Everything that Grenfell United has had to do to date should make us feel ashamed. The fact that there was a bell-mourning service for Big Ben but not to mourn the lives of people who have died, the fact that it had to ask for a service to be held to remember those who lost their lives, the fact that it had to set up an e-petition to say, “Let’s make this inquiry fair and independent”—all that is absolutely disgusting. We should be ashamed.
We have had promise after promise, so why, 11 months on, are families still not housed? We had a chance to meet and speak to the Grenfell survivors at Speaker’s House, but why did they have to ask whether they could come along and share their experiences—share with us that they had to escape from this and the lives that have been lost? Still we have questions about whether it should be now or phase two. That is completely unacceptable.
I feel that we are elected to this place to be a voice for those we represent. We are elected to speak to those in power and to make change come about for those we are elected to serve. The fact that they have had to fight—fight when they should have time to grieve and to be there with their loved ones, fight for accommodation, fight for their voices to be heard, fight for an inquiry, fight for people to be put on a panel—is completely unacceptable. I rise to say, in this short period of time, that we can do more, we can do better and, if we want this never to happen again, we must implement the recommendations that are made.
If recommendations such as those made after the Lakanal House fire had been implemented, we would not be in this position today and people would not have needlessly lost their lives. I ask—I implore—the Government: you can do something. Do not sit back and say warm words about how this could be different, how you care and how you want this never to happen again. Do something.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I am honoured to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) and I agree with every word she has said. Many people here have spoken about the dignity with which the victims and survivors of Grenfell have spoken, but why should they have to hold it together in trying to persuade this place to take action? Why do they not have the time to grieve for the people they have lost, their families, friends and loved ones? To hold it together, to come to Speaker’s House, to persuade and fight for this Government to act—that should not have to be the case, and I am very sorry it has been.
I will make two practical points and one broader point. First is an issue that many hon. Members have spoken about: the appalling lack of action on rehousing those who have lost their homes in Grenfell. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) pointed out that 72 households are still living in hotel rooms and 64 are still in temporary accommodation. Even worse than that is the fact that over half of those families have accepted permanent accommodation, but they cannot move into it because it is not ready.
That is 68 houses. Are you telling me that with all the money, influence and power not just of the council, but of the national Government, we could not get those homes ready for people to move into? Where there is a will, there is a way. The problem is that there does not appear to be the will to sort out those 68 homes for people who have already accepted that accommodation. What is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea doing? How hard can it be? I hope the Minister will answer that question at the end of the debate.
Secondly, I follow up on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) made about the children who have been affected—who have lost not just their parents, but their sisters, their brothers, their cousins, their friends and their neighbours. This has affected the whole community in that area. I do not believe that either the council or the Government have understood just how widely and deeply it has affected people.
I have heard from the Grenfell families their real concern that, when children wanted to go to visit the tower because it would help them to grieve and to say goodbye, they were told they could not go because it was not safe. They were not asking for the children to go inside, just to go and look and say goodbye, and to feel close to the people they loved. The state knows best—but it did not in this case.
On the point about education, I am deeply concerned that families have had to fight to get the catch-up help they need for their children. We have to put that extra investment into those children, so that they can live as normal a life as possible, fulfil their hopes, dreams and potential, and become the people they want to be. I ask the Minister to look at that again, too.
Thirdly, on mental health, I know that many child and adolescent mental health services advisers have been put in place, but my concern is over the much longer term. If someone ends up needing a physical operation as a child, on their heart or their limbs, they get follow-up support throughout their life, because we know that those physical impacts early on have a big impact later in life. Where is that help and support for the mental health of those children in the longer term?
My final point, which many other hon. Members have made, is that there is nothing—nothing—to be feared from putting the families at the heart of this process. In fact, quite the reverse: there is everything to be gained, because we will not get to the bottom of what happened or have a proper plan to put things right in future unless the families are front and centre. Do not repeat the mistakes of the past. We have heard from many hon. Members about Hillsborough. We know what went wrong there. Do not repeat those mistakes. It is actions, not words, that matter. I hope the Government will act.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I thank all the people who signed the petition, which has given us the chance to put our demands to the Government on behalf of the bereaved people of Grenfell Tower and the wider community in Kensington. It is always people outside this place rather than Members themselves that push it to progress.
To be honest, like many others Members have said, it should not be this difficult to secure a debate to convey to the Government the demands of survivors. It should not have taken a petition or the precious energies of campaign groups for those to be heard. Everything I have seen about this horrific incident shows that that is part of a pattern. The people in Grenfell Tower were not, and are still not, listened to. They were not listened to before their homes were destroyed and they were not listened to in the immediate aftermath, nor in the months that followed.
It is clear that the lives of Grenfell Tower residents were placed at risk, not only because of the refurbishment—residents warned that it was shoddy and that corners were being cut—but because of the ongoing management of the block. I cannot seem to get over the fact that residents repeatedly warned that the building was unsafe. They produced a long list of issues that needed to be addressed, yet nobody listened. I was told outside that there was a group that blogged about their concerns for five years before the fire. Imagine the worry of someone going to bed each night knowing that, although they had done everything within their power to keep their family safe, their home was not safe and that nobody would listen.
Why is it only when death occurs on a huge scale that these people’s calls become significant or newsworthy? What is it about our society and the system we live in that judges working class people’s voices as so meaningless that they are only given weight and validity or heard on their death? Even that has been a fight. I would like for us to consider for one second how these people would have been treated if they were the wealthiest residents of Kensington and Chelsea. In fact, would this have happened at all if they were the wealthiest residents?
Why is it that the Government and Kensington and Chelsea council do not just give these people every single thing that they want without a fight? Why is it taking a battle to get a process that residents have confidence in, and that they believe will deliver justice and truth? When confidence is so low—understandably, after everything we have heard today—how can Ministers not see that what they think is appropriate in this situation is actually irrelevant? The only thing that is relevant, and the only experts, as has been said, are the residents of Grenfell Tower and the surrounding communities.
I do not believe that any Member here has ever experienced their home being burned to the ground or their gravest concerns being ignored by the state, or has ever had to rely completely on the state to get them and their family out of a hotel room and into a home. Why do these people, who know so much about their own situation, have to go through such a battle, on top of their grief and having to rebuild their lives? That is against the backdrop of deregulation, cost cutting, gentrification and the demolition of democratically controlled local housing, and of complex, distant and unaccountable tenant management organisations and cuts to fire safety inspectors. My own area of North West Durham is a long way from Grenfell Tower, but we have lost 50% of our fire safety inspectors since 2010. We do not have great tower blocks like Grenfell Tower, but we have huge concerns over that.
On top of that, the demands of generations of people have not been listened to. Those demands are modest, to say the least. What they ask for must be granted by the Government and the council. If not, the Government and the council will let those people down and, I believe, will re-traumatise them. That would only confirm what working-class people up and down the country have come to believe: the state and the Government actively work against their interests, even when they are in the most difficult of circumstances.
All they ask for is an independent expert panel, akin to the one afforded to the Macpherson inquiry, and that that panel is representative. The two members announced on Friday is a start, but it is not enough, and it should not have taken all this time to do such a simple thing. They also want a guarantee that all residents will have a permanent home by the one-year anniversary. If that does not happen, action should be taken against Kensington and Chelsea Council—action that is proportionate to the failings of the people responsible for Grenfell Tower.
As has been said by many Members, the deadline to re-house survivors has been moved time and again, as if it does not matter at all to the council or the Government. People are still living in hotel rooms, their lives on hold. I believe that, if there was enough care, they would have permanent homes, and this bureaucracy would not be preventing them from moving on. The hundreds of times we have returned to our homes since the Grenfell Tower fire is a luxury not afforded to those people who, through no fault of their own, lost everything on that night. A year to rectify that is simply not good enough.
The bereaved people’s legal representatives should be able to see all the evidence—from the start of the inquiry, and should have access to all the documents relating to the inquiry. They should be given whatever they need to properly represent their clients. Finally, we want a commitment from the Government that they will implement in full all the inquiry’s recommendations, and not pick and choose those that are most convenient.
I fully support the demands of the people of Grenfell Tower and Kensington. I hope the Government will do the right thing and announce today that they will grant all those people’s wishes. What a terrible disaster in the history of our nation. Living in one of the richest countries in the world means absolutely nothing if those riches are diverted from communities. As somebody—I wish I knew his name; I will find it out—so eloquently said at the protest outside, “The Government need to defend, represent and listen to the people and not the market—for once.”
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) that the time for fine words and sympathies is up.
However, I must admit that I was fortunate enough to meet some of the survivors and the bereaved from Grenfell Tower last week. It was a most moving experience, and I admire the courageous individuals who have experienced terrible tragedy and are now fighting so that a tragedy like Grenfell will never happen again. It is shocking that justice has not been given to them without a fight. For years, the residents of Grenfell Tower were disregarded and ignored, and they were failed by those whose duty it was to protect them, yet they still need to fight.
The only acceptable outcome now is that the Government listen to every concern of the victims of Grenfell Tower and commit fully to implementing the outcomes of the public inquiry. I echo everything that hon. Members have said on that. The Prime Minister’s announcement last week to accept two extra members on to the panel was welcome, but it has to be properly seen through—with the full agreement of the residents at all stages—and increased if necessary.
Without pre-empting the outcome of the inquiry, the lessons of the Grenfell tragedy are very clear. We must ensure that tenants and residents across the UK are listened to when they raise concerns regarding the quality of their housing. To ensure that residents are listened to, there must be clear channels of accountability. The Government need to improve awareness of how tenants can raise complaints effectively, and there should be means of redress when action is not taken.
I am encouraged by Dame Hackitt’s interim report, which criticises the systemic lack of responsibility and enforcement within building regulations. The current system is completely broken, with builders and developers specifying and then signing off their own work. That cannot be right. Currently, decisions are made that prioritise price at the expense of people’s wellbeing and, ultimately, their lives. That cannot be right.
Grenfell Tower was a symptom of the failure of successive Governments to invest in quality social housing. We cannot leave social housebuilding and maintenance to the private sector. Until the Government take radical action in building the quality and quantity of social homes that this country so desperately needs, many of the problems highlighted by the Grenfell tragedy will remain.
The terrible tragedy of last year must serve as a call to action. We must fight for tenants’ rights, wholesale reform of building regulations and investment in social housing. Most importantly, we must continue to speak up in the House for the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. One in three Grenfell households are still living in hotel rooms, and a further third in temporary accommodation. More than half the Grenfell families who are still in hotels or temporary accommodation have accepted permanent accommodation, but have been unable to move in because of council delays. That is not acceptable. The tragedy of Grenfell Tower must never happen again, but the timid and inadequate response of Kensington and Chelsea Council is not good enough. We must call for action to be taken. The time for fine words is up.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wilson, and to follow all the fine contributions to this debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing the debate and on reading into the record the names of those we lost. It is very important that he did so. I know so little about who those people were, but I hope that in due course we will all come to know much more about them. It was an honour to meet relatives of the deceased in Speaker’s House—I think we all felt that. I am sure that we will come to know them very well in this place.
I am the Member of Parliament for Wirral South, but from 2006 to 2010 I was the councillor in the London Borough of Southwark for the Brunswick Park ward, which contained the Sceaux Gardens estate, in the middle of which was Lakanal House. On 3 July 2009, Lakanal went up in flames. I can see that block in my mind’s eye as real as if it were that day. Six people, including a one-month-old baby, died in that disaster, and the inquest found that those were unnecessary and preventable deaths. We have heard people in this debate say that the Grenfell fire must never happen again. To me, those words are meaningless, because it has happened again—it is happening again. I saw Grenfell on the television, and to me it was alarmingly familiar. I have seen what the families have gone through since the day of the Grenfell Tower disaster. That, too, is alarmingly familiar, because unfortunately neither the disaster nor the secondary tragedy of the Government’s response to the disaster needed to happen.
Other hon. Members have talked persuasively about the recommendations following the Lakanal fire. It is a matter of great grief to all of us who were involved with Lakanal that the recommendations and the conclusions of the inquest were not progressed with more rigour. But there is something else. The Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, commissioned Bishop James Jones to report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) has talked about how all of this discussion and debate rings bells with us because it is all the same. Bishop James Jones’s report on the experience of the Hillsborough families was called “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. I would ask any person to listen to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) and ask whether what she described does not amount to the patronising disposition of unaccountable power. Of course it does. Hillsborough was not about football and the Grenfell disaster was not about a tower block in isolation: it was about the relationship between citizens and the state that was supposed to protect and respect them. Of course a diverse panel for the inquiry, for all the reasons that hon. Members have gone through, was vital, but we need more, and I will spend just a couple of minutes saying what more the Government can do.
First, the Government should answer Bishop James Jones’s call for a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy. In his report, he gives all the details of what that should contain. The report came out in November, but the Government have not responded. All this could have been avoided if they had.
Secondly, the Government should bring forward their own Bill on a public advocate at inquests. That proposal was brought forward by Michael Wills, a peer, and the Government are committed to implementing it. Just bring forward the Bill. Let us reform inquests now; let us not wait another second.
The third issue is the Hillsborough law proposals, which were first put to this House by my friend, Mayor Andy Burnham. Those proposals include reform of legal aid so that we get the parity of arms to which the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), alluded. The importance of that is absolutely clear. I worry greatly that we will again get into a situation in which families are worrying about legal costs and whether their legal advice will be sustained, while the state has all before it—whatever expensive QC it needs. Let us prevent that from happening now before the problem arises.
Fourthly, and most important to me, is a duty of candour. This is not party political. The Government have already implemented a duty of candour for NHS staff, but I want to change the situation in every council and every Government Department up and down the country, where people are told, “Don’t admit you were wrong. Don’t accept responsibility. Don’t give the information out. Don’t make it publicly available. Because you will be liable.” I want the lawyers to say to them, “You know what? You’ll be liable if you don’t tell the truth. You’ll be liable if you don’t give the information out.” Trust the public.
The Government, as I have said, accept the policy for the NHS. Let us just make it real for every other representative of the state in our country, because in the end the central question that we have to ask ourselves is this: what kind of country do we want to live in? Who are we really as British people? Are we the kind of people who see grieving families and want to worry about whether we might be responsible, or are we, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said, the kind of people who want to reach out and help? I thought that our country had changed radically since 1989. I worry that I was wrong.
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
Before we hear from the Front Benchers, I say to them that I would like to leave two or three minutes for Paul Scully to sum up the debate.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I rise to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, which is the third party in this Chamber and the principal party in Scotland, but I think I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland when I place on the record our support for the Grenfell campaigners in trying to get to the bottom of what was visited upon them.
We watched in horror at the scenes unfolding on our television screens on 14 June last year, conscious of the unimaginable terrors that were being visited upon the people trapped inside Grenfell Tower. In the months that have passed since then, that sense of horror has given way to a sense of solidarity, and a desire to stand with the people of Grenfell as they try to get the answers to questions that they so richly deserve. I associate my party and myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), and I take her advice about how it is very easy in a debate on this matter—indeed, we have witnessed people doing this—to get platitudinous in describing the campaigners. I do want to make one point, though. I have observed how the Grenfell campaigners have prosecuted their case, and it seems to me that they have a level of integrity that is head and shoulders above those from whom they are seeking redress, and that is highly commendable.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, most hon. Members here who also represent urban constituencies were concerned about another question as well. Could it happen again and could it happen in their area? That preoccupied many of us. In my own city of Edinburgh, there are 44 high-rise tower blocks managed by the local authority and another 80 in the private sector. I commend the work of the officers of the city council and the fire service, who very swiftly did a review. It was not a desk review but an inspection on the ground, and it concluded that the materials that had been used in the Grenfell cladding were not in use in my city, for which I am grateful.
I am grateful also that the Scottish Government have undertaken a review of safety regulations in tower blocks, trying to improve on the 2005 fire regulations, which are already more stringent than those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot be satisfied, however, that it will not happen again—that would be complacent—until we know the outcome of this inquiry, until the questions about how and why this happened, and what needs to be done to ensure it does not happen again, are put in the public sphere. That is why I support those campaigners in fighting for the widest and most effective inquiry possible.
I want to address the points that the petitioners have made. A lot of people have talked about the welcome news that the Prime Minister has decided to widen the leadership of the inquiry process and appoint advisers. Like others, however, I am bemused that it has taken months of campaigning, parliamentary debates and 150,000 people signing an e-petition to grant what is surely the most reasonable request in these circumstances. I say to Government Ministers—I invite them to respond—that it is critical who these appointees are. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that whoever is put in the position to advise and support the chair of this inquiry not only must have empathy with the survivors of Grenfell and the relatives of those who paid the ultimate price in this tragedy, to understand and know what those people are going through, but must have the confidence of the Grenfell community. If the Government allow the inquiry to go ahead without those leading it having the confidence of the people at the centre of this matter, it will be stillborn and we will repeat the circuitous history of previous inquiries in this country. We have been down that path before. This is an opportunity to get it right.
The petitioners’ second point is about what is happening right now to the people who survived. I find it unbelievable that nearly a year later there are so many people languishing in temporary accommodation, who have not yet been given a proper, permanent roof over their heads after undergoing this horror. I just do not understand it. I say to those who mentioned the unfortunate term “political football”, I am not making a political football of this, but to pretend that this can be divorced from policy and political considerations is naivety bordering on the irresponsible. Questions have to be asked of the people who are in charge of public administration in Kensington and Chelsea about what is happening.
The historical context is apt here. It is no coincidence that Kensington and Chelsea has always been one of the boroughs in the country with the lowest proportion of public housing. I will put this in words that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) might agree with. I do not want to make this a party political football, but let us put it this way. It is clear that the majority of people who have the fortune to live in Kensington and Chelsea are relatively well off and content. Public administration in the borough is being executed by, and in the interests of, those people, who are well off and relatively content. The needs of those who are at the other end of this unequal society are not being adequately listened to and put into public policy. I cannot see any other reason why these people would have not been rehoused almost a year later.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned the right to buy, which is not irrelevant either. I do not condemn or criticise the people who bought their council house over the last 20 years, but I condemn the people who sold it to them, because they did so without any regard for the consequences of that policy. The consequence of it now is that there is not enough housing to go around. When a catastrophe such as this happens, the public authority is unable to respond to it. That is not good enough.
I wondered just how difficult rehousing those people would be, even if we had to rely on the public sector. I have asked colleagues, “Why don’t they just buy some houses in the private sector?” That is what local authorities used to do. It was explained to me how difficult and expensive it all was. I checked, therefore, on the way to this debate. It is true that some of the house prices in Kensington and Chelsea border on the obscene. There are dozens of places available to buy in excess of £20 million. But I put into the filter on rightmove.co.uk this question: how many family-sized properties—two bedrooms or greater—are there today in Kensington and Chelsea on the market at a price tag of less than £1 million, which is a reasonable price for central London? The answer is that today in Kensington and Chelsea there are 512 properties on sale, which could house these families, so I suggest that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea goes and buys some of those houses and moves these people into them.
The question, however, is for Ministers, because this has been going on for nearly a year. We need to hear that Ministers are prepared to set a deadline on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, by which time it must provide a plan for the permanent rehousing of every one of the Grenfell survivors. If that deadline is not met, it is incumbent on the Government to take the matter into their own hands and ensure that this is delivered. They can no longer hide behind the inadequate excuse of leaving it to the local authority.
The petitioners’ final point is about the need to listen to the inquiry’s conclusions. I do not want to pre-empt them, but I seek assurances from the Minister in two regards. First, if the inquiry demonstrates that there is a need to change policy on housing provision, financing and regulation in this country, will he commit to bringing forward legislation to enact those recommendations? Secondly, if the inquiry finds, as many suspect it will, that the real problem is not in the original construction of the tower block, but in the re-cladding that took place between 2014 and 2016, and the decisions that were made, which arguably put price above the health, safety and wellbeing of individuals, then I want an assurance from the Government that those responsible will face the consequences of their actions, and that they will be charged and subject to criminal proceedings, if it is relevant to do so. I hope the Government will give us those assurances.
To conclude, the one good thing in all this is that, because of the experience that these people have been through, we have an organised community that is sceptical and critical, and which will keep an eye on this inquiry, and come back to us in this place and get our support anytime that they need it. Not only do they speak for the people of Grenfell; the actions they are taking to ensure that this inquiry works will benefit all the people of this country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. We are having this debate for one reason only, namely the tireless campaigning by the bereaved families and the survivors, and the overwhelming public support they attracted as a result. The e-petition, signed by over 150,000 people, forced this debate, and we should be clear that it forced the Prime Minister’s welcome shift from her previous position on Friday, when she granted a panel of some description in the Grenfell inquiry.
That is testament to the efforts of the bereaved families and survivors, but after everything they have been through, they should never have had to wage such a campaign. Far too often in this country, politics seem to act as a dam holding justice back, rather than helping justice to flow. Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence and Bloody Sunday are all examples of when the state did not use its great powers to deliver truth and justice, but instead blocked truth and justice for years and years. In all of those cases, the state was accused of a cover-up by those affected. Distrust was sown. We cannot allow Grenfell to join that list.
Race, class and power are at the heart of this. Justice delayed is justice denied, so it is essential that the Grenfell inquiry gets it right first time, but it has got off to a rocky start. Most people will find it frankly unacceptable that to get justice, the bereaved and survivors of Grenfell have had to hold marches and organise rallies, petitions and lobbies, when they are still in shock about the horrific events that they witnessed and lived through, when they have lost everything, and when they are still trying to rebuild their lives and secure a home, as we have heard.
Friday’s decision to grant a panel of some description can be a stepping stone to justice, but for that to be the case, we need to be clear that it is not the end point, but a staging post. It needs the Government to draw the wider lesson. It must win the hearts and minds of those affected by the Grenfell fire.
A public inquiry aims to get to the truth as a key step to delivering justice. No inquiry can ever achieve that if it does not have the trust of those directly affected, and no inquiry can ever assume that it will automatically have that trust, nor can it demand it. Trust must always be earned. That is why the demands for an inquiry panel were important, and why it became a totemic issue for the full confidence of the bereaved, the survivors and the wider public.
From the start, survivors said that they wanted a panel to help to tackle the obvious distrust. It was always a reasonable demand. As we have heard, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which marked a watershed in uncovering institutional racism, had a similar type of panel overseeing it. As we have also heard, that panel reflected a wealth of relevant experience. That diversity was its strength, as Lord Macpherson later stated. That legitimacy led to calls for widespread change, which must be replicated with the Grenfell inquiry, but the demand for Grenfell was ignored, misrepresented and then denied. That further damaged trust and confidence.
Trust would have been stronger had the panel been granted when the demand was first made 10 months ago. Trust would have been stronger had the Prime Minister not waited until just days before Christmas to formally reject the panel. Now it has been granted, however, it needs to be a sign that the Government are going to behave differently. The ball is in the court of the Government, and specifically of the Prime Minister, who is the Minister nominated under the Inquiries Act 2005.
The Government have taken a step in the right direction, but lots of questions remain unanswered. I will put those questions to the Minister, and hopefully he can give me guarantees. I will also write to him later and, with the inquiry set to restart very soon, I hope that I will get an answer within seven days. As mentioned earlier, on Wednesday, there is an Opposition day debate on Grenfell and housing. If we do not get answers quickly, there will be an Opposition day debate on the inquiry itself.
Much of the discussion has focused on the panel, but I want to make an important clarification. We are here to debate not just the panel, but the whole petition launched by affected families and backed by 150,000 signatories. That petition is entitled, “Call on PM to take action to build public trust in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry”. As well as a panel, it asks that,
“Legal representatives of bereaved families see all evidence from the start & are allowed to question witnesses at the hearings”.
I would argue that we have had a partial response to one of the petition’s demands. We need answers to much more. Why is the panel going to sit only in phase two of the inquiry? What if the panel members need to revisit issues in phase one? Where are we with the second demand in the public petition about survivors’ lawyers having all the evidence from the start? Just a tiny fraction of the material has been disclosed to lawyers so far. Where are we with lawyers being able to cross-examine the witnesses, as happened in the Lawrence inquiry? The families cannot be expected to negotiate with the Prime Minister through public campaigns and petitions, so we need to know.
What formal mechanisms are there for bereaved family members and survivors to request more panel members? What formal mechanisms are there to guarantee the ongoing confidence of survivors and of the bereaved family members in the inquiry? How do they make formal requests and what is the formal public way of responding? We need greater clarity from the Government on all those things. As one family member said to me: “We must do what is necessary, not what is convenient.” There must be no repeat of the delays and denials we have seen in recent months. The Government must meet all the demands of survivors and of the bereaved.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I will highlight a key flaw in the current inquiry process. We are relying on the Prime Minister, who is the Minister nominated under the 2005 Act, as I mentioned, to do the right thing, but surely justice should not be about the conscience or whims of one person, however powerful. Surely justice should be a right. That is why I urge the Government to press on with the Hillsborough law, which the bereaved Hillsborough families advanced as a way of preventing what happened to them from happening to others. I hope the Government will provide parliamentary time and support for the passage of such a Bill into law. Martin Luther King once said:
“Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.”
We need to ensure that our laws serve justice and are not seen as a block to justice.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
The Chamber has been packed with MPs from all sides, as it was when many of us gathered together two days after the disaster in this very room, frankly stunned by the enormity of what had happened in north Kensington and what was unfolding before our eyes. Some MPs have not had an opportunity to speak. Next to me is the Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and opposite me is the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Those campaigning for this change and the many bereaved and survivors—the victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster—can be in no doubt about the attention and focus that this place gives to Grenfell and to the journey towards truth, justice and healing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on setting the tone so well at the start of the debate by reading out in such a poignant way the names of the 71 precious lives lost. He was quite right to add to that list the name of Maria Del Pilar Burton, who very sadly died earlier this year.
When we met almost 11 months ago, we were reeling. This afternoon, we meet clearer about what we are dealing with. In terms of loss of life, we are dealing with the worst disaster to hit this country since Hillsborough. We are dealing with a disaster that should not have happened. Those 71 precious lives should not have been lost that night. The lives of their friends and families should not have been torn apart by trauma and grief. More than 300 people should not have been made homeless—most of them losing all their possessions. Local residents who did not live in the tower should not have been traumatised by what they saw and heard that night, which will stay with them forever.
First responders have not been mentioned so far, but police, fire and ambulance staff should not have had to face what they had to face that night to keep the peace and save lives, often at huge risk to themselves. Grenfell will always be part of their lives.
Since then, of course, thousands of people have stepped up to try to help, either because they are part of the extraordinary voluntary effort or because it is their job and their duty. Grenfell will always be part of our lives. Of course, for all of us, as expressed so powerfully this afternoon and before in Parliament and through the media, there remains profound shock and horror across the country that such a disaster could happen in modern Britain.
Given all that, we cannot put everything right, but as a country we can and must do at least three things. First, we must honour the dead in the most appropriate way. I thank those people—many of them are sitting in the Public Gallery this afternoon—who have worked with us on the first steps of a process that I believe will lead to a beautiful and appropriate memorial on the site of the tower, which is a journey with the community at the driving wheel and the voice of the bereaved carrying the most weight.
Secondly, we must do everything we can to help the bereaved, the survivors and the traumatised residents to heal, and to rebuild their lives and—as far as is possible—their hope. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was absolutely right that that must be done in a way that is human at all times and not bureaucratic and remote. Have we succeeded in that fully? No. But that must be our continued aim. For the homeless, that means settling in new homes that they like and that they feel safe in.
Can I expect the House to have full understanding of all the underlying complexity? No, of course not. It is absolutely right to express frustration, rage and disappointment at the pace of progress. In fact, the Government have put on the record our profound dissatisfaction with the pace of progress.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that, when we started this process, of the category A households—residents of the tower and the walk—210 needed to be rehoused, and we are now in a situation where the number of households in emergency accommodation who have still not accepted offers is down to nine. That is nine households too many and nine households that I am personally committed to trying to sit down with and meet personally, to understand how they are feeling, but it would be wrong to say that no progress has been made or that no action has been taken.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for giving way. Nobody here can doubt his commitment, but he has just said that the Government have put on the record their frustration. Can the Government put some resources behind resolving this question, so that we do not have to listen to more stories of people who have been through something horrific and are still without settled accommodation?
Mr Hurd
With respect to the hon. Lady, it is not an issue of resources; there is no shortage of resource that has been directed to this problem. If she happens to drill down into the underlying details of every single case, she will see that it is not an issue of resource. It is an issue of a deep underlying complexity about some of the things that are still getting in the way of a victim of the disaster finding the home that they feel is right for them and that they feel secure in, which ultimately is all that matters.
Last but not least—it is the theme of this debate—we must deliver truth, we must deliver accountability and we must deliver justice, because we must ensure that such a disaster never happens again, so that no family has to go through this hell.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I suggest to the Minister that it is absolutely vital that victims, the families of victims and the wider community have some faith in the process in terms of finding the truth, and that we as a Government do all we can to give buy-in and credibility to the people, who are the most important piece of this whole problem and tragedy.
Mr Hurd
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. I have said it before and I will say it again: I spend a large part of my working day trying to do exactly that. We have to deliver truth, accountability and justice, not least because without those things the victims cannot heal and we cannot heal after the trauma of this terrible disaster.
I believe that the Prime Minister did speak for the whole country when she said last June that the public inquiry must
“get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible, and to provide justice for the victims and their families who suffered so terribly.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 168.]
This debate is not about the destination; it is about how we get there in a way that those who are the most important and most affected by the disaster feel comfortable with.
I join with others, notwithstanding the entreaties of the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), in paying my own personal tribute to the highly dignified way in which the victims of this disaster, not least as represented by Grenfell United, have resisted—let us be frank about this—attempts at the start of this process to agitate and cause unrest. They have resisted that and said, “That is not for us. We are going to conduct ourselves with dignity and peace. We are going to march silently and we are going to make our case. And we are going to make an argument.” They have won that argument. I have sat alongside the Prime Minister as she has listened to many of the people sitting at the back of Westminster Hall today while they have made their argument. They have won that argument, and I congratulate them on that.
Many people have argued, “Oh well, this is a straightforward thing. She should have given it a long time ago.” It is not straightforward. Changing the structure of a public inquiry is a big deal. It is a big decision. Let us be frank as well: there are also good reasons to set up an inquiry and to put it in the hands of a single judge, one with a tremendous reputation for integrity and forensic ability. There are good reasons for doing that, but the Prime Minister made it very clear that she would keep that decision under review, and she has done exactly that. She has the power to review the make-up of the inquiry panel at any time during the inquiry and she has done that. She has listened very carefully to the argument; as I said, I have sat next to her as she has done that and I know exactly the demeanour that she took into those meetings. However, she has also looked at the scope of phase two, and recognised its growth and complexity.
Phase two of the inquiry will look at original design, construction and subsequent modifications of the tower; the inspections carried out during the modifications; the governance and management of the tower; the communications between the residents of the tower and the council and the tenant management organisation before the fire; what fire advice was given to the residents; how central and local Government responded to recommendations relevant to the risk; and how central and local government and the tenant management organisation responded to the aftermath of the fire. As we get into this process, there are more and more suggestions about other things that need to be looked at in phase two.
The Prime Minister has looked at all that and combined it with listening to the arguments made by Grenfell United and others, which are rooted in their strong contention that the process needed to carry the trust of the most important people in it: those people most directly affected by the disaster. She has taken her decision.
I reassure the House that there is no intention of hanging around in identifying the two other panel members that the Prime Minister has agreed to. All Members will recognise that time needs to be given to making sure that we get this absolutely right in bringing to the table the right combination of experience and expertise to fill any perceived gaps, so that those individuals carry the confidence of the community. That is absolutely fundamental to the Prime Minister and my undertaking is to continue working with the community. I am sure that Sir Martin understands that completely as well. The intention is to get on with identifying and appointing the panel members in consultation with Sir Martin as soon as possible.
The petition also considers that, to secure trust in the inquiry, legal representatives of the bereaved families and survivors should be able to see all the evidence from the start and be allowed to question witnesses at the hearings. For the information of the House, the inquiry has received some 330,000 documents and has conducted an initial review of more than 180,000. The expectation is that more will follow. The inquiry must review the documents, first of all for relevance and to identify duplication, and then to decide how each document fits into the picture that the inquiry is building up.
The inquiry has been disclosing documentary evidence to core participants on a confidential basis since February and continues to do so in the run-up to the start of the hearings. It will disclose further relevant information as the hearings progress, and it must be right that the independent public inquiry is allowed to determine how and when it discloses information. As the inquiry moves forward, it will develop its picture and assess the relevance of the documentary evidence as it progresses.
Joanna Cherry
MPs are advised that only a tiny percentage of the relevant documents have been disclosed so far to core participants’ lawyers. Given the recent scandals over lack of disclosure by the Crown Prosecution Service in England, can the Minister give the families of the deceased and the survivors sitting here today reassurance that disclosure will happen fully and orderly for this inquiry?
Mr Hurd
I am absolutely sure that that is the intention of those leading the inquiry. The process I have set out is one that is absolutely familiar and typical in relation to public inquiries. When we are talking about hundreds and thousands of documents, some judgments have to be made and some judgments will be challenged. I think there will be transparency in the form of regular bulletins from the inquiry. I would like the hon. and learned Lady and others to build into their feelings some consideration of the need to avoid unacceptable delays in the process of the inquiry. Underlying this is a strong feeling that I know well: people are worried about how long the process will take, and they are right to be, given some of the examples of the past. So these are judgments for the inquiry, but I think there will be transparency around the process and it will be open to challenge.
The third part of the petition is about the right to question witnesses. Core participants are able to suggest lines of questioning that the inquiry should pursue and, with permission from the inquiry, can ask witnesses questions through their own legal representatives. The inquiry rules are clear that the recognised legal representative of a core participant can seek permission to ask questions of a witness giving oral evidence. In his response to the inquiry’s procedural hearing in December, Sir Martin said that he would approach with an open mind any such applications, and that is the approach he will take.
Alison McGovern
While the Minister is covering that aspect of the inquiry, will he respond to my point about parity of arms? I know that legal resources are being made available to the families of those we lost at Grenfell, and that is a good thing, but I worry about getting into a situation in which, yet again, the state has vastly more resources at its disposal for lawyers than families do. That inequality cannot be tolerated, I am afraid.
Mr Hurd
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern, as will anyone who has read the Bishop’s report. I also worked on the response to the death in custody review, in which exactly the same point was made by Dame Elish. There is a fundamental point here on which I hope we will make significant progress in our responses to the Bishop’s report and the death in custody review.
I wish to reassure the House about the scale and pace of the inquiry. I should also put on record commendation of the way in which Sir Martin has not only stepped up to the responsibility but driven the process at pace. Many of those who have campaigned for the change have been at pains to point out that it is not a personal criticism of him. There is tremendous respect for his integrity and his forensic ability. He is driving a very complicated process at pace. He has granted 547 core participants to the inquiry, 519 of whom are individuals from the Grenfell community. That is an unprecedented number.
Procedural hearings to consider matters relating to the conduct of the inquiry have taken place and on 27 April the inquiry published a timetable for its phase one hearings, which will focus on the factual narrative of the events on 14 June 2017. Before the evidential hearings start on 4 June, there will be two weeks of hearings, beginning on 21 May, commemorating all those who lost their lives. That will provide an opportunity for those families who lost loved ones at Grenfell Tower to commemorate them as individuals, calmly and with dignity. The bereaved families will be able to memorialise their loved ones in any way they think best, whether as a presentation, an audio recording, a short film or in any other way. That shows the inquiry’s commitment to ensuring that the bereaved, the survivors and the residents are central to its work. The counsel to the inquiry has said that by
“starting the public hearings in this way, we can ensure that, however technical and scientific the issues may become”—
and they will—
“however dry, however legal, we will never lose sight of who our work is for and why we are doing it”,
and he is right on that.
Following the commemorations, the evidential hearings will begin on 4 June. They will hear evidence from the inquiry’s expert witnesses and London fire brigade personnel. The hearings will run until the end of July. There will be no hearings in August, as the inquiry prepares to hear evidence from the bereaved, the survivors and local residents, starting on 3 September and running for approximately four weeks. Further expert witness evidence will be heard during October, and the closing statements will be made in the week beginning 29 October. Sir Martin will prepare an interim report following the end of the phase one oral evidence hearings, and the programme for the phase two hearings will be issued nearer the time.
Kevin Hollinrake
Bearing in mind the lack of confidence in the local authority, where reasonable concerns exist in the community, whether about the local authority, the inquiry or rehousing, is the Minister confident that clear processes and channels are in place for those concerns to be raised directly with the Minister and acted upon?
Mr Hurd
Since the start of the process, Ministers have been sitting down with representatives of Kensington and Chelsea and all the other state agencies that are working together on Grenfell to challenge things we have been told and to ask ourselves how we can support the statutory agencies in their work, so I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
I wish to make reference to the fact that the public inquiry is, of course, not the only route to truth and justice. Only one Member of Parliament has mentioned the other route this afternoon, which is the criminal investigation. Let us be clear, the Metropolitan Police Service has started one of the largest criminal investigations ever outside counter-terrorism, with a dedicated team of approximately 200 officers, many of whom I met on a recent visit to Hendon. The team are extremely professional and very, very dedicated to doing the job properly. They are fully engaged with the public inquiry and are focused on four key areas. To give an idea of the scale and complexity of what they are dealing with, approximately 460 companies have been identified as having some involvement in work on Grenfell Tower, and the current estimate is that about 35 million documents will have to be processed. Let us not lose sight of the criminal investigation, because it is also a critical path to justice.
In conclusion, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) that there is no walking away from Grenfell. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibility to our fellow citizens who have suffered a terrible wrong. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, we know in this place just how badly the state has failed in the past in such situations, and we cannot fall into that trap again. Parliament will hold the Government of the day fully to account on that fundamental truth. Justice is a precondition of the healing we want to see. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said that trust was a precondition of justice; in fact, it is the passage of facts and truths that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about, combined with the forensic investigation that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) referred to, that are the preconditions. However, we cannot proceed without trust.
We cannot proceed without the buy-in of those who are the most important in the process, those most directly affected, those who lives have been ripped apart by this disaster. They need to trust the process. That is at the heart of and underpins the Prime Minister’s decision, which is a big one. To change the course of a public inquiry is a big decision that is not taken lightly, and she has done so because she recognises the fundamental truth of the debate, which is to put the needs and feelings of those most affected by the disaster at the heart not just of the public inquiry, but of all our thoughts and all our processes, to try to help on this journey towards healing, recovery and a rebuilding of lives and hope. So no, we are not going away on Grenfell. We must deliver truth, justice and accountability.
Paul Scully
I pay tribute once again to the campaigners, and I want to explain to them and the people watching that if they have seen MPs drifting in and out, it is because of the nature of this House and of our different priorities at any given time. I hope they will have seen that the interest in the debate—we have had four Cabinet Ministers coming in and out—shows the importance that we place upon solving the situation and bringing justice to the people who are most affected. Of all the speeches, the last one, by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), really had the balance right between the raw passion that is still there, for her from Lakanal, and her approach to solving the problem. That is what we must do. We need action.
Written Statements
Astute Boat 7
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
I am pleased to announce today that we have reached a major milestone with the investment of £1.5 billion for the whole boat contract with BAE Systems to build the seventh boat in our Astute class submarine fleet. I also have the privilege to announce that this submarine will be named AGINCOURT.
AGINCOURT is the final boat of the Astute class, underpinning the commitment made by this Government in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review. AGINCOURT is expected to come into service with the Royal Navy in the mid-2020s to undertake a wide range of tasks in support of military operations worldwide.
[HCWS680]
BBC World Service
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The BBC Chairman and I have agreed the “Objectives, Priorities and Targets” (OPTs) for the BBC World Service Licence. The OPTs have been set for a five-year period 2017 to 2022. The licence can be found on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/bbcstructure.
The BBC World Service is the world’s largest international broadcaster, broadcasting news, documentaries and discussions in 42 languages. The World Service continues to provide insight and fresh perspective across the major global stories of the year. The total weekly reach of the World Service in 2016-17 was a record 346 million (up from 320 million in 2015-16) and the BBC remains on track to achieve its ambition to reach a global audience of 500 million by 2022.
While many broadcasters are increasingly partisan, people around the world have confidence in the accuracy and impartiality of the BBC’s journalism. The BBC World Service is one of the most influential and trusted of British institutions and it is instrumental in helping to promote Britain and our values around the world. The FCO will continue to support them to enhance the lives of millions of people, making high-quality independent news and analysis accessible in markets of need.
The objectives for the World Service contribute to the fulfilment of the mission and the promotion of the BBC’s public purposes, including providing high-quality news coverage; current affairs; and factual programming to international audiences, which is firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. The objectives focus on four key areas:
maximising the reach of all language services;
protecting the BBC World Service’s position as the most trusted provider of accurate and independent international news;
delivering essential news and content that allows audiences to engage in democratic processes as informed citizens, and reflects the values and culture of the United Kingdom to the world; and
demonstrating value for money and transparency, seeking alternative sources of funding where appropriate.
The BBC will report annually against the objectives, priorities and targets I have agreed with the BBC Board. This will include assessment of progress against quantitative targets.
I will meet the BBC Chair (or their nominated representatives) annually to discuss the services, review the performance report, and consider any adjustments that need to be made, including targets. If the BBC Chair and I agree, we may also consider adjustments to services outside this timing, in response to significant changes in market conditions or world events.
[HCWS681]
Legacy of Northern Ireland’s Past
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my objective is to build a more peaceful, stable and prosperous Northern Ireland, that is fit for the future.
As part of this, we need to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s troubled past, which continues to cast a large shadow on the present.
There is broad agreement that the current processes for addressing the past are not working well for anyone.
In 2014, the UK Government, along with the main Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government reached the Stormont House agreement, which contained the most far-reaching proposals yet for addressing the past.
The Government believe that the proposed new legacy bodies in the agreement have the potential to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors and ensure there is no unfair and disproportionate focus on former members of the armed forces and police officers. The new bodies will be under clear statutory obligations to operate in ways which are fair, balance and proportionate.
Having discussed these proposals extensively with political parties in Northern Ireland, we believe that the time is now to allow for a wider public consultation, as we committed to in our 2017 Northern Ireland manifesto.
Now is the time for everyone with an interest in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past to have their say.
This consultation will run until 10 September and be published on the Government’s website at: http://www.gov. uk/nio.
I have placed a copy of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS682]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness Jowell
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, it is with very great regret that I have to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, on 12 May. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and her friends.
Animal Products: Labelling and Packaging
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to ensure that the labelling and packaging of animal-derived products does not mislead consumers as to how those animals were reared.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, it is against the law to mislead consumers about any aspect of food. Methods of production for eggs and poultry meat are defined and the use of various assurance schemes helps to identify that animal health and welfare standards have been met. While legal definitions are not in place, information can be given voluntarily and trading standards is responsible for ensuring that this does not mislead.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. I know he feels the same way as I do on many of these issues, but it is not right that consumers are still misled. The area where that happens the most is illustrations on packaging. Will the Government use the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to tie down and tighten up these procedures far more? If the Government do not feel that those are sufficient, will they introduce additional measures in their agriculture Bill?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
As your Lordships will know, many of these rules are subject to EU regulation. I am absolutely clear that no produce should be labelled in any way that misleads the consumer. As the noble Lord has said, under the Health and Harmony consultation into the agricultural way forward we have consulted on that, and we are considering whether there are better ways in which labelling could satisfy the consumer better.
Baroness Browning (Con)
In a similar vein, would my noble friend ensure, particularly post-Brexit, that animal feed is also labelled and that such labelling is shown to be as accurate as possible, to make sure that cattle feed in particular is also something the consumer can rely upon?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I shall certainly take back what my noble friend has said. It is clear that we have some of the best food standards in the world. We are exporting much larger numbers— £22 billion in the food and drink sector—so it is vital for our reputation that all provenance of seeds and food is of the highest order.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, according to Which?, one in six Americans get food poisoning whereas the figure in the UK is only about one in 66. Will the Government introduce a mandatory food labelling scheme post-Brexit so that consumers can make an informed choice about the country of origin, as well as the welfare standards, of the meat products they will be consuming so they can keep their families safe?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill we are bringing back all the requirements under our domestic legislation, and of course that requires that countries of origin should be on the label.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister believe that the Food Standards Agency’s plan to privatise the inspection of food producers will give consumers confidence in the safety of their food? Does he agree that the plan for producers to choose and pay for their own inspector and agree the remit and frequency of their inspection is rather like letting them mark their own homework? How will that encourage the rest of the EU to continue to import British food after Brexit?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I said, we have some of the highest standards in the world. We will continue to have some of the highest standards in the world. That is why we are exporting ever more produce in the food and drink sector. The Food Standards Agency is required to protect public health and consumers’ wider interest in food. That is its remit and it will continue to do so.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that consumers are also entitled to know how their meat has been slaughtered—hopefully, by the humane method of pre-stunning—and that it should be labelled?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I understand what my noble friend says. We are clear that we understand the public concern that people should be eating meat from animals in the way that they would wish. We will be looking at labelling as a post-Brexit opportunity, as I said, and this is one area that we can consider.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about labels of origin. Will he suggest that that includes the Palestinian Authority area and that when goods come from that part of the world, they are appropriately labelled?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am well aware that I am speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, but I think I should take advice from colleagues in that department.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows the term “barn-raised chickens”. It sounds very cute and cuddly, but in fact under that designation nine chickens can be squashed into one square metre. Does the Minister think that that might be a little misleading for the general public?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is why in this country we have the largest free-range flocks in Europe. The definition of eggs, as compared with other food products, is one of the legal definitions, precisely so that the consumer knows the difference between free range and barn.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, there is only one dietary requirement for Sikhs: that forbidding eating meat slaughtered in a ritual way. Yet, despite the protests of the Sikh community over many years, schools often serve only halal meat. Can the Minister do something about this?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I said, we understand the concern of consumers. That is why, as part of a general labelling review, we will consider the opportunities in this regard.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register on this matter. In his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Minister talked about the role of trading standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, raised the issue of animal feed, which is also largely monitored by trading standards. Can he tell us by what proportion the budgets of trading standards departments have been cut in the past seven years—spoiler alert, it is more than 50%—and can he further tell us how many statutory requirements trading standards are now expected to enforce with that much reduced workforce?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as the noble Lord rather anticipated, I understand the figures he raises but I do not have the precise figures in front of me. Trading standards departments are undertaking a very effective job, and I could give him examples of a number of recent prosecutions where they have ensured that their job is done extremely effectively. That is to enforce product safety and prevent fraud such as mislabelling of food, and they are doing an effective job.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister considering advising consumers about the extent of antibiotic use in animal products, thereby raising awareness of the use of antibiotics?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Earl raises an important issue, which is that we want to reduce the use of antibiotics in the agricultural sector. I must say that, two years ahead of target, that has been achieved. It is really important that this country is one of the world-leading reducers of the use of antibiotics, and we need to continue that trend.
Tourism
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their most recent assessment of the importance of tourism to the economy of the United Kingdom.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that tourism is vital to the UK economy. Tourism makes important contributions to local economies across the UK and is particularly significant in rural and coastal areas. In 2016, direct tourism GVA was estimated to be worth £66.1 billion to the UK economy, a 2.2% increase on 2015. The sector is predicted to grow at an annual rate of 3.8% through to 2025.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, last year’s tourism growth was four times greater than that of the overall economy. Tourism is now arguably the number one industry in more parliamentary constituencies than any other single industry, and future developments such as Diageo’s £150 million investment in its whisky distilleries’ visitor centres, the £28 million upgrade to Blackpool’s Winter Gardens and the £55 million master plan for the Royal Albert Hall will provide complementary boosts to design and construction industries and food and drink manufacturers.
In Northern Ireland, 8.5% of the total jobs are in tourism. Approximately 500,000 visitors cross the border from the Republic of Ireland annually, 30% of them visitors to Titanic Belfast. Does the Minister accept that any hard border would be a big no-no for Northern Ireland’s tourism?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, in her Mansion House speech, the PM made a commitment to avoid a hard border, which is important because 28% of all visits to Northern Ireland by residents from outside the island of Ireland arrived at a port or airport in Ireland. We understand that Northern Ireland’s visitor attractions, including the Titanic and the Giant’s Causeway, rely heavily on external visitors, many of whom travel across the border.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a slightly shorter question? Is he aware of the contribution that heritage railways make to the tourist economy? On the latest estimate, it is somewhere between £250 million and £300 million a year, particularly in the coastal and rural areas to which he referred in his Answer. Could he please have a look at the Written Answer his noble friend Lord Henley gave me last week about the future supplies of coal, which are so important to steam railways, and give an assurance that, after 2023, coal supplies will continue to be available?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not have specific figures on heritage railways, but I can assure the noble Lord that I shall not shunt his question into a siding and, with the help of my noble friend Lord Henley, I shall endeavour to smoke out the answer.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, tourism is the third or fourth largest export earner for the UK. Since we relaxed the tourism visa for the Chinese, we have more than doubled the number of Chinese people coming to the UK. Are we proposing to do the same thing for some of Africa and India?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My noble friend makes a good point. We have offered a two-year visa to the Chinese since 2016 for the same price as a six-month visa. This is a pilot scheme that is currently being evaluated, and we have no plans to stop that. However, until the pilot scheme has been evaluated, there are no plans to extend it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Popat, just said, the precise figure is £85 for a two-year multiple entry visa from China since 2016, whereas from India the figure is four times that, at nearly £350. With India being one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and a huge number of tourists from India going abroad, we are losing out on those tourist visitors. Would the Minister agree with that? Secondly, the Government’s plan for Brexit is to do free trade deals around the world. Free trade deals are about movement of people. Without doing this, do the British Government think they will have a free trade deal with India? Dream on!
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I have not seen any evidence that the cost of visas has penalised tourism from India. Although visas are constantly being looked at by the Home Office, the tourism industry overall has gone from strength to strength, with year-on-year increases since 2012.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the motor car is one of the greatest challenges to the tourist industry, and that we are not helped when railway companies, such as Northern, frequently cancel trains? Two weeks ago, 94 trains on the Lakes line into the Lake District were cancelled in a single week. Will the Government look at the possibility of forcing Northern Rail to run a proper service into the Lake District?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree that a proper service is important for tourism. One of our main problems at the moment is persuading tourists from outside the UK to go to places apart from London, which accounts for 58% of visits. It therefore follows that a proper transport infrastructure is essential to get visitors away from London to look at the benefits of our wonderful heritage.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, VisitBritain estimates that the UK will attract more than 40 million overseas visitors this year, following six years of record-breaking growth. However, the UK is losing market share because many of our competitors, particularly the major ones, are spending much more than us on promoting their countries abroad. Will the Government act to secure the long-term future of Britain’s tourism industry by including this vital sector in the modern industrial strategy?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Absolutely. That is why the tourism industry has brought its sector deal together. It is with BEIS at the moment and I believe the department will comment on it imminently.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, in my enthusiasm to ask my question, I omitted to declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association.
Disabled Students: Allowances
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by the Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation on 16 April (HC135033), what assessment they have made of the extent to which the £200 equipment contribution for those claiming disabled students allowances had a direct effect on reducing the number of students receiving such allowances by 4,600 between 2014–15 and 2015–16.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw the attention of the House to my declared interest in Microlink PC.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, computers are a mainstream cost for all students, disabled or not. We expected a fall in take-up with the introduction of a £200 student contribution to the cost of the computer hardware, as DSA no longer funds standard computers and students may be satisfied with their existing equipment. Support continues to be available where an extra need is assessed, so as to ensure that disabled students and non-disabled students are treated equally.
Lord Addington
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, student numbers are rising, and the number of people claiming the DSA is falling. Is there some explanation other than that disabled people are not claiming it? I draw the House’s attention to the fact that people are getting the assessment and then stopping going through the process. What, other than a financial disincentive, can be working here?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
One reason has been proved to be that at least three-quarters of students now have their own computers. The DSA is there to help disabled students with the additional costs they may face in higher education because of their disability. We introduced the £200 student contribution because computer ownership is so high.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, having seen the negative impact which the imposition of the £200 charge has had on students in England, the Welsh Government have decided against it. They take the view that helping disabled students prepare for their studies is a good thing. No matter how the Government present their case, they are still imposing a tax on being disabled. Why not think again?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Welsh Government are entitled to do what they like. However, I say again that the mainstream costs should be covered by disabled and non-disabled students. When it was introduced, 23,400 disabled students claimed for DSA-recommended equipment and software, and the expenditure was £20.4 million. But the main point is that the equipment expenditure of disabled students averaged £870, so we think that the £200 first cost is reasonable.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the £200 levy will obviously mainly disadvantage those on very low incomes. Have the Government given any thought to adding this £200 levy to the student loan, which might be a more acceptable way for them to pay than to try to find the £200 upfront?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness will know that all eligible students can access maintenance loans, and we believe that it is reasonable for any student to purchase a standard computer through that support. However, some universities provide additional help to students from low-income backgrounds, and some DSA equipment providers allow students to spread the cost.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s stated aim, which is laudable, is to widen access to our universities. They have taken a measure which has clearly had an impact in reducing the number of disabled students in terms of the reduction of 4,600. Why do they not just reverse the policy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The reason is because we believe that it is entirely reasonable to allow the first £200 to be spent by the student. In addition, for non-disabled students, full-time students spent an average of £253 on computers, and part-time students spent an average of £243. So again, it is a reasonable argument to ask for the £200 to be paid.
Lord Addington
My Lords, could the Minister give some thought to the fact that your standard second-hand home computer is not powerful enough to run most of the software that is required by this group? If that is not taken into account, how can the Answer be relevant?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The answer to that question is that if some extra assistive software equipment is required, it will be funded through the DSAs. The point is that we are talking about the basic cost of £200. I also point out to the House that we have commissioned a research project to explore the impact of DSAs on eligible students, including that of recent DSA reforms, and we will report in the summer.
Historic Cathedrals
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cormack
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assist England’s historic cathedrals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, cathedrals are powerful symbols of our history, and we are committed to supporting these important buildings through the £42 million Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. We also provided £40 million of funding via the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund, which closed last year. Cathedrals can apply to the Heritage Lottery Fund for funding for a range of projects, including capital repair. HLF has invested £120 million in protecting and conserving these iconic buildings.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said. However, he must realise that we are talking of the most important group of historic buildings in our land. The cost of their maintenance is enormous and, while the money he referred to has been most gratefully received, we really need—I ask him to consider this—an endowment fund for cathedrals, independently administered. If he would like to see at first hand the complexities of maintaining a great cathedral—perhaps the greatest of them all—would he accept my invitation and come as my guest to Lincoln?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, as I said, we accept that the cost of repairing and maintaining these significant and marvellous old buildings is enormous, so I am glad that 57 of our wonderful cathedrals were able to benefit from the First World War fund. At the moment there are no new plans for new funding aimed specifically at cathedrals—but, of course, the listed places of worship scheme continues, as does the HLF scheme under which cathedrals and other places of worship can apply for maintenance.
Further to that, we are currently exploring new models of financing the repair and maintenance of church buildings through a pilot scheme under the Taylor review. Although the review did not talk specifically about cathedrals, the lessons from it can apply. I know, for example, that my noble friend has already been to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to put the case for more funding.
As for Lincoln, a couple of weeks ago I spent some time looking at what was going on at Hereford. In due course, diary permitting, I will be very pleased to go to Lincoln as well—as long as I can go on the roof and have a look.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as one who for 21 years had responsibility for the place fondly known around the world as the “Cathedral of Methodism”. For 17 of those years I was also an ecumenical canon and a member of the Cathedral Council at St Paul’s, collaborating closely with Westminster Abbey. Earlier in this Session, we heard Questions about the importance of the tourist industry for our economy generally. Certainly the number of visitors who flock through our cathedrals is a significant part of that activity—but, as the Minister hinted, much of that is concentrated in London. Would the plea of a Methodist to endow the cathedrals of this country for the established Church add weight to any decisions that the Minister might be led to make?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I feel that I am really on the noble Lord’s ground here and that I am visiting, as it were. However, I assure him that we are looking not just at the established Church but at other places of worship, particularly those that are listed. There are many examples of places where money, particularly from the First World War cathedrals fund, has gone—it has been spread all around the country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Has my noble friend noted the sharp drop in the number of people visiting Salisbury Cathedral since the recent nerve poison attack? Are there steps that the Government can take to help revive tourism in that magnificent cathedral city?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am going back to my tourism notes. I am not sure that there is concrete evidence that visitor numbers decline after terrorist incidents, but there is anecdotal evidence to support that. The DCMS has committed £100,000 to VisitEngland and VisitWiltshire to support the recovery of tourism in Salisbury. Indeed, the Minister for Tourism will visit Salisbury a week today to see how the recovery is progressing. We regularly engage with areas that have suffered, as Salisbury has, from terrorist activity. We are of course aware of those issues and do our best to support them.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that underlying this Question is the need for some long-term attention to be given to cathedrals, rather than having one-off initiatives such as the First World War repairs fund? I extend to him an invitation to visit my diocese—I am the only bishop with three cathedrals, so I can take him on a tour.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I would of course be delighted to see at least one of them. I accept what the right reverend Prelate said. We look carefully at these issues and understand that it would be nice to have an endowment fund. As I said, this is really a matter for the Chancellor, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, along with, I believe, the deans of several cathedrals, has been to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to talk about this. I believe that that was one of the draft recommendations of a Cathedrals Working Group report, which has not yet been agreed by the Church.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, quite apart from their historic role in this country, cathedrals play a huge role in the community, with all sorts of activities being conducted within their premises? Under those circumstances, surely it is important that the Government consider widening the scope of the finance that cathedrals have at their disposal.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree that cathedrals can be used for wider civic events and for things that are not directly concerned with the religion that they deal with. That is yet another reason to support them—and, clearly, the Government have spent many tens of millions of pounds doing just that. I do not think that there is any need for me to reinforce the desire of the Government to support these buildings. We accept that, for aesthetic and many other reasons, they are worthy of support.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to return to the long term, does the Minister agree that the supply of skilled workers is essential if we are to maintain these buildings? Bearing that in mind, will the Government have a quick look at what is being done on apprenticeships at the moment? Many dyslexics, for instance, have found skills in areas such as stonemasonry, but, currently, only those with an education and healthcare plan—around one-quarter of those identified—are getting help to take these qualifications. Surely we can help dyslexics and historic buildings at the same time.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Lord. When I visited Hereford a couple of weeks ago, I went to see the stonemasons’ workshop, which was taking on apprentices who were doing exactly that. It was a very good thing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome support of any kind from the Government for English cathedrals of any denomination. But, given recent threats from down the other end of this building, what is the Minister going to do to ensure the preservation of other great national treasures such as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack?
Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill
Monday 14th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 View all Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 11 May 2018 - (11 May 2018)
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Deferred Prosecution Agreements) (Amendment of Specified Offences) Order 2018
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:20 - Division on Amendment 62A - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 213 - Amendment 62A agreed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 28.
“(aa) references to Chapter 2 of Part 2, or to a provision of that Chapter, include that Chapter or that provision as applied by Chapter 3 of Part 2;”
“(c) references to a controller or processor are to a controller or processor in relation to the processing of personal data to which Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 2, Part 3 or Part 4 applies.”
“(2A) The references in subsection (1)(a) and (b) to public authorities and Scottish public authorities as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 13) do not include any of the following that fall within those definitions—
(a) a parish council in England;
(b) a community council in Wales;
(c) a community council in Scotland; (d) a parish meeting constituted under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1972;
(e) a community meeting constituted under section 27 of that Act;
(f) charter trustees constituted—
(i) under section 246 of that Act,
(ii) under Part 1 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, or
(iii) by the Charter Trustees Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/263).”
“( ) an activity that supports or promotes democratic engagement.”
“(5A) In connection with this section, a controller has the powers and obligations under Article 12 of the GDPR (transparency, procedure for extending time for acting on request, fees, manifestly unfounded or excessive requests etc) that apply in connection with Article 22 of the GDPR.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 28. I will speak also to the other amendments in this group.
It is my pleasure to be able to open Lords Consideration of Commons amendments to the Data Protection Bill this afternoon. As we discussed at length when the Bill first passed through your Lordships’ House, this is a detailed and often quite technical Bill, intended to make our data protection laws fit for the digital age. It went through a period of review and revision under your Lordships’ supervision, and it has since been refined further in the other place. It now falls on us to review, and I hope agree, those refinements. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen and my noble friend Lady Williams for helping me with some of these key areas today.
In setting out the reasoning behind the Commons amendments today, I will focus my remarks on the substantive changes made rather than the technical tweaks, of which there are many. This first group of amendments addresses the Commons amendments to Parts 1 and 2. I shall start with the subject of parish councils, a cause previously championed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and I declare an interest in that my wife is a parish councillor.
Parish and community councils are not exempt from the new law. Nonetheless, by describing parish and community councils as “public authorities”, the Bill gives these councils additional obligations above and beyond those placed on other small organisations, including that they must appoint a data protection officer. We have been working to minimise the impact of this requirement—for example, by exploring options for parish councils to share a data protection officer.
However, since the Bill left your Lordships’ House, we have concluded that as parish and community councils process very little personal data and often have few staff and small budgets, the burden that they will face may be disproportionate in some instances. I am therefore pleased to say that Commons Amendments 8, 9, and 10 would take these councils out of the definition of “public authorities” for data protection purposes. Their status in respect of other legislation, including the Freedom of Information Act, is unaffected.
Since the introduction of this Bill, it has been brought to our attention by a range of stakeholders from all sides of the political divide that there is concern about how processing for the purpose of democratic engagement should be treated for the purposes of the GDPR. I remember especially the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others on this subject, and I have met him to discuss these issues. I am grateful for his time and commitment.
As I have said before, the Government believe that there is a strong public interest in political parties and elected representatives and officials being able to engage with the public both inside and outside elections, which may sometimes include the processing of personal data. Having considered the matter further since then, the Government have concluded that it would be prudent to make provision in the Bill, to provide greater clarity to those operating in this space. Helpfully, Clause 8 already provides high-level examples of processing activities which the Government consider could be undertaken on the grounds of public interest.
As a consequence of the importance that the Government attach to the matter, Commons Amendment 12 would add,
“an activity that supports or promotes democratic engagement”,
to that list. This term has been deliberately chosen with the intention of covering a range of activities carried out with a view to encouraging the general public to get involved in the exercise of democracy. That could include activities such as communicating with electors, campaigning activities, supporting candidates and elected representatives, casework, surveying and opinion gathering, and fundraising to support such activities. We will ensure that the Explanatory Notes include such examples to assist the interpretation of what this provision means in practice.
However, any processing of personal data in connection with these activities would have to be necessary for the purpose and have a legal basis. That is why we can be clear that firms like Cambridge Analytica will not be able to claim public interest irrespective of whether Amendment 12 is agreed today. The amendment does not seek to create partisan advantage for any one side or to create new exemptions from the data protection legislation; it is intended to provide greater clarity and allow legitimate political activity to continue. The amendment is also technology neutral, given that in a short time we have moved from physical post to email, text, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp and Snapchat, and no doubt other means that I do not know about.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that lucid exposition. When one has 282 amendments from the Commons, which I think is fairly unusual after the Lords have worked on a Bill, we find that the Commons have made many improvements, with one or two notable exceptions that no doubt we will come to in later groups. I welcome Amendments 8, 9 and 10 in particular, and Amendment 12. I heard what the Minister said in caveating the intended extent of the amendment. I very much hope that it will have the effect he hopes for. The automated decision-making provisions have to be in line with the GDPR, so it is clearly necessary to amend the Bill in that respect, but I generally welcome this group of amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I too welcome this group of amendments. First, on Amendments 8, 9 and 10, I recall the debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place at the moment. He talked about his experience of the parish council in his area, explaining that a part-time clerk did a couple of days a week and it was impossible. He made his case well and I am happy to support him in it. I am glad to see that the Government have listened. I also believe that many Members on all sides of the House in the other place made similar points. I thank the Government very much for that.
I am very pleased with Amendment 12. We, with the Liberal Democrats, raised this issue during a debate in this House. We could not get it all agreed before it left to go to the other place but I had two very positive meetings with Matt Hancock and Margot James. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, also came along to our other meetings and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, from the Conservative Benches, was also involved. We got to a good place. Nobody from any party thought that this issue should not be properly recognised in legislation. I am very pleased that the Minister and his colleagues have listened to us.
The Minister is of course right that technology changes all the time. We have no idea what we will be doing in four or five years’ time. Things move so fast now, so it is good that our legislation is written to take that into account. I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government intend to consult and work with the Parliamentary Parties Panel, which is very important. It is a statutory body, set up in the PPERA 2000, where practitioners from all political parties can come together and talk with both the Electoral Commission and Cabinet Office officials. It really is the body where the people who know what they are talking about can come together. I sat on the body for many years and there was a lot of agreement among party officials about what needs to be done. I am glad that the Government will do it and I am pleased with what has come forward today.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Kennedy, for their positive remarks. There are a lot of amendments so, as I said before, I will try to concentrate on the substantive ones. There are a lot of consequential amendments, which make sure that the substantive amendments go through so that the Bill makes sense. I note that, having considered 692 amendments in your Lordships’ House, we are now considering a further 286; 978 amendments later, we should be in a better place.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 29.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 29 and 30 relate to Clause 51, which enables data subjects to exercise certain rights through the Information Commissioner. Under Part 3, where a person makes a subject access request, it may be necessary for the police or another competent authority to give a “neither confirm nor deny” response; for example, to avoid tipping off that person that they are under investigation for a criminal offence.
Under the Bill as passed by this House, a data subject could exercise their rights under Clause 51 to request that the Commissioner check that the processing of their personal data complied with the provisions in Part 3. Such a request would clearly undermine a “neither confirm nor deny” response, effectively providing a back door for data subjects to find out if personal data was being held on them. To address this, the amendments replace the requirement on the Information Commissioner to check that processing complies with Part 3 with a requirement to check that a restriction imposed by the controller is lawful.
Commons Amendments 31 and 32 relate to Clause 53, which enables a controller when in receipt of a manifestly unfounded or excessive subject access request either to charge a reasonable fee before responding to the request or refuse to act on the request. The amendments extend this latitude afforded to a controller to cover requests made by a data subject under Clause 50, which requires a controller to reconsider a decision based solely on automated processing. Although the vast majority of subject access requests made by data subjects are reasonable, the amendments are necessary to ensure that controllers have a robust mechanism in place to deal with any repeated or malicious requests that they receive. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 30 to 50.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House agrees with the Commons in their Amendments 51 and 52.
“( ) Paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 3(14) do not apply to references in this section to personal data, the processing of personal data, a controller or a processor.”
“( ) Section 3(14)(b) does not apply to references to personal data and the processing of personal data in this section.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this group of Commons amendments relates primarily to the enforcement powers available to the Information Commissioner. This is one area where, after the Bill originally left your Lordships’ House, events have influenced the Government’s thinking.
The Information Commissioner’s investigation into Cambridge Analytica is unprecedented in both its scale and its complexity. It has, necessarily, pushed the boundaries of what the drafters of the Data Protection Act 1998, and the parliamentarians who scrutinised it, could envisage.
While recognising that the Bill already expands and enhances the commissioner’s ability to enforce the requirements of the data protection legislation in such circumstances, the Government undertook to consider whether further provision was desirable in light of the commissioner’s recent experience. Following extensive conversations with the commissioner and others, we concluded that such provision was indeed desirable. The amendments made in the other place would strengthen the commissioner’s ability to enforce the law while ensuring that she operates within a clear and accountable structure. I want to give five examples in particular.
First, Commons Amendment 64 would allow the commissioner to require any person who might have knowledge of suspected breaches of the data protection legislation to provide information. Previously, information could be sought only from a data controller or data processor. This could be important where, for example, a former employee had information about the organisation’s processing activities or if an organisation had gone into administration.
Secondly, Commons Amendment 70 would allow the commissioner to apply to the court for an order to force compliance where a person failed to comply with a requirement to provide information. Organisations that might previously have been tempted to pay a fine for non-compliance instead of handing over the information will now find themselves at risk of being in contempt of court if they do not comply.
Thirdly, Commons Amendments 67 and 87 would allow the commissioner to require controllers to comply with information or enforcement notices within 24 hours in some very urgent cases, rather than the seven days the current law provides for. Amendment 79 would allow the commissioner in certain circumstances to issue an assessment notice that can have immediate effect. The amendments would allow the commissioner to obtain information about a suspected breach or put a stop to high-risk processing activities promptly and effectively. They will also allow her to carry out no-notice inspections without a warrant in certain circumstances.
Fourthly, Commons Amendment 81 criminalises the behaviour of any person who seeks to frustrate an information or assessment notice by deliberately destroying, falsifying, blocking or concealing evidence which has been identified as being relevant to the commissioner’s investigation.
Finally, we have also taken this opportunity to modernise the commissioner’s powers. Storing files on an office PC is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Commons Amendment 210 would enable the commissioner to apply for a warrant to access material which can be viewed via computers on the premises but which is actually held elsewhere, such as in the cloud.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation. In many ways, when these clauses came to the House we missed a trick; I do not think we quite understood at the time that the Information Commissioner did not have adequate powers. It was rather a sorry sight to see the Information Commissioner hanging around for several days outside Cambridge Analytica waiting to be allowed to enter and inspect, so these amendments are extremely welcome—as, of course, is the new criminal offence the Minister mentioned.
I will say one thing: it is not entirely clear whether these powers are on all fours with, for instance, the Competitions and Markets Authority, Ofcom, Ofgem, and so on, in terms of the ability to make a dawn raid. I have looked at it but it is not entirely clear that that is possible. Clearly, in the current circumstances, the misuse of data is an extremely important aspect. It would be very interesting to hear from the Minister whether at the end of the day these are modelled on the other regulators. Does the Information Commissioner have very similar powers, and is a dawn raid available to her? Given that there are safeguards in the Bill—a warrant from the High Court and so on—that would be desirable. We have discovered that it is important for the Information Commissioner, as a result of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, to have all the powers necessary.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree with the Minister that this is a welcome step forward. I have three minor points to put to him and I shall ask a question about the powers at the end. He said several times that he had had conversations with and was in agreement with the ICO about the powers that were taken. Following up on what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, has the ICO agreed that these powers are what she asked for and will achieve what she aims to do in cases such as that of Cambridge Analytica?
Secondly, what are they modelled on? I have had the benefit of a conversation with the Bill team and the Minister on this and I think the answer to the question of whether they are modelled on the Competition and Markets Authority’s powers is that they are coming from slightly different directions. It is not necessary that the powers should be exactly the same, but I think the answer is that they were broadly what was envisaged for the CMA when it was set up and therefore appropriate for the powers required by the ICO. Can the Minister confirm that is the case?
My third question is one that we have explored at length in Committee and on Report. Given these new duties and responsibilities, which are substantial and will have to be exercised with great care but will add a burden to its existing work—as was laid out in the Bill when we saw it in this House some time ago—will the resources be available to the ICO to carry out that work? If not, what will the Government do about that? This bears particularly on the question of staff and staff capacity because, as the Minister says, we are talking about the cutting edge of technology.
My final point is that we are legislating in haste. There is no reason why we should be suspicious of that but it was done very quickly and there was not as much scrutiny as one would have wished, in either this House or the other place. I was not able to find this in the Bill itself, but can the Minister confirm whether, should it turn out that these powers are not as well drafted or well expressed as they could be, he has the powers to go back and amend them through the appropriate procedures in due course, should that be necessary?
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have one question that builds on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I note that the Minister said that organisations that refuse to hand over information will be in contempt of court. Can he confirm whether there will be a public interest defence built into these provisions?
Lord Pannick (CB)
Building on the point about the limited time for scrutiny here, can the Minister also explain whether there is a protection for the sources of journalism, with no obligation to disclose sources? Is there a protection for legal professional privilege and matters of that sort?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am grateful for the contributions made by noble Lords. The first thing to acknowledge is that these amendments were made at a reasonably late stage in the Bill but not a very late stage, in the sense that it was in the second House. We considered the Bill first and the second House amended the Information Commissioner’s powers, so we are now looking at them again. However, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the Information Commissioner was involved in these powers. That is not to say that, in the course of those discussions, she did not put up some powers that she might like to have but, in discussion with the Government, we settled on some powers that she was content with. I can confirm that she is content with this suite of powers; in fact, she has written to the Minister for Digital confirming as such.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned a dawn raid and asked whether we can do that and, further, whether these powers are on all fours with the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom. By and large the powers are on all fours but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, they are not exactly the same. They were modelled on them but they are slightly different, given the different roles and functions that regulators have. As for a dawn raid, the Information Commissioner has the power to ask for a warrant to be issued without notice if the judge is satisfied that giving the controller advance notice would not be appropriate. As I say, we looked closely at the powers of the CMA and Ofcom and modelled them as closely as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked about protection for journalists’ sources. I can confirm that, yes, the new ICO powers continue to respect the need to protect journalistic sources and legal professional privilege.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also talked about the Information Commissioner’s resources. As he knows, we have increased the fees and made a commitment in the past that we will make sure that the Information Commissioner has the resources available to do her job properly. We understand the issues that that involves. We need the Information Commissioner to do a proper job and to be able to do so, not least because of the Brexit negotiations and the data adequacy requirements that we will want to continue for electronic commerce.
I think I have dealt with the points raised and, on that basis, I thank noble Lords for their support for these powers.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 53.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, Commons Amendments 53 and 207 would remove from the Bill matters inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, with the intention of protecting value in certain personal data held by the state. I am grateful to the noble Lord for again taking the time to come to see me to discuss further the intention of his original amendments to the Bill. He has been very helpful and we are in full agreement that this is an important matter. Our meeting also gave me the opportunity to explain the Government’s plans to address the issues that he raised going forward.
In this new digital information age, big data is changing the world we live in. One of the key reasons for updating our data protection laws was to ensure that the law is fit for this new age, where an ever increasing amount of personal data is being processed. We have remained conscious throughout the drafting of the Bill of the need to protect individuals’ data while also ensuring that the new law does not stifle innovation in the way that we use personal data. The Government recognise that novel ways of processing personal data could bring great technological, economic and societal benefits to the UK.
Longitudinal health and care data, in particular, has the power to fundamentally transform our lives in truly positive ways. The Government are taking a considered approach to the policy in this area in order to ensure that we get this right and fully realise the potential benefits of using health data, while ensuring that individual privacy is respected. We want to examine how we can maximise the value of the data for the benefit of the NHS and those who use and pay for it.
While we are entirely sympathetic to the aim of the noble Lord’s amendments, Commons Amendments 53 and 207 would reverse them because we firmly believe they do not help us achieve the outcome we are all seeking. A statutory code of practice risks stifling innovation, placing public authorities in a straitjacket. In an area where the thinking is still developing and the rate of technological advancement is increasing, flexibility is essential.
Moreover, maintaining a register of “data of national significance” is likely to raise a number of security concerns. The NHS has been the victim of cyberattacks and we do not want to produce a road map to assist those who want to harm us. The Information Commissioner’s Office has also stated, quite rightly,
“that even establishing and maintaining a register would still require the Commissioner to make decisions in an area where she is not best placed to advise”,
because her core function is to protect information rights.
While not developing a code and a register, the Government are none the less taking active steps to ensure we grip the issue that the noble Lord raises. We are working to connect to make the most of the distributed data that exists in the health service, identifying three to five local exemplars of integrated digital health and care records and using these to develop digital innovation hubs to support the use of data for research purposes, including in partnership with industry.
The Department of Health and Social Care is working to explore how to maximise the benefits of health and care data for patients and taxpayers. This includes exploring the different approaches taken by a range of bodies and lessons to be learned from local experiences of working with the private sector. It will look specifically at how best to capture value from products developed using NHS data.
Although Commons Amendments 53 and 207 may appear disappointing to the noble Lord, I can reassure the House that they are made with the best intentions, and that the Government are making every effort to address the concern in the right way. I beg to move.
Amendment 53A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 53)
Lord Mitchell
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 53B instead of the words left out of the Bill by this Amendment and by Amendment 207”.
“Personal data of national significance
(1) Within a year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations made by statutory instrument which—
(a) require the ICO to maintain a register of publicly controlled personal data of national significance;
(b) require the NAO to prepare a code of practice for data controllers which contains practical guidance on how to obtain best value in relation to the commercial exploitation of personal data of national significance;
(c) require the NAO to report annually to Parliament on the commercial exploitation of publicly controlled personal data of national significance.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), personal data controlled by public bodies is data of national significance if, in the opinion of the Commissioner—
(a) the data furthers collective economic, social or environmental well- being,
(b) the data has the potential to further collective economic, social or environmental well-being in future, and
(c) financial benefit may be derived from processing the data or the development of associated software.”
Lord Mitchell (CB)
My Lords, the words in the Bill and the words on the screens above us summarise my position. This is the Data Protection Bill, and my amendment is solely about protecting data—our data; our data of national significance; and in particular, our data owned by our National Health Service. Who do I wish to protect it from? From the predatory big tech companies, which see a huge financial opportunity in developing this NHS data and creating data algorithms; they can then sell those for billions of pounds, leaving us with precious little in return. The very same companies, by the way, pay minuscule corporation tax in our country and, indeed, it is the same in their own country. They are clever, immensely well funded, and very focused—they run rings around the NHS.
I feel that I have to prevent this happening. I seek to set in motion a process which will keep the value of this data for the benefit of our NHS so that it can use these proceeds either to plug its growing budget deficit or fund significant critical medical research—or, indeed, both. If I let my imagination go even further, I would like to see the setting up of a sovereign health fund into which these proceeds could be channelled and administered, in the same way as the Norwegians set up a sovereign wealth fund. What they have done with the proceeds of their North Sea oil we can now do with our data bonanza. As many have said throughout the Bill’s proceedings, data is the new oil—and we have struck a gusher.
If I may be permitted to extend the analogy even further—like oil in the ground, this data is crude; it needs to be refined. Huge investment will need to be made to create a data refinery which will be able to synthesise the millions of records that will produce the algorithms. It should be seen as a national co-production, perhaps with private and public partnership.
At Second Reading, I stated that it was my judgment that the market value of NHS longitudinal data could be worth billions of pounds. In all honesty, as I progressed, I fully expected someone to disagree with me and tell me that I was wrong. But no such person has come forward. All the experts seem to confirm my position. I made the point that the longitudinal data owned by the NHS was unique, with tens of millions of patient records going back to 1948 and even earlier. No other country has access to such a treasure trove. Even better, our population is diverse, with the records of people whose family members come from all corners of the globe. We have a perfect dataset.
The reason big tech companies are so interested in this data is that with the combination of sophisticated software, ultra-fast data processing, artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities, they are able to produce algorithms which are tremendously powerful. These can be used to predict organ abnormalities to the extent that clinicians can save time and money, and ultimately people’s lives. And who can disagree with that? It is wonderful for all mankind.
By way of an example, DeepMind, which is based in London—it is a subsidiary of Alphabet, which owns Google—has been working with the Royal Free in anticipating acute kidney injury. Like knights on white chargers, DeepMind has financed the digitisation of millions of patients’ data and produced algorithms that are already making a major contribution to improving difficult-to-diagnose conditions. It has cost the Royal Free next to nothing and, unsurprisingly, its staff are over the moon. What they do not realise is that the algorithms produced by DeepMind have international value and will be monetised all over the world for the benefit of Google, not of our NHS.
DeepMind and companies like it are swarming all over the NHS. For my part, to put it bluntly, I want to stop them gathering the benefits of our data on the cheap. My new amendment would water down previous amendments that your Lordships agreed to on Report—an amendment that the Commons in its infinite wisdom decided to annul. Frankly, I am still at a loss to understand why a Conservative Government would not want to maximise this goldmine; I always thought they were the party of business.
I have, however, taken on board the points made by the Information Commissioner. She said the amendments went beyond her powers. I have reduced them to a minimum. In substitution I have inserted a requirement for the Secretary of State to require the National Audit Office to prepare a code of practice for data controllers, for guidance on how to obtain best value in relation to the commercial exploitation of personal data of national significance, and for the NAO to report annually to Parliament on the commercial explication of the very same data.
The Minister and his team have listened to what I have had to say and I am very grateful for his kindness and attentiveness. Our last meeting was very helpful, and I look forward to him confirming the points that were made. I beg to move.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 53A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. In doing so, I wish to make two specific points that follow on from his speech today. First, the amendment crucially recognises the importance of measuring what we as a nation are doing with data of significance before we take important, industrially strategic decisions on how we make the most of this vital national resource.
The noble Lord and others have made the analogy of data as the new oil. That analogy works particularly well for personal data as, like oil, it is potentially as toxic as it is valuable, and it must be carefully handled and not allowed to be released into the environment without due care. If we are to best manage, protect and distil it, we must first learn where and how it is being moved, used and commercialised. Can we as a nation easily answer the question that we are asking of Facebook or the former Cambridge Analytica: how much data are we commercialising at home and abroad, and to whom? If not, why not? Progressive and young, emerging nations are reviewing how they use their national data for national advantage, and we must make a concerted effort to do the same.
My second point is how the amendment therefore recognises that this measurement should be done centrally, not burdening already stretched government departments with developing their own approaches. While these departments must remain involved to provide domain insight into certain data types—for example, health and social care—the National Audit Office or other bodies should take charge of a cross-departmental process for measuring and tracking these flows of significant and valuable data. In this way we should be able to develop a consistent, coherent view of how we are handling our data reserves, which will give us the best possible evidence upon which to base our decisions on a secure approach to maximising their impact for our future national good. I therefore hope the Minister will be able to shed some light today on how this process is being thought through.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendments 53A and 53B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
I must express my general frustration at the Bill. There is so much information, so much data of national significance that, it is clear, will be abused by the Government, whether or not they know that they are doing so. The Windrush scandal showed just how badly the Home Office gets things wrong, and the Bill’s provisions allow the sharing of people’s data which would further the “hostile environment” policy. I am very disappointed that the Government have not tabled amendments to curtail the broad powers in the Bill that will allow for such abuse.
There are so many cases of people who are victims of serious crime—of rape, violence and people trafficking—who are being reported by the police to the Home Office and then being arrested, detained and deported. At least 27 police forces have admitted that they do this. Ministers cannot possibly claim to be learning from those instances, just as they appear not to have learned from Windrush, while they continue to include such cruel and intrusive powers in the Bill. The fact that the Government can get things so horribly wrong is why the amendment should be included.
We have heard that data is more valuable than oil. It is more valuable than oil or gold. It is the boom industry of our times, and the temptation for government to allow its exploitation by the commercial sector—the predatory big tech organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred—will be overwhelming, especially in this age of austerity when money appears to be so short.
This is not just an issue of exploitation in a negative sense: there are lots of opportunities for government data to be used to empower communities. We can do things such as monitor air pollution and hold the Government to account by using this data. I am excited by those opportunities, but they need proper regulatory oversight to ensure that data is used for good. The control and processing of nationally important data must be properly overseen by the Information Commissioner and the National Audit Office. The Government recognised this in the Bill as drafted, and I do not understand why that has been removed—perhaps the Minister could explain.
I really hope that the Minister will support the amendments, but I rather suspect he will not.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we are very sympathetic to Amendments 53A and 53B. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, we find it difficult to understand why it has been impossible to come to some sort of agreement. I hear what the Minister said: that he is sympathetic, but not so sympathetic that he agrees with the amendments. This disagreement about whether a statutory code, guidance or whatever is the right way forward seems to be dancing on the head of a pin.
I pray in aid the intervening report of the AI Select Committee on precisely this matter, which supports the contentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. In our report, we stated:
“Increasingly, public sector data has value. It is important that public organisations are aware of the commercial potential of such data. We recommend that the Information Commissioner’s Office work closely with the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation in the establishment of data trusts, and help to prepare advice and guidance for data controllers in the public sector to enable them to estimate the value of the data they hold, in order to make best use of it and negotiate fair and evidence-based agreements with private-sector partners”.
That seems fair and square along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
In the course of our inquiry, we also looked carefully at the sorts of arrangements made by DeepMind—not only the benefits, which he very fairly outlined, but the issues with how sharing that data was organised, which of course led to an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Of course, NHS data is particularly important in this context. In our report, we stated:
“The data held by the NHS could be considered a unique source of value for the nation. It should not be shared lightly, but when it is, it should be done in a manner which allows for that value to be recouped”.
So, fair and square, we are with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
It would be somewhat ironic if the Secretary of State, in his response to our Select Committee in three or four weeks, said, “Yes, we agree: there should be something along these lines”, but we had missed the opportunity in this Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we supported the amendments that my noble friend Lord Mitchell tabled in Committee and on Report, and we support him in his journey through this process. The issue is probably complicated by the fact that, had this Bill been delayed by a matter of months from now, we would probably find that this issue was bobbing up all over our public realm, where people are beginning to realise the value of the assets that they hold. To the extent of being a first mover, I think that my noble friend has probably suffered from that, but I hope that the Minister will show some sympathy and support for him.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I feel a lot of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and commend what he is trying to do. I think that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are not as far apart as he might think. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, raised with great enthusiasm the point that we should ensure as a country that we use our rich resources wisely. We share his excitement about the huge potential of big data to improve health and care. We acknowledge that, if we leverage these data to their full potential, that will have huge positive impact in improving care, giving people greater control, enabling the system to plan better and target support and treatments to those who can benefit, and it will transform our already world-leading life sciences industry.
Nevertheless, in the judgment not just of the DCMS but also the Department of Health and Social Care—I know that the noble Lord has been speaking to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, on this subject—Amendment 53B risks undermining the work already being done in this space. NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Office for Life Sciences are already undertaking a programme of work that looks seriously at the public benefits that can be derived from NHS data. They are committed to working with representatives of the public and industry to explore how to maximise the benefits of health and care data for patients and taxpayers. In doing so, it is vital that service users and patients are involved every step of the way. They will accept and support the use of their health data only if they understand how and why their information is being used and how everyone will benefit. We must take the public with us on this journey, rather than imposing a code now.
My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care have made a written commitment to keeping the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, involved in future discussions about this work. He will make a valuable contribution with his expertise in this matter, ensuring that we maximise the value in these datasets.
I want to answer straightaway and head-on the point about why the Government should not consider that we extract the full value of the taxpayers’ data. Of course, it is absolutely right that public sector bodies should be aware of the value of the data that they hold, but that value can be extracted in many ways, not solely through monetary means. For example, sharing health data with other companies that analyse that data may lead to a deeper understanding of diseases and potentially even to new cures. That is why we want to take some time to explore this important issue fully and try to find the most appropriate solution, should one be needed, rather than tying ourselves to one approach now. That was raised in the other place when this issue was discussed by amendments from people who are very concerned about how health data are being treated. As I said before, we have to be very careful, particularly when talking about health data, how we use datasets when people have given their information on the basis that it is anonymous and is extremely sensitive.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, rightly broadened the issue a bit from just health data. He asked how much data we are commercialising, at home and abroad, and to whom. He suggested that bodies other than central government should take charge of a process for measuring and tracking these flows of significant data. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. A body exactly such as that can, in this very fast-moving area, consider the balance between the need to protect an individual’s anonymity and the sensitivity of their data, and that data’s monetary value and use for things such as curing disease.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made some interesting remarks about how information would be abused by the Government and the broad powers we have taken in the Bill. I remind her that the GDPR, which takes effect directly on 25 May, is exactly about protecting data subjects’ rights. For example, it allows data subjects the rights of rectification and erasure. The point about subject access rights is to allow individuals to have more protection than they currently do. The Bill brings some of those rights and extends them into areas which are not even covered by EU competence. I do not agree with the noble Baroness that we are abusing the powers.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I have not been in the House long, so have not heard the whole debate, but I was listening to a programme about this subject at lunchtime today. The impression was clearly given that lives were being put at risk because of oversensitivity about the sharing of data. Perhaps the Minister will get his advisers to check what was said on that programme and see how much sense it made.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will find out what was said. We should deal with what the GDPR calls special categories of data very sensitively. We should take data on health, sexual orientation, ethnicity and things like that very seriously. That is what the GDPR does and we will continue to do it under the Bill.
Finally, I return to the Commons amendments. I am afraid we still cannot support Amendments 53A and 53B as, at the moment, we believe that they are fundamentally the wrong solution. However, I hope that the productive discussions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, referred, along with what I have said today, have convinced the noble Lord that our vision is aligned and that he finds sufficient reassurance in these words, and the written assurances that he has had from my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, to be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mitchell
I thank the noble Lord for his very helpful comments. I also thank my noble friend Lord Freyberg, who has been with me all the way on this and given me huge support, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her comments. On the Front Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has always been a supporter and, at this particular point, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has guided me through the intricacies of ping-pong, which I was not aware of.
I have heard what the Minister has said, and have received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy. It is the end of the football season. We are now in extra time; we are still at a draw and could be facing penalty shoot-outs, but I am going to decline that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.
Lord Keen of Elie
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.
“Data protection and journalism code
(1) The Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains—
(a) practical guidance in relation to the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism in accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation, and
(b) such other guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate to promote good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism.
(2) Where a code under this section is in force, the Commissioner may prepare amendments of the code or a replacement code.
(3) Before preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must consult such of the following as the Commissioner considers appropriate—
(a) trade associations; (b) data subjects;
(c) persons who appear to the Commissioner to represent the interests of data subjects.
(4) A code under this section may include transitional provision or savings.
(5) In this section—
“good practice in the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism” means such practice in the processing of personal data for those purposes as appears to the Commissioner to be desirable having regard to—
(a) the interests of data subjects and others, including compliance with the requirements of the data protection legislation, and
(b) the special importance of the public interest in the freedom of expression and information;
“trade association” includes a body representing controllers or processors.”
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group concern the regulation of the press and the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism. First I will address Clauses 142, 168 and 169, which were added to the Bill by this House without the support of the Government, and which the Commons amendments now seek to remove. These clauses, and the issues they pertain to, have been subject to a great deal of passionate debate in both this place and the other. Since we previously discussed the Bill in this House, the Government have also published their response to the consultation on Section 40 and the future of the Leveson inquiry, to which these amendments relate, and have outlined their position in detail on these matters.
The Bill is about data protection and, as previously observed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, during our last debate, it is therefore not the right forum for a debate on press regulation in the future. I hope to demonstrate that, even if it were, these clauses are simply not the solution to the problems faced by the press today to ensure that it is free, fair and sustainable.
Commons Amendments 106, 107 and 141 would remove Clauses 168 and 169, which were added to the Bill by this House. As they stand, these clauses would essentially introduce the provisions contained in Sections 40 and 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, although they would apply only to breaches of data protection law. They would mean that any publication not regulated by Impress would be at risk of having to pay the legal costs for any complaint against them, whether they won or lost.
As I have already said, since we previously discussed the Bill in this House, the Government have published their response to the consultation on the future of Section 40. By way of update, then, I can tell the House that some 79% of direct responses favoured full repeal of Section 40, compared to just 7% which favoured full commencement. Many respondents cited concerns about the “chilling effect” that Section 40 would have on the freedom of the press. Andrew Norfolk, who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal, has said that Section 40 would have made it “near impossible” to do his job. These clauses would also impose further financial burdens on already struggling local and national publishers, with 200 local newspapers having closed since 2005.
I recognise, however, that the primary motivation behind this House originally inserting these clauses was to ensure that victims of press intrusion would have access to adequate redress. I can reassure your Lordships that enormous progress has been made on this front—some of it since the Bill left this House—making these cost provisions no longer necessary or proportionate.
In 2014, the old Press Complaints Commission was replaced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation. IPSO follows many of the principles set out in Sir Brian’s report and is fundamentally different to the PCC. It has a legally binding contract with the publications it regulates, which means that, if a publication fails to comply with IPSO’s orders, such as publishing a front page correction, it can face court action.
Earlier this month, IPSO announced that it would create a compulsory low-cost arbitration scheme under which claims can be made for as little as £50, and all the major national newspapers that are IPSO members have signed up to it. This means that someone who has been wronged by a newspaper can, for the first time, ask for arbitration of their claim—and the newspaper cannot refuse. With the introduction of this scheme, IPSO has met one of the most important recommendations of the Leveson report and has ensured that ordinary people have a fair legal remedy that is quick and inexpensive. As Opposition noble Lords have previously acknowledged, once IPSO has met the majority of the standards for recognition established by the Press Recognition Panel, it is sensible to look afresh at this complex set of interrelated measures of inducements and penalties. Now is that time.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 62A, which states:
“as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62, at end insert ‘, and do propose Amendment 62B instead of the words so left out of the Bill’”.
Let me explain why I have tabled this amendment after it was considered in the other place last week and narrowly defeated.
First, the need for completing this inquiry continues to grow. The illegal conduct which led to part 1 of Leveson is now known to be far more extensive and to go beyond phone hacking. More revelations emerge every week. It is an inquiry into criminality, corruption and abuse; in any other industry the press would be demanding an inquiry, and yet their opposition is uniform. We now know that the Sunday Times employed a blagger for 15 years to unlawfully access the phone accounts, utility bills and even bank accounts of ordinary people and government Ministers. The blagger, who has become a whistleblower, also said that they organised the theft of rubbish from the houses of Cabinet Ministers, published the stories they uncovered and then blamed it on a Civil Service leak. My noble friend Lord Turnbull was, it seems, moved to call in the Security Service to investigate the Cabinet Office mole, who never actually existed. This involved the personal details of the noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Hague, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and they are among hundreds of victims. This was concealed from part 1 of the Leveson inquiry by the same executives now campaigning to stop part 2. Noble Lords may have heard of similar behaviour by other newspapers.
Secondly, firm promises were made to victims of press abuse.
Thirdly, I believe that the arguments made against completion of the inquiry were misleading, and that the other place should reconsider the matter.
Finally, I have made some adjustments to the amendment which I believe will help the other place to reconsider it, if we are to pass it today. Let me explain these adjustments, made after listening carefully to the debate in the other place. The first addresses the concerns of the Democratic Unionist Party that part 1 of the inquiry could have examined the situation in Northern Ireland more closely. Just before last week’s debate, the DUP was made a last-minute offer by the Government: a non-statutory review with no powers of evidence or witnesses into press conduct in four years. Having considered the matter, I am proposing a change that addresses the party’s proper and reasonable concerns and puts it before Parliament.
Let me clarify how my amendment relates to that offer by the Culture Secretary. Last Wednesday, in response to a question from the DUP Member for North Antrim, the right honourable Ian Paisley, the Culture Secretary said that the Government plan to have,
“a named person review the standards of the press in Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/18; col. 712.]
This interchange came just before the Government, backed by the DUP, narrowly defeated the amendment that would have required the second stage of the Leveson public inquiry into media ethics to be completed. The Culture Secretary’s surprise announcement was welcomed by Mr Paisley who described it—and this is important—as a “Leveson for Northern Ireland”.
The National Union of Journalists called for absolute clarity on the scope and nature of any such review. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport later explained that there is no review planned for Northern Ireland into press standards and that the Cairncross review of quality journalism is in fact UK-wide, specifically relates to examining media compliance with new data protection regulations and is to be undertaken by the Information Commissioner’s Office. The Culture Secretary referred to having a named person for Northern Ireland, but there will also be a named person appointed for Scotland and separately for England and Wales, and they will each feed into the overall review.
The other adjustment that I have made is specifically to exclude the local press from the scope of the inquiry. That will address the concerns of those who have argued, rightly or wrongly, that a public inquiry will somehow impose a burden on local newspapers.
I will not rehearse the arguments for completing this inquiry again—we know them well—and the case for the amendment makes itself. It is an amendment to complete a public inquiry, repeatedly promised, to investigate allegations of illegality, corruption and improper conduct among newspaper corporations, the police and other media organisations responsible for holding personal data. As we all know, contrary to claims made by its opponents, these issues were excluded from part 1 and have never been properly investigated.
We are also familiar with the arguments against. These are, as I understand it, that this inquiry would be too expensive, would hurt local publications, would be a chill on free speech and would not be forward-looking. The honourable Member for North East Somerset in the other place said that the promises to victims of a previous Prime Minister can be ignored. None of those arguments has any validity.
Would any of us accept an argument that investigations into mass criminality or years of concealment in, say, social work or the building trade should be abandoned because they were too expensive? Exposing the full scale of corruption in the police and press is just as vital as are recommendations to ensure that they are never repeated. Abandoning a public inquiry will damage the credibility of other inquiries. What about the Grenfell Tower inquiry?
As for the local press, they were never the main subject of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry and under this amendment they are excluded entirely. It states:
“In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must … include exemptions or limitations designed to exclude local and regional publishers from the scope of the inquiry”.
It could not be clearer.
It is also absurd to suggest that an inquiry designed to be transparent, to expose the truth and make fair and proportionate recommendations in the public interest could possibly interfere with free speech.
Finally, the inquiry is specifically designed to look forward as well as back by exposing the full extent of wrongdoing by examining the reforms that have actually been implemented since part 1. Part 2 will be able to make practical and proportionate recommendations for the next steps.
Both parts of the original inquiry were welcomed with huge cross-party support from both Houses. The relevant Select Committee in the other place, chaired by a Conservative, recommended unanimously that Leveson part 2 should proceed. The chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson, has recommended that it should proceed. I circulated his letter to some noble Lords today as a reminder. Many respected people have written to noble Lords today. I understand that Sir Harold Evans, the former editor of the Sunday Times, believes that part 2 is needed to restore integrity and public confidence in the press. Some 126 academics from 35 institutions, including former journalists and those teaching the journalists of the future, have also written, as has the mother of a victim following the Manchester Arena bombing, where press behaviour was, quite frankly, appalling.
To cancel this amendment is an act of gross censorship. The promises to the victims of press abuse still hold. This Government are breaking those promises. What is the role of this House if not to ensure that the Government act with honour and integrity and are held to their word?
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, it has been a long and hard struggle to attempt to convince the Government to meet their commitments to complete the Leveson reforms and, most importantly, complete part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. During earlier debates, I claimed not to know any celebrities who were not politicians. I apologise to the House because I should have inserted the caveat, “other than a world-famous international yachtsman”.
I agree with my noble and learned friend the Minister that we should accept the Commons rejection of my Amendment 147, which sought in effect to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 in respect of data protection. I shall try to explain why in a moment, but it has nothing to do with the merits.
First, I would like unreservedly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her new amendment which seeks to commence the Leveson 2 inquiry. I agree with everything she has said, and I hope that she will seek the opinion of the House. If she does, I will be supporting her in the Lobby.
I am bound to say that the print media have consistently misrepresented the issues in question. For instance, it has been said that the noble Baroness and I hijacked this Bill to pursue our amendments. It is actually fair comment, but as any noble Lord who has been in opposition knows, it is a perfectly proper standard parliamentary procedure, and I am sure that my noble friend the Government Chief Whip has himself used this technique many times when he was in opposition.
It was also alleged that we cynically excluded politicians from the scope of the inquiry. This is simply not true. We did try to table an amendment that sought much wider terms of reference for the inquiry. Quite properly, the clerks advised us that we needed to restrict the scope of the amendment to data protection issues. It would, of course, be open to the Government to set wider terms to include politicians, and if a Conservative politician is alleged to have done something wrong, I am happy to see them explain themselves to the inquiry.
I turn to my amendments. When my noble and learned friend comes to reply, while he has explained the stick component of Section 40, will he remind the House of how its carrot component works, because I do not think that he mentioned it?
Although the Commons never actually divided on my amendments, they were fully debated and it is clear to me that there is no realistic prospect of the Commons changing their mind. There is no Salisbury problem with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, because she genuinely believes that if we send it to the Commons, we may get a different answer. However, I would suggest that this will probably be the last roll of the dice.
I feel bound to comment on the exceptionally effective campaign run, presumably, by the News Media Association. Whoever is running it knows what they are doing, although we have all been playing hardball. However, what is disturbing is that I have been silenced and skilfully suppressed nearly everywhere except in your Lordships’ Chamber, and therefore I am extremely grateful to the BBC programme, “The Big Questions”, for allowing me to contribute to yesterday’s debate. It is not clear to me why the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers politely declined my offer to address the Peers on my amendment but nevertheless later allowed Sir Alan Moses, the chairman of IPSO, to address the Cross-Bench Peers. In the days immediately after our votes on Report, despite one national newspaper devoting three whole pages to criticising some noble Lords, my name was mentioned only once in any national newspaper, and I suspect that that was an accident. It is good that the press is supposed to be biased, opinionated and partisan.
Despite trying very hard, I was able to secure only two meetings to discuss the Leveson amendments with two Conservative MPs, and they had very good reasons to do so but nevertheless, quite understandably, they voted with the Government. Even the Leader of your Lordships’ House declined to have a meeting with me in the week preceding the vote in the Commons to discuss these problems—so much for free speech. The very same honourable Members who declined to meet me had helped to produce a majority of 530 to 13 in the vote to insert new Section 40 in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. What is going on?
I welcome the Government’s Cairncross review into the sustainability of the press. This is one of the Government’s arguments for not implementing Leveson. When I talked to my local editor, he was not worried about regulation; his problem was sustainability.
Recently, in accordance with the principal VAT directive, the appropriate tribunal decided that online publications would attract VAT at the standard rate. This is a tax on information and knowledge, when books and publications are exempt. The EU withdrawal Bill has enough difficulties without me raising another one, and I do not want to tie the Minister’s hands, but can my noble and learned friend write to me—and perhaps to my noble friend Lord Black—to assure us that the appropriate officials are aware of the risk of negotiating away our freedom to zero-rate online publications post Brexit?
Much of the debate on Section 40 has centred on state regulation of the press. At the moment, unfortunately, we have covert state regulation because anyone in government, particularly sources close to No. 10, can suggest to the media that Ministers are reconsidering commencing Section 40. This is a completely unacceptable gun, held to the press’s head, which must be deactivated at the earliest possible moment. Worse still, it could inadvertently lead to the press self-censoring in the case of a story that might, in any case, make for difficult ethical and legal decisions for the editor concerned. Can the Minister indicate when this very short Section 40 repeal Bill will be presented to Parliament?
If we are not to implement the Leveson press reforms, we need to commence part 2 of the inquiry to find out what has gone wrong in the past, ensure that it is not continuing and prevent it from recurring. As one of our briefings today put it, the past is a prologue for the future.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the few counsel who has acted in privacy cases for both the Daily Mail and Mr Max Mosley. I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I remind your Lordships of what the Conservative Party manifesto said before the election last year:
“Given the comprehensive nature of the first stage of the Leveson Inquiry and given the lengthy investigations by the police and Crown Prosecution Service into alleged wrongdoing, we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.
As your Lordships know, the Commons held a lengthy debate on this subject last Wednesday and voted not to institute a Leveson part 2. Your Lordships’ House has heard the pro and con arguments on many occasions.
I want simply to emphasise two points. Amendment 109 introduces extensive new powers on the Information Commissioner in relation to the press and, as the Minister has already indicated, it requires the commissioner to conduct a review of the press in the short term. Also, over the years, there have been not just police, and other, inquiries: a large number of civil actions—cases against the press—have been brought by phone-hacking victims. Those victims have not gone without remedy; they have received very substantial financial compensation, and rightly so. It is true that some of the claimants were celebrities, but many were not; they were victims of phone hacking because, for example, they were related to television actors or spent the night with a footballer. Reprehensibly, the press hacked their phones. They brought legal actions; the lawyers acted on a conditional fee basis. After the event, insurance ensured that there was no financial risk to the claimant, so it is simply not the case that victims of phone hacking lack, and have lacked, legal remedy. Newspapers have rightly been ordered to pay substantial sums by way of compensation. It is simply unrealistic to think, in the light of the criminal prosecutions and civil liability, that the message has not got across. I respect, of course, the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the others who support this amendment, but it really is time for this House to give way to the views of the Commons on this matter.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. I also have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. She has shown that she is a doughty campaigner; she passionately believes in her cause, and she has every right so to do.
I want to dwell on just one aspect: the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. I hope that I have shown that I am not afraid to vote against the government line; I have done so frequently recently and I do not regret it, because I have done what I thought was right.
When we take such a line, we ask the other place to think again. However much the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, may regret it, the other place has thought again. This is not the moment to introduce new amendments—to protract the ping-pong by bringing in a new ball. With proper deference to the elected House, we have to accept the line that it has taken. There are of course other arguments that one could deploy—it has been said that this is not the right Bill and all the rest of it—but the matter has gone to the other place; it has made its decision. We would be overemphasising our constitutional legitimacy if we sought to reject what it has said.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said, but equally I think that we are in danger of making this yes or no, black or white and getting ourselves boxed into corners. Something remarkable happened a couple of weeks ago. The Sun carried a story based on a report from the Resolution Foundation. I shall not go into the full details, but the Resolution Foundation had found that private renting was likely to increase by one-third over the next couple of decades and the Sun reported that there would be an 80% fall in owner occupation in that period, which it had somehow deduced from the one-third increase. That is not remarkable, but what is remarkable is that the charity Full Fact, of which I am deputy chairman, pointed out the error to it and—do you know what happened?—it apologised and corrected it.
This may just mean that the Sun has completely changed its coat and that, in future, we can expect page 3 to consist entirely of corrections of its errors, but there is another explanation, which is that the Sun realises, as does the whole press, the pressure that it is under from these Houses of Parliament and from the victims to mend its ways. The danger, however, is that that will last just so long as Section 40 has not been repealed and there is no Leveson 2, and then it will return to its old ways.
I think that there is a way through on this. In Amendment 109, the Government are introducing a requirement that the Information Commission review after four years how the press and media are getting on with data protection. If they were to widen that concept of a review after four years, it would keep the pressure on the newspapers to behave differently. I believe that they have made some progress. The institution of the arbitration scheme by IPSO, which was the glaring fault in its original constitution, was a big step forward even though it has its flaws. If we can keep the pressure on in the way that I suggest, by Ministers agreeing to extend Amendment 109 to a wider forum, we may find a solution to this mess without us having Lords versus Commons. Rather, we would meet a common need to have a better press free to report, as is its duty.
Lord Prescott
I am sorry for my earlier intervention. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was a Labour Member.
I declare an interest: I have twice been a victim of this. I do not have the clever words of the lawyers who constantly dominate this debate but we are talking about credibility, about a promise and about a Parliament that has agreed an action but is now about to reject it. That is a very important issue for both Houses to face. I say to the Minister that I support the noble Baroness’s amendment on a second inquiry. Indeed, I am pleased to see that Lord Leveson himself did so when the Government consulted him on it. To that extent, this is a political decision—a very political decision—that the Government have made.
I have three questions; I know that time is limited and I do not want to delay the House. My first question is based on my experience. I think that a second inquiry is necessary and should not just be into the events of the time. I do not think that things have changed, even with the so-called independent press body. We need to ask ourselves, what did the royal charter mean? When it was presented to the Commons, when I was still a Member there, we were told that the matter would be taken out of the political field—that it will be dealt with in a royal charter, we can all agree it together and there will be no division. Well, there is certainly division now, and it is still under the Queen’s charter. I ask the Minister: did they discuss this with the Privy Council or the Queen? We have actively involved her in a deliberate breach of a decision between the two Houses. We are, in that sense, divided. It is very political and on political lines, although it is all the opposition parties in the other place that have actually agreed on this. Did the Government consult the Queen on this? I was always told that you do not involve the Queen in the politics; that is why we use a royal charter. Well, by God, we have certainly involved her now, and we are divided. What is the position? Has she been advised about it and does she agree it? Is there any obligation to talk to her, and did the Government do so?
My second question concerns my interest as someone who was phone-hacked. I went to the courts and it was denied by everybody—by the press body, the police, the public prosecutor—so I had to win my case on the grounds of human rights, European human rights. I had to get it established that the hacking of my phone was a breach of my human rights. Since then, everybody has been telling me: “That is now the past; things have changed and you don’t have to worry. We can just get on with the business and not have a second enquiry”. Then, along comes the Sunday Times and Mr Witherow, its editor. We know from recent announcements in ongoing court cases that a man called John Ford was hired to commit criminal acts against individuals, including me and the Prime Minister at that time, Gordon Brown. It is clear from his statements, his bank accounts, his personal effects and the solicitors that we were all hacked and the victims of criminal acts by this Mr John Ford, who has made it absolutely clear everywhere that he was employed by Mr Witherow.
Now, of course, you might play around with the word “employed”, but he was paying him for 20 years. He might have been a separate investigator, but he was committing criminal acts and breaching the human rights of everyone involved. That has been announced in public statements by Mr John Ford. Indeed it was Mr Witherow who, when asked about the Leveson inquiry, when Gordon Brown was challenging him about things that happened then, said there was no truth in it. Well, Mr Witherow, you appear to be a liar. I know those are strong words used here, but you did not tell the truth, you did pay the money and you did commit criminal acts against people and breach their human rights. That, surely, in any democracy is wrong. Leveson showed it was wrong; he even pointed it out. We just ignored his recommendations. We are not entitled to do that, in my view. You can force the issue if you like and talk about the powers, telling us that we can disagree on day one but not on day two. You can say that as much as you like. There are very important issues involved here about the human rights of individuals. I am not talking about the real victims who have been betrayed by the Government, due to a manoeuvre with the Irish. But leave that aside—we can all have our opinions about that.
My third and final question is on something that I have never understood, although I have asked about it in every debate here. If the argument is about having these press regulations as recommended by Leveson, or most of them, why is it that they accuse us of a threat against democracy? They say that if editors are forced to register with government then that is the biggest threat to democracy. But I will ask again, although I never get an answer: why is it that every one of these newspapers registers in Ireland? The accountability in Ireland is controlled by a Minister in its Government but I think nobody is suggesting that there is no democratic accountability in Ireland. If the same newspapers can sign up for the same kind of accountability under a form of state regulation in Ireland, why can they not do it here? Perhaps they cannot do it here because of what they can get away with under a Government doing what they are at the moment.
Remember that there have been seven full inquiries into the press and they have always recommended a regulatory framework. That has always been defeated and it looks as if it will be defeated again. No doubt it will help among the press with me being just a politician. Perhaps it helps what they print if they have a Government supporting their issue. It might influence their opinion. For my mind, the issue is in the three questions that I have posed in all these debates. Why in Ireland? Why are they are at it again since Leveson, using illegal, criminal acts to breach the human rights of people? That is what the accusation was about and nothing has been done about it, except to protect them even further. As for the Queen, I would be interested to hear if it was talked over with her.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and in doing so I declare my interest as chair of the Manchester Arena review. Indeed, it is on this that I would like to speak first as it was referred to in the debate in the other House. I will come back to the noble Baroness’s amendment later. If your Lordships look at the terms of reference of the review, you will find no mention of us looking into the behaviour of the press. However, both the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the review panel were clear from the outset that the experiences of the bereaved families, the injured and others directly affected should be at the heart of the review process. It was through the contributions of those directly affected that the issues of media behaviour emerged.
The panel commissioned the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to support its work. Over 200 contributions were received via the NSPCC, most through email and a dedicated phone line. Members of the panel also met with those directly affected to hear their experiences in person. The panel itself heard from the family and friends of 11 of the 22 people who died. These contributions were made on an individual basis. They were strictly confidential apart from the need, should it arise, to share them with the coroner. I salute their enormous courage in reliving that experience in order that we might learn for the future. On a personal level, I felt truly humbled by their contributions.
Most of the participants who commented on their experiences of the media in the aftermath of the attack were negative. People talked about being hounded and bombarded; about having to force their way through scrums of reporters at hospitals who “wouldn’t take no for an answer”. Specific mention was made of photos being sneakily taken through the glass windows at the Etihad Stadium, when the families were being given news of their bereavement. Several people told of the physical presence of crews outside their homes. One mentioned the forceful attempt by a reporter to gain access through their front door by ramming a foot in the doorway. There were at least two examples of impersonation.
I personally heard from a family whose daughter was visited by a reporter at their home and given condolences on the death of her brother, while her parents were at the Etihad stadium waiting to hear the news. This took place on the morning following the attack. The families were not told that their son was likely to be among the fatalities until later that day. In another case I heard I was told of an injured member of a family being rung on her mobile by a journalist while in a hospital ward recovering from multiple operations to deal with her injuries. I could go on, but noble Lords can read the account for themselves in chapter 2 of our report.
It is important to say that a number of families spoke in praise of the sympathetic reporting, particularly by the Manchester Evening News, but also by other papers local to the bereaved. But overall, the panel were shocked and dismayed by these accounts. To have experienced such intrusive and overbearing behaviour at a time of such enormous vulnerability seemed to us to be completely unacceptable. By any measure, these actions fell well below the standards set out in the editors’ code of conduct.
The report does not name individual publications or news channels. This is because neither we nor the families concerned where in a position to confirm, when a journalist said they were from a particular publication, that this was indeed the case. Nor have there been many individual complaints to IPSO. The level of trauma experienced by these families, which they were still living with when I met them, meant that even if they were aware of the opportunity to complain to IPSO, the reality is that that was very unlikely to happen. Their focus, quite rightly, was not on press intrusion but on coping with family tragedy—something that consumes most if not all of the time and energy available to them. But I am in no doubt that a number of journalists, albeit a minority, behaved very badly towards these very vulnerable families and it is highly unlikely that they were all from foreign media.
In contrast to the fire and rescue service and Vodafone, which immediately issued full apologies on the issues we raised, the response from IPSO and other representative organisations to our media findings was very disappointing. To his credit, though, the chair of IPSO, Sir Alan Moses, has in subsequent correspondence with me acknowledged the seriousness of the issues and IPSO has produced an action plan to address our recommendations.
It was not the role of the review’s report to comment on the wider ramifications for the press. Our focus was on what specific action could be taken to prevent this happening again. But there is a real relevance to our debate because it points to the fact that, whatever improvements have been made in recent years, real issues still remain about the behaviour of the press, and in significant parts of the press there is still denial about these issues. I should say that I am a passionate believer in the independence of the press and its importance in a free society. Indeed, to the annoyance of some of my colleagues in central and local government, I argued forcefully against new proposed restrictions to the Freedom of Information Act being put forward by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, one Matt Hancock. It is certainly the first and probably the last time I will receive a favourable comment on the front page of the Daily Mail.
This love of papers was imbued in me from an early age. One of my father’s personal treats at the weekend was to buy a couple of extra newspapers to read. He always went for papers which did not reflect his particular views so that he could get a rounded picture. My love of newspapers, inherited from him, is not conditioned by whether or not they say kind things about me or even this House. If the price of having a free press is for noble Lords to put up with being described as “ripe for the abattoir”, that is a price worth paying. However, that licence cannot and should not be extended to ordinary members of the public who are vulnerable and not in a position to respond.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice
My Lords, I do not think anybody can listen to that description without being worried about the state of the press. There is no point pretending that everything is perfect. As a former and current practising journalist, I would not. I welcome the narrowing of the scope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has suggested, particularly the exclusion of local newspapers, but I suggest that in recognising the importance of that she has also recognised the significant burden that the kind of wide-ranging inquiry she is proposing would place not only on those papers but on all the others that would be covered by the remaining scope.
The last time I had the temerity to speak in this debate, the noble Lord who spoke after me said that he had heard quite enough from journalists, thank you. Actually, there are very few journalists in this House and, I suggest, very few people who understand just how difficult the task of investigative journalism is. Although the issues we are immediately concerned with in the amendment are about the salacious nature of journalism, I fear that even this amendment would touch on some of the important issues that I, as an investigative journalist, have dealt with.
I won the Paul Foot Award for exposing miscarriages of justice in the courts. As a result of that the Labour Government changed the law, I am pleased to say. I was also involved in the exposure of the Rotherham sex-grooming scandal at the Times with Andrew Norfolk, who was referred to earlier. I believe that Andrew Norfolk’s view about Section 40, as expressed by the Minister, is very important. He is at the front line of investigative journalism and understands what that would actually mean in practice. This should not be just about revenge. If we are going to legislative effectively, we have to think about exactly what we are trying to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, suggested that nothing has changed since his experiences. I suggest that a great deal has changed, and other Members have referred to that. The landscape is different. IPSO is a tougher regulator. I was so disturbed by some of the events in Manchester that I contacted IPSO to find out how it had dealt with them and how many complaints had been made. In fact—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, would agree—only one complaint was made to IPSO about the Daily Star; that complaint was upheld. There may be a problem, as he suggests, in that people could not trust exactly which publication they were talking to but we need to take that into account when we are reflecting on this.
We have heard today and in subsequent readings of the Bill about the significant new powers to be given to the Information Commissioner. I asked the Minister a question, which arose out of my ignorance, and was shocked to hear the scope of the new powers that are being so rapidly extended. We need to reflect on that again. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said earlier, one of the powers the Information Commissioner will get under House of Commons Amendment 109 is to review journalistic application of data protection laws. I would rather wait and see how that pans out. I suggest to the noble Lord that that will put significant pressure on the press.
I do not like public inquiries. They tend to be a last resort for Governments who do not know what to do. They are extremely expensive and work only when they have a specific end in mind.
My real fear about the amendment is that the specific end that many of its supporters have in mind is to reopen precisely the questions and amendments we have been debating and which have been defeated in the House of Commons, in particular those relating to Section 14 of the Crime and Courts Act. If we launched yet another public inquiry, of which the public would not be greatly supportive, we would reopen a series of questions, some of which would go back over old ground. I appreciate the promise of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to move forward—she is right on that—but we would open the door again to people who are keen to impose enormous costs and burdens upon the major newspaper groups. It would expose those groups to having to pay malicious damages in groundless, malicious lawsuits.
Let me remind noble Lords of the history of this House. When I arrived here I thought it was about defending free speech. I totally accept the concerns that have been raised—I do not believe that everything is perfect—but this amendment is not going to move us forward.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, standing on one leg will at least ensure my brevity. I declare an interest as deputy chairman of Telegraph Media Group.
I agree entirely with the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the advisability of sending this amendment back to the House of Commons. Were we to do so, we should remember a few points on the substance of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
First, we should always bear in mind that the amendment would produce yet another inquiry covering the same ground that has been ploughed over not only by the first Leveson inquiry but by three police investigations, at least three Select Committee inquiries, a Joint Committee of this House, the US Department of Justice and, in this country on the question of corporate liability, the DPP. There is little left to uncover.
Secondly, since Leveson reported, there has been a genuine, wholesale change in press regulation. We have moved from a voluntary complaints handling service, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, to a system of tough, legally enforceable regulation with strong powers of sanction. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is those tough legal powers which IPSO possesses that mean there could be no backsliding to the standards of the past.
Thirdly—this an important point we all need to bear in mind—since IPSO introduced a mandatory arbitration scheme in the past few weeks, there are virtually no lawful recommendations of Leveson that have not been introduced. It has produced a sea change in how newspapers are run, managed and deal with complaints, and in how journalists are trained and monitored.
Fourthly, since the first Leveson inquiry, the situation facing the press has changed dramatically. I note the noble Baroness seeks to cut out the local press from this but all publishers, including national ones, are under huge and sustained commercial pressure, which will not abate. It is a struggle for survival on a day-to-day basis, which will be made all the more complicated by having to wind the clock back 10 to 15 years to rake over a world which, frankly, no longer exists.
Fifthly, the biggest threat today to the sustainability of high-quality journalism comes from Google and Facebook, which are not even mentioned in the amendment. If we go down this route, in 20 years’ time people will ask why on earth this Parliament insisted on endlessly rerunning the repeats of an ancient black and white drama rather than looking at how journalism could survive in the global digital environment.
I have always been taught that this House must try to understand that, as an unelected Chamber, it needs at least to try to understand the realities of the outside world and take note of the will of the people. During a consultation on what is, in effect, this amendment, the people spoke in huge numbers and, by an overwhelming majority, rejected it. For all the reasons that I set out today, so should we.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness was here for the debate.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I was here during the previous amendment; of course I was. I was here in relation to the whole matter concerning this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I heard the references from the Front Bench to the particular part of the argument that has just been conducted, and I was here to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, speak about what was happening with this amendment and what had happened in the Commons. I shall carry on because I do not accept the comment made by the noble Lord.
I support the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for a number of reasons. One is that the question of ethics, and the ethics of the media, has really not been dealt with adequately so far. The other matters that really concern me are those concerning the police. So far, I am afraid, the police have got off rather lightly in the course of investigations into what took place regarding media misbehaviour. Unlike other lawyers—I know my noble friend Lord Prescott has a poor view of lawyers—I do not act for newspapers and have not done, nor do I have a column in any newspaper. However, I have acted for victims who have gone through court processes, I have acted for defendants who are on trial and I have acted in inquests, and I have to say that the story with regard to police behaviour is not good. Too often—I know this from direct experience—there have been leaks and tip-offs to the media by the police when people have been invited into police stations to be interviewed. Perhaps they are suspected or they are going to assist in an inquiry, but they end up being met at the police station doors by photographers and journalists. They are exposed to speculative pieces about why they were being seen by the police, and often they are chased and stalked by the paparazzi as a result.
You have to ask yourself why that happens. I am afraid that journalists covering criminal courts over the years have told me that often they would basically have police officers in their back pockets, and that meant the pocket that had their wallet in it. What was offered to police were bungs, pay-offs and “drinks”, as they were called euphemistically, for providing those tip-offs. They happen still, and they have happened subsequent to the Leveson inquiry: people who have been asked to come to police stations to be interviewed with regard to sexual matters but have not been charged—and no charges have, in the end, been forthcoming—have found themselves over the front pages of newspapers. At this very moment, Sir Cliff Richard is involved in litigation regarding that kind of collusion and coalition between the media and the police. I am concerned that the police still have not been looked at adequately for the role they have played in some of this particularly iniquitous conduct.
The second part of Leveson seems of real importance to the well-being of our nation. If there is corruption in our police—if they are able to do this and to supplement their incomes by doing it, and there is money available in the media to do it—we know that something is seriously wrong. I hope the House has that in mind. Sometimes the purpose of a public inquiry is to air such matters and make clear the seriousness with which such corruption and misbehaviour is viewed.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I should declare a few interests. The first is that I was the victim of a kiss and tell story in a Sunday tabloid newspaper: front page and eight inside pages. I was also, separately, the victim of phone hacking. Thirdly, I joined the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, in his civil action under the Human Rights Act. Fourthly, I am a former senior police officer.
Briefly, on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the rather rosy picture he has of civil actions being taken by victims of phone hacking, and referencing what the noble Lord, Lord Black, said about the reality of what goes on outside, my reality was that yes, I had lawyers working on a conditional fee agreement—no win, no fee. I was told at the beginning of the process that I could get insurance against losing. Three months into the action, when tens of thousands of pounds had been spent by both sets of lawyers, it was established that I could not get insurance against losing. If I had stopped the action at that point, I would have had to pay the costs not only of the newspapers’ lawyers but my lawyers, because a conditional fee agreement works only if you go through with the action and then lose. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for ordinary people to take on newspapers through the courts in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, presented it to the House earlier.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that, yes, the other place considered a previous amendment that we put to them. This is a different amendment. It addresses many of the concerns expressed in the other place, and the other place should have the opportunity to consider this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice, and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, both talked about the enormous burdens on major newspaper groups. We need to consider the enormous burdens placed on innocent victims of the media.
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, made the point that there were few journalists here. As far as I know, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I are the only remaining film-makers—and I think that we do know how to edit. I would very much like to support the amendment perfectly set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It should not be necessary to say this in your Lordships’ House but, once again, I reiterate that I am the proud son of a journalist and would die in a ditch to protect a responsible and fearless free press. But freedom of any sort brings its own responsibilities, and the greatest of these is the sustaining of trust. This short debate is all about trust.
The Minister in another place said he was being “forward-looking”. I am sure that I speak for many in this House when I suggest that the most forward-looking ambition that we share is the possibility that we might, over time, regain the trust of the people of this country in the quality and integrity of Parliament. As I see it, this ambition trumps all others—and to judge by recent coverage in our national press we are not coming from a particularly good place in that respect.
On the evidence of the past 20 years or so, much of the national press takes the position that its role in society is so important that Parliament needs to get over itself, and understand that in the real world you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. The view that it appears to advance is that, to remain sustainable, injustice, distortion, deception, abuse and even at times criminality are the price that society is required to pay for a robust, unfettered press. What if the Church took a similar position with regard to misconduct in its own ranks, or our judges argued that an acceptance of illegal practice in the collection of evidence was a necessary price to pay in the pursuit of justice? At the height of the financial crisis we came close to being persuaded by the banks that their reckless behaviour was justified by the pressures placed on them by their shareholders. I would argue, as has been very well put many times during the passage of this Bill, that society cannot afford the luxury of entirely unconstrained freedoms—not in the law, the Church, the financial sector, social media and even the press.
The reasons why Leveson 2 is necessary were well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in setting out her amendment. Personally, I have not the slightest doubt that such a review would reveal an extensive and entirely improper set of relationships between the press, politicians and the police, with the very real possibility that significant cases of actual obstruction of justice would come to light. It seems just possible that, in making that suggestion, I have stumbled across the real reason for the Government’s desire to scrap this second and, to my mind, more important inquiry.
I have just two specific questions to put to the Minister. First, having checked, I can find no record of the former Prime Minister having expressed a view on the unprecedented repudiation of his commitment to Parliament, let alone the breach of his well-publicised personal promises to the victims of press abuse. Has he been asked about, and has he indeed endorsed, the recent decision by the Secretary of State? Is Mr Cameron prepared to meet the victims to explain what factors or new revelations encouraged him to change his mind on this matter—if he has? Possibly the Minister, or even the media, might choose to inquire. Further, does the Minister feel that the precedent set by the decision to scrap Leveson 2 is likely to enhance or diminish the likelihood of overcoming the challenge I referred to at the outset—the ambition of all responsible politicians to develop greater public belief in the honesty and integrity of Parliament in general and of the Government that he serves in particular?
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a television producer who has been involved in investigative programmes for the BBC and other channels. I listened with horror to the stories of victims that my noble friend Lord Kerslake told, and I am sure that I was as appalled as the rest of the House. In previous debates, my noble friend Lady Hollins has also talked about victims’ stories, which must also have appalled us all. However, I ask the House to consider how the amendment could rebalance the relationship between the right to privacy of the individual and the right to freedom of expression, in favour of the former.
I am particularly concerned about proposed new subsection (3)(f) of the amendment, which looks innocent enough—and I think that it would help the victims of phone hacking, which of course is something I welcome. However, it might come at a terrible cost to freedom of expression. This morning I spoke to a number of representatives of the most responsible newspapers and broadcasters about their fears over this proposed new subsection. They are concerned that switching the balance between free speech and the privacy rights of the individual will raise the bar for the way in which publication in the public interest is viewed by the courts. As someone who has worked in the media for many years, I fear that even the prospect of the bar being raised will have a chilling effect on investigative journalism. Editors will be afraid to commission investigative stories for fear of not being able to publish them. Likewise, it will empower lawyers who want to defend the privacy of wealthy individuals.
I have looked at the case brought against the BBC and the Guardian newspaper for the publication of the Paradise papers, which exposed no illegality but revealed, on an industrial scale, the avoidance of paying British tax by huge corporations and wealthy individuals. The purpose of the publication was not only to expose the actions of individuals and corporations but to focus British public and political opinion on the nature of offshore investments and tax avoidance—which I would argue is definitely in the public interest. Yet the lawyers at Appleby, the offshore legal firm at the centre of the Paradise papers affair, used a breach of confidence case against the media’s use of privileged documents to target the organisations involved.
The case has been settled, but if it had gone to full trial the judge would have had to weigh up the right to privacy of the individual against the public interest in publishing the documents. In all these cases, editors must take into account the possibility of losing, even when publication is demonstrably in the public interest. An inquiry into rebalancing rights of privacy against freedom of expression will further increase that anxiety. I am concerned not just about the rebalancing of rights to the detriment of free speech; I am concerned also that this amendment will be a distraction from the implementation of a complicated series of new legal powers introduced by the Bill. Many of these will be challenged by the courts and will consume a huge amount of time on the part of media organisations, as all sides struggle to ensure that the very worthwhile measures set out in the Bill are put into full effect. The amendment is retrospective and potentially damaging to the Bill and to free speech in this country. I urge noble Lords to vote against it.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. This has been a passionate debate so far and there is, no doubt, more to come. However, there has been a definite lack of balance. There has been no mention of the good that the press has done over the many decades that I have been a newspaper reader. We can go back to Harry Evans and thalidomide; to MPs’ expenses in the Telegraph; we can talk about phone hacking itself, which was exposed by newspapers; the noble Viscount has just brought the Paradise papers to the attention of the House.
Addressing myself to the amendment, I have spent a lifetime on both sides of the media fence, as editor-in-chief of ITV and Channel 4; as a Daily Mirror sports journalist 150 years ago, when Charlton Athletic used to win; and, too often, as the subject of media scrutiny and—putting it at its most charitable—the victim of some very painful criticism. I have several reasons for opposing the amendment. First, if there is a principle underlying the proposed new inquiry into the press et cetera, how can regional newspapers be exempt? Is it a principle or is it not? If there is a problem, pleading poverty should not excuse you.
Secondly, lumping the press and broadcasting with social media on the issue of misuse of data is to misunderstand entirely the nature of the problem we face. Newspapers and broadcasters are governed very strictly in their handling of data, not only by regulators but by the Information Commissioner’s Office, with a carefully crafted exemption for public interest data searches. The ICO is a statutory body with draconian powers which it is not afraid to exercise. We know that Facebook and its ilk are displaying scant regard for data privacy. I am sure that noble Lords all agree that the Cambridge Analytica issue is the tip of the iceberg. Traditional media offer no evidence to justify this lumping together in the amendment.
Thirdly, I suspect that lying behind the amendment is yet another attempt to exercise some statutory controls or levers over our free media. Any inquiry, not least that envisaged by this amendment, is bound to produce recommendations, with the risk to free speech of some statutory device, overt or covert, buried in them.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I too respectfully resist this amendment. I will touch on one point: the suggestion that Leveson 2 was promised and the Government are now brazenly breaking that promise. I suggest that that is not so. Were the public inquiry required by this amendment to go ahead, it would be a very different inquiry from that which was originally contemplated and promised by way of a further stage of Leveson. Consider the differences between Amendment 142 that this House originally passed, confined as that was to news publishers, and extending as it did to regional and local newspapers. That is totally different from the amendment now suggested, which is almost the same as the one that was rejected by the other place last week.
Consider the differences in the legal landscape—IPSO, about which much has been said. I should perhaps declare that I was one of the body of five who appointed IPSO, but that is hardly the point. Lord Justice Moses was a colleague of mine, as was Lord Justice Leveson, and both are of equal seniority and equally high reputation.
Consider all that has been learned from the series of cases since Leveson 1. While certainly not agreeing to the abandonment of any further inquiry, Leveson himself recognised changes in the legal landscape in the letter that has been referred to, referring on page 5 to how,
“the guidance from the College of Policing regarding Media Relations represents significant change”,
and recognised the fact that work is currently under way on a digital charter. This inquiry would also require investigation into issues which, frankly, have nothing very obviously to do with this Bill on data protection. It would require an investigation into whether suspects should be named before charge or conviction. That is a difficult, important and interesting question, but it is not something that obviously arises now.
Inquiries are sometimes compellingly necessary, but it is no good pretending that they are invariably the panacea that they are cracked up to be. Note some of the difficulties in, for example, the historical sex abuse inquiry, the inquiry into undercover policing and so on. I respectfully suggest that a further inquiry is not required here.
My noble friend Lord Pannick is not always right. You have only to read his column in last week’s Times which extolled your Lordships’ decision to maintain the European Charter of Fundamental Rights despite Brexit to realise that he is not always right. But right he is on this issue, and I suggest that your Lordships do not pass this amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I declare an interest: I understand that Mr John Ford has alleged that 15 years ago he went through my rubbish on a regular basis at the request of the Sunday Times. I find it impossible to believe that anyone would find my rubbish interesting. That has had no effect whatever on my opinions with regard to this issue, and I supported the continuation of Leveson 2 even before I discovered that Mr John Ford had apparently been going through my rubbish.
I am strongly of the view that this House should send the amendment back to the Commons for further consideration, for the following reasons. First, there is no doubt, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, just said, that there was an unequivocal promise by the House of Commons and this House that there would be part 2 of Leveson. I quote the then Prime Minister:
“One of the things that the victims have been most concerned about is that part 2 of the investigation should go ahead … and that is fully our intention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/11/12; col. 458.]
That was said by the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, after the delivery of part 1. To my mind it is incredibly important that, if you set up a public inquiry, before the public inquiry has been able to reach findings on who was responsible for what happened—probably because of pressure from the people who might be responsible—the second part of that public inquiry is not scrapped. But that is what is happening here. My experience of when the justice system fails is that the victims feel that they have nowhere to go, and that corrodes not just their view of the justice system but a large number of people’s view of it. I particularly have in mind the Hillsborough victims, who were denied justice by a coroner’s system and who felt that the whole justice system let them down.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, says, “Oh, things have changed”. Who is the best judge of that? I suggest it is Sir Brian Leveson, who said that,
“there is still a legitimate expectation on behalf of the public and, in particular, the alleged victims of phone hacking and other unlawful conduct, that there will be a full examination of the circumstances that allowed that behaviour to”,
take place. He said that when he was consulted on the question of whether part 2 should be scrubbed.
Therefore, I regard the promise as important and the reneging of it as something that will corrode justice. It will affect not only the victims but other people, and I utterly reject the complacency of the noble and listed Lord, Lord Cormack, to the effect that we should not press this any further. Yes, we sent the Bill back with a clause which the Commons took out, but the right thing for this House to do is to ask them to think again, particularly when last time there was a majority of nine. If we debate this well and give the reasons, it is worth doing.
Therefore for me, the first point is the promise. The second point is that the problem is still there. The speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was appalling, not in its quality but in what it told us. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that the solution to this was “civil litigation or criminal proceedings”. Can you imagine the people that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, described, who have been hounded—his word—by the press, thinking of bringing civil litigation to complain that the first they heard that their loved one had died was when a representative of the press came round? Pull the other one! Get out of the courts and think about what the real world is like.
Then people said that IPSO had made a difference—the IPSO that two weeks ago, in the face of this Bill going through Parliament, in a great rush and with no explanation of why it had not done it before, suddenly introduced a low-cost arbitration scheme. Why did it do it? It did it because Parliament was breathing down its neck. If Leveson 2 is got rid of, let us be under no illusion that that will be the end of that. Things will be just as they have been in the past. I cannot remember which Peer described IPSO as absolutely marvellous. It might have been the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. No, I am sorry; it was another noble Lord. So far IPSO has not imposed a single fine; it has not demanded a single equal-prominence front page direction; and it has not launched a single systematic inquiry, as it has the power to do. There have been 8,000 complaints about hate crime so far and only one has been upheld. We should not accept the proposition that IPSO has solved the problem.
The fourth reason it is said that we should not have this inquiry is that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice, said, it would threaten to chill investigative journalism. However, what is being proposed here is not a specific provision to change the press. It is for a judge of standing to see what should be done next, and I have absolutely no doubt that a new judge would be able to do so, having no doubt heard the evidence from the people the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was speaking to on the telephone this morning, and just as Sir Brian Leveson managed to do.
Fifthly, people ask, “What about social media?” Exactly: what about social media? Facebook and so on are a real problem, and that is why the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has included social media in her proposed new subsection (3)(d). Sir Brian Leveson wants to have part 2 of the inquiry and it has been amended to deal with the changes. It would be a disgrace and a betrayal of the victims if we did not go ahead with it. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare former interests as the last chair of the Press Complaints Commission between 2011 and 2014, and then as the first chair of the new Independent Press Standards Organisation, IPSO, together with my other interests as set out in the register.
As the Secretary of State said in his Statement of 1 March this year, repeated here, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson. His inquiry and subsequent report showed rigour, diligence and a judicious balance between competing interests. When his report was published in December 2012, Lord Justice Leveson recommended a new, tougher form of voluntary self-regulation of the press. As chair of the PCC at the time, I welcomed his proposals and suggested that they should be implemented in full.
The Leveson proposals were largely implemented between 2012 and 2014, but I was not able, at that stage, to persuade the newspaper industry to embrace them in their entirety. Since then, under my successor, Sir Alan Moses, the new arrangements have bedded down and IPSO has gradually become more and more compliant with the Leveson recommendations.
I strongly welcome the introduction of the new arbitration scheme, which was introduced not in a rush, as the noble and learned Lord has just said, but after extensive consultation, and it is a major step forward. I say to a number of other speakers that illegal activity, as distinct from breaches of the editors’ code, is best dealt with by the police and the courts, and that has now largely happened—belatedly, yes, but also comprehensively.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The amendment includes the words,
“to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories”.
It would have said “fake news” but the draftspeople said that that would not be the right way to term it. Therefore, I think it covers the sorts of things that the noble Lord thinks it should, or am I wrong?
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I raise fake news as an issue not because it is or is not covered by the amendment but because it must concern us all, particularly as a society.
There are good reasons for rejecting the amendment. It would be an analogue inquiry in an overwhelmingly digital age. It would also—rightly, in my view—be seen as yet another attempt by politicians to meddle in the internal affairs of news media and, ultimately, to muzzle free expression.
This country, which should be a beacon of free expression in a world bedevilled by state censorship, has just fallen from 30th to 40th in the global ranking for free speech, according to a survey conducted by independent minds right across the world. Let that sink in my lords: from 30th to 40th. It is shaming. What message are we now to send out? That the free media are enemies of the state? They may be unruly and they may challenge us in ways that make us uncomfortable, but they are not our enemies.
Furthermore, it concerns me that we are playing around with the Salisbury convention. The noble and learned Lord has just spoken about promises. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, this amendment flies directly in the face of last year’s Conservative Party manifesto. On page 80, that document said that,
“we will not proceed with the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press”.
That was pretty clear. I know that the Labour Party had a euphoric moment after the last general election, almost persuading itself that it had won, but it did not.
I take no comfort from the qualifying words that the noble Baroness has added to her amendment this time around. We are dealing here with profound matters that touch on the very basis of our society and our political philosophy, and the question of whether we truly cherish our freedom of expression and our free media. I suppose ping-pong can be an enjoyable pastime but at some point the views of the elected House must prevail. I have the utmost respect for the noble Baroness and the greatest sympathy for the unacceptable treatment that she and her family, and far too many others, have received from the press. Having said that, I sincerely hope she will not seek to divide the House again on this matter.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said, this has been a passionate and, actually, very balanced debate. A number of noble Lords have expressed concern about the amendment before us and have, sort of, made a case against it.
When the noble Lord, Lord Black, came in, struggling on his crutches, I did think: is there no end to which this man will not go to get sympathy from this House? I wish him a speedy recovery.
When introducing the debate, the Minister said first that these amendments have no place in the Bill because it is about data protection and then began to dazzle us with the number of government amendments that pertain to the media. Of course it is perfectly sensible that this matter should be in the Bill.
By the way, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, that I did not say I object to journalists; I object to journalists at the Times. She mentioned the growing power of the ICO in all this, which is something that the press should think hard about. The press have been so busy trying to avoid having a proper regulator for themselves that they find themselves well and truly regulated by a powerful ICO. Where the ICO does not regulate the press, the courts may with some of the judgments that are coming down the track.
As always, the perorations against, as with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have been about freedom and liberty, as though we on this side are not as passionate in our defence of those. Today’s debate has produced the usual press stories that crop up when either House debates the issue. They always either rubbish one or other of the more popular proponents of reform or carry, as did the Evening Standard just before the Commons debate, such headlines as that from the Commons Culture Minister, Margot James: “We will lose freedom of the press if MPs back new curbs”. It is my belief that the real defenders of press freedom are not the Ministers scrambling to close Leveson down but those of us who want to see a press that is respected and trusted, as well as free.
When the Commons debated our amendment, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, the new Erskine May, said rather imperiously that Parliament had every right to renege on promises made by a predecessor. Of course, he is right—we know that, Jacob. However, it is also a long and honourable convention that there is a continuity of responsibility from one Parliament and one Government to another. We saw it last week when the Prime Minister gave a full and unequivocal apology to the Libyan family for Britain’s part in their rendition and subsequent torture, although it did not happen on her watch. The long tradition of continuity of responsibility means that a promise given by one Prime Minister and one Parliament is unlikely to be abandoned by another. There is a double matter of honour when the promise in question was made by a Prime Minister of the party now in power. David Cameron gave such commitments, and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, gives the House of Commons a way of redeeming that promise while taking into account the passage of time since it was made.
I often find that, when I am indignant having read in the newspaper or seen on TV some summing up or sentence by a judge, my lawyer friends will say, “Ah, but the judge who has heard all the evidence is the best placed to make a balanced judgment on the matter”. In this case, we have the balanced judgment of Sir Brian Leveson himself. Let us remember, after the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that Sir Brian had all the information they had to make their speeches but came to a different conclusion: that it should go on. As I said when the Leveson letter first came up, here is the third most senior judge in the land taking six pages in a very carefully argued letter to give his views on the inquiry on which he spent a year of his life. Some noble and learned Lords in the House should have a little modesty when challenging his judgment because it is absolutely clear that Leveson 2 should go ahead. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has already quoted from the letter, so I will not waste time.
The amendment before us is proportionate to the task at hand in addressing issues not yet adequately addressed. It redeems a solemn promise made by our Prime Minister and our Parliament. Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of Index on Censorship, when briefing against these proposals before the Commons debate, said that she wanted,
“a free, vibrant, independent and troublesome media”.
So do I, and so does the proposer of the amendment. The biggest threat to a free, vibrant, independent and troublesome media is one so held in public contempt because of corrupt and illegal practices that few defenders will come to its aid if press freedom is really threatened.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, that, when the Leveson inquiry exposed sins and criminality, the Government of the day could at that time have done anything they liked to the press. What they did was make a strong attempt to create something as far from political control as possible—I was one of the privy counsellors who signed the royal charter. It is absolutely false to claim that the attempt was to create a state-controlled press. That was never on the table and it is not on the table now.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been brave in carrying through on Section 40, has said that we will not press it beyond tonight. I am interested to see which bit of legislation will include its repeal and how that will be favoured when it comes back to us. I say to the Minister: this is not the end of Section 40.
Tonight, we are looking for something more. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, have shown, we are looking at something for the victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, should note that it is also something for journalists who need protection from being bullied into illegal acts by their employers. Most of all, it is for our own self-respect in keeping a promise made. I urge support for this amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we are 90 minutes in and we have heard lots of familiar tropes rehashed and replayed, but have we achieved very much in this debate? While sitting here I have been wondering how on earth one brings together the two very different sides that are emerging in this debate. I whispered to my colleagues on my right and left asking for help and support, and all I got was, “You need the judgment of Solomon on this”, and I do not have that. However, we are going to ask noble Lords to vote on this issue, and so I want us to think very hard about what we have been doing here.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for setting out the thinking behind her Amendments 62A and 62B. As we have heard, they seek to insert an amended version of Clause 142 into the Bill, in contrast to the Commons amendments, which would remove it. I have already set out the Government’s reasons for opposing the inclusion of Clause 142 in this Bill, and I regret to say that the modest changes proposed by Amendments 62A and 62B do not change that analysis. In particular, nothing in the amendments answers the fundamental challenge that creating a further public inquiry is neither necessary nor proportionate at this point in time.
I remind noble Lords that it was this present Government, following a public consultation and in implementing a manifesto commitment, who took the present step, which was approved in the other place. My noble friend Lord Cormack alluded to the fact that the other place had already addressed this issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, came back with an accusation directed against my noble friend Lord Cormack of complacency. I have seen my noble friend accused of many things, but complacency is certainly not one of them. I regard that accusation as utterly misplaced and inappropriate.
Indeed, I take issue with some of the other factual assertions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in particular his assertion that no front-page apology had appeared in any IPSO publication since it was founded. I think he will find that may be borne out upon a reading of the Times in the recent past.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My statement was that no front-page apology of equal prominence has been made mandated. Am I wrong about that?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord chose his words very carefully previously. As I understand it, IPSO did mandate a front-page apology in the Times.
Lord Keen of Elie
All things are relative.
I appreciate that a great deal of passion has been exhibited, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about a passionate and balanced debate; it has been both. It has certainly been balanced when we consider the contributions made on all sides of the House. However, I would seek to touch on one or two points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, raised the question of Northern Ireland. To clarify in respect of that matter, the commitment made last week did not relate to the Cairncross review; it related to the review that would be carried out pursuant to Commons Amendment 109, in particular paragraph 4 which refers to a review that will take into account all parts of the United Kingdom and will ensure that there is an independent named reviewer for Northern Ireland. I hope that that covers the point.
My noble friend Lord Attlee raised certain issues with regard to VAT. He is right about VAT on e-publications, which are classified as electronic services. EU VAT law specifically excludes such services from the reduced rate of VAT. Further consideration of that matter is beyond my pay grade and is one for Her Majesty’s Treasury in due course, so I shall not elaborate upon that. As regards the repeal of Section 40, the Government are committed to doing that at an appropriate time on the basis of appropriate legislation, so the noble Lord, Lord McNally, can anticipate that coming forward in due course.
I shall move on to certain points that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. On the royal charter, the Press Recognition Panel, which was set up by the charter, remains a feature of our regulatory landscape so there is no need to intrude upon the charter or to consult further on it at the present time. On his reference to the Sunday Times and the allegations regarding John Ford, that was a matter of self-incrimination as far as I can see in respect of criminal acts that took place before 2011; they are not recent events. On the position regarding Ireland, the press may sign up to the Press Council of Ireland, but they are not obliged to do so, in order to secure the benefits of being members of that council. They may approach that by a different regulatory regime, provided that it has suitable terms, so I do not consider that we can go immediately to that.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, to the Manchester Arena review. I appreciate his direct involvement in that, and of course we recognise that for the victims and their families, dealing with the media at such a time can be very distressing. In fact, the Government have recently published guidance for victims and their families on handling media attention in the aftermath of similar events, but diverse reports with regard to the media have come out of that. As the noble Lord observed, only one complaint was made to IPSO regarding the conduct of the regulated media at Manchester, and on 24 April 2018 at a meeting of the National Police Chiefs’ Council on media engagement, the senior press officer at Greater Manchester Police observed that after the Manchester Arena bombing, the media had been exceptional and had treated everyone involved with the utmost respect. In her view, the only qualification was in respect of certain international outlets and social media which had caused families problems. There are clearly diverse views—
Lord Kerslake
I want to put a question to the Minister. Does he not accept that families experiencing this level of trauma and distress are simply not in a position to make formal complaints to IPSO? It is a failed and incorrect test of the extent of the issue.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, that is not the test. Of course, families in this situation are placed in a very difficult position and we recognise that. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, had an opportunity in the course of preparing his report to actually interview the senior press officer at Greater Manchester Police, although he will be aware of the view she has expressed with regard to the media’s behaviour, but he did not mention that in his earlier speech to the House. There are diverse views and interpretations of what was happening at the time.
Lord Puttnam
Does the Minister believe that the reputation of Parliament is enhanced or diminished by the refutation of the commitment made by the former Prime Minister?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is neither. It is a situation in which we have moved on and, as I say, the Government have, following a public consultation, implemented a manifesto commitment. It is in those circumstances that we are proceeding.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 56 to 61.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62.
Baroness Hollins
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 62B instead of the words so left out of the Bill”.
“Data protection breaches by national news publishers
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations.
(2) Before setting the terms of reference of and other arrangements for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Scotland;
(b) consult Northern Ireland Ministers and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly with a view to ensuring, in particular, that the inquiry will consider the separate legal context and other circumstances of Northern Ireland;
(c) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims of data protection breaches committed by, on behalf of or in relation to, national news publishers and other media organisations; and
(d) consult persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of national news publishers and other media organisations (having regard in particular to organisations representing journalists).
(3) The terms of reference for the inquiry must include requirements—
(a) to inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations in respect of personal data;
(b) to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to failures to investigate wrongdoing at media organisations within the scope of the inquiry;
(c) to review the protections and provisions around media coverage of individuals subject to police inquiries, including the policy and practice of naming suspects of crime prior to any relevant charge or conviction;
(d) to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories, by social media organisations using personal data;
(e) to consider the adequacy of the current regulatory arrangements and the resources, powers and approach of the Information Commissioner and any other relevant authorities in relation to—
(i) the news publishing industry (except in relation to entities regulated by Ofcom) across all platforms and in the light of experience since 2012;
(ii) social media companies;
(f) to make such recommendations as appear to the inquiry to be appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals are balanced with the right to freedom of expression, while supporting the integrity and freedom of the press, and its independence (including independence from Government), and encouraging the highest ethical and professional standards.
(4) In setting the terms of reference for the inquiry the Secretary of State must—
(a) have regard to the current context of the news, publishing and general media industry;
(b) set appropriate parameters for determining which allegations are to be considered;
(c) determine the meaning and scope of references to “national news publishers” and “other media organisations” for the purposes of the inquiry under this section; and
(d) include exemptions or limitations designed to exclude local and regional publishers from the scope of the inquiry.
(5) Before complying with subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the judge or other person whom they intend to invite to chair the inquiry.
(6) The inquiry—
(a) may, so far as it considers appropriate, consider evidence given to previous public inquiries;
(b) may, so far as it considers appropriate, take account of the findings of and evidence given to previous public inquiries (and the inquiry must consider using this power for the purpose of avoiding the waste of public resources); and
(c) must, in particular, consider to what extent previous public inquiries have investigated, and made findings in relation to, events in connection with Northern Ireland within the inquiry‘s terms of reference, and must take such further evidence and make such further recommendations in respect of those matters as the inquiry considers appropriate.
Baroness Hollins
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and for supporting this amendment, and I should just say that I do not enjoy ping-pong. The amendment returned from the Commons was defeated by only nine votes and I have endeavoured to address the concerns raised in the three adjustments that I have made to the amendment. I want to make a couple of brief comments about those.
First, the amendment addresses the DUP’s proper and reasonable concerns in a transparent way by offering a proper inquiry into press conduct in Northern Ireland. Secondly, I have made an adjustment to exclude the local press from the scope of the inquiry altogether. Thirdly, in response to misrepresentations in some parts of the media, I have added a requirement for the inquiry’s recommendations to take full account of the need for freedom of the press to achieve a vibrant and independent media, and the importance of the independence of the press from Government.
Holding an inquiry will not restrict freedom; rather, it will support it by shining a spotlight on what has been done illegally and unethically to the detriment of hundreds of ordinary people, including my daughter and my family before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House. As explained by my noble friend Lord Kerslake regarding his findings after the Manchester Arena bombing, there is no evidence that enough lessons have been learned by all sections of the media or that there is adequate accountability. I do not consider that the review by the Information Commissioner is in any way a substitute for completing the inquiry. The job has not been done, and with respect to IPSO, I believe I am right in saying that so far only around 12 of more than 90 of Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations have been implemented. In formally moving my amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 63 to 114.
(b) require any person to provide the Commissioner with information that the Commissioner reasonably requires for the purposes of—
(i) investigating a suspected failure of a type described in section 148(2) or a suspected offence under this Act, or
(ii) determining whether the processing of personal data is carried out by an individual in the course of a purely personal or household activity.”
(a) whether it is given under subsection (1)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii), and
(b) ”
(a) the consequences of failure to comply with it, and
(b) the rights under sections 161 and (Applications in respect of urgent notices) (appeals etc).”
“( ) Section 3(14)(b) does not apply to the reference to the processing of personal data in subsection (1)(b).”
“Information orders
(1) This section applies if, on an application by the Commissioner, a court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with a requirement of an information notice.
(2) The court may make an order requiring the person to provide to the Commissioner some or all of the following—
(a) information referred to in the information notice;
(b) other information which the court is satisfied the Commissioner requires, having regard to the statement included in the notice in accordance with section 143(2)(b).
(3) The order—
(a) may specify the form in which the information must be provided,
(b) must specify the time at which, or the period within which, the information must be provided, and
(c) may specify the place where the information must be provided.”
“( ) provide the Commissioner with an explanation of such documents, information, equipment or material;”
(a) the consequences of failure to comply with it, and
(b) the rights under sections 161 and (Applications in respect of urgent notices) (appeals etc).”
( ) does not meet the conditions in subsection (8A)(a) to (d),”
“(8A) If an assessment notice—
(a) states that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a controller or processor has failed or is failing as described in section 148(2) or that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed,
(b) indicates the nature of the suspected failure or offence,
(c) does not specify domestic premises,
(d) states that, in the Commissioner’s opinion, it is necessary for the controller or processor to comply with a requirement in the notice in less than 7 days, and
(e) gives the Commissioner’s reasons for reaching that opinion, subsections (6) and (7) do not apply.”
“domestic premises” means premises, or a part of premises, used as a dwelling;”
“Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc
(1) This section applies where a person—
(a) has been given an information notice requiring the person to provide the Commissioner with information, or
(b) has been given an assessment notice requiring the person to direct the Commissioner to a document, equipment or other material or to assist the Commissioner to view information.
(2) It is an offence for the person—
(a) to destroy or otherwise dispose of, conceal, block or (where relevant) falsify all or part of the information, document,
(b) to cause or permit the destruction, disposal, concealment, blocking or (where relevant) falsification of all or part of the information, document, equipment or material, with the intention of preventing the Commissioner from viewing, or being provided with or directed to, all or part of the information, document, equipment or material.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove that the destruction, disposal, concealment, blocking or falsification would have occurred in the absence of the person being given the notice.”
“( ) may make provision about the giving of an information notice, an assessment notice or a penalty notice, or about powers of entry and inspection, in connection with the failure, including by amending sections 143, 144, 146, 147 and 154 to 156 and Schedules 15 and 16, and”
(a) the consequences of failure to comply with it, and
(b) the rights under sections 161 and (Applications in respect of urgent notices) (appeals etc).”
“(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in the case of a decision or determination relating to a failure described in section 148(5).”
“( ) information notices,”
“( ) In relation to information notices, the guidance must include—
(a) provision specifying factors to be considered in determining the time at which, or the period within which, information is to be required to be provided;
(b) provision about the circumstances in which the Commissioner would consider it appropriate to give an information notice to a person in reliance on section 143(7) (urgent cases);
(c) provision about how the Commissioner will determine how to proceed if a person does not comply with an information notice.”
“( ) provision about the circumstances in which the Commissioner would consider it appropriate to give an assessment notice in reliance on section 146(8) or (8A) (urgent cases);”
“( ) provision about how the Commissioner will determine how to proceed if a person does not comply with an assessment notice.”
“( ) In relation to enforcement notices, the guidance must include—
(a) provision specifying factors to be considered in determining whether to give an enforcement notice to a person;
(b) provision about the circumstances in which the Commissioner would consider it appropriate to give an enforcement notice to a person in reliance on section 149(8) (urgent cases);
(c) provision about how the Commissioner will determine how to proceed if a person does not comply with an enforcement notice.”
“( ) provision about how the Commissioner will determine how to proceed if a person does not comply with a penalty notice.”
“Applications in respect of urgent notices
(1) This section applies where an information notice, an assessment notice or an enforcement notice given to a person contains an urgency statement.
(2) The person may apply to the court for either or both of the following—
(a) the disapplication of the urgency statement in relation to some or all of the requirements of the notice;
(b) a change to the time at which, or the period within which, a requirement of the notice must be complied with.
(3) On an application under subsection (2), the court may do any of the following—
(a) direct that the notice is to have effect as if it did not contain the urgency statement;
(b) direct that the inclusion of the urgency statement is not to have effect in relation to a requirement of the notice;
(c) vary the notice by changing the time at which, or the period within which, a requirement of the notice must be complied with;
(d) vary the notice by making other changes required to give effect to a direction under paragraph (a) or (b) or in consequence of a variation under paragraph (c).
(4) The decision of the court on an application under this section is final. (5) In this section, “urgency statement” means—
(a) in relation to an information notice, a statement under section 143(7)(a),
(b) in relation to an assessment notice, a statement under section 146(8)(a) or (8A)(d), and
(c) in relation to an enforcement notice, a statement under section 149(8)(a).”
“Guidance about how to seek redress against media organisations
(1) The Commissioner must produce and publish guidance about the steps that may be taken where an individual considers that a media organisation is failing or has failed to comply with the data protection legislation.
(2) In this section, “media organisation” means a body or other organisation whose activities consist of or include journalism.
(3) The guidance must include provision about relevant complaints procedures, including—
(a) who runs them,
(b) what can be complained about, and
(c) how to make a complaint.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), relevant complaints procedures include procedures for making complaints to the Commissioner, the Office of Communications, the British Broadcasting Corporation and other persons who produce or enforce codes of practice for media organisations.
(5) The guidance must also include provision about—
(a) the powers available to the Commissioner in relation to a failure to comply with the data protection legislation,
(b) when a claim in respect of such a failure may be made before a court and how to make such a claim,
(c) alternative dispute resolution procedures,
(d) the rights of bodies and other organisations to make complaints and claims on behalf of data subjects, and
(e) the Commissioner’s power to provide assistance in special purpose proceedings.
(6) The Commissioner—
(a) may alter or replace the guidance, and
(b) must publish any altered or replacement guidance.
(7) The Commissioner must produce and publish the first guidance under this section before the end of the period of 1 year beginning when this Act is passed.”
“Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism
(1) The Commissioner must—
(a) review the extent to which the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism complied with the data protection legislation during the review period,
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(2) “The review period” means the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act comes into force.
(3) The Commissioner must—
(a) start the review within the period of 6 months beginning when the review period ends, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 18 months beginning when the Commissioner started the review.
(4) The report must include consideration of the extent of compliance (as described in subsection (1)(a)) in each part of the United Kingdom.
(5) The Secretary of State must—
(a) lay the report before Parliament, and
(b) send a copy of the report to—
(i) the Scottish Ministers,
(ii) the Welsh Ministers, and
(iii) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.”
“( ) section (Information orders) (information orders);”
“(4) In relation to an information notice which contains a statement under section 143(7), the jurisdiction conferred on a court by section (Information orders) is exercisable only by the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.
(5) The jurisdiction conferred on a court by section (Applications in respect of urgent notices) (applications in respect of urgent notices) is exercisable only by the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.”
“( ) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7 would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 115.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the main amendments in this group relate to the representation of data subjects by not-for-profit bodies. Last time we discussed this matter, the question before us was whether those bodies should have to seek the mandate—that is, the consent—of data subjects before pursuing claims on their behalf.
As I said then,
“the Government have reflected on the principles at stake here and agree it would be reasonable for a review to be undertaken, two years after Royal Assent, of the effectiveness of”—
Clause 183—
“as it is currently drafted. The Government are fully prepared to look again at the issue”,
of representation without prior mandate in the context of that review.
“We are serious about this. We will therefore amend the Bill in the other place to provide for such a review and to provide the power for the Government to implement its conclusions”.—[Official Report, 10/1/18; col. 287.]
Commons Amendments 122 and 123 duly deliver on that promise, while Commons Amendment 121 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that, where a not-for-profit seeks to represent a large number of data subjects in court proceedings, it can file one claim and not hundreds.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her continued engagement on this subject. She and I are in total agreement that children merit specific protection in relation to their personal data, and that the review should look accordingly at the specific barriers young people face in exercising their rights. Therefore, Commons Amendment 122 makes provision for that in subsections (4), (5) and (6) of the proposed new clause. Of course, as some noble Lords have mentioned previously, such provision is not to the exclusion of other vulnerable groups in our society, and the Government fully expect that review to consider their position, too.
Commons Amendment 126 would allow Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs to share contact detail information with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the Ministry of Defence is better able to locate and contact members of the ex-regular reserve. The amendment does not alter the liability for ex-regular reserves, nor does it affect the rules regarding the call-out or recall of ex-regular reserves; it is simply about being better able to contact them. The security of the United Kingdom is the primary responsibility of government. Commons Amendment 126 offers us the opportunity to strengthen that security.
Finally, Commons Amendment 282 would insert a schedule making transitional, transitory and saving provision in connection with the coming into force of the Bill, including provision about subject access requests, the Information Commissioner’s enforcement powers and national security certificates. This comprehensive new schedule, running to some 19 pages, is designed to ensure a seamless shift between the 1998 Act and the new data protection law we are scrutinising today. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the Government for listening, the Bill team, the Secretary of State and the Minister, Margot James. The point is that rights are only as good as one’s ability to enact them, so I really welcome the review and I thank all concerned for the very great care and detail with which they have laid it out in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, very briefly, we had considerable debate while the Bill was going through the House on whether we should incorporate Article 18(2) and we obviously did not prevail while the Bill was going through this House. Although this does not go as far as incorporating Article 18(2), which I regret—I would clearly like to see the whole loaf, so to speak—at least this gives the possibility of Article 18(2) being incorporated through a review. Will the Minister say when he thinks the review will be laid, in the form of a report? I am assuming that,
“within 30 months of commencement of the Bill”,
means within 30 months from 25 May this year. I am making that assumption so that we can all count the days to when the report will come back for debate in Parliament.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in joining the dots, as it were, between the original proposal and having a proper approach to children using the internet and all the other things they use, and the way they would get redress if there is a problem, has been a joy to watch. She has stuck at it like a terrier, she has not let Ministers off the hook, she has been firing off emails and phone calls from faraway places and causing their lives to be an absolute misery, but it is a good thing because we have got to where we need to be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, it was always a surprise that the Government did not want to include Article 18(2) as well as Article 18(1), because it completes the support for consumers of internet services, which the Bill sets out to do but for which there is a derogation and they have chosen not to exercise it. I am very glad about that, but perhaps the Minister can explain one thing that I did not quite get right in my mind as I was listening to him. The review is to check whether Article 18(2) would make it a more effective consumer measure than it is currently under the Bill as drafted—the Act, as it will be. It is not restricted to vulnerable people. The way it was expressed seemed to suggest that it would cover only other vulnerable people. In any case, children are not vulnerable: they are extremely interested, very wise and often sagacious about the internet but they are not vulnerable to it. They may well get themselves into vulnerable situations, in which case they need redress, through bodies such as child-specific agencies, but I do not think that was the intention. I would be grateful if that could be addressed.
Secondly, a moment of levity flashed through my mind when the Minister was talking about the need for the Inland Revenue to track down where reservists had got to. I cannot believe that is the only way the Ministry of Defence keeps in touch with its reserve, but I do not dissent from this being a very good measure.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contribution of all noble Lords on this, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is very nice to be in her good books.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, talked about the age-appropriate design code and when the Information Commissioner will get going. As he rightly said, the Bill has not come into force yet; nevertheless, we understand that the Information Commissioner is already setting the wheels in motion for a comprehensive age-appropriate design code and will launch a call for evidence imminently. During that process she will be seeking evidence and views on the content of the code in line with the points raised in the debate in this House and elsewhere. So I confirm what he suggested was the case; indeed, work is already being done.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the focus of the code. In mentioning vulnerable people I was trying to bring him back to some of the points I think he made: I did not want anyone to get the impression that we were concentrating just on children—albeit they are very important—and their particular rights under the code. It will include vulnerable people, but also the way that it operates in general. Although children rightly have a special mention, we are also concerned with people who may have particular problems and may be vulnerable. I think this should exactly satisfy some of the things the noble Lord mentioned in previous debates.
As for the Ministry of Defence, it does try to keep in touch. In fact, it is a duty of an ex-regular reservist to keep the MoD in touch with their whereabouts. Some 49%, I believe, do not do so: we want to use this information to keep in touch with the reserve for the security of the country and that is why we are doing this. I also point out that there are protections: the commissioners of the Inland Revenue have to give permission before information is disclosed to anyone else or elsewhere.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 116 to 152.
“Representation of data subjects with their authority: collective proceedings
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for representative bodies to bring proceedings before a court or tribunal in England and Wales or Northern Ireland combining two or more relevant claims.
(2) In this section, “relevant claim”, in relation to a representative body, means a claim in respect of a right of a data subject which the representative body is authorised to exercise on the data subject’s behalf under Article 80(1) of the GDPR or section 183.
(3) The power under subsection (1) includes power— (a) to make provision about the proceedings;
(b) to confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion;
(c) to make different provision in relation to England and Wales and in relation to Northern Ireland.
(4) The provision mentioned in subsection (3)(a) includes provision about— (a) the effect of judgments and orders;
(b) agreements to settle claims;
(c) the assessment of the amount of compensation;
(d) the persons to whom compensation may or must be paid, including compensation not claimed by the data subject;
(e) costs.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
“Duty to review provision for representation of data subjects
(1) Before the end of the review period, the Secretary of State must—
(a) review the matters listed in subsection (2) in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the operation of Article 80(1) of the GDPR,
(b) the operation of section 183,
(c) the merits of exercising the power under Article 80(2) of the GDPR (power to enable a body or other organisation which meets the conditions in Article 80(1) of the GDPR to exercise some or all of a data subject’s rights under Articles 77, 78 and 79 of the GDPR without being authorised to do so by the data subject),
(d) the merits of making equivalent provision in relation to data subjects’ rights under Article 82 of the GDPR (right to compensation), and
(e) the merits of making provision for a children’s rights organisation to exercise some or all of a data subject’s rights under Articles 77, 78, 79 and 82 of the GDPR on behalf of a data subject who is a child, with or without being authorised to do so by the data subject.
(3) “The review period” is the period of 30 months beginning when section 183 comes into force.
(4) In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider the particular needs of children separately from the needs of adults,
(b) have regard to the fact that children have different needs at different stages of development,
(c) carry out an analysis of the particular challenges that children face in authorising, and deciding whether to authorise, other persons to act on their behalf under Article 80(1) of the GDPR or section 183,
(d) consider the support and advice available to children in connection with the exercise of their rights under Articles 77, 78, 79 and 82 of the GDPR by another person on their behalf and the merits of making available other support or advice, and
(e) have regard to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(5) Before preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including—
(a) persons active in the field of protection of data subjects’ rights and freedoms with regard to the protection of their personal data,
(b) children and parents,
(c) children’s rights organisations and other persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of children,
(d) child development experts, and
(e) trade associations.
(6) In this section—
“children’s rights organisation” means a body or other organisation which—
(a) is active in representing the interests of children, and
(b) has objectives which are in the public interest;
“trade association” includes a body representing controllers or processors;
“the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” means the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 (including any Protocols to that Convention which are in force in relation to the United Kingdom), subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.”
“Post-review powers to make provision about representation of data subjects
(1) After the report under section (Duty to review provision for representation of data subjects)(1) is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) exercise the powers under Article 80(2) of the GDPR in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,
(b) make provision enabling a body or other organisation which meets the conditions in Article 80(1) of the GDPR to exercise a data subject’s rights under Article 82 of the GDPR in England and Wales and Northern Ireland without being authorised to do so by the data subject, and
(c) make provision described in section (Duty to review provision for representation of data subjects)(2)(e) in relation to the exercise in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of the rights of a data subject who is a child.
(2) The powers under subsection (1) include power—
(a) to make provision enabling a data subject to prevent a body or other organisation from exercising, or continuing to exercise, the data subject’s rights;
(b) to make provision about proceedings before a court or tribunal where a body or organisation exercises a data subject’s rights;
(c) to make provision for bodies or other organisations to bring proceedings before a court or tribunal combining two or more claims in respect of a right of a data subject;
(d) to confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion;
(e) to amend sections 164 to 166, 177, 183, 196, 198 and 199; (f) to insert new sections and Schedules into Part 6 or 7;
(g) to make different provision in relation to England and Wales and in relation to Northern Ireland.
(3) The powers under subsection (1)(a) and (b) include power to make provision in relation to data subjects who are children or data subjects who are not children or both.
(4) The provision mentioned in subsection (2)(b) and (c) includes provision about—
(a) the effect of judgments and orders; (b) agreements to settle claims;
(c) the assessment of the amount of compensation;
(d) the persons to whom compensation may or must be paid, including compensation not claimed by the data subject;
(e) costs.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
“Reserve forces: data-sharing by HMRC
(1) The Reserve Forces Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 125 insert—
“125A Supply of contact details by HMRC
(1) This subsection applies to contact details for—
(a) a member of an ex-regular reserve force, or
(b) a person to whom section 66 (officers and former servicemen liable to recall) applies, which are held by HMRC in connection with a function of HMRC.
(2) HMRC may supply contact details to which subsection (1) applies to the Secretary of State for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State—
(a) to contact a member of an ex-regular reserve force in connection with the person’s liability, or potential liability, to be called out for service under Part 6;
(b) to contact a person to whom section 66 applies in connection with the person’s liability, or potential liability, to be recalled for service under Part 7.
(3) Where a person’s contact details are supplied under subsection (2) for a purpose described in that subsection, they may also be used for defence purposes connected with the person’s service (whether past, present or future) in the reserve forces or regular services.
(4) In this section, “HMRC” means Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
125B Prohibition on disclosure of contact details supplied under section 125A
(1) A person who receives information supplied under section 125A may not disclose it except with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (which may be general or specific).
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person reasonably believed—
(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or
(b) that the information had already lawfully been made available to the public.
(4) Subsections (4) to (7) of section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 apply to an offence under this section as they apply to an offence under that section.
(5) Nothing in section 107 or 108 (institution of proceedings and evidence) applies in relation to an offence under this section.
125C Data protection
(1) Nothing in section 125A or 125B authorises the making of a disclosure which contravenes the data protection legislation.
(2) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
“( ) section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);”
“(2) References in this Act to a period expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years are to be interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No. 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits, except in—
(a) section 125(4), (7) and (8);
(b) section 160(3), (5) and (6);
(c) section 176(2);
(d) section (Review of processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism)(2);
(e) section 179(8) and (9);
(f) section 180(4);
(g) section 186(3), (5) and (6);
(h) section 190(3) and (4);
(i) paragraph 18(4) and (5) of Schedule 1;
(j) paragraphs 5(4) and 6(4) of Schedule 3;
(k) Schedule 5;
(l) paragraph 11(5) of Schedule 12;
(m) Schedule 15;
(and the references in section 5 to terms used in Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 2 do not include references to a period expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years).”
“( ) Section 3(14)(aa) (interpretation of references to Chapter 2 of Part 2 in Parts 5 to 7) and the amendments in Schedule 18 which make equivalent provision are not to be treated as implying a contrary intention for the purposes of section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978, or any similar provision in another enactment, as it applies to other references to, or to a provision of, Chapter 2 of Part 2 of this Act.”
“(1) This Act applies only to processing of personal data described in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) It applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or processor in the United Kingdom, whether or not the processing takes place in the United Kingdom.
(3) It also applies to the processing of personal data to which Chapter 2 of Part 2 (the GDPR) applies where—
(a) the processing is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or processor in a country or territory that is not a member State, whether or not the processing takes place in such a country or territory,
(b) the personal data relates to a data subject who is in the United Kingdom when the processing takes place, and
(c) the processing activities are related to—
(i) the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the United Kingdom, whether or not for payment, or
(ii) the monitoring of data subjects’ behaviour in the United Kingdom.”
“(5A) Section 3(14)(b) does not apply to the reference to the processing of personal data in subsection (2).
(5B) The reference in subsection (3) to Chapter 2 of Part 2 (the GDPR) does not include that Chapter as applied by Chapter 3 of Part 2 (the applied GDPR).”
(a) Part 1 contains minor and consequential amendments of primary legislation;
(b) Part 2 contains minor and consequential amendments of other legislation;
(c) Part 3 contains consequential modifications of legislation; (d) Part 4 contains supplementary provision.”
“( ) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different areas.”
“(1) Schedule (Transitional provision etc) contains transitional, transitory and saving provision.
(2) ”
( ) Regulations under this section that amend or repeal a provision of Schedule (Transitional provision etc) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”
“(2A) Sections (Representation of data subjects with their authority: collective proceedings), (Duty to review provision for representation of data subjects) and (Post-review powers to make provision about representation of data subjects) extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.”
“(3A) This subsection and the following provisions also extend to the Isle of Man—
(a) paragraphs 200O and 205 of Schedule 18;
(b) sections 204(1), 205(1) and 206(2), so far as relating to those paragraphs.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 153.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this group of amendments covers issues that will be familiar to many noble Lords, as it primarily addresses concerns and issues raised in this House last autumn. The Government have remained committed to listening and to improving the Bill. I owe thanks to many noble Lords who brought these issues to our attention.
Commons Amendment 155 would help businesses and other organisations ensure that their boardrooms and senior management levels are truly representative of the workforces they manage and the communities they serve. In November 2016, Sir John Parker published a report which showed that while 14% of the population identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic, only 1.5% of directors in FTSE 100 boardrooms are UK citizens from a minority background. More than half of the FTSE 100 boards are exclusively white. While significant progress has been made in recent years to improve the gender balance in the boardrooms of such companies, the severe underrepresentation of people from minority backgrounds needs to be addressed.
Sir John’s report included a series of recommendations to improve racial and ethnic diversity in the boardroom. He encouraged companies to make better use of executive search firms to identify potential candidates and invite them to be interviewed for managerial vacancies. This amendment would therefore add a new processing condition to Schedule 1 to allow organisations to process personal data about potential candidates’ racial or ethnic origin in identifying suitable candidates for potential managerial positions.
Previously when we discussed the Bill in this House, Thomson Reuters provided a very helpful briefing note setting out how it compiles reports on persons suspected of terrorism, bribery, money laundering, modern slavery and other illegal activities. It then shares this information with the banks to help them avoid engaging with such people and allow them to comply with their regulatory obligations and other internationally recognised guidelines. In response to support for the proposal on all sides, the Government committed to work with Thomson Reuters to bring forward amendments at a later stage of the Bill’s passage. Commons Amendment 158 is the culmination of this work.
I am also pleased to introduce Commons Amendment 160, which would provide for processing by patient support groups, a concern well put by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. She spoke movingly on behalf of the patient support group Unique, which manages a register of patients suffering from very rare and sometimes life-limiting chromosomal disorders. Amendment 160 would add a new processing condition to Schedule 1 to provide Unique and groups like it with the legal certainty required for their vital work to continue. I am most grateful to her for her advocacy.
Commons Amendments 162 and 163 relate to data processing for safeguarding purposes. These amendments respond to one tabled on the same issue by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on Report in December. In response to that amendment, I made it clear that the Government were sympathetic to the points raised. These amendments would ensure that sensitive data could be processed without consent in certain circumstances for legitimate safeguarding activities which are in the substantial public interest. The unfortunate reality is that there still exists a great deal of uncertainty under current law about which personal data can be processed for safeguarding purposes. This has resulted, for example, in some organisations withholding information from the police and other law enforcement agencies for fear of breaching data protection law. With these amendments, the Government intend to address this uncertainty by providing relevant organisations with a specific processing condition for processing the most sensitive personal data for safeguarding purposes.
Similarly, a number of other amendments in this group would extend necessary exemptions to certain regulators to ensure that data subjects cannot use data protection laws to undermine their regulatory work. Commons Amendment 178 would provide the Comptroller and Auditor-General of the United Kingdom, and his counterpart in each of the devolved nations, with an exemption from certain provisions of the GDPR where these would be likely to prejudice his statutory functions. Likewise, Amendment 179 would provide an exemption for the Bank of England from the listed GDPR provisions where these could inhibit its ability to exercise its functions. Amendment 183 would provide an exemption for the Scottish Information Commissioner, who regulates freedom of information rather than data protection. Amendment 185 would protect the work of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Amendment 186 would extend the exemptions in Schedule 2 to the Charity Commission’s functions under the Charities Acts of 1992, 2006 and 2011.
The remaining amendments in this group would address more technical issues, ensuring consistency across the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Government having carried these provisions in the Commons. More importantly, the patient support groups for which I spoke are very gratified because they regard these amendments as absolutely vital to their ability to carry on their important work. If I might say so, it is a very satisfactory outcome.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I welcome Commons Amendment 188 on the confidentiality of legal advice. As the Minister knows, a concern has been raised, long after the 11th hour, about the position of arbitrators. The concern is that the Bill addresses the data protection obligations of judges and lawyers but does not address the data protection position of arbitrators. Arbitration is of course an important legal service, in which this country leads and provides services to the world. All I can do at this stage is to ask the Minister and the Bill team whether they will reflect on this concern, which has been raised not just with me but with him. If he thinks that there is any basis for concern, will he consider using the very extensive powers conferred under the Bill to bring forward regulations to address the issue?
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, as the Minister made clear in his lucid introduction, this is a really significant group of amendments. It is very good to see that some of the work that was done in this House has come back in the form of amendments. In particular, the Minister will remember that it was my noble friend Lord McNally who raised issues around Thomson Reuters in the first place. However, I know that there will be considerable pleasure in the financial services industry, which is very concerned about such things as money laundering, anti-corruption measures and so on, and making sure that it can process data in pursuance of achieving those important goals.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on her campaign, which has clearly borne fruit here. I had not heard what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had said but there seems to be a bit of a hole in the Bill if that is the case. I can certainly testify to the fact that arbitrators are an incredibly important part of our judicial system. Indeed, within it they are one of our global competitive advantages; therefore if anything is done that is to the detriment of our arbitration system, it would be really quite serious.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I too congratulate the Government on bringing forward these amendments. They cover a wide range but, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, they are an important part of the actual mechanics and workings of the system once it is going. We will certainly need a few successes where people believe that something has been done to make sure that their lives are easier, rather than more difficult, as a result of this legislation. Even your Lordships’ House will suffer quite considerably in the processing tasks that it will have to carry. I seem to remember that, after an informal chat with the Minister, we were going to get a statement from him about how he felt about that and how things might progress. Maybe I am pushing him a little too far; perhaps we will get a letter or something about it later.
I echo the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who fought an understated but effective campaign on an important area, which I am glad to see was picked up. I thought the diversity amendments were the sort of thing that could easily have been dropped off for being too complicated and difficult. This is possibly not the right Bill but it is really important that we got them in here. There could have been use made of some provisions by employers and others who did not want to face up to the reality of the world today, saying that they would not be able to process data in a way that would allow us to see whether progress has been made on this.
We on the Labour Benches were also consulted by Thomson Reuters, which felt that there was a bit of a lacuna in some things it was asked to do about money laundering. I am glad that the Bill team finally came round on that and agreed that there was something there. It brought forward a measure.
I am particularly pleased about safeguarding, which was quite a late addition to Committee. We brought it back on Report. It was obviously something that needed much wider consideration. Again, I wondered whether there would be time to bring it through. It has been possible to do so. We now have a very satisfactory approach to this. It covers not just sports, which was the area we raised, but the wider consideration of vulnerable people in clubs and in health and welfare situations where there needs to be consideration of what process and steps could be taken if suspicions were raised. We do not have to read the papers today to realise how damaging that can be if it is not caught quickly. We welcome the amendments.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful for all those comments. It is nice that in the last group I will handle on it—touch wood—I leave the Bill in a glow of good will. I am particularly pleased that I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and that we have been able to respond to some of the concerns and points raised in this House. In many ways, the Bill has been an object lesson of discussion on a very technical Bill. We have made progress. I certainly acknowledge and am very grateful for the support and co-operation I have had from both opposition Front Benches.
Lord McNally
As a little footnote, which might give encouragement to others, I first raised the Thomson Reuters matter because it sponsored a conference at the Guildhall well over a year ago about the coming of the GDPR. I went along to find out about it. I and the other Benches raised this from that. It has now ended up in the Bill. It is an encouragement to companies that sometimes think that legislation is a mysterious place that, by taking little bit of effort to put the case and extend it, they can have real influence.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am grateful to the noble Lord. That brings me nicely to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about arbitrators. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, mentioned the importance of arbitration to the economy of this country. I am only too well aware of it from my background in insurance. London has a very well-respected legal system, but the arbitration system is linked to that. We certainly would not wish in any way to hinder it. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did, the people who brought this up seemed to do so at the last minute. I slightly wonder how they managed to miss this trick, if it is so obvious, for the two years that the GDPR has been in place, let alone—
Lord Pannick
Could I suggest to the noble Lord that they were too busy arbitrating?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
They should have hired a lawyer. The point is that it is a perfectly valid point. We have sought to replicate in the Bill, as far as possible, the existing provisions relating to legal professional privilege. We had several discussions about that in the 1998 Act, including the relevant exemptions to rights and obligations for personal data. I cannot help but notice that the Arbitration and Mediation Service, given that we are trying to replicate as far as possible existing provisions, appears to have been operating without undue burden for the last 20 years, but I am certainly prepared to undertake to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we will look at that with a view to making sure that this is not a serious problem. We certainly have not been able to do it in time. I can confirm to him that, if there is a problem, the Bill contains regulation-making powers to address this concern. The only thing I can say on that is that, quite rightly, those regulations would have to come before both Houses of Parliament. If there is a concern he will be able to address it later.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is quite correct that we talked about me making a statement or addressing concerns about the individual application of the GDPR and the Bill to Peers. I assumed I would do so if it was necessary and if the subject came up, which, luckily, it has not. Just to be clear, it is not just that Peers and other citizens of this country are suffering under the GDPR, although they might have obligations that they were not aware of before and, I agree, certain extra ones because the GDPR has direct effect; it also greatly increases individual subject rights. It makes sure that individuals’ personal data, in particular sensitive personal data, is better protected in law and by a regulator, who, thanks to your Lordships’ agreement, has real power to make sure that the data regime is obeyed. I believe that the House authorities have issued a statement to all Peers. Of course, my department is there to address this. The first avenue that Peers should use for the individual circumstances is the House authorities.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can I press my noble friend a little further on the issue of what individual Peers and Members of Parliament should do? There was an earlier discussion on whether some arrangements might be made so that data protection rules can be followed but the burden would not be unreasonable. I also take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for these many amendments which are grouped together, on diversity through to financial services. It has been a model of good working.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am grateful for that. When my noble friend spoke of pushing me further, I am not completely clear what she wants me to do. It is not right for me to opine on individual cases. I think we are talking about Peers in their roles as Peers. Each individual Peer has to discuss that in the light of their individual circumstances. All I would say is that if noble Lords are dealing with special categories of data and personal data, they will have to be aware of the obligations put on them by the Bill and the GDPR. The House authorities are there to advise, as is the Information Commissioner. They will have to do so. In my case, for example, I do not anticipate that in what I do as a Peer, as opposed to a Minister, I would have to pay a fee as a controller, if that helps.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 154 to 173.
“Racial and ethnic diversity at senior levels of organisations 8A
(1) This condition is met if the processing—
(a) is of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin,
(b) is carried out as part of a process of identifying suitable individuals to hold senior positions in a particular organisation, a type of organisation or organisations generally,
(c) is necessary for the purposes of promoting or maintaining diversity in the racial and ethnic origins of individuals who hold senior positions in the organisation or organisations, and
(d) can reasonably be carried out without the consent of the data subject, subject to the exception in sub-paragraph (3).
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), processing can reasonably be carried out without the consent of the data subject only where—
(a) the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject, and
(b) the controller is not aware of the data subject withholding consent.
(3) Processing does not meet the condition in sub-paragraph (1) if it is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to an individual.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, an individual holds a senior position in an organisation if the individual—
(a) holds a position listed in sub-paragraph (5), or
(b) does not hold such a position but is a senior manager of the organisation.
(5) Those positions are—
(a) a director, secretary or other similar officer of a body corporate;
(b) a member of a limited liability partnership;
(c) a partner in a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890, a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907 or an entity of a similar character formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(6) In this paragraph, “senior manager”, in relation to an organisation, means a person who plays a significant role in—
(a) the making of decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of the organisation’s activities are to be managed or organised, or
(b) the actual managing or organising of the whole or a substantial part of those activities.
(7) The reference in sub-paragraph (2)(b) to a data subject withholding consent does not include a data subject merely failing to respond to a request for consent.”
“( ) If the processing consists of the disclosure of personal data to a competent authority, or is carried out in preparation for such disclosure, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is met even if, when the processing is carried out, the controller does not have an appropriate policy document in place (see paragraph 5 of this Schedule).”
““competent authority” has the same meaning as in Part 3 of this Act (see section 30).”
“Regulatory requirements relating to unlawful acts and dishonesty etc 10A
(1) This condition is met if—
(a) the processing is necessary for the purposes of complying with, or assisting other persons to comply with, a regulatory requirement which involves a person taking steps to establish whether another person has—
(i) committed an unlawful act, or
(ii) been involved in dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct,
(b) in the circumstances, the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject to the processing, and
(c) the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) In this paragraph—
“act” includes a failure to act;
“regulatory requirement” means—
(a) a requirement imposed by legislation or by a person in exercise of a function conferred by legislation, or
(b) a requirement forming part of generally accepted principles of good practice relating to a type of body or an activity.”
“( ) The condition in sub-paragraph (1) is met even if, when the processing is carried out, the controller does not have an appropriate policy document in place (see paragraph 5 of this Schedule).”
“Support for individuals with a particular disability or medical condition
13A (1) This condition is met if the processing—
(a) is carried out by a not-for-profit body which provides support to individuals with a particular disability or medical condition,
(b) is of a type of personal data falling within sub-paragraph (2) which relates to an individual falling within sub-paragraph (3),
(c) is necessary for the purposes of—
(i) raising awareness of the disability or medical condition, or
(ii) providing support to individuals falling within sub-paragraph (3) or enabling such individuals to provide support to each other,
(d) can reasonably be carried out without the consent of the data subject, and
(e) is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) The following types of personal data fall within this sub-paragraph—
(a) personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin;
(b) genetic data or biometric data;
(c) data concerning health;
(d) personal data concerning an individual’s sex life or sexual orientation.
(3) An individual falls within this sub-paragraph if the individual is or has been a member of the body mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and—
(a) has the disability or condition mentioned there, has had that disability or condition or has a significant risk of developing that disability or condition, or
(b) is a relative or carer of an individual who satisfies paragraph (a) of this sub-paragraph.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(d), processing can reasonably be carried out without the consent of the data subject only where—
(a) the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject, and
(b) the controller is not aware of the data subject withholding consent.
(5) In this paragraph—
“carer” means an individual who provides or intends to provide care for another individual other than—
(a) under or by virtue of a contract, or
(b) as voluntary work;
“disability” has the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010 (see section 6 of, and Schedule 1 to, that Act).
(6) The reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to a data subject withholding consent does not include a data subject merely failing to respond to a request for consent.”
“Safeguarding of children and of individuals at risk
14A (1) This condition is met if—
(a) the processing is necessary for the purposes of—
(i) protecting an individual from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, or
(ii) protecting the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual,
(b) the individual is—
(i) aged under 18, or
(ii) aged 18 or over and at risk,
(c) the processing is carried out without the consent of the data subject for one of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph (2), and
(d) the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) The reasons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) are—
(a) in the circumstances, consent to the processing cannot be given by the data subject;
(b) in the circumstances, the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject to the processing;
(c) the processing must be carried out without the consent of the data subject because obtaining the consent of the data subject would prejudice the provision of the protection mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, an individual aged 18 or over is “at risk” if the controller has reasonable cause to suspect that the individual—
(a) has needs for care and support,
(b) is experiencing, or at risk of, neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, and
(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the neglect or harm or the risk of it.
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), the reference to the protection of an individual or of the well-being of an individual includes both protection relating to a particular individual and protection relating to a type of individual.”
“Safeguarding of economic well-being of certain individuals
14B (1) This condition is met if the processing—
(a) is necessary for the purposes of protecting the economic well- being of an individual at economic risk who is aged 18 or over,
(b) is of data concerning health,
(c) is carried out without the consent of the data subject for one of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph (2), and
(d) is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) The reasons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) are—
(a) in the circumstances, consent to the processing cannot be given by the data subject;
(b) in the circumstances, the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject to the processing;
(c) the processing must be carried out without the consent of the data subject because obtaining the consent of the data subject would prejudice the provision of the protection mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
(3) In this paragraph, “individual at economic risk” means an individual who is less able to protect his or her economic well-being by reason of physical or mental injury, illness or disability.”
“( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to a data subject withholding consent does not include a data subject merely failing to respond to a request for consent.”
“( ) is of data concerning health which relates to a data subject who is the parent, grandparent, great-grandparent or sibling of a member of the scheme,”
“( ) The reference in sub-paragraph (2)(b) to a data subject withholding consent does not include a data subject merely failing to respond to a request for consent.”
“( ) a mayor for the area of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;”
“( ) a police and crime commissioner.”
“( ) If the processing consists of the disclosure of personal data to a body or association described in sub-paragraph (1)(a), or is carried out in preparation for such disclosure, the condition in sub-paragraph (1) is met even if, when the processing is carried out, the controller does not have an appropriate policy document in place (see paragraph 5 of this Schedule).”
“( ) Article 19 (notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing);”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 174.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these amendments relate to the immigration exemption in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, which was debated at some length during the passage of the Bill through this House. It may assist the House if I briefly restate the case for this provision.
The Bill and the GDPR extend and strengthen the rights of individuals, giving them easier access to their data and greater control over its use and processing. This is something we can all welcome. However, it is necessary to balance such enhanced rights of data subjects with other competing interests. The Bill therefore provides mechanisms to ensure that data rights cannot undermine investigations by law enforcement agencies, regulators and others. For the same reasons, the Bill makes provision to protect the integrity of the immigration system; for example, to prevent the release of information which would undermine imminent enforcement action.
As I have previously explained, the immigration provision is limited in nature. It does not allow the Home Office—or, indeed, any other controller—to set aside all the safeguards in the Bill; rather, it allows a number of specific rights to be restricted on a case-by-case basis and only to the extent to which giving effect to those rights would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control in an individual case. Decisions will also be subject to oversight by the Information Commissioner and, ultimately, the Information Tribunal.
On Report noble Lords supported the retention of the exemption by a majority of 130. Last week the House of Commons similarly supported the inclusion of the exemption in the Bill by a clear majority of 28. None the less, it is of course right that the exemption should be as tightly drafted as possible. The Government firmly believe that unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, data processing should always be fair and transparent and it should not be possible to collect data for one purpose and then to retrospectively apply a policy of processing for further, incompatible purposes. It was always the Government’s intention that processing for immigration purposes should have to meet both these principles. But, on reflection, we agree that the provisions in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 left room for doubt as to the intended approach. Therefore, Commons Amendments 174 and 175 further narrow the exemption to put the matter beyond doubt.
We are also committed to reviewing the operation of the exemption in the light of experience 12 months after these provisions come into force. To inform the review we would naturally welcome the views of interested parties, such as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. Clause 16 would enable us to narrow the scope of the exemption still further should the review conclude that it would be appropriate to do so.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to say about her Amendment 175A, but for now I beg to move.
Amendment 175A (as an amendment to Amendment 175)
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Following consultation with the Commissioner and the public, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this paragraph comes into force, produce guidance about how, subject to sub-paragraph (2)(a)(vii) above, the provisions of Article 5 listed in paragraph 1(b) apply in relation to this paragraph.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not think I am going to surprise the Minister but I will go through my points on Amendment 175A. The short version is that among the double negatives, paragraph 4 enables the Home Office and others to refuse a subject’s access request in respect of data relating to “effective immigration control”. I will not muse on what “effective” might mean in this context this evening. There are exceptions to the exemption, as the Minister has said, but they do not go to the heart of the problem, which is that if the Home Office uses the exemption, someone challenging a Home Office decision will not be able to check that the Home Office has the correct information about him. For instance, an application may be refused and the correct information established only if the matter goes to appeal.
I discovered during the passage of the Bill that at the start of a case solicitors routinely put in a request to the Home Office to ensure that there is not a crucial error in the information it holds about their client. That must save time and effort—and, indeed, money and anxiety—on both sides. It seems a matter of common sense to be able to do so. I have been puzzled throughout as to why the Government consider this exemption necessary. If it is because there may be an issue of criminality, paragraph 3 provides for this, including “the prevention … of crime”, if the Home Office believes that someone might be about to commit an immigration offence.
I understand from a discussion with the Minister last week, for which I am grateful to her and her officials, that the Government do not want to characterise all applicants to the Home Office for immigration leave as criminals, but I really do not think that that is an answer. As the Minister knows, and the House will know, I would like to see this paragraph out of the Bill altogether or, at a poor second best, not brought into effect until work has been done with practitioners—lawyers and the relevant NGOs—as to its operation, but we all know about the procedural rules and those mean that I have to confine myself to the amendment made by the Government in the Commons.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for setting out the rationale for Amendment 175A. I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment behind it— namely, that the data protection principles must underpin the processing of personal data held by the Home Office for immigration purposes. I also unreservedly support the notion that the Home Office needs to abide by the highest standards required by the GDPR and the Bill and to ensure that its staff are properly equipped, including through the appropriate training and guidance, to ensure that the department collectively fulfils its statutory responsibilities when it comes to processing people’s personal data. We want our staff to recognise that new data rights should be seen as an opportunity to improve how we collect, process and use other people’s data and respond to customers’ requests.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me foresight of her specific questions. The first concerned the exemption not being used in a blanket way to deny all requests for files concerning immigration held by the Home Office. This will be the case regardless of the believed immigration status of the client. We have been clear, and guidance will be clear, that the exemption can be used only on an individual basis and on a right-by-right basis—that is, a controller can exclude only those rights that would cause the prejudice test to be satisfied. Further, we will withhold only the information that could be likely to cause the prejudice. All other data is currently—and will carry on being—released.
The noble Baroness’s second question concerned the exemption not being routinely applied or applied without meaningful individual assessment in circumstances where the Home Office seeks to acquire data collected by essential public services from other government departments, such as the Department for Education. Where a right is to be restricted, there has to be evidence which a data controller can identify that has satisfied the likely-to-prejudice effective immigration control test and the test that it is still a live concern. That is irrespective of where or from whom the data was gathered.
The noble Baroness’s third question concerned the exemption not being routinely applied or applied without meaningful individual assessment in circumstances where a person or their legal representative is requesting data held by the Home Office so that they can regularise their immigration status or progress an immigration claim. We have been clear—and our guidance will be clear—that a right can be restricted only where there is a risk to the maintenance of effective immigration control. If a person is seeking to regularise their status, it is incumbent upon us to facilitate their efforts, and we strive to do so.
The noble Baroness’s next question was about the exemption being applied solely by the Home Office and not by government contractors carrying out immigration control functions. The exemption may be used and applied by those who work with us. However, the same checks and balances would be applicable in all instances.
The noble Baroness also asked for the exemption to be used only in cases where the Government have a clear and specific reason to believe that the release of data would undermine immigration control in relation to that specific person. That is correct—and it is what paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 provides for.
The next question the noble Baroness asked was about undermining immigration control not including an individual accessing data that may show why they may have reason to be allowed to stay in the UK. We have been clear that, where a person is seeking to regularise their status or appeal a decision, we will disclose all the data we hold to assist them in that and always give the full basis of why a decision has been made to facilitate any appeal.
The noble Baroness rightly asked, for the above reasons, whether it would be used only in a very small number of cases. The answer is yes. We anticipate that it will be a minority of cases and it is a rebuttable assumption that all rights apply to all data subjects.
The noble Baroness’s final question was about the exemption not being applied to British citizens or migrants who are lawfully resident in the UK. The exemption is not designed to apply to those here lawfully. It could, however, be used if a lawful UK resident was involved in an attempt to cause prejudice to the maintenance of effective immigration control—for example, by sponsoring someone in the knowledge that they did not qualify to be here.
I hope that I have answered in full the noble Baroness’s questions. I thank her again for providing me with sight of her questions.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 175.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 176 to 282.
“( ) Article 19 (notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing);”
“2. The function is designed to protect members of the public against— (a) dishonesty, malpractice or other seriously improper conduct, or (b) unfitness or incompetence. | The function is— (a) conferred on a person by an enactment, (b) a function of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or (c) of a public nature, and is exercised in the public interest.” |
“Audit functions
7A (1) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of discharging a function listed in sub-paragraph (2) to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of the function.
(2) The functions are any function that is conferred by an enactment on—
(a) the Comptroller and Auditor General;
(b) the Auditor General for Scotland;
(c) the Auditor General for Wales;
(d) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland.”
“Functions of the Bank of England
7B (1) The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of discharging a relevant function of the Bank of England to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice the proper discharge of the function.
(2) “Relevant function of the Bank of England” means—
(a) a function discharged by the Bank acting in its capacity as a monetary authority (as defined in section 244(2)(c) and (2A) of the Banking Act 2009);
(b) a public function of the Bank within the meaning of section 349 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;
(c) a function conferred on the Prudential Regulation Authority by or under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 or by another enactment.”
“( ) section 244 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016;” |
“1A. The Scottish Information Commissioner. | By or under— (a) the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 13); (b) the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (S.S.I. 2004/520); (c) the INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (S.S.I. 2009/440).” |
“5A. The Financial Conduct Authority. | By or under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 or by another enactment.” |
“12. The Charity Commission. | By or under— (a) the Charities Act 1992; (b) the Charities Act 2006; (c) the Charities Act 2011.” |
(b) information in respect of which a duty of confidentiality is owed by a professional legal adviser to a client of the adviser.”
“( ) Article 19 (notification obligation regarding rectification or erasure of personal data or restriction of processing);”
(i) Article 34(1) and (4) (communication of personal data breach to the data subject);
(ii) ”
“16 (1) This paragraph applies to a record of information which—
(a) is processed by or on behalf of the Board of Governors, proprietor or trustees of, or a teacher at, a school in Northern Ireland specified in sub-paragraph (3),
(b) relates to an individual who is or has been a pupil at the school, and
(c) originated from, or was supplied by or on behalf of, any of the persons specified in sub-paragraph (4).
(2) But this paragraph does not apply to information which is processed by a teacher solely for the teacher’s own use.
(3) The schools referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) are—
(a) a grant-aided school;
(b) an independent school.
(4) The persons referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(c) are—
(a) a teacher at the school;
(b) an employee of the Education Authority, other than a teacher at the school;
(c) an employee of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, other than a teacher at the school;
(d) the pupil to whom the record relates;
(e) a parent, as defined by Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3)).
(5) In this paragraph, “grant-aided school”, “independent school”, “proprietor” and “trustees” have the same meaning as in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3)).”
“Meaning of “working day”
7 In this Schedule”
(a) in subsection (1), the reference to subsection (3), and
(b) in subsection (6), the words following paragraph (d).””
“(b) in paragraph 2, for “Member States” substitute “The Secretary of State”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
“3 The power under paragraph 2 may only be exercised by making regulations under section (Post-review powers to make provision about representation of data subjects) of the 2018 Act.”
“Safeguarding of children and of individuals at risk
3A (1) This condition is met if—
(a) the processing is necessary for the purposes of—
(i) protecting an individual from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, or
(ii) protecting the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual,
(b) the individual is—
(i) aged under 18, or
(ii) aged 18 or over and at risk,
(c) the processing is carried out without the consent of the data subject for one of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph (2), and
(d) the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) The reasons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) are—
(a) in the circumstances, consent to the processing cannot be given by the data subject;
(b) in the circumstances, the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject to the processing;
(c) the processing must be carried out without the consent of the data subject because obtaining the consent of the data subject would prejudice the provision of the protection mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, an individual aged 18 or over is “at risk” if the controller has reasonable cause to suspect that the individual—
(a) has needs for care and support,
(b) is experiencing, or at risk of, neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, and
(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the neglect or harm or the risk of it.
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), the reference to the protection of an individual or of the well-being of an individual includes both protection relating to a particular individual and protection relating to a type of individual.”
“Safeguarding of children and of individuals at risk
3A (1) This condition is met if—
(a) the processing is necessary for the purposes of—
(i) protecting an individual from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, or
(ii) protecting the physical, mental or emotional well-being of an individual,
(b) the individual is—
(i) aged under 18, or
(ii) aged 18 or over and at risk,
(c) the processing is carried out without the consent of the data subject for one of the reasons listed in sub-paragraph (2), and
(d) the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest.
(2) The reasons mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(c) are—
(a) in the circumstances, consent to the processing cannot be given by the data subject;
(b) in the circumstances, the controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject to the processing;
(c) the processing must be carried out without the consent of the data subject because obtaining the consent of the data subject would prejudice the provision of the protection mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, an individual aged 18 or over is “at risk” if the controller has reasonable cause to suspect that the individual—
(a) has needs for care and support,
(b) is experiencing, or at risk of, neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, and
(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the neglect or harm or the risk of it.
(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a), the reference to the protection of an individual or of the well-being of an individual includes both protection relating to a particular individual and protection relating to a type of individual.”
(b) information in respect of which a duty of confidentiality is owed by a professional legal adviser to a client of the adviser.”
“(2) Section 3(14)(b) does not apply to the reference to personal data in sub- paragraph (1)(h).”
“( ) to require any person on the premises to provide, in an appropriate form, a copy of information capable of being viewed using equipment on the premises which may be evidence of that failure or offence,”
“( ) to require any person on the premises to provide, in an appropriate form, a copy of information capable of being viewed using equipment on the premises which may enable the Commissioner to make such a determination,”
“( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, a copy of information is in an “appropriate form” if —
(a) it can be taken away, and
(b) it is visible and legible or it can readily be made visible and legible.”
“( ) references to a judge of the High Court have effect as if they were references to a judge of the Court of Session,”
“(a) a relevant health record (see paragraph 1A),”
“Relevant health records
1A “Relevant health record” means a health record which has been or is to be obtained by a data subject in the exercise of a data subject access right.”
“( ) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland;”
“(iii) Article 45 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1504 (N.I. 9));”
“( ) Part 5 of the Police Act 1997,”
“( ) In relation to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, the “relevant functions” are its functions under Part 5 of the Police Act 1997.”
(a) Part 5 of the Police Act 1997, or
(b) ”
“( ) Part 5 of the Police Act 1997,”
“Registration Service Act 1953 (c. 37)
A1 (1) Section 19AC of the Registration Service Act 1953 (codes of practice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
(3) In subsection (11), for “section 51(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 128 of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (c. 36)
A2 (1) Section 1A of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (functions of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as competent authority) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (8)—
(a) omit “personal data protection legislation in the United Kingdom that implements”,
(b) for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the GDPR; and”, and
(c) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert “legislation in the United Kingdom that implements”.
(3) In subsection (9), after “section” insert “—
“the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.”
“Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1213 (N.I. 22))
8A The Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 is amended as follows.
8B In article 2(2) (interpretation), omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/ EC”.
8C In article 8D (European professional card), after paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In Schedule 2C, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”
8D In article 22A(6) (Directive 2005/36/EC: functions of competent authority etc.), before sub-paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
8E (1) Schedule 2C (Directive 2005/36/EC: European professional card) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 8(1) (access to data), for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In paragraph 9 (processing data), omit sub-paragraph (2) (deeming the Society to be the controller for the purposes of Directive 95/46/EC).
8F (1) The table in Schedule 2D (functions of the Society under Directive 2005/36/EC) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
8G (1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 (fitness to practice: disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(a), after “provision” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For sub-paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this paragraph.”
(4) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)
8H (1) Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1A(5), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(4) and (14) of that Act)”.
(3) In paragraph 8C(2), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(4) and (14) of that Act)”.
(4) In paragraph 11A—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for “who are data users to supply data, or documents containing information extracted from data and” substitute “to supply information”, and
(b) omit sub-paragraph (2).”
“Medical Act 1983 (c. 54)
9 The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
10 (1) Section 29E (evidence) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For subsection (7) substitute—
“(7) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this section.”
(4) In subsection (9), at the end insert—
““the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
11 (1) Section 35A (General Medical Council’s power to require disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For subsection (5A) substitute—
“(5A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this section.”
(4) In subsection (7), at the end insert—
““the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
12 In section 49B(7) (Directive 2005/36: designation of competent authority etc.), after “Schedule 4A” insert “—
“the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
13 In section 55(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/ EC”.
13A (1) Paragraph 9B of Schedule 1 (incidental powers of the General Medical Council) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(a), after “enactment” insert “or the GPDR”. (3) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
13B (1) Paragraph 5A of Schedule 4 (professional performance assessments and health assessments) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (8), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For sub-paragraph (8A) substitute—
“(8A) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (8) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this paragraph.”
(4) After sub-paragraph (13) insert—
“(14) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
13C (1) The table in Schedule 4A (functions of the General Medical Council as competent authority under Directive 2005/36) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.”
“15A In section 36ZA(6) (Directive 2005/36: designation of competent authority etc), after “Schedule 4ZA—” insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.”
“16A In section 53(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/ EC”.
16B (1) The table in Schedule 4ZA (Directive 2005/36: functions of the General Dental Council under section 36ZA(3)) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
16C In section 449(11) of the Companies Act 1985 (provision for security of information obtained), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.”
“Access to Health Records Act 1990 (c. 23)
18A The Access to Health Records Act 1990 is amended as follows.
18B For section 2 substitute—
“2 Health professionals
In this Act, “health professional” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 197 of that Act).”
18C (1) Section 3 (right of access to health records) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsection (4) below,”.
(3) In subsection (4), omit from “other than the following” to the end.”
“Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992/807 (N.I. 5))
21A (1) Article 90B of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (prohibition on disclosure of information held by the Labour Relations Agency) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) After paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) In this Article, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””
“Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)
64A (1) Section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (general restriction on disclosure) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4), for “the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””
“Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 13)
75A (1) Section 279 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment (Scotland) Act 2003 (information for research) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “research purposes within the meaning given by section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) (research, history and statistics)” substitute “purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics)”.
(3) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) In this section, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).””
“Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (c. 27)
76A The Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 is amended as follows.
76B (1) Section 15A (disclosure of information by tax authorities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) omit “within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998”, and
(b) for “that Act” substitute “the data protection legislation”. (3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In this section—
“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act); “personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
76C (1) Section 15D (permitted disclosure of information obtained under compulsory powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””
“88A(1) Section 264C (provision and disclosure of information about health service products: supplementary) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) In this section, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””
“Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
92A The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.
92B In section 458(2) (disclosure of information by tax authorities)—
(a) for “within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)” substitute “within the meaning of Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act)”, and
(b) for “that Act” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
92C In section 461(7) (permitted disclosure of information obtained under compulsory powers), for “the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
92D In section 948(9) (restrictions on disclosure) for “the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29)” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
92E In section 1173(1) (minor definitions: general), at the appropriate place insert—
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”.
92F In section 1224A(7) (restrictions on disclosure), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
92G In section 1253D(3) (restriction on transfer of audit working papers to third countries), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
92H In section 1261(1) (minor definitions: Part 42), at the appropriate place insert—
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”.
92I In section 1262 (index of defined expressions: Part 42), at the appropriate place insert—
“the data protection legislation | section 1261(1)”. |
“the data protection legislation | section 1173(1)”.” |
“96A(1) Section 45 (information held by HMRC) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4A), for “section 51(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 128 of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
(3) In subsection (4B), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the Data Protection Act 2018”.”
“( ) In subsection (6), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
“Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)
122A In Schedule 21 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (minor and consequential amendments), omit paragraph 29(3).”
“( ) In subsection (2), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
“( ) In subsection (2), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
“( ) In subsection (2), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
“( ) In subsection (2), for “issued under section 52B (data-sharing code) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “prepared under section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (data-sharing code) and issued under section 125(4) of that Act”.”
“Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (anaw 2)
186A(1) Section 4 of the Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 (additional learning needs code) is amended as follows.
(2) In the English language text—
(a) in subsection (9), omit from “and in this subsection” to the end, and
(b) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) In subsection (9)—
“data subject” (“testun y data”) has the meaning given by section 3(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018;
“personal data” (“data personol”) has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
(3) In the Welsh language text—
(a) in subsection (9), omit from “ac yn yr is-adran hon” to the end, and
(b) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Yn is-adran (9)—
mae i “data personol” yr un ystyr ag a roddir i “personal data” yn Rhannau 5 i 7 o Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018 (gweler adran 3(2) a (14) o’r Ddeddf honno);
mae i “testun y data” yr ystyr a roddir i “data subject” gan adran 3(5) o’r Ddeddf honno.”
“Estate Agents (Specific Offences) (No. 2) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/1091)
187A In the table in the Schedule to the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No.2) Order 1991 (specified offences), at the end insert—
“Data Protection Act 2018 | Section 145 Section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) | False statements made in response to an information notice Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc”” |
“(ba) after “in the context of” insert “the activities of”,”
“(ba) after “in the context of” insert “the activities of”,”
“Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1250 (N.I. 4))
188A The Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 is amended as follows.
188B In Article 4 (health professionals), for paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) In this Order, “health professional” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 197 of that Act).”
188C In Article 5(4)(a) (fees for access to health records), for “under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “made by the Department”.
Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1405)
188D In article 4 of the Channel Tunnel (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1994 (application of enactments), for paragraphs (2) and (3) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of section 200 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the 2018 Act”), data which is processed in a control zone in Belgium, in connection with the carrying out of frontier controls, by an officer belonging to the United Kingdom is to be treated as processed by a controller established in the United Kingdom in the context of the activities of that establishment (and accordingly the 2018 Act applies in respect of such data).
(3) For the purposes of section 200 of the 2018 Act, data which is processed in a control zone in Belgium, in connection with the carrying out of frontier controls, by an officer belonging to the Kingdom of Belgium is to be treated as processed by a controller established in the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of the activities of that establishment (and accordingly the 2018 Act does not apply in respect of such data).”
European Primary and Specialist Dental Qualifications Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/811)
188E The European Primary and Specialist Dental Qualifications Regulations 1998 are amended as follows.
188F(1) Regulation 2(1) (interpretation) is amended as follows. (2) Omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/EC”.
(3) At the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
188G(1) The table in Schedule A1 (functions of the GDC under Directive 2005/36) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (Crown Status) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/677)
188H For article 7 of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (Crown Status) Order 1999 substitute—
“7 Data Protection Act 2018
(1) The Parliamentary corporation is to be treated as a Crown body for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 to the extent specified in this article.
(2) The Parliamentary corporation is to be treated as a government department for the purposes of the following provisions—
(a) section 8(d) (lawfulness of processing under the GDPR: public interest etc),
(b) section 202 (application to the Crown),
(c) paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 (statutory etc and government purposes),
(d) paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (exemptions from the GDPR: functions designed to protect the public etc), and
(e) paragraph 8(1)(o) of Schedule 3 (exemptions from the GDPR: health data).
(3) In the provisions mentioned in paragraph (4)—
(a) references to employment by or under the Crown are to be treated as including employment as a member of staff of the Parliamentary corporation, and
(b) references to a person in the service of the Crown are to be treated as including a person so employed.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 24(3) (exemption for certain data relating to employment under the Crown), and
(b) section 202(6) (application of certain provisions to a person in the service of the Crown).
(5) In this article, references to a provision of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(14) of that Act).”
Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (Crown Status) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/3145)
188I For article 9 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission (Crown Status) Order 1999 substitute—
“9 Data Protection Act 2018
(1) The Commission is to be treated as a Crown body for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 to the extent specified in this article.
(2) The Commission is to be treated as a government department for the purposes of the following provisions—
(a) section 8(d) (lawfulness of processing under the GDPR: public interest etc),
(b) section 202 (application to the Crown),
(c) paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 (statutory etc and government purposes),
(d) paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (exemptions from the GDPR: functions designed to protect the public etc), and
(e) paragraph 8(1)(o) of Schedule 3 (exemptions from the GDPR: health data).
(3) In the provisions mentioned in paragraph (4)—
(a) references to employment by or under the Crown are to be treated as including employment as a member of staff of the Commission, and
(b) references to a person in the service of the Crown are to be treated as including a person so employed.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 24(3) (exemption for certain data relating to employment under the Crown), and
(b) section 202(6) (application of certain provisions to a person in the service of the Crown).
(5) In this article, references to a provision of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(14) of that Act).”
Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/184)
188J The Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Conditions under Paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 1) Order 2000 (S.I.2000/185)
188K The Data Protection (Conditions under Paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 1) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/186)
188L The Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/190)
188M The Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/191)
188N The Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 are revoked.
Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/290)
188O In the Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000, regulation 4(1) and Schedule 1 (statement of rights under section 9(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998) are revoked.
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/413)
188P The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/414)
188Q The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/415)
188R The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/416)
188S The Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/417)
188T The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/419)
188U The Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 is revoked.
Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/1864)
188V The Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000 is revoked.
Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/341)
188W The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.
188X In regulation 3(1) (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert— ““Article 89 GDPR purposes” means the purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”;
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”;
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
188Y In regulation 26(3)(a) (applications for registration), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188Z In regulation 26A(2)(a) (application for alteration of register in respect of name under section 10ZD), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188AA In regulation 32ZA(3)(f) (annual canvass), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188AB In regulation 61A (conditions on the use, supply and inspection of absent voter records or lists), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) Article 89 GDPR purposes;”.
188AC(1)Regulation 92(2) (interpretation and application of Part VI etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) “relevant requirement” means the requirement under Article 89 of the GDPR, read with section 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, that personal data processed for Article 89 GDPR purposes must be subject to appropriate safeguards.”
(3) Omit sub-paragraphs (c) and (d).
188AD In regulation 96(2A)(b)(i) (restriction on use of the full register), for “section 11(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 123(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
188AE In regulation 97(5) and (6) (supply of free copy of full register to the British Library and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AF In regulation 97A(7) and (8) (supply of free copy of full register to the National Library of Wales and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AG In regulation 99(6) and (7) (supply of free copy of full register etc to Statistics Board and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AH In regulation 109A(9) and (10) (supply of free copy of full register to public libraries and local authority archives services and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AI In regulation 119(2) (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(i) Article 89 GDPR purposes;”.
Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/497)
188AJ The Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.
188AK In regulation 3(1) (interpretation), at the appropriate places, insert— ““Article 89 GDPR purposes” means the purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”;
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”;
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
188AL In regulation 26(3)(a) (applications for registration), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188AM In regulation 26A(2)(a) (application for alteration of register in respect of name under section 10ZD), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188AN In regulation 32ZA(3)(f) (annual canvass), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
188AO In regulation 61(3) (records and lists kept under Schedule 4), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) Article 89 GDPR purposes;”.
188AP In regulation 61A (conditions on the use, supply and inspection of absent voter records or lists), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) Article 89 GDPR purposes;”.
188AQ(1)Regulation 92(2) (interpretation of Part VI etc) is amended as follows. (2) After sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) “relevant requirement” means the requirement under Article 89 of the GDPR, read with section 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, that personal data processed for Article 89 GDPR purposes must be subject to appropriate safeguards.”
(3) Omit sub-paragraphs (c) and (d).
188AR In regulation 95(3)(b)(i) (restriction on use of the full register), for “section 11(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 123(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
188AS In regulation 96(5) and (6) (supply of free copy of full register to the National Library of Scotland and the British Library and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AT In regulation 98(6) and (7) (supply of free copy of full register etc to Statistics Board and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AU In regulation 108A(9) and (10) (supply of full register to statutory library authorities and local authority archives services and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
188AV In regulation 119(2) (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(i) Article 89 GDPR purposes;”.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/2188)
188AW(1)Article 9 of the Financial Services and Markets 2000 (Disclosure of Confidential Information) Regulations 2001 (disclosure by regulators or regulator workers to certain other persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2B), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) the disclosure is made in accordance with Chapter V of the GDPR;”.
(3) After paragraph (5) insert—
“(6) In this article, “the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to
7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (S.I. 2002/253)
188AX The Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 is amended as follows.
188AY(1)Article 3 (the Nursing and Midwifery Council and its Committees) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (18), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) After paragraph (18) insert—
“(19) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
188AZ(1)Article 25 (the Council’s power to require disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) In paragraph (6)—
(a) for “paragraph (5),” substitute “paragraph (3)—”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
188BA In article 39B (European professional card), after paragraph (2) insert— “(3) For the purposes of Schedule 2B, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”
188BB In article 40(6) (Directive 2005/36/EC: designation of competent authority etc), at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
188BC(1)Schedule 2B (Directive 2005/36/EC: European professional card) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 8(1) (access to data) for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In paragraph 9 (processing data), omit sub-paragraph (2) (deeming the Society to be the controller for the purposes of Directive 95/46/EC).
188BD(1)The table in Schedule 3 (functions of the Council under Directive 2005/36) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
188BE In Schedule 4 (interpretation), omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/ EC”.
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2013)
188BF Regulation 3 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (exclusions) is amended as follows.
188BG In paragraph (1)(b) for “the Data Protection Directive and the Telecommunications Data Protection Directive” substitute “the GDPR”.
188BH In paragraph (3)—
(a) omit the definitions of “Data Protection Directive” and
“Telecommunications Data Protection Directive”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/2905)
188BI The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 is revoked.
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2426)
188BJ The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 are amended as follows.
188BK In regulation 2(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “the Information Commissioner” and “the Commissioner”, for “section 6 of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the Data Protection Act 2018”.
188BL(1)Regulation 4 (relationship between these Regulations and the Data Protection Act 1998) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In that sub-paragraph, for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(4) After that sub-paragraph insert— “(2) In this regulation—
“the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act); “personal data” and “processing” have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2), (4) and (14) of that Act).”
(3) Regulation 2(2) and (3) (meaning of certain expressions) do not apply for the purposes of this regulation.”
(5) In the heading of that regulation, for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.”
“(d) for “data controller” substitute “controller”, and
(e) after “in the context of” insert “the activities of”.
Pupils’ Educational Records (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (S.S.I. 2003/581)
191A The Pupils’ Educational Records (Scotland) Regulations 2003 are amended as follows.
191B(1) Regulation 2 (interpretation) is amended as follows. (2) Omit the definition of “the 1998 Act”.
(3) At the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
191C(1) Regulation 6 (circumstances where information should not be disclosed) is amended as follows.
(2) After “any information” insert “to the extent that any of the following conditions are satisfied”.
(3) For paragraphs (a) to (c) substitute—
“(aa) the pupil to whom the information relates would have no right of access to the information under the GDPR;
(ab) the information is personal data described in Article
9(1) or 10 of the GDPR (special categories of personal data and personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences);”.
(4) In paragraph (d), for “to the extent that its disclosure” substitute “the disclosure of the information”.
(5) In paragraph (e), for “that” substitute “the information”.
191D In regulation 9 (fees), for paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1A) In complying with a request made under regulation 5(2), the responsible body may only charge a fee where Article 12(5) or Article 15(3) of the GDPR would permit the charging of a fee if the request had been made by the pupil to whom the information relates under Article 15 of the GDPR.
(1B) Where paragraph (1A) permits the charging of a fee, the responsible body may not charge a fee that—
(a) exceeds the cost of supply, or
(b) exceeds any limit in regulations made under section 12 of the Data Protection Act 2018 that would apply if the request had been made by the pupil to whom the information relates under Article 15 of the GDPR.”
European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1267)
191E Schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2004 (European Parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
191F(1) Paragraph 74(1) (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit the definitions of “relevant conditions” and “research purposes”.
(3) At the appropriate places insert—
““Article 89 GDPR purposes” means the purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”;
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
191G In paragraph 77(2)(b) (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection), for “research purposes” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes”.
Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3244)
191H In regulation 3(1) of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, omit “the appropriate limit referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act and”.”
“Licensing Act 2003 (Personal Licences) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/41)
199A(1) Regulation 7 of the Licensing Act 2003 (Personal Licences) Regulations 2005 (application for grant of a personal licence) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(b)—
(a) for paragraph (iii) (but not the final “, and”) substitute—
“(iii) the results of a request made under Article 15 of the GDPR or section 45 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (rights of access by the data subject) to the National Identification Service for information contained in the Police National Computer”, and
(b) in the words following paragraph (iii), omit “search”. (3) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) In this regulation, “the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1437)
199B The Education (Pupil Information) (England) Regulations 2005 are amended as follows.
199C In regulation 3(5) (meaning of educational record) for “section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 3(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
199D(1) Regulation 5 (disclosure of curricular and educational records) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (4)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the GDPR”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for “that Act or by virtue of any order made under section 30(2) or section 38(1) of the Act” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) After paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) In this regulation, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.””
“Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/3595)
200A In regulation 3 of the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines Regulations 2005 (interpretation)—
(a) for the definition of “data protection principles” substitute— ““data protection principles” means the principles set out in Article 5(1) of the GDPR;”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);”.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (S.S.I. 2005/494)
200B The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 are amended as follows.
200C(1) Regulation 39 (sensitive information) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (1)(d)—
(a) omit “, within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998”, and
(b) for “(2) or (3)” substitute “(1A), (1B) or (1C)”.
(3) After paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The condition in this paragraph is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public—
(a) would contravene any of the data protection principles, or
(b) would do so if the exemptions in section 24(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (manual unstructured data held by public authorities) were disregarded.
(1B) The condition in this paragraph is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public would contravene—
(a) Article 21 of the GDPR (general processing: right to object to processing), or
(b) section 99 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (intelligence services processing: right to object to processing).
(1C) The condition in this paragraph is that—
(a) on a request under Article 15(1) of the GDPR (general processing: right of access by the data subject) for access to personal data, the information would be withheld in reliance on provision made by or under section 15, 16 or 26 of, or Schedule 2, 3 or 4 to, the Data Protection Act 2018,
(b) on a request under section 45(1)(b) of that Act (law enforcement processing: right of access by the data subject), the information would be withheld in reliance on subsection (4) of that section, or
(c) on a request under section 94(1)(b) of that Act (intelligence services processing: rights of access by the data subject), the information would be withheld in reliance on a provision of Chapter 6 of Part 4 of that Act.
(1D) In this regulation—
“the data protection principles” means the principles set out in—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR,
(b) section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and
(c) section 85(1) of that Act;
“data subject” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
“the GDPR” and references to a provision of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);
“personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).
(1E) In determining for the purposes of this regulation whether the lawfulness principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR would be contravened by the disclosure of information, Article 6(1) of the GDPR (lawfulness) is to be read as if the second sub-paragraph (disapplying the legitimate interests gateway in relation to public authorities) were omitted.”
(4) Omit paragraphs (2) to (4).
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/2068)
200D The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2006 is revoked.
National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/236)
200E(1) Paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 (absent voting at Assembly elections: conditions on the use, supply and inspection of absent vote records or lists) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) For paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”.
(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—
“(2) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Loss of Capacity during Research Project) (England) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/679)
200F In regulation 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Loss of Capacity during Research Project) (England) Regulations 2007 (research which may be carried out despite a participant’s loss of capacity), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) any material used consists of or includes human cells or human DNA,”.
National Assembly for Wales Commission (Crown Status) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1118)
200G For article 5 of the National Assembly for Wales Commission (Crown Status) Order 2007 substitute—
“5 Data Protection Act 2018
(1) The Assembly Commission is to be treated as a Crown body for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018 to the extent specified in this article.
(2) The Assembly Commission is to be treated as a government department for the purposes of the following provisions—
(a) section 8(d) (lawfulness of processing under the GDPR: public interest etc),
(b) section 202 (application to the Crown),
(c) paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 (statutory etc and government purposes),
(d) paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (exemptions from the GDPR: functions designed to protect the public etc), and
(e) paragraph 8(1)(o) of Schedule 3 (exemptions from the GDPR: health data).
(3) In the provisions mentioned in paragraph (4)—
(a) references to employment by or under the Crown are to be treated as including employment as a member of staff of the Assembly Commission, and
(b) references to a person in the service of the Crown are to be treated as including a person so employed.
(4) The provisions are—
(a) section 24(3) (exemption for certain data relating to employment under the Crown), and
(b) section 202(6) (application of certain provisions to a person in the service of the Crown).
(5) In this article, references to a provision of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(14) of that Act).”
Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Loss of Capacity during Research Project) (Wales) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/837 (W.72))
200H In regulation 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Loss of Capacity during Research Project) (Wales) Regulations 2007 (research which may be carried out despite a participant’s loss of capacity)—
(a) in the English language text, for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) any material used consists of or includes human cells or human DNA; and”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text, for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) os yw unrhyw ddeunydd a ddefnyddir yn gelloedd dynol neu’n DNA dynol neu yn eu cynnwys; ac”.
Representation of the People (Absent Voting at Local Elections) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (S.S.I. 2007/170)
200I (1) Regulation 18 of the Representation of the People (Absent Voting at Local Elections) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (conditions on the supply and inspection of absent voter records or lists) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), for sub-paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”.
(3) After paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) In this regulation, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Representation of the People (Post-Local Government Elections Supply and Inspection of Documents) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (S.S.I. 2007/264)
200J In regulation 5 of the Representation of the People (Post-Local Government Elections Supply and Inspection of Documents) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(i) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”, and
(b) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In this regulation, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU)
2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Education (Pupil Records and Reporting) (Transitional) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. (N.I.) 2007 No. 43)
200K The Education (Pupil Records and Reporting) (Transitional) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 is amended as follows.
200L In regulation 2 (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
200M In regulation 10(2) (duties of Boards of Governors), for “documents which are the subject of an order under section 30(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “information to which the pupil to whom the information relates would have no right of access under the GDPR”.
Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741)
200N In regulation 118 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for “research purposes within the meaning of that term in section 33 of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics)”, and
(b) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In this regulation, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU)
2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Companies Act 2006 (Extension of Takeover Panel Provisions) (Isle of Man) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/3122)
200O In paragraph 1(c) of the Schedule to the Companies Act 2006 (Extension of Takeover Panel Provisions) (Isle of Man) Order 2008 (modifications with which Chapter 1 of Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006 extends to the Isle of Man), for “the Data Protection Act 1998 (c 29)” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) (Wales) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/3239 (W.286))
200P The Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) (Wales) Regulations 2008 are amended as follows.
200Q In regulation 2(1) (interpretation)—
(a) at the appropriate place in the English language text insert— ““the GDPR” (“y GDPR”) and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);”, and
(b) at the appropriate place in the Welsh language text insert—
“mae i “y GDPR” a chyfeiriadau at Atodlen 2 i Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018 yr un ystyr ag a roddir i “the GDPR” a chyfeiriadau at yr Atodlen honno yn Rhannau 5 i 7 o’r Ddeddf honno (gweler adran
3(10), (11) a (14) o’r Ddeddf honno);”.
200R(1) Regulation 25 (duty to co-operate by disclosing information as regards relevant persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (7)—
(a) in the English language text, at the end insert “or the GDPR”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text, at the end insert “neu’r GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (8)—
(a) in the English language text substitute—
“(8) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (7) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text substitute—
“(8) Wrth benderfynu at ddibenion paragraff (7) a yw datgeliad wedi’i wahardd, mae i’w dybied at ddibenion paragraff 5(2) o Atodlen 2 i Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018 a pharagraff 3(2) o Atodlen 11 i’r Ddeddf honno (esemptiadau rhag darpariaethau penodol o’r ddeddfwriaeth diogelu data: datgeliadau sy’n ofynnol gan y gyfraith) bod y datgeliad yn ofynnol gan y rheoliad hwn.”
200S (1) Regulation 26 (responsible bodies requesting additional information be disclosed about relevant persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (6)—
(a) in the English language text, at the end insert “or the GDPR”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text, at the end insert “neu’r GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (7)—
(a) in the English language text substitute—
“(7) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (6) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text substitute—
“(7) Wrth benderfynu at ddibenion paragraff (6) a yw datgeliad wedi’i wahardd, mae i’w dybied at ddibenion paragraff 5(2) o Atodlen 2 i Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018 a pharagraff 3(2) o Atodlen 11 i’r Ddeddf honno (esemptiadau rhag darpariaethau penodol o’r ddeddfwriaeth diogelu data: datgeliadau sy’n ofynnol gan y gyfraith) bod y datgeliad yn ofynnol gan y rheoliad hwn.”
200T(1) Regulation 29 (occurrence reports) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (3)—
(a) in the English language text, at the end insert “or the GDPR”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text, at the end insert “neu’r GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (4)—
(a) in the English language text substitute—
“(4) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (3) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text substitute—
“(4) Wrth benderfynu at ddibenion paragraff (3) a yw datgeliad wedi’i wahardd, mae i’w dybied at ddibenion paragraff 5(2) o Atodlen 2 i Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018 a pharagraff 3(2) o Atodlen 11 i’r Ddeddf honno (esemptiadau rhag darpariaethau penodol o’r ddeddfwriaeth diogelu data: datgeliadau sy’n ofynnol gan y gyfraith) bod y datgeliad yn ofynnol gan y rheoliad hwn.”
Energy Order 2003 (Supply of Information) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. (N.I.) 2008 No. 3)
200U(1) Regulation 5 of the Energy Order 2003 (Supply of Information) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (information whose disclosure would be affected by the application of other legislation) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3)—
(a) omit “within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998”, and
(b) for the words from “where” to the end substitute “if the condition in paragraph (3A) or (3B) is satisfied”.
(3) After paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) The condition in this paragraph is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public—
(a) would contravene any of the data protection principles, or
(b) would do so if the exemptions in section 24(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 (manual unstructured data held by public authorities) were disregarded.
(3B) The condition in this paragraph is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public would contravene—
(a) Article 21 of the GDPR (general processing: right to object to processing), or
(b) section 99 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (intelligence services processing: right to object to processing).”
(4) After paragraph (4) insert— “(5) In this regulation—
“the data protection principles” means the principles set out in—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR,
(b) section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and
(c) section 85(1) of that Act;
“the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);
“personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
Companies (Disclosure of Address) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/214)
200V(1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Companies (Disclosure of Address) Regulations 2009 (conditions for permitted disclosure to a credit reference agency) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
“(ii) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations;”.
(4) In paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph—
(a) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i), and
(b) at the end insert “; or
(iii) section 145 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (false statements made in response to an information notice) or section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) of that Act (destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);”.
(5) After paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph insert—
“(d) has not been given a penalty notice under section 154 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in circumstances described in paragraph (c)(ii), other than a penalty notice that has been cancelled.”
(6) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) In this paragraph, “data protection obligations”, in relation to a credit reference agency, means—
(a) where the agency carries on business in the United Kingdom, obligations under the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) where the agency carries on business in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom, obligations under—
(i) the GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) of the Data Protection Act 2018),
(ii) legislation made in exercise of powers conferred on member States under the GDPR (as so defined), and
(iii) legislation implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (as defined in section 3(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/1801)
200W(1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 (conditions for permitted disclosure to a credit reference agency) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
“(ii) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations;”.
(4) In paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph—
(a) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i), and
(b) at the end insert “; or
(iii) section 145 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (false statements made in response to an information notice) or section
(Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) of that Act (destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);”.
(5) After paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph insert—
“(d) has not been given a penalty notice under section 154 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in circumstances described in paragraph (c)(ii), other than a penalty notice that has been cancelled.”
(6) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) In this paragraph, “data protection obligations”, in relation to a credit reference agency, means—
(a) where the agency carries on business in the United Kingdom, obligations under the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) where the agency carries on business in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom, obligations under—
(i) the GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) of the Data Protection Act 2018),
(ii) legislation made in exercise of powers conferred on member States under the GDPR (as so defined), and
(iii) legislation implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (as defined in section 3(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1811)
200X The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2009 is revoked.
Provision of Services Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2999)
200Y In regulation 25 of the Provision of Services Regulations 2009 (derogations from the freedom to provide services), for paragraph (d) substitute—
“(d) matters covered by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.”
“INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (S.S.I. 2009/440)
201A(1) Regulation 10 of the INSPIRE (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (public access to spatial data sets and spatial data services) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (2)—
(a) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (a), (b) for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) Article 21 of the GDPR (general processing: right to object to processing), or
(c) section 99 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (intelligence services processing: right to object to processing).”, and
(c) omit the words following sub-paragraph (b). (3) After paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) In this regulation—
“the data protection principles” means the principles set out in—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR,
(b) section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018, and
(c) section 85(1) of that Act;
“the GDPR” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);
“personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).
(8) In determining for the purposes of this regulation whether the lawfulness principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR would be contravened by the disclosure of information, Article 6(1) of the GDPR (lawfulness) is to be read as if the second sub-paragraph (disapplying the legitimate interests gateway in relation to public authorities) were omitted.”
Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 (S.R (N.I.) 2009 No. 225)
201B The Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 are amended as follows.
201C In regulation 2(2) (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);”.”
201D(1) Regulation 25 (duty to co-operate by disclosing information as regards relevant persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (7), at the end insert “or the GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (8) substitute—
“(8) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (7) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”
201E(1) Regulation 26 (responsible bodies requesting additional information be disclosed about relevant persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (6), at the end insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For paragraph (7) substitute—
“(7) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (6) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”
201F(1) Regulation 29 (occurrence reports) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (3), at the end insert “or the GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (4) substitute—
“(4) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (3) whether disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”
Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/31)
201G The Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 are revoked.
Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231)
201H The Pharmacy Order 2010 is amended as follows.
201I In article 3(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/ EC”.
201J (1) Article 9 (inspection and enforcement) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (4) substitute—
“(4) If a report that the Council proposes to publish pursuant to paragraph (3) includes personal data, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure of the personal data is required by paragraph (3) of this article.”
(3) After paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) In this article, “personal data” and references to Schedule 2 to the
Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
201K In article 33A (European professional card), after paragraph (2) insert— “(3) In Schedule 2A, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”
201L(1) Article 49 (disclosure of information: general) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (2)(a), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”.
(3) For paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (2)(a) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by paragraph (1) of this article.”
(4) After paragraph (5) insert—
“(6) In this article, “the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
201M(1) Article 55 (professional performance assessments) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (5)(a), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (3) For paragraph (6) substitute—
“(6) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (5)(a) whether a disclosure is prohibited, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by paragraph (4) of this article.”
(4) After paragraph (8) insert—
“(9) In this article, “the GDPR” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
201N In article 67(6) (Directive 2005/36/EC: designation of competent authority etc.), after sub-paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
201O(1) Schedule 2A (Directive 2005/36/EC: European professional card) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 8(1) (access to data), for “Directive 95/46/EC)” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In paragraph 9 (processing data)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (2) (deeming the Council to be the controller for the purposes of Directive 95/46/EC), and
(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) In this paragraph, “personal data” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) of that Act).”
201P(1) The table in Schedule 3 (Directive 2005/36/EC: designation of competent authority etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for Article 56(2), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/ EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
(3) In the entry for Article 56a(4), in the second column, for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/910)
201Q The Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) Order 2010 is revoked.
National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/917)
201R The National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010 is amended as follows.
201S In article 2 (interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “data” and “personal data”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
201T(1) Article 10 (disclosure of requested data to the Secretary of State) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a) for “disclosure of data” substitute “disclosure of information”, and
(b) for “requested data” substitute “requested information”.
(3) In paragraph (2)—
(a) for “requested data” substitute “requested information”, (b) for “those data are” substitute “the information is”, and
(c) for “receive those data” substitute “receive that information”.
(4) In paragraph (3), for “requested data” substitute “requested information”.
(5) In paragraph (4), for “requested data” substitute “requested information”.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/2977)
201U(1) Schedule 3 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010 (access to marked registers and other documents open to public inspection after an election) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(1) (interpretation and general)—
(a) omit the definition of “research purposes”, and
(b) at the appropriate places insert—
““Article 89 GDPR purposes” means the purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”;
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
(3) In paragraph 5(3) (restrictions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection), for “research purposes” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes”.
Pupil Information (Wales) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/1942 (W.209))
201V(1) Regulation 5 of the Pupil Information (Wales) Regulations 2011 (duties of head teacher - educational records) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (5)—
(a) in the English language text, for “documents which are subject to any order under section 30(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “information—
(a) which the head teacher could not lawfully disclose to the pupil under the GDPR, or
(b) to which the pupil would have no right of access under the GDPR.”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text, for “ddogfennau sy’n ddarostyngedig i unrhyw orchymyn o dan adran 30(2) o Ddeddf Diogelu Data 1998” substitute “wybodaeth—
(a) na allai’r pennaeth ei datgelu’n gyfreithlon i’r disgybl o dan y GDPR, neu
(b) na fyddai gan y disgybl hawl mynediad ati o dan y GDPR.”
(3) After paragraph (5)—
(a) in the English language text insert—
“(6) In this regulation, “the GDPR” (“y GDPR”) means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part
2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”, and
(b) in the Welsh language text insert—
“(6) Yn y rheoliad hwn, ystyr “y GDPR” (“the GDPR”) yw Rheoliad (EU) 2016/679 Senedd Ewrop a’r Cyngor dyddiedig 27 Ebrill 2016 ar ddiogelu personau naturiol o ran prosesu data personol a rhyddid symud data o’r fath (y Rheoliad Diogelu Data Cyffredinol), fel y’i darllenir ynghyd â Phennod 2 o Ran 2 o Ddeddf Diogelu Data 2018.”
Debt Arrangement Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (S.S.I. 2011/141)
201W In Schedule 4 to the Debt Arrangement Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (payments distributors), omit paragraph 2.
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1917)
201X The Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 is amended as follows.
201Y(1) Schedule 2 (absent voting in Police and Crime Commissioner elections) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20 (absent voter lists: supply of copies etc)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (8), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”, and
(b) after sub-paragraph (10) insert—
“(11) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
(3) In paragraph 24 (restriction on use of absent voter records or lists or the information contained in them)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics),”, and
(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(4) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
201Z(1) Schedule 10 (access to marked registers and other documents open to public inspection after an election) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(2) (interpretation), omit paragraphs (c) and (d) (but not the final “and”).
(3) In paragraph 5 (restriction on use of documents or of information contained in them)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics),”, and
(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1978)
201AA The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2012 is revoked.
Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/2031)
201AB Schedule 6 to the Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) Regulations 2012 (registering to vote in a business referendum) is amended as follows.
201AC(1)Paragraph 29(1) (interpretation of Part 8) is amended as follows.
(2) At the appropriate places insert—
““Article 89 GDPR purposes” means the purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”;
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation);”.
(3) For the definition of “relevant conditions” substitute—
““relevant requirement” means the requirement under Article 89 of the GDPR, read with section 19 of the Data Protection Act 2018, that personal data processed for Article 89 GDPR purposes must be subject to appropriate safeguards;”.
(4) Omit the definition of “research purposes”.
201AD In paragraph 32(3)(b)(i), for “section 11(3) of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “section 123(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018”.
201AE In paragraph 33(6) and (7) (supply of copy of business voting register to the British Library and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
201AF In paragraph 34(6) and (7) (supply of copy of business voting register to the Office of National Statistics and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
201AG In paragraph 39(8) and (9) (supply of copy of business voting register to public libraries and local authority archives services and restrictions on use), for “research purposes in compliance with the relevant conditions” substitute “Article 89 GDPR purposes in accordance with the relevant requirement”.
201AH In paragraph 45(2) (conditions on the use, supply and disclosure of documents open to public inspection), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) Article 89 GDPR purposes (as defined in paragraph 29),”.
Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/373)
201AI(1)Regulation 20 of the Controlled Drugs (Supervision of Management and Use) Regulations 2013 (information management) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (4) substitute—
“(4) Where a CDAO, a responsible body or someone acting on their behalf is permitted to share information which includes personal data by virtue of a function under these Regulations, it is to be assumed for the purposes of paragraph 5(2) of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 and paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 11 to that Act (exemptions from certain provisions of the data protection legislation: disclosures required by law) that the disclosure is required by this regulation.”
(3) In paragraph (5), after “enactment” insert “or the GDPR”. (4) After paragraph (6) insert—
“(7) In this regulation, “the GDPR”, “personal data” and references to Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2), (10), (11) and (14) of that Act).”
Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/1825)
201AJ(1)Article 3 of the Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014 (specification of relevant functions) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes paragraph (1).
(3) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (a), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(4) After that paragraph insert—
“(2) In this article, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””
“Data Protection (Assessment Notices) (Designation of National Health Service Bodies) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/3282)
202A The Data Protection (Assessment Notices) (Designation of National Health Service Bodies) Order 2014 is revoked.”
“Companies (Disclosure of Date of Birth Information) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/1694)
204A(1) Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Companies (Disclosure of Date of Birth Information) Regulations 2015 (conditions for permitted disclosure to a credit reference agency) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph, for sub-paragraph (ii) substitute—
“(ii) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations;”.
(4) In paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph—
(a) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i), and
(b) at the end insert “; or
(iii) section 145 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (false statements made in response to an information notice) or section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) of that Act (destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);”.
(5) After paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph insert—
“(d) has not been given a penalty notice under section 154 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in circumstances described in paragraph (c)(ii), other than a penalty notice that has been cancelled.”
(6) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) In this paragraph, “data protection obligations”, in relation to a credit reference agency, means—
(a) where the agency carries on business in the United Kingdom, obligations under the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) where the agency carries on business in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom, obligations under—
(i) the GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) of the Data Protection Act 2018),
(ii) legislation made in exercise of powers conferred on member States under the GDPR (as so defined), and
(iii) legislation implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (as defined in section 3(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/1945)
204B The Small and Medium Sized Business (Credit Information) Regulations 2015 are amended as follows.
204C(1) Regulation 12 (criteria for the designation of a credit reference agency) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(b), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) In this regulation, “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
204D(1) Regulation 15 (access to and correction of information for individuals and small firms) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (1) substitute—
“(1) Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (rights of the data subject under the GDPR: obligations of credit reference agencies) applies in respect of a designated credit reference agency which is not a credit reference agency within the meaning of section 145(8) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as if it were such an agency.”
(3) After paragraph (3) insert—
“(4) In this regulation, the reference to section 13 of the Data Protection Act 2018 has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(14) of that Act).”
European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/2059)
204E The European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 are amended as follows.
204F(1) Regulation 2(1) (interpretation) is amended as follows. (2) Omit the definition of “Directive 95/46/EC”.
(3) At the appropriate place insert—
““the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), read with Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018;”.
204G In regulation 5(5) (functions of competent authorities in the United Kingdom) for “Directives 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR and Directive”.
204H In regulation 45(3) (processing and access to data regarding the European Professional Card), for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
204I In regulation 46(1) (processing and access to data regarding the European Professional Card), for “Directive 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR”.
204J In regulation 48(2) (processing and access to data regarding the European Professional Card), omit paragraph (2) (deeming the relevant designated competent authorities to be controllers for the purposes of Directive 95/46/EC).
204K In regulation 66(3) (exchange of information), for “Directives 95/46/EC” substitute “the GDPR and Directive”.
Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/425)
204L The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 2015 is amended as follows.
204M(1) Schedule 3 (absent voting) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 16 (absent voting lists: supply of copies etc)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”, and
(b) after sub-paragraph (10) insert—
“(11) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
(3) In paragraph 20 (restriction on use of absent voting lists)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”, and
(b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
“(4) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
204N(1) Schedule 8 (access to marked registers and other documents open to public inspection after an election) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(2) (interpretation), omit paragraphs (c) and (d) (but not the final “and”).
(3) In paragraph 5 (restriction on use of documents or of information contained in them)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the final “or”) substitute—
“(a) purposes mentioned in Article 89(1) of the GDPR (archiving in the public interest, scientific or historical research and statistics);”, and
(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(5) In this paragraph, “the GDPR” means Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).”
Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/295)
204O In paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016 (access to marked registers after a petition), omit the definition of “relevant conditions”.
Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/339)
204P Schedule 4 to the Register of People with Significant Control Regulations 2016 (conditions for permitted disclosure) is amended as follows.
204Q(1) Paragraph 6 (disclosure to a credit reference agency) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (b), for paragraph (ii) (together with the final “; and”) substitute—
“(ii) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations;”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (c)—
(a) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (ii), and
(b) at the end insert—
“(iv) section 145 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (false statements made in response to an information notice); or
(v) section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) of that Act (destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);”
(4) After sub-paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) has not been given a penalty notice under section 154 of the Data Protection Act 2018 in circumstances described in sub-paragraph (c)(iii), other than a penalty notice that has been cancelled.”
204R In paragraph 12A (disclosure to a credit institution or a financial institution), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations.”
204S (1) In Part 3 (interpretation), after paragraph 13 insert—
“14 In this Schedule, “data protection obligations”, in relation to a credit reference agency, a credit institution or a financial institution, means—
(a) where the agency or institution carries on business in the United Kingdom, obligations under the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) where the agency or institution carries on business in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom, obligations under—
(i) the GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) of the Data Protection Act 2018),
(ii) legislation made in exercise of powers conferred on member States under the GDPR (as so defined), and
(iii) legislation implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (as defined in section 3(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/696)
204T The Electronic Identification and Trust Services for Electronic Transactions Regulations 2016 are amended as follows.
204U In regulation 2(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of “the 1998 Act”.
204V In regulation 3(3) (supervision), omit “under the 1998 Act”.
204W For Schedule 2 substitute—
“SCHEDULE 2
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S ENFORCEMENT POWERS
Provisions applied for enforcement purposes
1 For the purposes of enforcing these Regulations and the eIDAS Regulation, the following provisions of Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 apply with the modifications set out in paragraphs 2 to 24—
(a) section 140 (publication by the Commissioner); (b) section 141 (notices from the Commissioner); (c) section 143 (information notices);
(d) section 144 (information notices: restrictions);
(e) section 145 (false statements made in response to an information notice);
(f) section (Information orders) (information orders); (g) section 146 (assessment notices);
(h) section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) (destroying or falsifying information and documents etc);
(i) section 147 (assessment notices: restrictions); (j) section 148 (enforcement notices);
(k) section 149 (enforcement notices: supplementary); (l) section 151 (enforcement notices: restrictions);
(m) section 152 (enforcement notices: cancellation and variation);
(n) section 153 and Schedule 15 (powers of entry and inspection);
(o) section 154 and Schedule 16 (penalty notices); (p) section 155(4)(a) (penalty notices: restrictions); (q) section 156 (maximum amount of penalty);
(r) section 158 (amount of penalties: supplementary);
(s) section 159 (guidance about regulatory action);
(t) section 160 (approval of first guidance about regulatory action);
(u) section (Applications in respect of urgent notices) (applications in respect of urgent notices);
(v) section 177 (jurisdiction);”
(w) section 161 (rights of appeal);
(x) section 162 (determination of appeals);
(y) section 179(1), (2), (5), (7) and (12) (regulations and consultation);
(z) section 189 (penalties for offences);
(z1) section 190 (prosecution);
(z2) section 195 (proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal: contempt);
(z3) section 196 (Tribunal Procedure Rules).
General modification of references to the Data Protection Act 2018
2 The provisions listed in paragraph 1 have effect as if—
(a) references to the Data Protection Act 2018 were references to the provisions of that Act as applied by these Regulations;
(b) references to a particular provision of that Act were references to that provision as applied by these Regulations.
Modification of section 143 (information notices)
3 (1) Section 143 has effect as if subsections (9) and (10) were omitted.
(2) In that section, subsection (1) has effect as if— (a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) for “controller or processor” there were substituted “trust service provider”;
(ii) for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS Regulation and the EITSET Regulations”;
(b) paragraph (b) were omitted.
(3) In that section, subsection (2) has effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted.
Modification of section 144 (information notices: restrictions)
4 (1) Section 144 has effect as if subsections (1) and (9) were omitted. (2) In that section—
(a) subsections (3)(b) and (4)(b) have effect as if for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS Regulation or the EITSET Regulations”;
(b) subsection (7)(a) has effect as if for “this Act” there were substituted “section 145 or (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15”;
(c) subsection (8) has effect as if for “this Act (other than an offence under section 145)” there were substituted “section (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15”.
Modification of section (Information orders) (information orders)
5 Section (Information orders)(2)(b) has effect as if for “section 143(2)(b)” there were substituted “section 143(2)”.
Modification of section 146 (assessment notices)
6 (1) Section 146 has effect as if subsection (10) were omitted. (2) In that section—
(a) subsection (1) has effect as if—
(i) for “controller or processor” (in both places) there were substituted “trust service provider”;
(ii) for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS requirements”;
(b) subsection (2) has effect as if paragraphs (g) and (h) were omitted;
(c) subsections (7), (8), (8A) and (9) have effect as if for “controller or processor” (in each place) there were substituted “trust service provider;
(d) subsection (8A)(a) has effect as if for “as described in section 148(2) or that an offence under this Act” there were substituted “to comply with the eIDAS requirements or that an offence under section 145 or (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15”.
Modification of section 147(assessment notices: restrictions)
7 (1) Section 147 has effect as if subsections (5) and (6) were omitted. (2) In that section, subsections (2)(b) and (3)(b) have effect as if for
“the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS Regulation or the EITSET Regulations”.
Modification of section 148 (enforcement notices)
8 (1) Section 148 has effect as if subsections (2) to (5) and (7) to (9) were omitted.
(2) In that section—
(a) subsection (1) has effect as if—
(i) for “as described in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5)” there were substituted “to comply with the eIDAS requirements”;
(ii) for “sections 149 and 150” there were substituted “section 149”;
(b) subsection (6) has effect as if the words “given in reliance on subsection (2), (3) or (5)” were omitted.
Modification of section 149 (enforcement notices: supplementary)
9 (1) Section 149 has effect as if subsection (3) were omitted.
(2) In that section, subsection (2) has effect as if the words “in reliance on section 148(2)” and “or distress” were omitted.
Modification of section 151 (enforcement notices: restrictions)
10 Section 151 has effect as if subsections (1), (2) and (4) were omitted.
Withdrawal notices
11 The provisions listed in paragraph 1 have effect as if after section 152 there were inserted—
“Withdrawal notices
152A Withdrawal notices
(1) The Commissioner may, by written notice (a “withdrawal notice”), withdraw the qualified status from a trust service provider, or the qualified status of a service provided by a trust service provider, if—
(a) the Commissioner is satisfied that the trust service provider has failed to comply with an information notice or an enforcement notice, and
(b) the condition in subsection (2) or (3) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is met if the period for the trust service provider to appeal against the information notice or enforcement notice has ended without an appeal having been brought.
(3) The condition in this subsection is met if an appeal against the information notice or enforcement notice has been brought and—
(a) the appeal and any further appeal in relation to the notice has been decided or has otherwise ended, and
(b) the time for appealing against the result of the appeal or further appeal has ended without another appeal having been brought.
(4) A withdrawal notice must—
(a) state when the withdrawal takes effect, and
(b) provide information about the rights of appeal under section 161.”
Modification of Schedule 15 (powers of entry and inspection)
12 (1) Schedule 15 has effect as if paragraph 3 were omitted.
(2) Paragraph 1(1) of that Schedule (issue of warrants in connection with non-compliance and offences) has effect as if for paragraph (a) (but not the final “and”) there were substituted—
“(a) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that—
(i) a trust service provider has failed or is failing to comply with the eIDAS requirements, or
(ii) an offence under section 145 or (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc) or paragraph 15 of Schedule 15 has been or is being committed,”.
(3) Paragraph 2 of that Schedule (issue of warrants in connection with assessment notices) has effect as if—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) and (2), for “controller or processor” there were substituted “trust service provider”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS requirements”.
(4) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule (content of warrants) has effect as if—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(c), for “the processing of personal data” there were substituted “the provision of trust services”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(c)—
(i) for “controller or processor” there were substituted “trust service provider”;
(ii) for “as described in section 148(2)” there were substituted “to comply with the eIDAS requirements”;
(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (c)—
(i) for “controller or processor” there were substituted “trust service provider”;
(ii) for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS requirements”.
(5) Paragraph 11 of that Schedule (privileged communications) has effect as if, in sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b), for “the data protection legislation” there were substituted “the eIDAS Regulation or the EITSET Regulations”.
Modification of section 154 (penalty notices)
13 (1) Section 154 has effect as if subsections (1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(g), (3A) and (5) to (7) were omitted.
(2) Subsection (2) of that section has effect as if—
(a) the words “Subject to subsection (3A),” were omitted; (b) in paragraph (b), the words “to the extent that the notice concerns another matter,” were omitted.
(3) Subsection (3) of that section has effect as if—
(a) for “controller or processor”, in each place, there were substituted “trust services provider”;
(b) in paragraph (c), the words “or distress” were omitted; (c) in paragraph (c), for “data subjects” there were substituted “relying parties”;
(d) in paragraph (d), for “section 57, 66, 103 or 107” there were substituted “Article 19(1) of the eIDAS Regulation”.
Modification of Schedule 16 (penalties)
14 Schedule 16 has effect as if paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 5(2)(b) were omitted.
Modification of section 156 (maximum amount of penalty)
15 Section 156 has effect as if subsections (1) to (3) and (6) were omitted.
Modification of section 158 (amount of penalties: supplementary)
16 Section 158 has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1), the words “Article 83 of the GDPR
and” were omitted;
(b) in subsection (2), the words “Article 83 of the GDPR”
and “and section 157” were omitted.
Modification of section 159 (guidance about regulatory action)
17 (1) Section 159 has effect as if subsections (4) and (10) were omitted.
(2) In that section, subsection (3)(e) has effect as if for “controllers and processors” there were substituted “trust service providers”.
Modification of section 161 (rights of appeal)
18 (1) Section 161 has effect as if subsection (5) were omitted.
(2) In that section, subsection (1) has effect as if, after paragraph
(c), there were inserted—
“(ca) a withdrawal notice;”.
Modification of section 162 (determination of appeals)
19 Section 162 has effect as if subsection (7) were omitted.
Modification of section 177 (jurisdiction)
20 (1) Section 177 has effect as if subsections (2)(c) and (d) and (3) were omitted.
(2) Subsection (1) of that section has effect as if for “subsections (3) and (4)” there were substituted “subsection (4)”.
Modification of section 179 (regulations and consultation)
21 Section 179 has effect as if subsections (3), (4), (6), (8) to (11) and (13) were omitted.
Modification of section 189 (penalties for offences)
22 (1) Section 189 has effect as if subsections (3) to (5) were omitted. (2) In that section—
(a) subsection (1) has effect as if the words “section 119 or 173 or” were omitted;
(b) subsection (2) has effect as if for “section 132, 145, (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc), 170, 171 or 181” there were substituted “section 145 or (Destroying or falsifying information and documents etc)”.
Modification of section 190 (prosecution)
23 Section 190 has effect as if subsections (3) to (6) were omitted.
Modification of section 195 (proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal: contempt)
24 Section 195 has effect as if in subsection (1)(a), for sub- paragraphs (i) and (ii) there were substituted “on an appeal under section 161”.
Modification of section 196 (Tribunal Procedure Rules)
25 Section 196 has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted “the exercise of the rights of appeal conferred by section 161”;
(b) in subsection (2)(a) and (b), for “the processing of personal data” there were substituted “the provision of trust services”.
Approval of first guidance about regulatory action
26 (1) This paragraph applies if the first guidance produced under section 159(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the first guidance produced under that provision as applied by this Schedule are laid before Parliament as a single document (“the combined guidance”).
(2) Section 160 of that Act (including that section as applied by this Schedule) has effect as if the references to “the guidance” were references to the combined guidance, except in subsections (2)(b) and (4).
(3) Nothing in subsection (2)(a) of that section (including as applied by this Schedule) prevents another version of the combined guidance being laid before Parliament.
(4) Any duty under subsection (2)(b) of that section (including as applied by this Schedule) may be satisfied by producing another version of the combined guidance.
Interpretation
27 In this Schedule—
“the eIDAS requirements” means the requirements of Chapter III of the eIDAS Regulation;
“the EITSET Regulations” means these Regulations; “withdrawal notice” has the meaning given in section 146A of the Data Protection Act 2018 (as inserted in that Act by this Schedule).”
Court Files Privileged Access Rules (Northern Ireland) 2016 (S.R. (N.I.) 2016 No. 123)
204X The Court Files Privileged Access Rules (Northern Ireland) 2016 are amended as follows.
204Y In rule 5 (information that may released) for “Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR, and
(b) section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.”
204Z In rule 7(2) (provision of information) for “Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR, and
(b) section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.”
Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/692)
204AA The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 are amended as follows.
204AB In regulation 3(1) (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert— ““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of thatAct);”;
““the GDPR” and references to provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(10), (11) and (14) of that Act);”.
204AC In regulation 16(8) (risk assessment by the Treasury and Home Office), for “the Data Protection Act 1998 or any other enactment” substitute “— (a) the Data Protection Act 2018 or any other enactment, or
(b) the GDPR.”
204AD In regulation 17(9) (risk assessment by supervisory authorities), for “the Data Protection Act 1998 or any other enactment” substitute “—
(a) the Data Protection Act 2018 or any other enactment, or
(b) the GDPR.”
204AE For regulation 40(9)(c) (record keeping) substitute—
“(c) “data subject” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
(d) “personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
204AF(1)Regulation 41 (data protection) is amended as follows. (2) Omit paragraph (2).
(3) In paragraph (3)(a), after “Regulations” insert “or the GDPR”. (4) Omit paragraphs (4) and (5).
(5) After those paragraphs insert—
“(6) Before establishing a business relationship or entering into an occasional transaction with a new customer, as well as providing the customer with the information required under Article 13 of the GDPR (information to be provided where personal data are collected from the data subject), relevant persons must provide the customer with a statement that any personal data received from the customer will be processed only—
(a) for the purposes of preventing money laundering or terrorist financing, or
(b) as permitted under paragraph (3).
(7) In Article 6(1) of the GDPR (lawfulness of processing), the reference in point (e) to processing of personal data that is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest includes processing of personal data in accordance with these Regulations that is necessary for the prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing.
(8) In the case of sensitive processing of personal data for the purposes of the prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing, section 10 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Data Protection Act 2018 make provision about when the processing meets a requirement in Article 9(2) or 10 of the GDPR for authorisation under the law of the United Kingdom (see, for example, paragraphs 9, 10 and 10A of that Schedule).
(9) In this regulation—
“data subject” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);
“personal data” and “processing” have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of that Act (see section 3(2), (4) and (14) of that Act);
“sensitive processing” means the processing of personal data described in Article 9(1) or 10 of the GDPR (special categories of personal data and personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences etc).”
204AG(1)Regulation 84 (publication: the Financial Conduct Authority) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (10), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) For paragraph (11) substitute—
“(11) For the purposes of this regulation, “personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
204AH(1)Regulation 85 (publication: the Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (9), for “the Data Protection Act 1998” substitute “the data protection legislation”.
(3) For paragraph (10) substitute—
“(10) For the purposes of this regulation, “personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act).”
204AI For regulation 106(a) (general restrictions) substitute—
“(a) a disclosure in contravention of the data protection legislation; or”.
204AJ After paragraph 27 of Schedule 3 (relevant offences) insert—
“27A An offence under the Data Protection Act 2018, apart from an offence under section 173 of that Act.”
Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 (S.I.2017/694)
204AK(1)Paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Scottish Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2017 (conditions for permitted disclosure to a credit institution or a financial institution) is amended as follows.
(2) The existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1).
(3) For paragraph (b) of that sub-paragraph substitute—
“(b) for the purposes of ensuring that it complies with its data protection obligations.”
(4) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(2) In this paragraph, “data protection obligations”, in relation to a relevant institution, means—
(a) where the institution carries on business in the United Kingdom, obligations under the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) where the institution carries on business in a EEA State other than the United Kingdom, obligations under—
(i) the GDPR (as defined in section 3(10) of the Data Protection Act 2018),
(ii) legislation made in exercise of powers conferred on member States under the GDPR (as so defined), and
(iii) legislation implementing the Law Enforcement Directive (as defined in section 3(12) of the Data Protection Act 2018).
Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/480)
204AL In regulation 1(2) of the Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert—
““data controller” means a person who is a controller for the purposes of Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(6) and (14) of that Act);”;
““personal data” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2) and (14) of that Act);”.
National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I. 2018/66)
204AM The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 are amended as follows.
204AN(1)Regulation 1 (citation and commencement) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (2), omit “Subject to paragraph (3),”.
(3) Omit paragraph (3).
204AO In regulation 3(1) (interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “the 1998 Act”, (b) at the appropriate place insert—
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”, and
(c) omit the definition of “GDPR”.
204AP(1)Schedule 6 (other contractual terms) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 63(2) (interpretation: general), for “the 1998 Act or any directly applicable EU instrument relating to data protection” substitute “—
(a) the data protection legislation, or
(b) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection.”
(3) For paragraph 64 (meaning of data controller etc.) substitute—
“Meaning of controller etc.
64A For the purposes of this Part—
“controller” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(6) and (14) of that Act);
“data protection officer” means a person designated as a data protection officer under the data protection legislation;
“personal data” and “processing” have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2), (4) and (14) of that Act).”
(4) In paragraph 65(2)(b) (roles, responsibilities and obligations: general), for “data controllers” substitute “controllers”.
(5) In paragraph 69(2)(a) (processing and access of data), for “the 1998 Act, and any directly applicable EU instrument relating to data protection;” substitute “—
(i) the data protection legislation, and
(ii) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection;”.
(6) In paragraph 94(4) (variation of a contract: general)— (a) omit paragraph (b), and
(b) after paragraph (d) (but before the final “and”) insert—
“(da) the data protection legislation;
(db) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection;”.
National Health Service (Primary Medical Services Section 17C Agreements) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I. 2018/67)
204AQ The National Health Service (Primary Medical Services Section 17C Agreements) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 are amended as follows.
204AR(1)Regulation 1 (citation and commencement) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (2), omit “Subject to paragraph (3),”.
(3) Omit paragraph (3).
204AS In regulation 3(1) (interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “the 1998 Act”, and
(b) at the appropriate place insert—
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”, and
(c) omit the definition of “GDPR”.
204AT(1)Schedule 1 (content of agreements) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 34 (interpretation)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) omit “Subject to sub-paragraph (3),”, (ii) before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) “controller” has the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act
2018 (see section 3(6) and (14) of that Act);
(zb) “data protection officer” means a person designated as a data protection officer under the data protection legislation;”, and
(iii) for paragraph (d) substitute—
“(e) “personal data” and “processing” have the same meaning as in Parts 5 to 7 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(2), (4) and (14) of that Act).”,
(b) omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3),
(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for “the 1998 Act and any directly applicable EU instrument relating to data protection” substitute “—
(a) the data protection legislation, or
(b) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection.”, and
(d) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for “data controllers” substitute “controllers”.
(3) In paragraph 37(2)(a) (processing and access of data), for “the 1998 Act, and any directly applicable EU instrument relating to data protection;” substitute “—
(i) the data protection legislation, and
(ii) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection;”.
(4) In paragraph 61(3) (variation of agreement: general)— (a) omit paragraph (b), and
(b) after paragraph (d) (but before the final “and”) insert—
“(da) the data protection legislation;
(db) any directly applicable EU legislation which is not part of the data protection legislation but which relates to data protection;”.
PART 3
MODIFICATIONS
Introduction
204AU(1)Unless the context otherwise requires, legislation described in sub- paragraph (2) has effect on and after the day on which this Part of this Schedule comes into force as if it were modified in accordance with this Part of this Schedule.
(2) That legislation is—
(a) subordinate legislation made before the day on which this Part of this Schedule comes into force;
(b) primary legislation that is passed or made before the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.
(3) In this Part of this Schedule—
“primary legislation” has the meaning given in section 204(7); “references” includes any references, however expressed.
General modifications
204AV(1)References to a particular provision of, or made under, the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to the equivalent provision or provisions of, or made under, the data protection legislation.
(2) Other references to the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to the data protection legislation.
(3) References to disclosure, use or other processing of information that is prohibited or restricted by an enactment which include disclosure, use or other processing of information that is prohibited or restricted by the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as if they included disclosure, use or other processing of information that is prohibited or restricted by the GDPR or the applied GDPR.
Specific modification of references to terms used in the Data Protection Act 1998
204AW(1)References to personal data, and to the processing of such data, as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, have effect as references to personal data, and to the processing of such data, as defined for the purposes of Parts 5 to 7 of this Act (see section 3(2), (4) and (14)).
(2) References to processing as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998, in relation to information, have effect as references to processing as defined in section 3(4).
(3) References to a data subject as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to a data subject as defined in section 3(5).
(4) References to a data controller as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to a controller as defined for the purposes of Parts 5 to 7 of this Act (see section 3(6) and (14)).
(5) References to the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to the principles set out in—
(a) Article 5(1) of the GDPR and the applied GDPR, and
(b) sections 34(1) and 85(1) of this Act.
(6) References to direct marketing as defined in section 11 of the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to direct marketing as defined in section 123 of this Act.
(7) References to a health professional within the meaning of section 69(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to a health professional within the meaning of section 197 of this Act.
(8) References to a health record within the meaning of section 68(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 have effect as references to a health record within the meaning of section 198 of this Act.
PART 4
SUPPLEMENTARY
Definitions
204AX Section 3(14) does not apply to this Schedule.”
“TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ETC
PART 1
GENERAL
Interpretation
1 (1) In this Schedule—
“the 1984 Act” means the Data Protection Act 1984; “the 1998 Act” means the Data Protection Act 1998;
“the 2014 Regulations” means the Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/3141);
“data controller” has the same meaning as in the 1998 Act (see section 1 of that Act);
“the old data protection principles” means the principles set out in—
(a) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act, and
(b) regulation 30 of the 2014 Regulations.
(2) A provision of the 1998 Act that has effect by virtue of this Schedule is not, by virtue of that, part of the data protection legislation (as defined in section 3).
PART 2
RIGHTS OF DATA SUBJECTS
Right of access to personal data under the 1998 Act
2 (1) The repeal of sections 7 to 9A of the 1998 Act (right of access to personal data) does not affect the application of those sections after the relevant time in a case in which a data controller received a request under section 7 of that Act (right of access to personal data) before the relevant time.
(2) The repeal of sections 7 and 8 of the 1998 Act and the revocation of regulation 44 of the 2014 Regulations (which applies those sections with modifications) do not affect the application of those sections and that regulation after the relevant time in a case in which a UK competent authority received a request under section 7 of the 1998 Act (as applied by that regulation) before the relevant time.
(3) The revocation of the relevant regulations, or their amendment by Schedule 18 to this Act, and the repeals and revocation mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), do not affect the application of the relevant regulations after the relevant time in a case described in those sub- paragraphs.
(4) In this paragraph—
“the relevant regulations” means—
(a) the Data Protection (Subject Access) (Fees and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/191);
(b) regulation 4 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/290);
(c) regulation 3 of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3244);
“the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 7 of the 1998 Act comes into force;
“UK competent authority” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the 2014 Regulations (see regulation 27 of those Regulations).
Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress under the 1998 Act
3 (1) The repeal of section 10 of the 1998 Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which an individual gave notice in writing to a data controller under that section before the relevant time.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 10 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing under the 1998 Act
4 (1) The repeal of section 11 of the 1998 Act (right to prevent processing for purposes of direct marketing) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which an individual gave notice in writing to a data controller under that section before the relevant time.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 11 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Automated processing under the 1998 Act
5 (1) The repeal of section 12 of the 1998 Act (rights in relation to automated decision-taking) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in relation to a decision taken by a person before that time if—
(a) in taking the decision the person failed to comply with section 12(1) of the 1998 Act, or
(b) at the relevant time—
(i) the person had not taken all of the steps required under section 12(2) or (3) of the 1998 Act, or
(ii) the period specified in section 12(2)(b) of the 1998 Act (for an individual to require a person to reconsider a decision) had not expired.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 12 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Compensation for contravention of the 1998 Act or Part 4 of the 2014 Regulations
6 (1) The repeal of section 13 of the 1998 Act (compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in relation to damage or distress suffered at any time by reason of an act or omission before the relevant time.
(2) The revocation of regulation 45 of the 2014 Regulations (right to compensation) does not affect the application of that regulation after the relevant time in relation to damage or distress suffered at any time by reason of an act or omission before the relevant time.
(3) “The relevant time” means—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), the time when the repeal of section 13 of the
1998 Act comes into force;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), the time when the revocation of regulation 45 of the 2014 Regulation comes into force.
Rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction under the 1998 Act
7 (1) The repeal of section 14(1) to (3) and (6) of the 1998 Act (rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction of inaccurate personal data) does not affect the application of those provisions after the relevant time in a case in which an application was made under subsection (1) of that section before the relevant time.
(2) The repeal of section 14(4) to (6) of the 1998 Act (rectification, blocking, erasure and destruction: risk of further contravention in circumstances entitling data subject to compensation under section 13 of the 1998 Act) does not affect the application of those provisions after the relevant time in a case in which an application was made under subsection (4) of that section before the relevant time.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 14 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Jurisdiction and procedure under the 1998 Act
8 The repeal of section 15 of the 1998 Act (jurisdiction and procedure) does not affect the application of that section in connection with sections 7 to 14 of the 1998 Act as they have effect by virtue of this Schedule.
Exemptions under the 1998 Act
9 (1) The repeal of Part 4 of the 1998 Act (exemptions) does not affect the application of that Part after the relevant time in connection with a provision of Part 2 of the 1998 Act as it has effect after that time by virtue of paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Schedule.
(2) The revocation of the relevant Orders, and the repeal mentioned in sub- paragraph (1), do not affect the application of the relevant Orders after the relevant time in connection with a provision of Part 2 of the 1998 Act as it has effect as described in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In this paragraph—
“the relevant Orders” means—
(a) the Data Protection (Corporate Finance Exemption) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/184);
(b) the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/413);
(c) the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/414);
(d) the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/415);
(e) the Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/416);
(f) Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/419);
(g) Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/1864);
“the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of the provision of Part 2 of the 1998 Act in question comes into force.
(4) As regards certificates issued under section 28(2) of the 1998 Act, see Part 5 of this Schedule.
Prohibition by this Act of requirement to produce relevant records
10 (1) In Schedule 17 to this Act, references to a record obtained in the exercise of a data subject access right include a record obtained at any time in the exercise of a right under section 7 of the 1998 Act.
(2) In section 177 of this Act, references to a “relevant record” include a record which does not fall within the definition in Schedule 17 to this Act (read with sub-paragraph (1)) but which, immediately before the relevant time, was a “relevant record” for the purposes of section 56 of the 1998 Act.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 56 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Avoidance under this Act of certain contractual terms relating to health records
11 In section 178 of this Act, references to a record obtained in the exercise of a data subject access right include a record obtained at any time in the exercise of a right under section 7 of the 1998 Act.
PART 3
THE GDPR AND PART 2 OF THIS ACT
Exemptions from the GDPR: restrictions of rules in Articles 13 to 15 of the GDPR
12 In paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act (self-incrimination), the reference to an offence under this Act includes an offence under the 1998 Act or the 1984 Act.
Manual unstructured data held by FOI public authorities
13 Until the first regulations under section 24(8) of this Act come into force, “the appropriate maximum” for the purposes of that section is—
(a) where the controller is a public authority listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, £600, and
(b) otherwise, £450.
PART 4
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICES PROCESSING
Logging
14 (1) In relation to an automated processing system set up before 6 May 2016, subsections (1) to (3) of section 62 of this Act do not apply if and to the extent that compliance with them would involve disproportionate effort.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) ceases to have effect at the beginning of 6 May 2023.
Regulation 50 of the 2014 Regulations (disapplication of the 1998 Act)
15 Nothing in this Schedule, read with the revocation of regulation 50 of the 2014 Regulations, has the effect of applying a provision of the 1998 Act to the processing of personal data to which Part 4 of the 2014 Regulations applies in a case in which that provision did not apply before the revocation of that regulation.
Maximum fee for data subject access requests to intelligence services
16 Until the first regulations under section 94(4)(b) of this Act come into force, the maximum amount of a fee that may be required by a controller under that section is £10.
PART 5
NATIONAL SECURITY CERTIFICATES
National security certificates: processing of personal data under the 1998 Act
17 (1) The repeal of section 28(2) to (12) of the 1998 Act does not affect the application of those provisions after the relevant time with respect to the processing of personal data to which the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule) applies.
(2) A certificate issued under section 28(2) of the 1998 Act continues to have effect after the relevant time with respect to the processing of personal data to which the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule) applies.
(3) Where a certificate continues to have effect under sub-paragraph (2) after the relevant time, it may be revoked or quashed in accordance with section 28 of the 1998 Act after the relevant time.
(4) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 28 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
National security certificates: processing of personal data under the 2018 Act
18 (1) This paragraph applies to a certificate issued under section 28(2) of the1998 Act (an “old certificate”) which has effect immediately before the relevant time.
(2) If and to the extent that the old certificate provides protection with respect to personal data which corresponds to protection that could be provided by a certificate issued under section 27, 79 or 111 of this Act, the old certificate also has effect to that extent after the relevant time as if—
(a) it were a certificate issued under one or more of sections 27, 79 and 111 (as the case may be),
(b) it provided protection in respect of that personal data in relation to the corresponding provisions of this Act or the applied GDPR, and
(c) where it has effect as a certificate issued under section 79, it certified that each restriction in question is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect national security.
(3) Where an old certificate also has effect as if it were a certificate issued under one or more of sections 27, 79 and 111, that section has, or those sections have, effect accordingly in relation to the certificate.
(4) Where an old certificate has an extended effect because of sub-paragraph
(2), section 129 of this Act does not apply in relation to it.
(5) An old certificate that has an extended effect because of sub-paragraph (2) provides protection only with respect to the processing of personal data that occurs during the period of 1 year beginning with the relevant time (and a Minister of the Crown may curtail that protection by wholly or partly revoking the old certificate).
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a reference to the protection provided by a certificate issued under—
(i) section 28(2) of the 1998 Act, or
(ii) section 27, 79 or 111 of this Act,
is a reference to the effect of the evidence that is provided by the certificate;
(b) protection provided by a certificate under section 28(2) of the 1998 Act is to be regarded as corresponding to protection that could be provided by a certificate under section 27, 79 or 111 of this Act where, in respect of provision in the 1998 Act to which the certificate under section 28(2) relates, there is corresponding provision in this Act or the applied GDPR to which a certificate under section 27, 79 or 111 could relate.
(7) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 28 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
PART 6
THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Appointment etc
19 (1) On and after the relevant day, the individual who was the Commissioner immediately before that day—
(a) continues to be the Commissioner,
(b) is to be treated as having been appointed under Schedule 12 to this Act, and
(c) holds office for the period—
(i) beginning with the relevant day, and
(ii) lasting for 7 years less a period equal to the individual’s pre-commencement term.
(2) On and after the relevant day, a resolution passed by the House of Commons for the purposes of paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act (salary and pension of Commissioner), and not superseded before that day, is to be treated as having been passed for the purposes of paragraph
4 of Schedule 12 to this Act.
(3) In this paragraph—
“pre-commencement term”, in relation to an individual, means the period during which the individual was the Commissioner before the relevant day;
“the relevant day” means the day on which Schedule 12 to this Act comes into force.
Accounts
20 (1) The repeal of paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act does not affect the duties of the Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General under that paragraph in respect of the Commissioner’s statement of account for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2017.
(2) The Commissioner’s duty under paragraph 11 of Schedule 12 to this Act to prepare a statement of account for each financial year includes a duty to do so for the financial year beginning with 1 April 2018.
Annual report
21 (1) The repeal of section 52(1) of the 1998 Act (annual report) does not affect the Commissioner’s duty under that subsection to produce a general report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions under the 1998 Act during the period of 1 year beginning with 1 April 2017 and to lay it before Parliament.
(2) The repeal of section 49 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (annual report) does not affect the Commissioner’s duty under that section to produce a general report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions under that Act during the period of 1 year beginning with 1 April 2017 and to lay it before Parliament.
(3) The first report produced by the Commissioner under section 138 of this Act must relate to the period of 1 year beginning with 1 April 2018.
Fees etc received by the Commissioner
22 (1) The repeal of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act (Information Commissioner) does not affect the application of paragraph 9 of that Schedule after the relevant time to amounts received by the Commissioner before the relevant time.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of Schedule 5 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
23 Paragraph 10 of Schedule 12 to this Act applies only to amounts received by the Commissioner after the time when that Schedule comes into force.
Functions in connection with the Data Protection Convention
24 (1) The repeal of section 54(2) of the 1998 Act (functions to be discharged by the Commissioner for the purposes of Article 13 of the Data Protection Convention), and the revocation of the Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/186), do not affect the application of articles 1 to 5 of that Order after the relevant time in relation to a request described in those articles which was made before that time.
(2) The references in paragraph 9 of Schedule 13 to this Act (Data Protection Convention: restrictions on use of information) to requests made or received by the Commissioner under paragraph 6 or 7 of that Schedule include a request made or received by the Commissioner under article 3 or 4 of the Data Protection (Functions of Designated Authority) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/186).
(3) The repeal of section 54(7) of the 1998 Act (duty to notify the European Commission of certain approvals and authorisations) does not affect the application of that provision after the relevant time in relation to an approval or authorisation granted before the relevant time.
(4) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 54 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Co-operation with the European Commission: transfers of personal data outside the EEA
25 (1) The repeal of section 54(3) of the 1998 Act (co-operation by the Commissioner with the European Commission etc), and the revocation of the Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/190), do not affect the application of articles 1 to 4 of that Order after the relevant time in relation to transfers that took place before the relevant time.
(2) In this paragraph—
“the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 54 of the 1998 Act comes into force;
“transfer” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Data Protection (International Co-operation) Order 2000 (S.I. 2000/190).
Charges payable to the Commissioner by controllers
26 (1) The Data Protection (Charges and Information) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/480) have effect after the relevant time (until revoked) as if they were made under section 136 of this Act.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when section 136 of this Act comes into force.
Requests for assessment
27 (1) The repeal of section 42 of the 1998 Act (requests for assessment) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which the Commissioner received a request under that section before the relevant time, subject to sub-paragraph (2).
(2) The Commissioner is only required to make an assessment of acts and omissions that took place before the relevant time.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 42 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Codes of practice
28 (1) The repeal of section 52E of the 1998 Act (effect of codes of practice) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in relation to legal proceedings or to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions under the 1998 Act as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule.
(2) In section 52E of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of this paragraph, the references to the 1998 Act include that Act as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (3) of that section, as it has effect by virtue of this paragraph, the data-sharing code and direct marketing code in force immediately before the relevant time are to be treated as having continued in force after that time.
(4) In this paragraph—
“the data-sharing code” and “the direct marketing code” mean the codes respectively prepared under sections 52A and 52AA of the
1998 Act and issued under section 52B(5) of that Act;
“the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 52E of the 1998 Act comes into force.
PART 7
ENFORCEMENT ETC UNDER THE 1998 ACT
Interpretation of this Part
29 (1) In this Part of this Schedule, references to contravention of the sixth data protection principle sections are to relevant contravention of any of sections 7, 10, 11 or 12 of the 1998 Act, as they continue to have effect by virtue of this Schedule after their repeal (and references to compliance with the sixth data protection principle sections are to be read accordingly).
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “relevant contravention” means contravention in a manner described in paragraph 8 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act (sixth data protection principle).
Information notices
30 (1) The repeal of section 43 of the 1998 Act (information notices) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner served a notice under that section before the relevant time (and did not cancel it before that time), or
(b) the Commissioner requires information after the relevant time for the purposes of—
(i) responding to a request made under section 42 of the 1998 Act before that time,
(ii) determining whether a data controller complied with the old data protection principles before that time, or
(iii) determining whether a data controller complied with the sixth data protection principle sections after that time.
(2) In section 43 of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of this paragraph— (a) the reference to an offence under section 47 of the 1998 Act includes an offence under section 143 of this Act, and
(b) the references to an offence under the 1998 Act include an offence under this Act.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 43 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Special information notices
31 (1) The repeal of section 44 of the 1998 Act (special information notices) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner served a notice under that section before the relevant time (and did not cancel it before that time), or
(b) the Commissioner requires information after the relevant time for the purposes of—
(i) responding to a request made under section 42 of the 1998 Act before that time, or
(ii) ascertaining whether section 44(2)(a) or (b) of the 1998 Act was satisfied before that time.
(2) In section 44 of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of this paragraph— (a) the reference to an offence under section 47 of the 1998 Act includes an offence under section 143 of this Act, and
(b) the references to an offence under the 1998 Act include an offence under this Act.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 44 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Assessment notices
32 (1) The repeal of sections 41A and 41B of the 1998 Act (assessment notices) does not affect the application of those sections after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner served a notice under section 41A of the 1998 Act before the relevant time (and did not cancel it before that time), or
(b) the Commissioner considers it appropriate, after the relevant time, to investigate—
(i) whether a data controller complied with the old data protection principles before that time, or
(ii) whether a data controller complied with the sixth data protection principle sections after that time.
(2) The revocation of the Data Protection (Assessment Notices) (Designation of National Health Service Bodies) Order 2014 (S.I. 2014/3282), and the repeals mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), do not affect the application of that Order in a case described in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not enable the Secretary of State, after the relevant time, to make an order under section 41A(2)(b) or (c) of the 1998 Act (data controllers on whom an assessment notice may be served) designating a public authority or person for the purposes of that section.
(4) Section 41A of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), has effect as if subsections (8) and (11) (duty to review designation orders) were omitted.
(5) The repeal of section 41C of the 1998 Act (code of practice about assessment notice) does not affect the application, after the relevant time, of the code issued under that section and in force immediately before the relevant time in relation to the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions under and in connection with section 41A of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).
(6) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 41A of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Enforcement notices
33 (1) The repeal of sections 40 and 41 of the 1998 Act (enforcement notices) does not affect the application of those sections after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner served a notice under section 40 of the 1998 Act before the relevant time (and did not cancel it before that time), or
(b) the Commissioner is satisfied, after that time, that a data controller —
(i) contravened the old data protection principles before that time, or
(ii) contravened the sixth data protection principle sections after that time.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 40 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Determination by Commissioner as to the special purposes
34 (1) The repeal of section 45 of the 1998 Act (determination by Commissioner as to the special purposes) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner made a determination under that section before the relevant time, or
(b) the Commissioner considers it appropriate, after the relevant time, to make a determination under that section.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 45 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Restriction on enforcement in case of processing for the special purposes
35 (1) The repeal of section 46 of the 1998 Act (restriction on enforcement in case of processing for the special purposes) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in relation to an enforcement notice or information notice served under the 1998 Act—
(a) before the relevant time, or
(b) after the relevant time in reliance on this Schedule.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 46 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Offences
36 (1) The repeal of sections 47, 60 and 61 of the 1998 Act (offences of failing to comply with certain notices and of providing false information etc in response to a notice) does not affect the application of those sections after the relevant time in connection with an information notice, special information notice or enforcement notice served under Part 5 of the 1998
Act—
(a) before the relevant time, or
(b) after that time in reliance on this Schedule.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 47 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Powers of entry
37 (1) The repeal of sections 50, 60 and 61 of, and Schedule 9 to, the 1998 Act (powers of entry) does not affect the application of those provisions after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) a warrant issued under that Schedule was in force immediately before the relevant time,
(b) before the relevant time, the Commissioner supplied information on oath for the purposes of obtaining a warrant under that Schedule but that had not been considered by a circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), or
(c) after the relevant time, the Commissioner supplies information on oath to a circuit judge or a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) in respect of—
(i) a contravention of the old data protection principles before the relevant time;
(ii) a contravention of the sixth data protection principle sections after the relevant time;
(iii) the commission of an offence under a provision of the
1998 Act (including as the provision has effect by virtue of this Schedule);
(iv) a failure to comply with a requirement imposed by an assessment notice issued under section 41A the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule).
(2) In paragraph 16 of Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of this paragraph, the reference to an offence under paragraph 12 of that Schedule includes an offence under paragraph 15 of Schedule 15 to this Act.
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
(4) Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act (application of that Schedule to Scotland and Northern Ireland) apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that Schedule.
Monetary penalties
38 (1) The repeal of sections 55A, 55B, 55D and 55E of the 1998 Act (monetary penalties) does not affect the application of those provisions after the relevant time in a case in which—
(a) the Commissioner served a monetary penalty notice under section 55A of the 1998 Act before the relevant time,
(b) the Commissioner served a notice of intent under section 55B of the 1998 Act before the relevant time, or
(c) the Commissioner considers it appropriate, after the relevant time, to serve a notice mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) in respect of—
(i) a contravention of section 4(4) of the 1998 Act before the relevant time, or
(ii) a contravention of the sixth data protection principle sections after the relevant time.
(2) The revocation of the relevant subordinate legislation, and the repeals mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), do not affect the application of the relevant subordinate legislation (or of provisions of the 1998 Act applied by them) after the relevant time in a case described in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) Guidance issued under section 55C of the 1998 Act (guidance about monetary penalty notices) which is in force immediately before the relevant time continues in force after that time for the purposes of the Commissioner’s exercise of functions under sections 55A and 55B of the 1998 Act as they have effect by virtue of this paragraph.
(4) In this paragraph—
“the relevant subordinate legislation” means—
(a) the Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) (Maximum Penalty and Notices) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/31);
(b) the Data Protection (Monetary Penalties) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/910);
“the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 55A of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Appeals
39 (1) The repeal of sections 48 and 49 of the 1998 Act (appeals) does not affect the application of those sections after the relevant time in relation to a notice served under the 1998 Act or a determination made under section 45 of that Act—
(a) before the relevant time, or
(b) after that time in reliance on this Schedule.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 48 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Exemptions
40 (1) The repeal of section 28 of the 1998 Act (national security) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time for the purposes of a provision of Part 5 of the 1998 Act as it has effect after that time by virtue of the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of the provision of Part 5 of the 1998 Act in question comes into force.
(3) As regards certificates issued under section 28(2) of the 1998 Act, see Part 5 of this Schedule.
Tribunal Procedure Rules
41 (1) The repeal of paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act (Tribunal Procedure Rules) does not affect the application of that paragraph, or of rules made under that paragraph, after the relevant time in relation to the exercise of rights of appeal conferred by section 28 or 48 of the 1998 Act, as they have effect by virtue of this Schedule.
(2) Part 3 of Schedule 18 to this Act does not apply for the purposes of Tribunal Procedure Rules made under paragraph 7(1)(a) of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act as they apply, after the relevant time, in relation to the exercise of rights of appeal described in sub-paragraph (1).
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of paragraph 7 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
Obstruction etc
42 (1) The repeal of paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act (obstruction etc in proceedings before the Tribunal) does not affect the application of that paragraph after the relevant time in relation to an act or omission in relation to proceedings under the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule).
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
Enforcement etc under the 2014 Regulations
43 (1) The references in the preceding paragraphs of this Part of this Schedule to provisions of the 1998 Act include those provisions as applied, with modifications, by regulation 51 of the 2014 Regulations (other functions of the Commissioner).
(2) The revocation of regulation 51 of the 2014 Regulations does not affect the application of those provisions of the 1998 Act (as so applied) as described in those paragraphs.
PART 8
ENFORCEMENT ETC UNDER THIS ACT
Information notices
44 In section 142 of this Act—
(a) the reference to an offence under section 143 of this Act includes an offence under section 47 of the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule), and
(b) the references to an offence under this Act include an offence under the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule) or the 1984 Act.
Powers of entry
45 In paragraph 16 of Schedule 15 to this Act (powers of entry: self- incrimination), the reference to an offence under paragraph 15 of that Schedule includes an offence under paragraph 12 of Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act (including as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule).
Tribunal Procedure Rules
46 (1) Tribunal Procedure Rules made under paragraph 7(1)(a) of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act (appeal rights under the 1998 Act) and in force immediately before the relevant time have effect after that time as if they were also made under section 194 of this Act.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of paragraph 7(1)(a) of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
PART 9
OTHER ENACTMENTS
Powers to disclose information to the Commissioner
47 (1) The following provisions (as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act) have effect after the relevant time as if the matters they refer to included a matter in respect of which the Commissioner could exercise a power conferred by a provision of Part 5 of the 1998 Act, as it has effect by virtue of this Schedule—
(a) section 11AA(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (disclosure of information by Parliamentary Commissioner);
(b) sections 33A(1)(a) and 34O(1)(a) of the Local Government Act
1974 (disclosure of information by Local Commissioner);
(c) section 18A(1)(a) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (disclosure of information by Health Service Commissioner);
(d) paragraph 1 of the entry for the Information Commissioner in Schedule 5 to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (asp 11) (disclosure of information by the Ombudsman);
(e) section 34X(3)(a) of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (disclosure of information by the Ombudsman);
(f) section 18(6)(a) of the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006 (disclosure of information by the Commissioner);
(g) section 22(3)(a) of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm 1) (disclosure of information by the Welsh Language Commissioner);
(h) section 49(3)(a) of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (c. 4 (N.I.)) (disclosure of information by the Ombudsman);
(i) section 44(3)(a) of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (c. 21 (N.I.)) (disclosure of information by the Prison Ombudsman for Northern Ireland).
(2) The following provisions (as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act) have effect after the relevant time as if the offences they refer to included an offence under any provision of the 1998 Act other than paragraph 12 of Schedule 9 to that Act (obstruction of execution of warrant)—
(a) section 11AA(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; (b) sections 33A(1)(b) and 34O(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1974;
(c) section 18A(1)(b) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993; (d) paragraph 2 of the entry for the Information Commissioner in Schedule 5 to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (asp 11);
(e) section 34X(5) of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2005 (disclosure of information by the Ombudsman);
(f) section 18(8) of the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006;
(g) section 22(5) of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (nawm 1);
(h) section 49(5) of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (c. 4 (N.I.));
(i) section 44(3)(b) of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 (c. 21 (N.I.)).
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant time”, in relation to a provision of a section or Schedule listed in sub-paragraph (1) or (2), means the time when the amendment of the section or Schedule by Schedule 18 to this Act comes into force.
Codes etc required to be consistent with the Commissioner’s data-sharing code
48 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the code of practice issued under each of the following provisions—
(a) section 19AC of the Registration Service Act 1953 (code of practice about disclosure of information by civil registration officials);
(b) section 43 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 (code of practice about disclosure of information to improve public service delivery);
(c) section 52 of that Act (code of practice about disclosure of information to reduce debt owed to the public sector);
(d) section 60 of that Act (code of practice about disclosure of information to combat fraud against the public sector);
(e) section 70 of that Act (code of practice about disclosure of information for research purposes).
(2) During the relevant period, the code of practice does not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the code of practice prepared under section 121 of this Act (data-sharing code) and issued under section 124(4) of this Act (as altered or replaced from time to time).
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant period”, in relation to a code issued under a section mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), means the period—
(a) beginning when the amendments of that section in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force, and
(b) ending when the code is first reissued under that section.
49 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the original statement published under section 45E of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (statement of principles and procedures in connection with access to information by the Statistics Board).
(2) During the relevant period, the statement does not have effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the code of practice prepared under section 121 of this Act (data-sharing code) and issued under section 124(4) of this Act (as altered or replaced from time to time).
(3) In this paragraph, “the relevant period” means the period—
(a) beginning when the amendments of section 45E of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force, and
(b) ending when the first revised statement is published under that section.
Consumer Credit Act 1974
50 In section 159(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (correction of wrong information) (as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act), the reference to information given under Article 15(1) to (3) of the GDPR includes information given at any time under section 7 of the 1998 Act.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
51 Paragraphs 52 to 55 make provision about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”).
52 (1) This paragraph applies where a request for information was made to a public authority under the 2000 Act before the relevant time.
(2) To the extent that the request is dealt with after the relevant time, the amendments of sections 2 and 40 of the 2000 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority deals with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the 2000 Act.
(3) To the extent that the request was dealt with before the relevant time— (a) the amendments of sections 2 and 40 of the 2000 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act do not have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority dealt with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the 2000 Act, but
(b) the powers of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, on an application or appeal under the 2000 Act, do not include power to require the authority to take steps which it would not be required to take in order to comply with Part 1 of the 2000 Act as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act.
(4) In this paragraph—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in the 2000 Act;
“the relevant time” means the time when the amendments of sections 2 and 40 of the 2000 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force.
53 (1) Tribunal Procedure Rules made under paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act (appeal rights under the 2000 Act) and in force immediately before the relevant time have effect after that time as if they were also made under section 61 of the 2000 Act (as inserted by Schedule 18 to this Act).
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of paragraph 7(1)(b) of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
54 (1) The repeal of paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act (obstruction etc in proceedings before the Tribunal) does not affect the application of that paragraph after the relevant time in relation to an act or omission before that time in relation to an appeal under the 2000 Act.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to the 1998 Act comes into force.
55 (1) The amendment of section 77 of the 2000 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act (offence of altering etc record with intent to prevent disclosure: omission of reference to section 7 of the 1998 Act) does not affect the application of that section after the relevant time in relation to a case in which—
(a) the request for information mentioned in section 77(1) of the 2000 Act was made before the relevant time, and
(b) when the request was made, section 77(1)(b) of the 2000 Act was satisfied by virtue of section 7 of the 1998 Act.
(2) In this paragraph, “the relevant time” means the time when the repeal of section 7 of the 1998 Act comes into force.
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002
56 (1) This paragraph applies where a request for information was made to a Scottish public authority under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) before the relevant time.
(2) To the extent that the request is dealt with after the relevant time, the amendments of the 2002 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority deals with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the 2002 Act.
(3) To the extent that the request was dealt with before the relevant time— (a) the amendments of the 2002 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act do not have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority dealt with the request in accordance with Part 1 of the 2002 Act, but
(b) the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Court of Session, on an application or appeal under the 2002 Act, do not include power to require the authority to take steps which it would not be required to take in order to comply with Part 1 of the 2002 Act as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act.
(4) In this paragraph—
“Scottish public authority” has the same meaning as in the 2002 Act; “the relevant time” means the time when the amendments of the 2002 Act in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force.
Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (S.I. 1993/1250 (N.I. 4))
57 Until the first regulations under Article 5(4)(a) of the Access to Health Records (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act) come into force, the maximum amount of a fee that may be required for giving access under that Article is £10.
Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2450)
58 (1) The repeal of a provision of the 1998 Act does not affect its operation for the purposes of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“the PECR 2003”) (see regulations 2, 31 and 31B of, and Schedule 1 to, those Regulations).
(2) Where subordinate legislation made under a provision of the 1998 Act is in force immediately before the repeal of that provision, neither the revocation of the subordinate legislation nor the repeal of the provision of the 1998 Act affect the application of the subordinate legislation for the purposes of the PECR 2003 after that time.
(3) Part 3 of Schedule 18 to this Act (modifications) does not have effect in relation to the PECR 2003.
(4) Part 7 of this Schedule does not have effect in relation to the provisions of the 1998 Act as applied by the PECR 2003.
Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/431 (N.I. 9))
59 Part 3 of Schedule 18 to this Act (modifications) does not have effect in relation to the reference to an accessible record within the meaning of section 68 of the 1998 Act in regulation 43 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/3391)
60 (1) This paragraph applies where a request for information was made to a public authority under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the 2004 Regulations”) before the relevant time.
(2) To the extent that the request is dealt with after the relevant time, the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority deals with the request in accordance with Parts 2 and 3 of those Regulations.
(3) To the extent that the request was dealt with before the relevant time— (a) the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act do not have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority dealt with the request in accordance with Parts 2 and 3 of those Regulations, but
(b) the powers of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, on an application or appeal under the 2000 Act (as applied by the 2004 Regulations), do not include power to require the authority to take steps which it would not be required to take in order to comply with Parts 2 and 3 of those Regulations as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act.
(4) In this paragraph—
“public authority” has the same meaning as in the 2004 Regulations; “the relevant time” means the time when the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force.
Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (S.S.I. 2004/520)
61 (1) This paragraph applies where a request for information was made to a Scottish public authority under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (“the 2004 Regulations”) before the relevant time.
(2) To the extent that the request is dealt with after the relevant time, the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority deals with the request in accordance with those Regulations.
(3) To the extent that the request was dealt with before the relevant time— (a) the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act do not have effect for the purposes of determining whether the authority dealt with the request in accordance with those Regulations, but
(b) the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Court of Session, on an application or appeal under the 2002 Act (as applied by the 2004 Regulations), do not include power to require the authority to take steps which it would not be required to take in order to comply with those Regulations as amended by Schedule 18 to this Act.
(4) In this paragraph—
“Scottish public authority” has the same meaning as in the 2004 Regulations;
“the relevant time” means the time when the amendments of the 2004 Regulations in Schedule 18 to this Act come into force.”
Schools that Work for Everyone Consultation
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the response by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education to an Urgent Question in the other place on the Government’s response to the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation. The Statement is as follows:
“By 2020, core school funding will rise to £43.5 billion a year, the highest ever figure and 50% higher per pupil in real terms than in 2000. Last Friday, I announced important measures that create more good school places. This includes our response to the Schools that Work for Everyone consultation.
As previously announced to the House, we will not be enabling the creation of new selective schools. However, selective schools are an important part of a diverse education system and it is right that they can expand where there is need, as others can. The Autumn Statement 2016 announced funding for the expansion of existing selective schools, and on Friday I launched the selective schools expansion fund for existing selective schools that commit to improving access for disadvantaged pupils and working in enhanced partnership with local non-selective schools. Fifty million pounds is available in 2018-19.
We are retaining the 50% cap on faith-based admissions in free schools. I do recognise the positive role that faith providers play, and also recognise that some feel unable to establish new schools through the free schools programme. We are developing a capital scheme to support the establishment of new voluntary-aided schools. We will continue to work with universities and with independent schools to encourage them to work in lasting partnerships with the state sector. Our joint understanding with the Independent Schools Council sets out how independent schools will support this. Overall, this package of reforms will help to ensure that we are delivering a diverse education system providing choice and opportunity for all”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. Perhaps I may ask him, first, whether he can say when a breakdown of those who responded to the consultation will be published. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State has in the past stated that grammar schools were “not the answer” to social mobility and were “divisive”—both of which statements are beyond contradiction—we now have a situation where he and his department are standing logic on its head, for reasons that he himself was unable to explain in another place earlier today.
With regard to funding to allow grammar schools to expand, as the Minister has just mentioned, can he say whether they will be permitted to open so-called annexes across county borders, as has been suggested with regard to a school in Buckinghamshire opening an annexe in the Prime Minister’s constituency in Berkshire?
We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted our arguments for retaining the 50% cap in faith schools admissions, but perhaps the Minister can elaborate on the point made in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement published on Friday, which stated:
“we are also developing a capital scheme to support the establishment of new voluntary-aided schools for faith and other providers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/5/18; col. 25WS.]
What effect do the Government expect that development to have on the number of faith schools and/or the number of pupils admitted on the basis of their faith?
I reiterate a point that I made when the consultation document was published. Its title is not just a misnomer; it could even be said to be a deception because it is categorically not concerned with schools that work for everyone. The document itself has 36 pages but the number of times that those pages mention special educational needs and disability is zero. The Government’s belated response to the consultation has 16 pages but the number of times that those pages mention special educational needs and disability is, again, zero. So this is not about schools that work for everyone: it is about schools that work for everyone without special educational needs or disability.
So the Government’s commitment to selective education apparently extends to selecting the kind of children who are eligible for selective education. That is just not acceptable, and I invite the Minister to explain why children with SEND have been written out of the Government’s plans that were announced last week. If he is unable to do so now, I ask that he write to me, because that is an omission for which thousands of children and their parents deserve an answer.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions. I hope I have been able to write them all down. I will have to write to him to give him a breakdown of the response to the original consultation.
On the annexes of existing grammar schools, we are very clear that for any grammar school applying for this fund it has to be a bona fide extension of an existing school. I cannot give the noble Lord exact distances but the spirit of the intention is very much that they are here for existing good grammar schools.
The capital scheme that we are talking about is a £50 million sum in the current year. I think it is important to put it into perspective: we envisage that it might create about 4,000 places. We have so far created 825,000 places since 2010 so it is a small amount in the overall context. However, it recognises that it is much more efficient for us to create good places in existing good schools. That is the logic that underpins it.
In relation to SEN, I do not have the detailed information here but I can say we have just announced 14 free schools specialising in special educational needs, including autism and mental health. I think we have opened something like 70 free schools over the last five years that, again, focus on special educational needs.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in terms of the Statement there are two important issues. The first is on the issue of selection. As a party we are totally opposed to the expansion of grammar schools, and I guess quite a large number of the members of the Government are too. The Minister knows perfectly well that had this been done in a different way, as was originally planned, he would not have been successful in getting it through the Commons, so this is a back-door way of trying to achieve that.
Why are we opposed to grammar schools? Every single study—whether by the Sutton Trust, Durham University, Education Datalab, the Education Policy Institute or the Institute for Fiscal Studies—says that it fails to find any evidence that grammar schools increase social mobility. In fact, it seems that children in a selective area who do not pass the 11-plus do worse than they would have done in a comprehensive area. We also know the effect the grammar schools often have on a community: they often take the best teachers, who want to teach in the grammar school, and of course they cream off pupils as well.
The Minister talked about developing a capital programme for grammar schools. Let us remind ourselves that only 5% of pupils go to grammar schools, and these plans will do nothing for the 95% of children who go to a local secondary school. In fact most grammar schools are in better-off areas; pupils in the north-east, most of East Anglia, the south coast and the west coast will not benefit from one penny of this money. We should also remember that when the Government increased the schools budget after the election, they did so by taking money away from local schools’ capital budget. They took money away from the capital programme of those schools, including PE facilities and other central projects. So what we are seeing here is money being taken and used for a small group of people, not even a geographical spread across the country.
If every single place at these expanding grammar schools went to children who were on the pupil premium, we would be talking about a very small number. However, if these grammar schools do not take children from disadvantaged backgrounds, what will the Government do about it?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raises some important points. On the benefits of grammar schools, we know that pupils attending selective schools make better progress. On average, they achieve around half a grade better in eight GCSEs across core subjects compared to pupils with similar prior attainment in other schools. When disadvantaged children attend selective schools, the attainment gap is significantly reduced. So it is worth remembering that.
I want to tackle the issue of the low proportion of disadvantaged, free-school-meals children attending grammar schools at the moment. Launched in conjunction with the announcement on Friday were two important initiatives. First, to be eligible to apply for what we are calling the selective schools expansion fund, the grammar must submit a fair access and partnership plan. It has to set out very carefully what it is going to do about increasing the vulnerable group that the noble Lord refers to. Secondly, we also announced a memorandum of understanding with the Grammar School Heads Association, which represents 90% of all grammar schools, for it to take steps to widen access to all the other grammar schools. So they know where the wind is blowing on this. We are very focused on it.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I was just going to finish my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on his question about capital. To put the £50 million sum in perspective, we are spending over £1 billion a year on basic-need increases across the country. I am not saying it is a trivial sum but I do not want people to think that we are literally raiding the pot for ordinary schools. Against that also, the capital allocation for schools in this spending round is £23.5 billion.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, that was a pretty poor Statement and a poor response to the original consultation paper. In the original paper, the Minister talked about selective schools having to help with non-selective education if they were to justify their position. In that consultation paper, he outlined the possibility of a number of sanctions that would take place if grammar schools did not do their bit to help non-selective schools in the area. In the Statement that he has just made, there is no mention of sanctions. If selective schools that are expanding do not play their part in raising standards across their area, will he impose sanctions, as was his intention in the original consultation paper?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, there is no intention to impose sanctions at this stage, but the very fact that we have made a short-term announcement on the allocation of capital is sending a message to the grammar school sector that if it does not play by the unwritten rules of increasing its access, it will not be able to carry on with any future expansion. I think this follows the approach that we have taken with universities, with the very big programme of universities spending nearly £200 million a year on widening access, and similar principles apply in this situation.
Nursing
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what priority they will give to investing in nursing globally, in the light of the impact of such investment on improving health, promoting gender equality and strengthening local economies.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open this debate. I thank noble Lords who are taking part in it and hope that it has not disrupted too many dinner plans. I am going to address three matters in turn. First, I am going to talk about the background to the debate. Secondly, I am going to talk about why strengthening nursing globally is one of the most important things that we can do to improve health globally, and why it should be given a higher priority and greater investment. Thirdly, I shall conclude with some questions for the Government.
The background to this is that I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health, which undertook a review of nursing globally, with a review panel that I am delighted to say included the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Cox, and the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Willis, as well as Dan Poulter and Maria Caulfield, a doctor and nurse from the other place. Interestingly, nobody has done such a global review before. My focus is global, but what we are saying is also relevant to the UK, and I know that other noble Lords will mention nursing in the UK. I also say at the start that while our focus is nursing, a lot of it is also relevant to midwifery—and, of course, nurses work in teams.
As a review, we concluded three things. First, we will simply not achieve universal health coverage without strengthening nursing and the role played by the 20 million nurses and midwives globally—half the health workforce globally.
Secondly, nurses are too often undervalued and underutilised, unable to operate at the top of their licence. In other words, nurses are trained to a certain level, but then not in practice allowed or enabled to work to the level of their training. This is different in different countries but, interviewing nurses around the world, we found the same story everywhere. This is a huge waste of talent and resources.
Thirdly, the triple impact of strengthening nursing globally is that it will have an impact on three different sustainable development goals: improving health, promoting gender equity—nursing is clearly a route to women’s empowerment in Africa—and promoting a stronger economy.
These are important conclusions, but let me get to the heart of what I want to say and why I believe that now is the right moment to strengthen and develop nursing; why this is one of the most important things we can do to improve health globally; and why nurses will become even more important and influential in future. There are several reasons for this, but I want to talk about just three major ones.
The first is that diseases are changing. There is a global increase in non-communicable diseases—diabetes, heart disease, cancer and the like—and in co-morbidities in older people. As we all know, these diseases require holistic, patient-centred care, and this is at the very heart of nursing philosophy. Nurses address the whole person. They take not just a biomedical view but consider psychological, social and environmental aspects. We need a fundamental change of approach in how health services are delivered globally—new models of care—and nurses will be at the heart of that.
Here in the UK, we already have nurse-led and nurse-based services—for example, in diabetes and other long-term conditions. Those are increasing here in the UK, and there are now many similar services globally. We can see the impact of allowing nurses in South Africa to initiate treatment on anti-retrovirals, which has helped to turn around the epidemic of HIV, nurse prescribing in Botswana, the development of community services in Singapore and the strengthening of nursing in Uganda. These are all countries which understand the change which is happening. It is about improving access and quality and more cost-effective delivery of care. Nurses are very capable in all those areas.
The second big argument is that nurses are the health professionals closest to the community and, in many rural areas and slums are the first and often the only people who patients see. They are best able to help community health workers, the people in the most remote areas, to make them more effective and of higher quality.
Thirdly, this closeness to and being part of the local community also makes nurses the most effective health workers at promoting health, preventing disease, improving health literacy, early detection and tackling the social determinants of health.
I believe that those three aspects—holistic, person-centred care, reaching the most remote groups and promoting health and preventing diseases—are central to health policy in every country of the world. As I said, nurses are particularly fitted to handling it. It is for this reason that I believe that they will become even more important and influential in future.
I must say that our all-party review group thought that this was a no-brainer, but we were unable to persuade the UK Government or international bodies to act, so we started our own global campaign—Nursing Now. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Watkins, who has been with me on every step of this way, as well as offering invaluable advice as a nurse.
I do not have time to say anything about the campaign. We have a website, which I encourage people to visit. It is run in collaboration with the World Health Organization and the International Council of Nurses and supported, among others, by the Burdett Trust for Nursing, the Royal College of Nursing and THET. The Duchess of Cambridge, our patron, launched the campaign a little over two months ago, and there are now national groups in more than 40 countries, without us providing any financial support. It is clear that we have caught a tide. Our aim is to accelerate the changes that I think are under way around the world.
I turn to the Government and the question of improving the priority for developing nursing globally. I very much welcome the £5 million ring-fenced for the developing nursing within the health systems strengthening in partnership fund announced at the launch of our campaign. Here in the UK, I welcome the golden hellos to be offered to postgraduates starting in nursing in mental health, learning difficulties and district nursing. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about other things that the Government are doing to strengthen nursing.
However, none of these initiatives is truly strategic or embraces the need for a radical change in how we see nursing and its potential to make a major difference in the world. These are incidental, isolated issues, and they need to be brought together into a much larger programme. I am sure that we all understand and accept the importance of nursing, but do we understand how much bigger an impact it could have if it was enabled to do so? That is the crux of the matter.
I have many questions, but let me ask only a small selection. Four of them are about health. First, what are the Government doing to promote nurse-led services in countries where the Government are working with partners? Secondly, what are they doing to enable nurses to play a leading role in supporting community health workers, the people who reach into the furthest part of the African and other continents? What are they doing to support nurses to provide training, supervision and a point of referral so that the community health workers can operate to the highest level of quality, be more effective and therefore deliver universal health coverage in those countries?
Thirdly, what are the Government doing to strengthen nurses’ role in promotion, prevention, health literacy, early detection and tackling the social determinants of health? These are roles where nurses, who are close to and part of the community, could play an even greater role in future. Finally, what are the Government doing to ensure that nursing is at the forefront of the global strategies to promote universal health coverage and tackle non-communicable diseases? It is interesting to note that in those strategies, there is currently virtually no mention of the workforce, let alone nursing. The UK Government could play an important role in bringing the health workforce, and nursing in particular, up the agenda to tackle these important issues.
I have not talked about the gender aspects of nursing, but I hope that other noble Lords will. My question here is: what are the Government doing to engage and develop nursing as part of their strategy and action to promote gender equity? Surprisingly, nursing figures very little in all the strategies around the world for the development of women and gender. Similarly, I have not talked about the economic aspects. What are the Government doing to engage and develop nursing as part of their strategy and action to promote economic growth?
Strengthening nursing in the way I have described is a big and bold strategic idea. Is the Minister willing to arrange a top-level meeting for senior nurses to meet Ministers and officials from his department—or wider within government—to discuss the strategic impact of strengthening nursing globally and what the UK can do to take a lead on it?
In conclusion, I am convinced that strengthening nursing is one of the most important things we can do to improve health globally. Nursing is a profession whose time has come, and I very much hope that the Government will embrace these ideas wholeheartedly and increase their priority for investing in nursing.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I feel privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his excellent address. Those who have followed him over many years will have noticed his real concern for development. I was always struck by his fascinating book, Turning the World Upside Down, in which he argued that we need to move beyond top-down thinking on international development towards co-development. While richer countries have a responsibility to share knowledge and investment, we must recognise that healthcare innovation from developing countries can be every bit as important for improving outcomes in the developed world.
With his excellent team—it is striking that so many of his distinguished colleagues from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health are here tonight—he has spelled out so clearly the potential impact of nursing worldwide. Of course, in the UK we have had a growing revolution. During my ministerial days, my excellent noble friend Lady Cumberlege was the one who pushed for nurse prescribing. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned nurse prescribing elsewhere in the world. But we have been pioneers in many ways; the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, was a formidable force in those early years. We can now see how the UK developments are spreading around the world.
I congratulate the noble Lord on his impeccable timing. This debate was delayed. Saturday was International Nurses Day and Florence Nightingale’s 198th birthday. Today marks 137 years since the death of another remarkable woman, Mary Seacole. So he has got his timing right. In Belfast today the Royal College of Nursing is meeting and discussing health in a way that is quite remarkable, from the specifics, whereby those very advanced practitioners can make a contribution, right through to the contribution of nursing in dealing with slavery and sexual trafficking. Now that nurses have come of age, they believe in their confidence and, supported by others, have a voice that must be heard. Having a chief nursing officer reappointed at the World Health Organization, this is a time to speak up and make sure that global impact is really heard.
Education and training are critically important. I have the privilege of being the chancellor of the University of Hull. Professor Julie Jomeen, head of the Faculty of Health Sciences, said:
“We are supporting nurses to become global professionals”.
This is what is changing. Education, training and research are quite remarkable. Through nurse leadership and nurse contribution, we send people on placements to Uganda, Barbados, Finland, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East and so forth, and we receive nurses in return from all around the world. This is expanding global outlooks. If you train and learn together, it influences your perspective and view of your professional commitment more than anything else. I am pleased also, incidentally, that the faculty has won a Burdett Coutts award for the STaR project, which tries to ensure that these newly recruited nurses stay in the health service or wherever they are and are prepared for the practice and not just the theory.
We all know that the healthcare challenges of the 21st century are very much the healthcare challenges where nurses excel. In my small contribution, I introduced the Health of the Nation, which was all about prevention and persuasion in dealing with coronary heart disease, stroke, cancers, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, sexual health and accidents. This is not about an operation or a prescription; it is about being close to the patient and the community, staying with them and using persuasion. The modern nurse has not only those skills but, increasingly, the skills of economics, politics and geography, and of beginning to see, in an empowered and enlightened way, the powerful contribution that a nurse can make in so many countries of the world.
Nurse leadership is critical, and we have to ensure that we develop it so that it can make a contribution within the system. It has always been a complex issue in the National Health Service management team. I am sure we can do more to develop the role and its contribution, rather than saying, “Oh, if only we had more nurse managers”.
More than three-quarters of the NHS is female, and the proportion of female nurses is even higher. Women have this huge contribution, not only in the UK but around the world. With our almost uniquely connected position in the international system, we can take real pride. Our international connections, particularly through the Commonwealth, link us to countries where taking the lead on co-dependents can be especially productive. In March, the constitution of the Commonwealth Nurses and Midwives Federation was approved in London. It reaffirms the commitment to maintain, facilitate and develop nursing and midwifery networks across the whole Commonwealth; to help to improve nursing standards across the Commonwealth; to support Commonwealth nurses and midwives; and to develop leadership roles in health policy. Last month, with the CHOGM meeting here in London, we had a further opportunity to make sure that this is fulfilled and delivered.
We know that nurses are more trusted than any other group. It is depressing that, apparently, only 15% of people trust politicians, but 93% of people trust nurses. This gives nurses an authority and position to influence, persuade and lead that few others groups have.
Fifty years ago, the United Nations Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld, said:
“Constant attention by a good nurse may be just as important as a major operation by a surgeon”.
That sounds rather patronising today, when the world has moved on so dramatically. I wanted to take this opportunity to celebrate the individual who will be the next Lord spiritual in our House. On Saturday, Dame Sarah Mullally was installed as the Bishop of London—someone who was Chief Nursing Officer when she was 37 and went to a comprehensive school. She referred to Florence Nightingale’s birthday, saying that Florence was,
“an epidemiologist, a statistician, a social reformer, theologian and nurse. She has inspired generations of nurses. At the heart of what she did was to use the ordinary skills we all possess and can use if we are brave enough, the skill to build human relationships. If we want to improve public health today, if we want to improve the life chances of those who are still left behind and failed by our education system, if we want to reduce the horrifyingly high number of young deaths from knife and gun crime occurring in this wonderful city, we have to build relationships”.
If we take those words and apply them to all the ills, suffering and health problems in so many countries around the world, I absolutely believe that the critical force in ensuring that we deliver those sustainable development goals and promote healthcare for all is the huge, and as yet untapped, power of the nurse. I very much support the noble Lord in his Question.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, as always it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on securing this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for the enormous contribution that she has made to the Nursing Now initiative launched just a few weeks ago by the Duchess of Cambridge.
I must confess that, little did I know, when the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, sent me an email to join his review board, that we would produce a report, the Triple Impact report in 2016, which would have such an impact. Propelling UK nursing to the fore of the challenge to achieve universal health coverage globally within a realistic timescale seemed an impossible task—but he is well on the way to achieving the impossible.
As the report emphasised, nurses are the largest single component of a global health workforce, and their skills and values make them ideally placed to lead healthcare initiatives in a variety of settings. For me, the crucial challenge of the report is to make the nurse a catalyst for change, using healthcare to build stronger local economies and improve the lives of women.
What part can or will the UK play in accepting and delivering the challenges of the Triple Impact report? I have no doubt that many UK nurses and midwives have knowledge, skills and leadership qualities to take up the challenge, despite all too often being thwarted by the pressures of daily activity and outdated clinical hierarchies. However, a cadre of newly qualified nurses is emerging, particularly those who will be trained to the new NMC standards following the inspirational work of Dame Jill Clark—and, I might say, Jackie Smith, who has just announced today that she will be leaving as chief executive of the Nursing and Midwifery Council. She is a remarkable woman who has done so much to change the face of regulation as it interfaces with nursing.
These new nurses will be particularly well suited to the global challenge, as the emphasis on leadership, independent working and problem solving becomes more prevalent. There is also a sharper focus in the work of the HEIs, as the challenge of a graduate nursing profession has become embedded in both practical and theoretical pedagogies. This point was brought home by the publication of the latest QS league tables for the world’s best nursing schools, where Manchester, King’s and Southampton are in the top 10.
The desire to search for excellence has resulted in Nottingham University Hospital Trust and Oxford University Hospital Trust being on the cusp of gaining Magnet status for nursing excellence—a prospect which I was told was totally unrealistic and impossible just a few years ago. Equally, the emergence of Health Education England’s draft workforce strategy with a full section on “the global healthcare workforce”, demonstrates tentative but welcome steps away from viewing non-UK staff as a commodity to fill vacancies and more as an opportunity to enhance care by investing in a global healthcare team. The “earn, learn and return” initiative is welcome; the global nursing partnership with Jamaica and the recent agreement with India will result in far stronger reciprocal arrangements that can be repeated around the globe.
However, the emphasis of the Government remains far too restrictive and the words in the strategy of recruiting staff,
“in a way that is consistent with wider Government policy on reducing net migration”,
is a chilling factor, particularly on the 41,962—that is the figure today—non-EEA nurses and midwives who are currently NMC registered and who hail from 73 different countries, from India and the Philippines, with the largest numbers, to Nigeria and Zimbabwe, to Belarus and Myanmar. There is somebody on the NMC register from every country in the world. Imagine what results we would get if we invested in these colleagues as part of our global campaign.
Unless we make global nursing an academic priority in our universities, we will not take advantage of our nursing heritage. It is our traditions, our excellence of teaching, and our innovative and outstanding care settings that give the UK a platform for leading the global nursing challenge—but research must be a priority and not an add-on. In 2010, the Lancet commission on education of health professionals, of which the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was a member, recognised the need for a,
“robust, competent and professionally capable workforce”.
Professionalism and leadership were regarded as essential qualities—the very reason they are so prominent in the new nursing standards. However, nurses must be allowed to apply these qualities in challenging settings, and there is nothing more challenging that doing so alongside colleagues in developing countries or in remote areas where the nurse, more than any other healthcare professional, is the one whom people will see.
To build an infrastructure that can sustain such programmes requires resources from the Department of Health and from DfID, but also from BEIS, to allow postgraduate nurses and other health professionals to research the effectiveness of global nursing in a developing world. It is not good enough to do that research purely through a clinical lens. If they are to act globally, nurses must think and research globally. In the US, a host of leading universities not only have centres for global health but encourage nursing graduates to carry out research in the field alongside other disciplines. Johns Hopkins, through its Center for Global Initiatives, promotes nurses on international placements, links them to schools of nursing around the world and encourages interdisciplinary research promoting broader health and welfare. The University of Washington, at its Center for Global Health Nursing, disseminates and promotes global health nursing, creates strategic partnerships internationally, and promotes nursing students’ involvement in global health policy. With its collaborative global research programmes, New York University—which I know well—has established nursing centres in Rwanda, Liberia, Ghana, Tanzania and China, as well as offering its degree courses in Abu Dhabi, Shanghai and Vietnam.
The vision for global healthcare and the future of nursing looks beyond these shores and the narrow confines of where nursing has been in the past, and sees our nurses, who are the best in the world, going out and spreading their gospel around the world.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Crisp for all that he does to promote good health globally. There are very many nurses helping to promote global good health, but there is so much to do in this fragile world. The UK does give generously and many people in Parliament, and Ministers, have given their help in supporting global health.
It must not be forgotten that there was a terrible outbreak of Ebola in Sierra Leone. I pay tribute to the nurses who volunteered to look after these very infectious patients. It is important that lessons are learned from such epidemics, which can break out anywhere in the world at any time. With so many infections becoming resistant to antimicrobials, developing vaccines for such diseases as drug-resistant tuberculosis and diarrhoea is vital. Nurses across the globe are often the people at the front line. They need education, training and support. In many countries, stigma associated with infectious diseases is a problem and needs addressing. Nurses, who are so often the leaders, are the people who can do this, but they need support. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV and AIDS is an active group which is helping with the campaign STOPAIDS. The group works with many countries globally that look towards the UK for support. It is important that NGOs, Governments, the pharmaceutical industry and local people work together so that prevention of ill health is high on the agenda.
A record number of nurses and midwives from the EU’s 27 countries left Britain last year. Between 2017 and 2018, a total of 3,962 such staff left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, but only 805 joined it. The Home Office is not issuing or renewing visas for key health workers who are willing to work here. This is putting the UK in an impossible situation. Nurses who have to nurse sick patients with inadequate staffing have to bear the brunt of worried relatives and stressed patients. The RCN is supporting and actively participating in a number of nursing alliances in Europe and the Commonwealth. These not only seek to influence European and global policy but also spread advanced practice in the key role of nurses in tackling antimicrobial resistance and addressing the health of the health workforce.
I would like to bring to your Lordships’ attention the problems which nurses have been having in our prisons, especially Holme House, a Spice-riddled prison where there have been 376 medical emergencies in a year, caused by inmates smoking spliffs. Nurses have been ordered to stop tending sick patients because of the risk of breathing in mind-altering smoke in a fug-ridden wing which has become so contaminated. There is a shortage of nurses working in prisons and a problem with recruiting and retaining them. Nurses are an important part of the present workforce, as prisoners can have so many conditions, such as diabetes, hepatitis C and mental health problems, to mention only a few.
I would like to say how important specialist nurses are to people who have long-term conditions. They can become a lifeline, as so many general nurses do not understand the varied consequences if patients are not treated in the correct way according to their specialty. As president of the Spinal Injuries Association I am very grateful to some generous people who fundraise for our association. Without this help, we would not have been able to employ two specialist spinal nurses. As there is a shortage of spinal beds in the special units, these nurses go to general hospitals to advise on what is needed. They help with continuing healthcare. They also maintain links with a wide network of relevant stakeholders, including NHS Improvement and the Royal College of Nursing, which are currently in discussions with the SIA regarding bowel management and whether this can be returned to the nursing curriculum at some point.
Parkinson’s UK has 350 specialist nurses across the UK, but there are still 14 areas covering Scotland, Northern Ireland and England where people do not have access to a dedicated Parkinson’s nurse. All specialist nurses for diabetes, cancer and all sorts of conditions are invaluable.
At this time of crisis in the health service we should be grateful for volunteers, who do so much to help. It is of grave concern that the demand is greater than what is available for the care of all patients.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I also warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Crisp, not only on securing this debate and his comprehensive introduction but on his phenomenal commitment to the Nursing Now campaign and the Triple Impact report, in which he was so ably assisted by my noble friend Lady Watkins of Tavistock.
I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing—the RCN. I also had the privilege of being involved in work for the Triple Impact report. It is many years since I was registered to practise in the UK, but I maintain a passionate commitment to nursing, especially through my involvement in a small NGO, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, or HART. It was established to provide aid and advocacy for people suffering oppression, often in conflict or post-conflict regions not reached by major aid organisations, for security or political reasons. We work with local partners and always give them the dignity of choice, asking them to identify their priorities for aid, which is often the provision of healthcare—in very challenging situations.
Time permits me to give just two examples to illustrate the achievements of nursing in such challenging situations. First, in northern Uganda, while the notorious rebel Lord’s Resistance Army was still inflicting its reign of terror, we in HART visited and established a partnership with local people desperate to help orphans for whom there was no one to provide care. A key professional was the senior nurse, Pius. In addition to providing clinical care for orphans, including those with HIV, he also runs the local clinic, where he is confronted with massive clinical challenges, such as a lady who was eight months pregnant and had cerebral malaria. It was the rainy season and the nearest hospital was 40 kilometres away and inaccessible. Pius therefore carries full clinical responsibility in that area. When we invited a medical colleague with a special interest in tropical diseases to sit with Pius for a clinic, he said that Pius’ work was superb and could not be better. That initial programme has grown over 10 years from care for 39 orphans to provision of holistic nurse-led health care for over 600 HIV positive children and their families.
The second brief example comes from the little-known historically Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was subjected to attempted ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan in the early 1990s but gained a ceasefire in 1994. When we asked the Government there for their aid priorities, they identified help for people with disabilities, as there was no effective provision in the former Soviet Union, where disability was still massively stigmatised. Our partner, Vardan, was given a bomb-damaged building, from which he developed a now internationally recognised centre of excellence, staffed by nurses. The member of his nursing staff with responsibility for treatment of pressure sores initially had to contend with horrific cases. One patient with fungating sores was suicidal. Marietta treated him so successfully that he recovered and began to make exquisite wood carvings, achieving self-esteem, financial provision for his family, and happiness.
These examples illustrate the competence and achievement of so many nurses—I could give so many other examples—working in very challenging situations in remote areas, sometimes in conflict or post-conflict situations. We celebrate their achievements perhaps particularly appropriately today, on International Nurses Day.
I therefore also greatly appreciate the work of the RCN, with its support for and participation in a number of nursing alliances in Europe and the Commonwealth, which not only seek to influence European and global policy but also spread learning and experience between nursing organisations; for example, the development of advanced practice on nurses’ key role in tackling antimicrobial resistance, and on addressing the health of the health workforce.
One example is RCN co-operation with the Zambia Union of Nurses Organization on its implementation of the WHO safe surgery checklist, and raising the profile of the profession in Zambia. This work and its visibility as an organisation that seeks to improve practice means that it is increasingly a partner of choice for the Zambian Ministry of Health. It has also helped it to build its own membership as a professional nursing association as well as a trade union.
The RCN also provided background to the Nursing Now campaign by undertaking research on key trends in nursing and identifying the areas that make a significant difference to nurses being able to achieve positive changes for health, including education, professional regulation, workforce resources, a pleasant working environment and nurses’ ability to influence and improve health policy. The RCN has committed to continue to raise the profile of this significant and global initiative.
I am delighted that the Triple Impact report and the Nursing Now initiatives have helped to highlight the fundamental importance of nursing here in the UK as well as in developing countries, where they are often the only providers of healthcare for large populations. As I have indicated, I have seen many inspirational examples of nursing practice in remote and very challenging situations, and I hope there will be a greater opportunity for a two-way programme of professional visits: for nurses from those areas to come to the UK to benefit from clinical updating in the latest developments, and for UK nurses to visit their colleagues in those remote situations, where they will benefit from the inspirational resourcefulness and professional competences of colleagues.
I therefore conclude by asking the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will provide adequate support for these two-way professional training programmes, which will help nursing, as the primary provider of healthcare around the world, to continue its vital contribution to the well-being of people globally.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in this debate. She is a renowned globetrotter when it comes to humanitarian missions in Africa and other lower and middle-income countries. It was also a privilege to succeed her as president of my old school, Dean Close.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to whom we owe this debate, in his book Turning the World Upside Down, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, records meeting the founder of the Bangladesh Rural Action Committee in his headquarters within sight of the slums of Bangladesh. He asked him how the world could make faster progress in reducing death in childbirth. His reply was, “Empower the women”. That single statement is what this debate is all about, for a high proportion of nurses globally are still women.
A hundred years since women got the vote in the UK, they have scaled unimaginable heights, with many in the top echelons of the NHS, in management as chief executives of hospitals, in the Department of Health or as consultant nurses. That is not so in many lower and middle-income countries. Here, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health, which in 2016 took evidence on the future development of nursing globally. The most telling comment in our report was that nurses,
“are frequently not permitted to practise to the full extent of their competence; are unable to share their learning; and have too few opportunities to develop leadership, occupy leadership roles and influence wider policy”.
A commonly held term that has long been rejected in the UK was that, in not being able to utilise their skills, nurses were essentially “handmaidens” for doctors and had no scope for development. There are of course cultural and social barriers within developing countries which reinforce this stereotypical view, and it is time it was challenged. More must be done to empower women, who represent 90% of the nursing and midwifery workforce.
Another aspect of the Triple Impact report by the APPG on Global Health was the highlighting of workforce issues and the impact of migration. As noble Lords will know, I come from Ghana, which after 60 years of independence has faced many challenges in healthcare. I had worked there for a year in 1973, so can attest to the improvements nationally since that time. However, this evidence from Janet Kwansah on incentives for rural service among nurses in Ghana is worthy of note. She said:
“Like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Ghana is faced with the simultaneous challenges of increasing its health workforce, retaining them in country and promoting a rational distribution of staff in remote or deprived areas of the country. Recent increases in both public-sector doctor and nurse salaries have contributed to a decline in international out-migration, but problems of geographic mal-distribution remain”.
Brexit will have a significant impact on the UK, as Europe currently supplies the highest proportion of overseas nurses, at 29%. Brexit will see many European nurses leave, and the UK will have to resist the temptation to recruit nurses from lower and middle-income countries, as it has done in the past. The dilemma will be how to induce European nurses to stay, while avoiding the targeting of countries with nursing shortages. I ask my noble friend the Minister what strategies the Government have in mind to overcome this problem and the concern that I am sharing with the House.
Finally, I want to mention a new initiative funded by the National Institute for Health Research—the global surgery unit. I declare an interest as chairman of the independent advisory board of that group. Its purpose is to undertake surgical research to improve health outcomes in lower and middle-income countries through developing pathways for surgical innovation. The aim is to deliver sustainable changes in surgical practice in operating theatres in three continents, supported by a consortium of three UK universities: Birmingham, Edinburgh and Warwick. It will deliver the project through five overseas limbs in central America, west Africa, southern and eastern Africa, and south Asia, and will involve 40 lower and middle-income hospitals. We hope that this will not only have an impact on front-line surgeons but encourage nurses to participate, raising their profile and encouraging others to consider a career in nursing, as nurses are seen as part of the extended team and not merely as the handmaidens of doctors.
When I was president of the college and subsequently, I was privileged to undertake various visits to east Africa—to Ethiopia, Malawi and other countries—taking surgical teams to train local surgeons in surgical procedures. One thing we always did was take a nurse with us—Judy Mewburn. She was a great asset because, while we were teaching the doctors how to carry out surgical procedures, she would take the nurses aside and show them how to set up the trolleys in a sterile way. It is that collaborative approach of doctors and nurses working together that I believe will make a big difference. We see the benefits and effects of teamworking in the UK, with nurses being much more involved in the work of doctors. I hope we will be able to take some of those messages overseas and, by doing so, empower women to take up nursing and to provide the best possible care for their patients.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and to know that, in our own ways, we strove to work collaboratively with nurses throughout our medical careers. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Crisp on this very stimulating debate. I would like to draw attention to the role of nursing in prevention and early intervention to improve mental health worldwide and to think about how nurses globally could learn from nursing experience in the United Kingdom in supporting people with learning disabilities and perhaps people with autism.
In this country, we rightly discuss the issue of parity of esteem between mental health and physical health. However, globally, the lack of parity is even more evident. The World Health Organization recognises the global burden of disease that mental health conditions produce. It reports that depression alone accounts for nearly 5% of the global burden of disease and is among the largest single causes of disability worldwide, with 11% of all years lived with disability globally. This burden is particularly great for women.
The World Health Organization also reports that almost half the world’s population lives in countries where, on average, there is one psychiatrist to serve 200,000 or more people. It states that between 76% and 85% of people with severe mental disorders receive no treatment for their disorder in low-income and middle- income countries. The King’s Sierra Leone Partnership describes how, historically, there has been one trained psychiatrist in the country—although encouragingly it describes that two more have finished their training in the last year. However, for a country of six million people, this produces a very different mental health service to the one we may be used to in this country. In this country, we have 6,000 psychiatrists on the specialist register, making up 6% of all specialty doctors.
What this suggests to me is that mental health policy globally faces challenges rather different from those we face here and that the solutions will therefore also be different. The answer to addressing the mental health gap globally may lie not in the medical schools but with community nurses and health visitors identifying mental illness and delivering psychosocial interventions. Making mental health a core component of any global health policy is essential to prevent it disappearing from view, which, as we know from our own country’s history, can easily happen.
Of all nurses in this country, 16% work in mental health or learning disability services. I suggest that there is an even greater role globally for nurses to lead mental health and disability policy. However, the reports attached to the briefing for this debate referred mainly to child health, infectious diseases, cardiovascular health and the like, with very few explicitly mentioning mental health conditions. I saw reference to diabetes and heart disease and to the burden of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, but I did not see references to learning disability—or intellectual disability, to use the international term—schizophrenia, alcohol dependence or depression.
I will reflect on the history of learning disability nursing in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is a condition-specific field of nursing that has developed over a few generations now, the role and function of which is to work face-to-face with individuals with intellectual disabilities, their supporters and their families to empower them in their lives and in their encounters with health services. In the health third sector and private and public agencies, learning disability nurses deliver specialist healthcare and support to people of all ages.
In the United Kingdom, the largest majority of individuals with learning disabilities live in the community, in their own homes with support systems or with their families. But as a group, they have the poorest health, which has a cumulative effect over the lifespan, and this will be true worldwide. They have a different range and pattern of disease and differing health-related behaviours. They have differing leading causes of death —respiratory disease, congenital heart disease and cancers—when compared to the general population. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disorder, sensory impairments, osteoporosis, dental caries, accidents and mental ill-health are all more common in this population group. The average age of death in this country is 20 years earlier when compared with the non-learning-disabled population. Significantly, we know that most of these deaths are unexpected, avoidable and preventable.
There is a challenge, however: half of learning disability nursing courses in this country are considering closure, despite rising numbers of vacancies within the NHS. The nurses who are still available are increasingly working in social care settings as managers, not delivering the face-to-face nursing skills that they have acquired and which are so essential for this group of people. One of our roles could be to consistently challenge policymakers, in this country and abroad, and to ask how the strategies they formulate improve prevention and identification and care for people with mental illness, and perhaps particularly for people with learning disabilities and autism. The role of nursing in transforming healthcare globally is huge, but let us ensure that this reduces, not increases, the disparity between mental and physical healthcare.
I will finish with another challenge: how to respond effectively to both online and offline sexual abuse and its impact on mental health, and the educational and preventative work being done by community nurses in some rural communities in Africa. Nurses are highly respected in all cultures. Their contribution to prevention and their compassionate listening responses could help to reduce the longer-term consequences of sexual abuse and to rebuild the resilience that each person needs in life.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Hollins. I draw attention to my interests as outlined in the register, and in particular as president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation.
I thank my noble friend Lord Crisp for securing this timely debate, because 12 May was International Nurses’ Day, which I spent at the RCN Congress with 4,000 other nurses in Belfast. Many of them came from countries outside the UK, including nurses who trained in the EU, the Commonwealth and from other parts of the globe, yet currently work in our four countries. This collective of nurses demonstrated that we need to think about the nursing workforce as a global resource, as opposed to manpower planning being thought of in a vacuum country by country. There is evidence that, it we think and plan strategically, nurses can be key to the achievement of the universal health coverage strategic development goal.
In the excellent Library briefing for this debate, we are reminded that there are an estimated 43.5 million health workers around the world and that just under half, 20.7 million, are nurses and midwives, yet Global Health Observatory data suggests that half the World Health Organization member states have fewer than three nurses and midwives per 100,000 head of population, and a quarter fewer than one. WHO estimates that a further 2.8 million nurses and midwives will be needed in Africa and 1.9 million in south-east Asia by 2030. Will the Minister indicate in his reply how the UK will contribute to increasing the global healthcare workforce over the next decade through targeted investment?
Investing in nursing makes economic sense. As the UN High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth argues, there are three impacts from investing in and developing the healthcare workforce: improved health outcomes for populations; global health security, particularly through the reduction of transmittable diseases; and economic growth through job creation. The report further suggests that there should be a focus on reforming aid and accountability for health system strengthening, with a focus on skilled health workers, which, it suggests, could initiate a new era of international co-operation and action for economic and human security.
My noble friend Lord Crisp has already reminded us that investment in nursing will enhance women’s equal participation in the economy, which the UK mission to the UN has already emphasised is vital to the eventual gender equality of women globally. That is not to say that we should not increase the male population in nursing too. In turn, one would anticipate a reduction in violence towards women if they are in a position to be financially self-supporting through working as nurses or other healthcare workers, thus enabling them to leave abusive relationships where they were previously held in economic handcuffs, and to work with other women in their communities to prevent cycles of abuse. How can the Government promote partnership and mutual learning between the UK and other countries to bring shared benefits?
The UN high-level commission makes a number of recommendations for reform, including at least four enabling actions: mobilising leadership, enhancing investment, aligning accreditation across the globe— as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has implied—and strengthening global learning. I would welcome the Minister’s opinion on how we will monitor our successes and challenges in relation to the enabling actions suggested within the five-year timeframe of 2016-21. Is now an appropriate time to take stock and set some clear, measurable goals for the UK’s investment in associated issues?
This must of course include developing our own workforce, as outlined by many other speakers in the debate, rather than continuing to rely on healthcare workers from overseas to staff our NHS and social services; depleting countries where there are already severe shortages in order to assist us is, to say the least, ethically questionable. However, overseas nurses are welcome here and opportunities for exchanges, strategic partnerships and alliances should always be promoted.
We know that nurses play a powerful and effective role in a range of healthcare settings and that many work in communities where they have lived for long periods. This makes them culturally sensitive and acceptable to the people they serve. The work that nurses have undertaken in Africa to reduce communicable diseases illustrates the effectiveness of their interventions. They continue to work to reduce the level of HIV and AIDS through health promotion. Similarly, nurses work with children and adults who have experienced extreme violence due to conflict and war, assisting them with mental health interventions as well as treating physical wounds.
Nursing Now, the global campaign to raise the status of the profession worldwide, involves more than 40 countries with the backing of their respective Governments. The campaign was instrumental in influencing the World Health Organization to appoint a chief nurse to its new leadership team. How long will it be before England has a chief nurse at the Department of Health and Social Care, part of whose remit should include an international dimension? Can the Minister tell us how the Government have invested to promote nursing globally to date, and whether they will increase that investment with associated clear objectives to ensure that the triple impact of such investment on improving health, gender equality and strengthening economies may be measured? One method has been clearly identified in the interim report by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, reviewing healthcare in this country. It states:
“Governments must stop approaching the NHS and social care as a liability to be managed and instead look at it as an investment that delivers a return. Good health is an asset”.
How can we ensure that health is really perceived as a human right through investing in healthcare workers globally? Does the Minister agree that at least in part, we must do this by further investment in our own workforce in the UK and making the nursing profession a desirable choice for young people here at home in the future? In this way, we will also become less dependent on recruiting excellent nurses from overseas and enable middle and lower-income countries to train and retain nurses in their own communities.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for instituting this debate and I crave the indulgence of noble Lords for speaking in the gap. I must also ask for a further indulgence because this speech is not totally global in character. I speak as the former chairman of a central London independent hospital. Our experience, like that of many other hospitals and indeed of many patients, is of the excellence of nurses coming particularly from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They have many attributes. On the whole they are very well trained in the British tradition. They have a reputation for being particularly good with patients, and of course they have the language. The attraction for them of coming to the UK is to work hard and save up for touring Europe, and certainly it has been the experience at our hospital that the limited stay is worth it for the service these nurses give during that period.
There is a distinct possibility that following Brexit, the number of nurses from the European Union will fall, and this has been highlighted in a rather depressing King’s Fund report published last October which many noble Lords will have received. This will obviously lead to an increase in demand for well-trained nurses from elsewhere. Incidentally, from that list of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, I deliberately omitted South Africa, because nurses are urgently needed in southern Africa, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Ribeiro and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock.
Currently, the expenses for nurses coming from outside the European Union and taking up work in this country are very considerable. We cannot do anything about geography but the fact is that nurses coming from the European Union at the moment have virtually no expenses, except possibly those of getting their English up to speed. I highlight the work done by my noble friend Lord Howe three years ago in getting the European Union to correct that anomaly. I ask Her Majesty’s Government, when they are formulating immigration policy following Brexit, to pay particular attention to minimising costly red tape and encouraging the valuable source of nursing excellence for the betterment of healthcare in this country.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on calling the debate and on the APPG report. It has been an excellent debate, with informed contributions from noble Lords across the House.
We are here to talk about the all-encompassing importance of investing in nursing around the world. As serendipity would have it, a Minister’s response to a Written Question popped into my inbox this morning. This was the Question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, given the UK Government’s recent recommitment to defeating malaria, if her Department will increase investment in community-based primary healthcare programmes in remote, rural communities”.
This was the response from the Minister, Alistair Burt:
“DFID supports low income countries to make faster progress towards universal health coverage, with a particular focus on improving access to good quality primary care in poorer, very often remote areas. This support to strengthening health systems helps to ensure that countries are better able to prevent, detect and treat all causes of ill health”.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this came as quite a useful prologue to thinking about the debate.
Who better to deliver these changes than nurses? Nurses are an integral part of the global health workforce. Universal health coverage promotes the notion that, despite where one is in the world and the economic situation people find themselves in, each global citizen has the right to quality healthcare. As a country proud of its NHS and its irreplaceable facilities, this notion is close and dear to our heart. Yet nurses around the world, including here in the UK, face 21st-century obstacles. Health systems remain fragmented and endure systemic troubles that impede the quality of care. Communities are experiencing disengagement from participating in elevating their own health. Funding is often mismanaged, misplaced or misguided. Our own health obstacles surrounding Brexit pose a challenge to staffing. Research into universal healthcare has brought to light issues that affect most, if not all, countries with a healthcare workforce: their training and education, staff shortages, problems with recruitment and retention and limited accessibility to proper resources. Some of those sound quite familiar to us here at home.
Of course, countries vary greatly from an economic, social and political perspective. That is why, to combat such issues and signal nurses’ irreplaceable status to the world, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health published a critical report on nursing’s unique Triple Impact. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on again putting his finger on the pulse. The report claims that investing in nursing globally progresses gender equality, builds strong economies and improves the health of all. Equality, prosperity and health: three fundamental legs that nursing strengthens. As the noble Lord said, that is a no-brainer.
On fortifying the equality, wellness and wealth of not just our own country but countries around the world, the report sets out several detailed recommendations and the practical applicability of each: nurses as policymakers; nurses developing their own potential through the Workforce 2030 initiative of the World Health Organization; nurses as leaders; nurses driving research, and nurses being empowered and therefore empowering other women.
Let us not forget the “global” aspect of investing in nurses globally. The UK must be a willing, active and successful participant when working with, and learning from, leading global health organisations. The exchange of health knowledge only improves Britain’s soft diplomatic power with nations of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, mentioned gender; the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned prescribing. I wonder whether the noble Baroness was a Minister or Secretary of State at the time, but I remember two key changes which transformed the dynamic among health professionals and improved healthcare in my home county of Cornwall. The first was the de-medicalisation of community hospitals in the 1990s, turning them into effective, nurse-led step up, step down units; and, a bit later, the establishment of effective minor injury units in those hospitals. With those two changes came the impact of nurse prescribing.
GPs, predominantly men, were suspicious of both innovations, but now, 20 years on, nurses, predominantly female, have proved that with appropriate training and support they can lead healthcare in a local setting. Thinking of a global parallel, I remember several years ago the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and I joining a party to Zambia. We visited a hospital out in the bush. Much like our community hospitals in Cornwall, they were then nurse-led very effectively, with not a doctor in sight. Doctors are great, but we do not need them all the time.
I return to the global agenda. Next month, we celebrate 70 years of the NHS. Twenty years ago, I was at the NHS Confederation conference to celebrate 50 years of the NHS. One of the most impressive speakers was the Health Minister from South Africa, who implored us not to poach her nurses. That country invests a significantly higher proportion of its GDP than us in training nurses. She asked us to desist and let them develop their strengths and health services in country. That is as important 20 years on as it was then.
Sponsored by the World Health Organization and the International Council of Nurses, Nursing Now takes these recommendations and works towards creating a world community that offers nurses more acknowledgment, security and authority. Nursing Now reminds us that the great power nurses hold, especially in this dynamic and cautious time, is unmatched and has a long reach. I would be grateful if the Minister told us how DfID intends to engage in this way, and what might be the timescale and the short-term and long-term investment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for initiating what has become a timely debate. Of course, it was not originally scheduled for now, but it has been incredibly timely, for all the reasons that noble Lords set out in the debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for putting out a tweet earlier about trying to prompt a debate among nurses. At my early morning swim at 6.30 this morning I ran into a couple of nurses—it is true, I was there. I spoke to a nurse and he then subsequently tweeted about tonight’s debate and it generated quite a thread of comments, which I really appreciated. One thing I am certain about is that nurses certainly have a lot to say and are showing concern, not just about their own situation but about the global situation. The most common thing I heard was that health and disease know no boundaries. We have to address this and see it as a global issue.
A key goal of the UN’s 2030 development agenda is that everyone in the world should have access to healthcare—universal health coverage—and that nobody should be left behind. Today’s debate and the Nursing Now campaign make the case very strongly that this cannot possibly be achieved without strengthening nursing globally. This is partly about increasing the number of nurses. One thing we have heard in the debate, and certainly I read it on Twitter today, is that nurses have real concerns on staffing, inadequate facilities and resources, and the lack of effective support. All these things impact negatively on the ability of nurses to provide a safe and effective service. But strengthening nursing is also, as we have heard, about making sure their contribution is properly understood and enabling them to work to their full potential.
As the Global Health APPG report, in which noble Lords participated, said, strengthening nursing will have a triple impact in improving health, promoting gender equality and supporting economic growth. I shall return to that point later. To bring about the change we have heard we need, we really need to persuade politicians to work with the profession, addressing how nurses are perceived. Their potential is, sadly, overlooked because of strict hierarchies and engrained ideas about what nurses can and cannot do. I hope the Minister will take up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, of a high-level meeting with the profession, so we can talk about these issues, not just in the context of the National Health Service but how DfID’s strategy is addressing these issues globally.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, Ebola taught us that tackling that crisis required the strengthening of healthcare systems: growing the number of primary healthcare staff and their training; building scientific capacity in diagnostics and public health labs; and supporting public health messaging and outreach generally. Of course, this touches on education, which is such an important element of primary healthcare. Many countries have had insufficient investment in their health systems. Universal health coverage can make more countries resilient to health concerns, particularly about new diseases that may emerge, before they become widespread emergencies.
Another clear lesson from Ebola was the role of community engagement, which has all too often been regarded as a soft and relatively non-technical add-on to medical interventions. A good example, which I know I have raised in previous debates, was the DfID-funded social mobilisation action consortium in Sierra Leone, which brought together the local BBC Media Action group, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Focus 1000 and Restless Development. Through their activity those NGOs, working with community and religious leaders, and partner radio stations covering every district in Sierra Leone, achieved tangible behavioural change around safe burials, early treatment and social acceptance of Ebola survivors. The stigma of disease is another issue that we have to address through education.
As noble Lords have said, the health professionals closest to the communities are the nurses, who are promoting good health and preventing disease as well as providing care at the community level. They are at the heart of most health teams. They support and supervise community health workers and link to more specialist care when needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, spoke about the £5 million which is certainly an extremely welcome grant from DfID. However, I want to hear from the Minister tonight just how DfID is translating the lessons that we have learned from the Ebola case, for example. How are we translating those lessons into specific action, particularly in Africa? We have heard about ageing populations and the rapid rise of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, which are putting all health systems across the globe under strain. But in poorer regions, that comes on top of the burden of infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. The global shortage of health workers means that there simply are not enough to tackle these threats.
This debate has highlighted not only the importance of nursing but the work of our international development strategies. It has highlighted the fact that we do not deal with health simply in isolation. We must see these as global threats but also as having global solutions. It is not only that other countries can learn from us but more importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, that some of these innovations, particularly in Africa, are ones that we can learn from. That is why we should be focusing on this issue, and I welcome this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for securing it and for the enormous personal contribution which he has made to raising the profile of nursing both here in the UK and around the world. The debate has drawn on the immense depth of expertise that resides on this subject in your Lordships’ House.
It is worth noting, for the record, as I found when I prepared for the debate, that contributions have come from two nurses—crucially, I start with them—but also from a former Permanent Secretary and a former chief executive of NHS England, a former Secretary of State and Minister of State for Health, as well as a fellow and an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons, a former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a professor of nursing and a former hospital chairman.
Lord Bates
Swimmers, of course, are doing health promotion, and we pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work in this area.
This has been an excellent debate and I will respond to some of the points. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, set the tone by reminding us of the critical role that nurses play in ensuring the delivery of holistic, patient-centred healthcare. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, reminded us that nursing is the most trusted of professions. That carries wider benefits to health efforts. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, reminded us that nurses can be a catalyst for change in developing countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, reminded us of the courage of our NHS volunteers who went out to tackle the outbreak of Ebola in Sierra Leone. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, gave many powerful, practical examples of nursing achievement in delivering clinical care in remote and challenging situations. My noble friend Lord Ribeiro hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the role that nursing has in women’s empowerment, which is critical across so many areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, talked about how nurses could be there in early intervention in mental health conditions. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, spoke about seeing nurses as a global resource in delivering the sustainable development goals relating to health. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, reminded us of the costs and administrative burdens faced by those coming to study nursing in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, summed it up by saying that nursing delivers equality, prosperity and health. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, reminded us that, in these matters, the issues of health and disease know no national boundaries in the way they operate and therefore that they demand a different set of solutions.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, on their leadership on this issue since the launch of Nursing Now, which, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, reminded us, was attended by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge and was a great success. I am delighted that my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department for International Development, Harriett Baldwin, attended and used that opportunity and platform to announce our support for nursing globally and for the campaign through our health partnership programme, starting in 2019. It is a £5 million programme that a number of noble Lords have welcomed. It will be allocated to focus on nurses and midwives. The programme is designed to address the priorities identified by countries and will focus on nurse leadership where it is part of a country’s health workforce strategy.
Through these partnerships we will work with countries to build comprehensive and effective healthcare systems, not just to deliver separate projects. The programme brings benefits to developing countries and to the UK health system from the increased skills and motivation that UK health workers acquire when working overseas. That is why this campaign recognises the vital role of nurses at the centre of every health system around the world. Nurses account for nearly 50% of the global health workforce. Their knowledge, skills and motivation are crucial in delivering health services to all, including to the poorest.
As the Triple Impact report and the Nursing Now campaign highlight, many countries are grappling with enormous challenges, including shortages, skills, gaps in leadership and challenges mentioned in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. In the UK, nurses are at the heart of our NHS. We want to keep these hard-working staff and build a workforce fit for the future. My noble friend Lord Ribeiro and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, among others referred to concerns they had about our capacity to train the nurses we need. We have announced 5,000 more nurse training places from 2018, alongside new routes into the profession and continuing measures to improve the work/life balance.
Globally, the World Health Organization and the World Bank estimate that countries will need to create around 40 million new health and social care jobs by 2030—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. Low-resource countries, where these are needed most, face the greatest shortages of 18 million health workers. We must support them to train and deploy the health workers they need so they can access essential health services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, spoke about the importance of the retention of trained staff in Ghana. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, spoke about her experiences at the conference and talked about the importance of the retention of staff in South Africa. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly raised ethical questions about recruitment from some developing nations. That is why the UK Government support the World Health Organization’s Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, which ensures that developing nations that are experiencing critical shortages of healthcare staff are not targeted for recruitment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has argued, this is not just about health services. Investments in the health workforce go beyond improving health. The health sector offers employment opportunities for women and strengthens local economies. The UN High-Level Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth, which the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, referred to, found that in 123 countries women make up 67% of workers in health and social sectors. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to this as well. The commission has estimated that women would take between 59% and 70% of additional jobs created in education, health and social services. These opportunities will be even more important in low-income countries, where women are often excluded from formal employment.
To promote these opportunities in the health sector, a DfID programme in Bangladesh, for example, is aiming to ensure that 4,300 licensed midwives are employed. Some 30% of these will be in remote areas, providing opportunities to young women where other formal employment opportunities are scarce. To deliver and sustain this triple impact, the Government remain committed to working in partnership with countries to strengthen their health systems by improving their health workforces, including addressing the global shortage of nurses and midwives, to ensure that no one is left behind. DfID improves access to and the quality of health services by supporting training, mentorship and supervision for health workers; for example, in Kenya we have trained 7,000 nurses and midwives in emergency obstetric and newborn care. This has already resulted in a 10% reduction in maternal deaths.
Our programmes also invest in nurse leadership, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred to. Through a UK partnership, 20 nurses in Uganda have been trained by UK volunteers in nurse leadership for palliative care. I think the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, referred to this programme. These nurses have supported the training of 154 other health workers and empowered them to take on care traditionally delivered by doctors and to broaden access to palliative care.
In the time available I will turn to some of the questions that were raised. If I do not cover them all, I will of course write. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman asked about EU nurses leaving after the referendum. Overall, there are 3,600 more EU staff working in the NHS since the referendum. We have seen a small reduction in the number of EU nurses working in the NHS over the period. However, this is due mainly to the introduction of new language tests by the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about healthcare in challenging conflict situations. The UK Emergency Medical Team, including nurses, spent over six weeks training more than 3,000 Rohingya people, with local Bangladeshi nurses working alongside them, learning vital infection prevention and control skills. The local nurses are now tackling diphtheria in the Cox’s Bazar camps.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, was right to pay tribute to Jackie Smith, the Nursing and Midwifery Council chief executive, who has announced that she is retiring. We join the noble Lord in paying tribute to her leadership of the NMC over the past six years and wish her every success for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, wondered, after the World Health Organization’s appointment, how long it would be before there was a chief nurse at the Department of Health. The Chief Nursing Officer for England, Jane Cummings, advises the Government on nursing workforce issues. We are delighted that her office is working with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, on the Nursing Now campaign.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, spoke about the Commonwealth connection. I am pleased to confirm that Nursing Now representatives took part in a recent Commonwealth summit event through the Commonwealth Nurses and Midwives Conference.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked whether nurses were at the forefront of health strategies. The UK recognises the critical role played by nurses. Our bilateral programmes, our support for the World Health Organization’s leadership and our investments in strengthening health systems all promote this essential role.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked about mental health and specialist nurses. We recognise that nurses deliver specialist services. The UK funds a research programme called PRIME and a programme in Ghana, improving the care of patients with mental health issues. The disability summit in July this year will highlight the need for services to be inclusive and cater for all needs so that no one is left behind.
There is a wealth of expertise in this area in this House which has been demonstrated in this Chamber today. We remain open to other ideas on how we can build on our commitment to support nurses and midwives through health partnerships.
The noble Lord asked me a specific question on the round table. I will take that back and talk with my ministerial colleagues about it. It seems a sensible way forward and I know that the Ministers Burt, Baldwin and others have appreciated their engagement with him on the Nursing Now campaign. Through DfID and other departments we are committed to playing a part in enhancing the vital contribution of nurses and midwives in healthcare and prevention for all, especially for the poorest people in developing countries.