House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are making sure that hard-working families and first-time buyers have affordable, quality homes to call their own. Last month, we confirmed over £12 billion of investment to build more affordable homes—the most significant of its kind in living memory. This includes our new affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 180,000 homes from next year.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. My constituents are keen to see villages grow gently, sympathetically and with a range of larger and more affordable homes, and I am pleased to hear him focus on quality. How will my right hon. Friend’s planning reforms focus on quality and ensure that no new three-storey, densely packed, large developments of identikit houses are allowed to ruin the edges of small villages?
Robert Jenrick
Like my hon. Friend, this Government believe that beautiful high-quality homes should be the norm in every area of this country. Our reformed planning system will place a much higher regard on quality, design and local character, such as that in Lincolnshire, than ever before. Local planning authorities already have the power to set high standards for housing, including setting parameters for density, open space and private gardens. However, to go further, I have announced that we will create a new national design code, and I have asked Nicholas Boys Smith, the founder of Create Streets, to establish a new body to help every local community to create their own design code and deliver locally popular architecture for everyone.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We said we would support councils throughout this pandemic, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have provided £4.8 billion in additional funding for spending pressures, including £3.7 billion of un-ringfenced funding. This is in addition to councils’ core spending power rising by over £2.9 billion this financial year, which is the largest year-on-year real-terms increase in a decade.
Tony Lloyd [V]
The Minister will know that Rochdale council has lost some £200 million in Government cuts over the last years, and this year it is likely to be £20 million short of money, even with the extra Government funding. The people who will suffer most from this are those dependent on acute services, children’s services and, of course, the elderly and the vulnerable. How does the Minister intend to make sure that they do not suffer?
Luke Hall
The hon. Gentleman of course knows that this year’s local government finance settlement saw Rochdale Borough Council receive an increase of £12 million this year, which he did not object to when the finance settlement came through the House in February. More widely, throughout this pandemic we have supported Rochdale with £93 million to local councils, businesses and the local area. If Rochdale council is concerned about its financial settlements or about the financial situation, it should get in contact with my Department at the earliest opportunity. I would say that over half of the £4.8 billion allocated to local authorities has been spent on social care, but I am always happy to discuss it with him further.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Councils are facing in-year cuts of around £3 billion because the Secretary of State broke his promise to fully fund councils for the cost of getting communities through the pandemic, and that is according to the Conservative-led Local Government Association. The Minister tries to wish this away by bandying around Government funding intended for specific purposes that cannot be used to plug gaps in the council’s general funds. Since he would not wish to try to pull that same trick again here, would he tell the House which services he now expects councils to cut to plug the funding gap created by his broken promises?
Luke Hall
Let us step back and look at the facts here. If we look at the local government finance settlement—the hon. Gentleman did not object to it in February; he supported it—and at the fact that local government has reported a £3.1 billion increase in spending pressures for covid, we have supported them with £4.8 billion, including £3.7 billion of un-ringfenced funding. What is not surprising is the hon. Gentleman turning up again today and talking down councils and their ability to respond to this crisis. Local authorities are proving themselves to be a resourceful, dynamic force, and we should be praising them.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Could I say that the Government’s decision to help councils with loss of funding, particularly for leisure centres, parking revenue and such things, is welcome? There is one group of authorities, however, that have not been compensated—the councils that run their leisure services at arm’s length. I raised this with the Minister’s predecessor back in July, and the response I got was that the Government
“are very serious about tackling it.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1224.]
Since then, because Sheffield has lost over £10 million, which it has not been compensated for, from its leisure centres’ loss of income, we have written as Sheffield MPs to the Secretary of State twice—once in August and once in September, the second with the local leisure clubs—and we have not had a response. Could the Minister therefore update the House on what is happening in general on this issue, and will he agree to meet Sheffield MPs to discuss this issue, which really affects our city and its finances?
Luke Hall
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. We recognise the vital role leisure centre facilities play in keeping our communities safe and protecting mental health. We are working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on a further package of support for leisure centres. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and other Sheffield MPs to discuss the matter.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Delivering much needed new, higher-quality greener homes across the country is central to the mission of this Government. To do that, we will continue to prioritise building on brownfield sites to deliver the homes that we need while also regenerating our towns and cities. As a first step, we have allocated more than £400 million from our brownfield fund to seven mayoral combined authorities, unlocking 26,000 new homes while protecting our greenfield sites. Even as we overhaul our outdated planning system, our reforms make very clear that we will continue to protect the green belt and prioritise development on brownfield land.
Mr Mohindra
As my right hon. Friend knows, my beautiful constituency of South West Hertfordshire is 80% green belt. Does he agree that continued protection of the green belt and prioritising building on brownfield sites is the right thing to do?
Robert Jenrick
I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend once again that the protection of the green belt remains a priority, as does developing brownfield land in all parts of the country, including Hertfordshire. We do need to build more homes, including in places where homes are most expensive. It is, and will continue to be, however, for local councils to decide which sites are available, and which sites are viable and suitable for new homes. That will involve reimagining high streets and it will involve promoting gentle density, but we will do everything we can to protect both the green belt and our beautiful countryside.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As Communities Secretary, ensuring places of worship can reopen and remain open has been a priority for me and my Department. Their contribution to our country as places of solace, as well as for significant moments such as weddings and funerals, is clear to us all. Places of worship remain open today for more than six people for communal prayer and services with existing covid-secure requirements continuing to apply.
Afzal Khan [V]
During this pandemic we have seen a sharp spike in Islamophobia, from blaming Muslims for the spread of covid-19 to fuelling online hate. I am sure the Secretary of State will want to join me in commending the community for its patience and hard work in these difficult months. Given that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has previously highlighted the good work of the Muslim Council of Britain in reaching minority groups that the Government are unable or unwilling to reach, can he outline what discussions he has had with the MCB and other Muslim organisations on the safe reopening of mosques?
Robert Jenrick
Like the hon. Gentleman, I want to praise and thank the Muslim communities throughout the country for their forbearance. We have worked closely with them through our places of worship taskforce that the Prime Minister and I set up. I have had the privilege to meet representatives from mosques, including the London Central Mosque on the eve of the Eid celebrations, to thank them once again for their forbearance. We have put in place detailed guidelines to help mosques to reopen safely and will continue to work with Muslim groups in the weeks and months ahead.
John Spellar
It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that he recognises that in these troubled times places of worship are more important than ever in providing for the spiritual and material needs of their congregations and in combating loneliness and mental health problems. However, they face their own challenges in making their premises safe for their worshippers and meeting the costs of that as well as for their own people. What help is the Department giving directly to places of worship to facilitate that provision, and is it engaging with them regularly to ensure that this can be effectively implemented?
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman makes a series of very important points. At the start of the pandemic, I recognised that places of worship needed to be prioritised. They should not be relegated behind other activities, whether shops, casinos or other important things that we want to keep open to protect people’s livelihoods. Places of worship matter for those with faith, and we needed to ensure that they could reopen. I worked extremely closely with faith leaders through our places of worship taskforce. That work continues, and we have very good relationships with all the major faiths. The guidelines are in place and are now extremely detailed. They cover not only basic guidelines for all faiths, but very detailed guidelines for individual practices for particular religions. We saw that prominently recently, for example, with the Jewish holidays, when we worked out detailed guidelines for Yom Kippur. We will continue to work closely with faith leaders in the weeks and months ahead.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Since reopening, mosques have incurred the cost of PPE, which is an additional financial cost to them, along with deep cleaning several times a day after members and visitors visit. The Muslim Council of Britain estimates that it has already given out £500,000 in small grants, but there are far more mosques in need than those funds can reach. What action is the Secretary of State taking to financially support places of worship to reopen in a covid-secure way?
Robert Jenrick
Alongside other charities, places of worship are able to apply to the £200 million coronavirus community support fund, which has helped organisations providing essential services for vulnerable people affected by the current crisis.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
With our planning White Paper “Planning for the future”, we are seeking views on proposals to achieve just what my hon. Friend refers to in his question. We are putting the creation of beautiful places at the heart of national planning policy, encouraging greater use of design codes based on what people want to see in their area, supporting local authorities and directing Homes England to help deliver that.
Gary Sambrook
Under the White Paper, Bournville, an area that I am lucky enough to part-represent, was used as an example of an area of beauty. George Cadbury in 1893 had his vision of building houses for the area. Today, there are 25,000 people across 8,000 homes in Bournville. Will the Minister please accept an invite from the Bournville Village Trust to come and see the area for himself and the excellent work it is doing to maintain that beautiful community?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question and for that invitation to his constituency, being as it is just a hop, skip and a jump from my constituency of Tamworth. George Cadbury certainly had a vision for his community. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend and his friends in Bournville village to realise their modern 21st-century vision for his constituents.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, nearly 15,000 vulnerable people have been housed in emergency accommodation thanks to the hard work of local councils and charities, saving hundreds of lives. We are now moving on to the next steps through our Next Steps Accommodation programme. We have recently announced over £90 million for local authorities in England to prevent those we have accommodated from returning to the streets.
Angela Richardson
May I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her new role on the Front Bench? This Government’s commitment to end rough sleeping is clear to see in the extensive and regular funding given to councils over the past year. I commend David Newbery, senior homelessness prevention officer at Guildford Borough Council, who successfully found appropriate accommodation for a victim of domestic violence I had spoken to on a Saturday morning by that very evening—there was the additional complication of a positive covid status—so that she did not have to spend another night unwell and fearful. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the commitment of those on the ground in Guildford, who are working tirelessly in partnership with central Government to end rough sleeping?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the tremendous work of those in her constituency. I join with her in paying tribute to those, not only in her constituency but across the country, who worked so hard with the Government to end rough sleeping and on the delivery of the significant programme of accommodating nearly 15,000 people during covid-19. We are committed to protecting victims of domestic abuse, investing over £80 million since 2014. Today, a new £6 million fund will help tier 1 councils to prepare for the implementation of the new legal duty in the Domestic Abuse Bill.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The coronavirus pandemic and the Government’s actions during it have shown that homelessness is a choice—not of the homeless themselves, but of the Government. Will this Tory Government choose to permit the existence of homelessness, or will they extend their actions during the pandemic to eradicate the problem once and for all?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman knows that this Government are committed to working hard to end rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. That is clear in the investment the Government have made, particularly during the pandemic and, as I have just outlined in my previous response, with the Next Steps Accommodation Programme. We are committed to making sure that during the pandemic all individuals who were accommodated are supported, so they can move forward and have great lives, and we keep many individuals off the streets.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We have provided local authorities with an unprecedented package of support, including £4.8 billion funding for spending pressures, £3.7 billion in un-ring-fenced grants, and £1.1 billion for the infection control fund. We have also introduced a co-payment scheme to help councils recoup irrecoverable losses in sales fees and charges. In total, we have committed over £28 billion to local areas to support councils, businesses and their communities since the start of the pandemic.
Sir George Howarth [V]
All of which is welcome, but last week the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority called for a comprehensive Government-backed package to deal with the problems for the local economy that will be caused by the introduction of the latest covid-19 measures. Today, the combined authority and the Metro Mayor announced a £40 million welcome package to support local businesses and jobs. Will the Minister agree to hold an urgent meeting with local MPs, the combined authority and the Metro Mayor to discuss what further assistance the Government can provide to support our local economy?
Luke Hall
The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that Knowsley has received £30 million in additional un-ring-fenced spending to deal with pressures resulting from the pandemic, on top of the £10 million increase in its core spending power this financial year. More widely, Knowsley received £51 million to support councils, businesses and the community. He will be interested to know that to prepare for local outbreaks we have provided a £300 million grant to all upper tier authorities to develop strong and effective local outbreak plans. In relation to ongoing engagement, I met the Mayor of Greater Manchester last week and I believe he is meeting the Secretary of State tomorrow. We are, of course, happy to continue those discussions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Our future homes standard reforms propose an ambitious uplift in the energy efficiency of new homes. The homes will have at least 75% lower emissions than current standards. That is real action toward a cleaner and greener built environment. Furthermore, ahead of 2025, we have consulted on a meaningful interim increase in the requirements of part L of the building regulations, which will act as a stepping stone to a full uplift.
Sarah Olney
If I cannot persuade the Minister to be more ambitious in his deadline, perhaps I could encourage him to use the time to be more ambitious in his target. Instead of a target of reducing carbon emissions by 75%, will the Government set a target of net zero carbon for new builds?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She seems to have forgotten the ambition of this Government, which has already been stated. We were the first Government in the world to legislate for net zero. She seems to have forgotten that just a few days ago, we introduced the green homes grant; 600,000 homes will benefit from that grant. She seems to have forgotten the work we have done to drive down poor energy performance certificate standards; now only 5% of homes are in the G category. We will certainly be ambitious. We will continue to work hard to build green homes for our country, and I am sure that when it comes to it and the hon. Lady stops talking, she will start to walk with us.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Revitalising our towns and high streets is vital to the Government’s effort to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, supporting people’s jobs and getting businesses trading again. Last month, we provided an £80 million boost to over 100 towns from our £3.6 billion towns fund, kickstarting important local investment projects.
Chris Green
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I also thank the Government for deciding to ease the lockdown on Bolton so that people can start using cafés, pubs and restaurants more normally. This has also had the benefit of bringing more people on to our high streets and increasing footfall. As a further step, will he consider having 10 pm as last orders to enable a safe exit from pubs and restaurants as people leave and perhaps use public transport?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The requirement for pubs and some other businesses to be closed to the general public by 10 pm was designed to strike the balance of allowing people to continue to socialise while reducing social contact and minimising negative impacts on the economy. He will know that we do not take these decisions lightly. None of us would want that to continue a day longer than is necessary, and as with all measures, we will keep them under constant review.
Mark Menzies [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many business owners in Fylde and their employees have found themselves on the frontline of enforcing social distancing guidelines in recent months. What is the Minister doing to support those businesses, as well as local authorities, to ensure that high streets remain safe and public confidence high?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we published the safer urban centres and green spaces guidance to provide exactly that kind of information to business owners and councils. We have supported that with a £50 million reopening high streets safely fund and, more recently, with £60 million for the police and local councils to provide enforcement and compliance. This comes on top of our cuts to the taxes of local businesses through the business rates holiday, the 5% cut in VAT, and the reforms that we have taken through to help small businesses, whether that is on use class orders, outdoor dining and markets, or creating a simpler route through the planning system for regeneration—all measures designed to support businesses and protect jobs, and all opposed by the Labour party.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The Government intend to bring forward the English devolution and local recovery White Paper in due course, setting out how we will partner with places across the UK to build a sustainable economic recovery. I was very pleased to see that the parliamentary order to implement the Sheffield city region deal in law was made in July, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work and support in finally reaching that significant milestone in his work so far as Mayor.
Dan Jarvis [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will know that devolution has the power to transform people’s lives and local economies, but as a Mayor, it too often feels like I do not yet have the powers and resources to make transformative changes. The White Paper represents a golden opportunity to reset the dial, so does he agree that to properly empower local and regional leaders, the Government should commit to place-based, multi-year, flexible budgets so that we can better deliver for our communities?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was delighted to meet him and nine colleagues from across the country to discuss their representations about the upcoming White Paper. We are genuinely pleased with the combined authority Mayors and the progress that they are making, but of course, we recognise that there is more to do. We will publish the White Paper in due course.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
In the 2019 Conservative manifesto, the Government promised that every part of the country would have the powers to shape their own destiny. Given the broken promises that councils have had from the Government recently, can the Minister confirm that the White Paper honours that manifesto pledge, and that local leaders will have the powers to decide what works best for their communities?
Luke Hall
I am not exactly sure what promise the hon. Lady was referring to, but we have certainly kept our promises to protect councils during this pandemic by providing them with billions of pounds of funding to support their covid response. We see the devolution and local recovery White Paper as an exciting opportunity to lay out our plans for devolution in this Parliament. We will bring it forward in due course, and I am very happy to listen to her representations about what should be in it.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already alluded, in his answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), to the £400 million brownfield fund, delivering 26,000 homes, and our commitment to prioritising brownfield sites does not end there. Our national planning policy framework is clear that brownfield should be prioritised for redevelopment for housing, and that local authorities should avoid using our best and most versatile farmland wherever and whenever possible.
Sir Roger Gale [V]
My right hon. Friend knows that I have a high regard for him personally, but I am afraid that that does not extend to a planning White Paper that seems designed to smother the south-east of England and the garden of England in houses not for local people but for people from elsewhere. In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), the Secretary of State said that the brownfield fund would be made available to metropolitan areas. Will that be extended across the board to rural areas as well? Also, could my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that all of the 1 million consents already granted will be used before a single further blade of greenfield site in agricultural land is also used?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his question. I can confirm that, though he is correct that the £400 million made available for the brownfield regeneration fund was targeted at mayoral combined authorities, the home building fund has in it £5 billion to support new housing, including brownfield projects. More than 300 projects in England will receive a share of the £900 million to get Britain building: the getting building fund. That will also, I trust, support his constituency. I also remind him that just a couple of days ago we voted for permitted development rights, which will allow for the reimagining of town centres, and the demolition and rebuild of disused commercial buildings. That will also take the weight off any pressure on green spaces, so the Government are committed to the end that my right hon. Friend wants: building brownfield first.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We are taking action with the biggest reforms of building and fire safety in nearly 40 years through the Building Safety Bill. To tackle the most urgent problems, we have already made available £1.6 billion to remove unsafe cladding systems, and appointed expert construction consultants to review aluminium composite material remediation timescales and to work at increased pace. There therefore should be no excuse for delay.
Paul Blomfield
There should indeed be no excuse for delay, but a constituent of mine tells me that she and her partner are stuck between a rock and a hard place because they cannot sell their flat. Up to half a million people are now in the same position. The Minister will know that whether buildings are above 18 metres or, as in the case of my constituent, below that height, mortgage lenders are requiring EWS1 forms for fire safety clearance. My constituent’s management company refuses to test her building because it is below 18 metres. The Select Committee called for urgent action in June, so what is the Minister doing to help all those who are trapped by the failure of remediation and by these requirements?
Christopher Pincher
With respect to buildings below 18 metres, we are following the advice of Dame Judith Hackitt to target the tallest buildings—those over 18 metres—because they are at greatest danger of fire if they are clad. With respect to the EWS1 form—a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors form—I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions with lenders and that my noble Friend the noble Lord Greenhalgh has discussed with the insurance industry how to resolve these matters better. We are encouraging the industry to accept alternative evidence of assurances. Not all lenders require EWS1 forms, and we will encourage more lenders to take similar action.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Countless Salford residents are among over 700,000 nationally who are still living in dangerously cladded homes, yet only 65 registrations to the building safety fund have been allowed to proceed, an estimated 1.5 million people cannot sell their homes, and exorbitant remediation costs are still being passed on to leaseholders for defects that they did not cause. Will the Minister end this protracted scandal today and commit to the proposals set out by the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee?
Christopher Pincher
I have every sympathy with the situation that the hon. Lady’s constituents find themselves in. She will understand that in order to target the right buildings and ensure that the buildings most at risk are prioritised, it is important that the money disbursed by the Government is spent effectively. We have had 2,784 registrations to the end of September, and 1,857 of those—many of them received on the last day of application in July—were incomplete. We are working with the owners and with the submitters of the registrations to ensure that they get the information right, and as soon as they get the information right, we can determine when we can get the money out of the door. I hope that we get the first money out of the door very soon indeed.
Sam Tarry
According to leading civil servants, the building safety fund will cover less than a third of the buildings that require external remediation, and it does not even cover the interim safety measures and costs that may unscrupulous freeholders have been pushing on to leaseholders, including at Raphael House in my constituency. My constituents and I are wondering whether the Government could increase the budget for that fund so that all buildings are covered, including the cost of the expensive interim safety measures, and extend the application deadline beyond April so that freeholders can act responsibly in the best interests of leaseholders and tenants.
Christopher Pincher
The objective of the £1 billion fund is to target those properties that most need help, where there is no other immediate means of helping them. £1 billion is not a small amount of money and it is important that we get that money out of the door first to help those places that need it. The hon. Gentleman might, while he is at it, have a word with the Mayor of London, because London is lagging well behind the remediation of properties around England. That is why Lord Greenhalgh had to organise a London summit to get London to up its game. So, as much as we are determined to get the money out of the door, he must encourage the Mayor to do the same.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Ritu and Rebecca are among the many thousands of people now trapped in this situation despite their good intentions. Hon. Members across the House have discussed the EWS1 form today. The current estimate for the 1.5 million people stuck in this situation is that it will take 15 years-plus to resolve. This requires a sense of urgency. When the Minister going to get a grip of the situation?
Christopher Pincher
As I explained to the House just a moment ago—I think the hon. Gentleman heard what I said— the Government are working with lenders to make sure that this situation moves as quickly as possible, so that lenders require other more easily available assurances and are encouraged to act much more quickly. We continue to work with the industry to make sure that those people get the help and support they need, and I can confirm to him that we will bring forward further proposals very soon.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
We are committed to supporting regeneration in town centres through the £3.6 billion towns fund, which includes the £1 billion future high streets fund. Last week, we made an announcement on £80 million from the towns fund, which will go to more than 100 towns in England, to kick-start regeneration projects. We are also providing support to local leaders through the High Streets Task Force and have protected businesses from eviction during the covid pandemic.
Mrs Murray
My constituency office is in Liskeard, a small market town that is more than 1,000 years old. It lost the head office of the local district council when that authority was abolished and its farmers’ market has left the town. What more can be done to increase demand again in small town centres such as Liskeard?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the beauty of her town of Liskeard, and she knows that I, too, am a fan of her part of the country. The Government are totally committed to helping our high streets and town centres to adapt to changing consumer behaviour during this challenging period. To achieve that, the Government are supporting places across the country with the High Streets Task Force, which will work with local authorities and groups to get the access to the experts required to come up with the ideas and drive to build the skills for sustainable place making and share that best practice. We have also introduced reforms to planning use to enable that mixture on the high streets to drive footfall and businesses into our town centres.
Marco Longhi
High streets such as mine in Dudley have undergone a period of profound change—they did so even before the pandemic struck—so does the Minister agree that making it easier to convert commercial and retail units into new homes will help regenerate the high street and create more housing?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is right. We agree that turning disused commercial and retail units into new homes can provide more housing, and create more vibrant town and city centres. A number of national permitted development rights allow for shops, offices and high streets to change to residential use, which will have the impact of creating environments where people want to live, work—[Interruption.] And play.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for letting me stand in for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who has not been able to get here, and I hope that the Minister will not be lost for words with this one. The Secretary of State has been criticised for the way he allocated taxpayers’ money through the towns fund. He will share my concern that there must never be any question of gerrymandering public funds, so will he explain why he ignored civil servants on how the towns fund should be spent, and blocked funds for Sunderland, Stockport and Ashington but handed out money to wealthier towns with more prosperous high streets, such as Newark, which he just happens to represent?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have had a lot of respect for him in his previous work in this House, but I am disappointed with his position there. As an elected Member of Parliament, I am totally committed, like this Government, to driving up regeneration across the country, in no matter what part of the United Kingdom. Suggesting that there was anything underhand in relation to that towns fund is totally out of order. I can tell him that that fund has been allocated to towns up and down the country. They are dying for that regeneration and people want to see their towns developed, and we are committed to continuing to deliver on the promises we have made.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We are committed to delivering the homes and communities that this country needs, while protecting our important green spaces and avoiding overdevelopment anywhere in the country. Our consultation sets out the elements that we intend to balance when determining local housing need, including building 300,000 homes, tackling affordability challenges in the places where people most want to live, and levelling up our towns and cities. The consultation recently closed and we are reflecting carefully on the feedback.
Theresa Villiers
In March, the Secretary of State wrote a strongly worded letter to the Mayor of London to express concern that his London plan tilts away from family homes towards one-bedroom flats. How does the Secretary of State reconcile the inconsistency between that letter and his new housing algorithm, which will generate such high targets that they are unachievable without tower blocks full of predominantly one-bedroom flats?
Christopher Pincher
As I said, we will reflect carefully on the feedback that we receive from the consultation on calculating local housing need. My right hon. Friend refers to the desire to protect quiet neighbourhoods and ensure that they are not overborne by tall tower blocks. I am keen to make sure that local authorities are at the heart of decision making, and we will make sure that that is a fundamental part of our response to the consultation. I reassure my right hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for the fine borough of Barnet, which builds lots of homes, that we will bring forward proposals to achieve the sorts of ends that she is looking for.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Our town centres and high streets are the beating heart of our communities. Our landmark towns fund, through which we are investing £3.6 billion into more than 100 towns, is just one part of that commitment. We also want to give local communities the freedom to transform their areas for the better—to give boarded-up eyesores on the high street a new lease of life, to give shop owners the flexibility to change the use of their property, and to allow families the chance to increase the size of their home as their family grows. Each of these reforms will help small businesses and individuals to sustain jobs and invest in local communities. That is the mission of this Government.
Antony Higginbotham
This year marks 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz. It vital that we remember what happened so that we can learn the lessons of the past, so will my right hon. Friend reassure me and the House that the Government remain committed to delivering a national holocaust memorial?
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has expressed his support for the national holocaust memorial. I hope that now is the moment for Members from all parties in this House and, indeed, in the other place to unite behind the proposal and ensure that the memorial is built as soon as possible.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
With millions of people living in homes that are cold, damp and expensive to heat, in the midst of a respiratory illness pandemic, with millions more looking to the Government to give hope for the good jobs of the future, and with a climate change crisis as well, what part of cancelling Labour’s zero-carbon homes standard does the Secretary of State think was a good idea? When will he commit his Government to returning to a zero-carbon—not low-carbon but zero-carbon—homes standard?
Robert Jenrick
As we have set out time and again, we are committed to net-zero homes—we do not want to see any new home built in this country that needs expensive retrofitting in future. If anyone thinks that the Labour party is going to deliver that or indeed any other strategy for homes in this country, they will be “sorely disappointed”—those are the words of The Guardian, not myself. The hon. Lady said that it would be years before she was able to bring forward any plans for housing whatsoever. What a sad indictment of the Labour party—the party of Herbert Morrison and Clement Attlee. We are planning to build a million new homes in this country; the Labour party’s plans are as empty and vacuous as a Wendy house blown over in the first gust of autumn wind.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that the questions are pretty short and the answers are meant to be pretty short as well? I say to the Secretary of State that I am going to run the whole list of questions.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I will. I would like to see further investment in estates regeneration of the kind that my hon. Friend describes, and he will know that my hon. Friend the Chancellor recently announced £2 billion for the green homes grants to improve homes across the country.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Scotland has had more structural rules on cladding than the rest of the UK for several years now and has different tenancy forums from England, so does the Secretary of State have any idea of the potential consequences of the internal market Bill on Scottish housing regulations and building standards, including those on cladding?
Robert Jenrick
I work closely with the devolved Administrations on housing matters, and I am open to any representation from the Housing Minister in Scotland. As far as I am aware, we have had no representation whatsoever.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
The decision to which my hon. Friend refers is now being challenged in court, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment while those proceedings are live. None the less, he makes an extremely important point that people across the country want to see infrastructure flowing with new housing, whether that be hospitals, GP surgeries or schools. I would highlight that, in our planning reforms, our new infrastructure levy will drive more investment in infrastructure—both social infrastructure and physical infrastructure—in the years to come.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course we are in regular contact with the M9 group of Mayors about the covid-19 response and indeed, as I have said, we have meetings with him and colleagues tomorrow with the Secretary of State. Metro Mayors do occasionally attend Cobra meetings where it is appropriate. In relation to the pandemic, it is particularly important that we recognise the crucial working relationship with Public Health England and the fact that we are led by the chief medical officer. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the importance of close working with metro Mayors up and down the country is absolutely vital.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that too many homes have been built in this country to poor standards in the recent past. That is why we are now legislating for the new homes ombudsman, and we are already taking action by working with the New Homes Quality Board to raise standards. We will also respond in due course to the Law Commission’s important reports, with which we intend to right the wrongs of leasehold as quickly as possible.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Luke Hall
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I pay extreme tribute to the residents, businesses and charitable organisations in New Ferry who have worked so hard to recover and get the town back on its feet over the past three years. I know that she is meeting one of my ministerial colleagues later this week, but as a Local Government Minister I am also at her disposal to discuss this hugely important matter in her constituency.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have agreed on this point for some time. The housing infrastructure fund directs funding to those areas where there is the greatest affordability challenge. That is important, in some respects, but any Government who want to level up must also direct infrastructure investment for housing to other parts of the country as well. I will certainly bear that in mind as we design the successor to the housing infrastructure fund later this year.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Luke Hall
As I said, we have provided £4.8 billion to local authorities up and down the country to support them with the cost of the pandemic, and £3.1 billion has been spent in addressing those pressures. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his council has received £21 million in additional covid funding on top of the increase in core spending power of almost £18 million this year, which of course he supported.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion for Blackpool in his time in the House so far. It is absolutely right that Blackpool receives further investment to help it to continue to drive forwards. That is why I am pleased that it is a recipient of funding from the high streets fund and the towns fund. I look forward to announcing the outcome of both this autumn.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is 232 days since Storm Dennis flooded many, many properties in Rhondda. A quarter of all such properties in the whole of the UK were in one constituency, Rhondda, and that is wholly disproportionate to the normal funding for the Welsh Assembly. It is 222 days since the Prime Minister promised my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) that the money would be passported through to the local authorities from Westminster to Wales to pay for that. It is 97 days since the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that this was all going to be sorted out. It is 74 days since the Treasury said that it was going to sort this out. Yet we still have not had a single penny. Can the Secretary of State prove to be the best Minister of the lot and sort it out by the end of today?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to take that up with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary and revert to the hon. Gentleman with a plan.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I do not agree with that analysis of the actions that we have taken as a Government. We are bringing forward the biggest change to building safety regulations in a generation. We have outlined plans for our £1.6 billion fund. Of course there is more that we could do. This is one of the most challenging and difficult issues faced by the Government today, or indeed any Government, and has built up over many generations, but we intend to tackle it and to provide support for those in need.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
We are working with the chief medical officer’s team and Public Health England to prepare guidance as to how night shelters could be opened safely and in what circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman is obviously right that it is difficult to do so in a covid-compliant manner, so we are working with local councils to consider alternatives so that nobody should be left on the streets in the coldest weather this winter.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I can certainly confirm that. We want to ensure that the green belt is protected so that there are beautiful green spaces for our constituents to enjoy and the identity of villages and communities such as those that my hon. Friend represents is protected and preserved for future generations.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member is entirely incorrect. We are determined to build more homes in this country while protecting and enhancing standards, and absolutely nothing that we do will compromise building safety regulations. Indeed, quite the opposite. We are creating the largest change to building safety standards in my lifetime.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course she is right that the dedicated schools grant is administered by the DFE, which is responsible for its amount and allocation, but we are certainly working closely with the DFE, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the sector to understand what more can be done to mitigate the immediate risks. I am personally very happy to meet her and her council to have a discussion about what more can be done.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before I call Kevan Jones to ask his urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that the 44 cases referred to in the urgent question are formally still the subject of active legal appeal proceedings. Because there is little risk of prejudice now that it is known that the appeals will not be contested, I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow exchanges today by waiving sub judice in respect of these cases. All Members should, however, be mindful that some cases remain contested or may be the subject of future legal proceedings and should be cautious in making reference to individual cases.
CCRC Decision on 44 Post Office Prosecutions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the 44 Post Office prosecutions overturned by the CCRC.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I appreciate the urgent question. The Government recognise that the Horizon dispute has had a hugely damaging effect on the lives of affected postmasters and their families, and its repercussions are still being felt today. I have spoken to a number of postmasters who have been affected by this ordeal.
On 2 October, the Post Office formally responded to the Court of Appeal and Southwark Crown court regarding convicted postmasters whose cases were referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Post Office has stated that it will not oppose 44 out of the 47 cases. The Post Office also sincerely apologised to postmasters for historical failings and underlined its commitment to delivering a fundamental review of the businesses and to resetting its relationship with postmasters, to ensure that this never happens again.
This decision by the Post Office is an important milestone for postmasters whose convictions are part of this appeals process. Friday’s announcement was not, however, the end of that process. It is now for the courts to decide whether the convictions should be overturned. It would not therefore be appropriate for the Government to comment on these cases until that process is complete.
The Post Office continues to co-operate fully with the CCRC and is in the process of reviewing about 900 historical prosecutions. Should it find any new information that may cast doubt on the safety of a conviction, it has confirmed that it will disclose that information to the person who is convicted. We will continue to monitor the work of the Post Office closely. In addition, I am pleased that the Government last week launched an inquiry, chaired by retired High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams, which will gather relevant available evidence to provide a public summary of the failings that occurred in relation to Horizon and assess whether lessons have been learned and concrete changes have taken place, or at least are under way, at the Post Office.
Mr Kevan Jones
I had high hopes for the Minister when he was appointed, but unfortunately he is reverting to type, like all his predecessors I have had to deal with over the last eight years. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), Lord Arbuthnot and I have been campaigning on this issue for nearly nine years, and I know that many other Members across the House have individual cases and have been involved in this. It is six years since the three of us met the CCRC, and I am pleased that Friday’s announcement made it clear that the Post Office would not pursue 44 of the cases. But those are simple words, and they belie the agony and torment of these individuals and of hundreds of other individuals who have lost their livelihoods, their good names and, in some cases, their freedom. In other cases, people have lost their lives.
I am sorry, Minister, but what you have said today is not good enough. I cannot get over the fact that this scandal—that is what it is—is still being treated as somehow an issue of the Post Office. The Government are the single shareholder in the Post Office; they are the ones who can actually make some changes, so I would like to ask them some direct questions.
First, as the single shareholder, were the Government involved in the decision not to take forward these prosecutions, in the same way they were involved with the £100 million they spent in defending the civil case last year? Secondly, in terms of the convictions that have been overturned, the Minister said in June that there would be a process in place for compensation. Will he announce a compensation process, or will these people have to pursue cases through the court for compensation? Can I also ask where we are at with the historic compensation process? I understand that 2,000 claims have been made, but not a penny has yet been paid out.
Finally, can I put this issue to the Minister? I am sorry, but the review he has announced is not good enough. It may have a retired judge at its head, but he does not have the powers to summon witnesses and cross-examine them. A full public inquiry is needed. Without that, we will not get to the truth of what is, as I have already said, a national scandal.
Paul Scully
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those points, and I will try to deal with them directly. The decision to prosecute postmasters was an operational matter for the Post Office, and the Government are not involved in operational decisions. However, in hindsight, knowing what we know now, it is clear that different conclusions could and should have been reached by the Post Office, and that is why the inquiry is there to look at the lessons.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a route for compensation, should postmasters who have been convicted have their convictions overturned. There are processes in place for them to receive compensation if appropriate, and that includes a statutory scheme under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
In terms of the latest update on the historical shortfall scheme, the Post Office launched the scheme on 1 May to allow postmasters who were not part of the group litigation to have issues with shortfalls recorded in Horizon investigated and addressed. The window for applications formally closed on 14 August, but late applications are being considered by the Post Office on a case-by-case basis. There have been over 2,200 claims, and the independent panel advising the Post Office on the scheme is now assessing those.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the inquiry. A judge-led inquiry is very much what was asked for. We have Sir Wyn Williams, a former judge, at the head of that. He will be an independent chair; he will be able to ask the questions, push back at the Government and the Post Office, and get evidence. The reason it is an inquiry rather than a review is that, reflecting on the way its remit was worded, I have always wanted it to be a backward-looking review that enabled evidence to be sought, rather than to be done on just a desktop basis. We have clarified that in the written statement, and I believe this is the inquiry—albeit on a non-statutory basis—that will actually get the answers, and do it in a quick way that hopefully satisfies the sub-postmasters and gets the answers they want.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Almost 20 years ago, Telford resident Tracy Felstead—then a 19-year-old post office clerk—was wrongly convicted and jailed because of a glitch in the Post Office computer system. Last week, the Post Office finally conceded defeat in the long-running battle between David and Goliath. How did a respectable organisation such as the Post Office, a major software company such as for Fujitsu, the great and the good in the civil service, and Ministers from all parties fall prey to groupthink on such a grand scale, so that, despite this computer error occurring across the country, it was assumed that the only possible explanation was that all sub-postmasters affected were dishonest? What action will my hon. Friend take to ensure the Post Office and Fujitsu are properly held to account, and will he commit to determining who knew what and when during this shameful saga?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to get to the bottom of who knew what and when. That is why I am determined that, under Sir Wyn Williams’ chairmanship, we can seek evidence to complement what is already available from Mr Justice Fraser’s findings by speaking to the Post Office and Fujitsu, who have agreed to comply fully with this inquiry. I also hope that sub-postmasters will, through conversation with Sir Wyn Williams, agree to get involved so that they can share their evidence and stories and so that we can get to the bottom of this, exactly as my hon. Friend says.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with 900 prosecutions, innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost. I pay tribute to the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance and all who campaigned with them, including Members on all sides of the House, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who secured this urgent question.
For decades, the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge stress and legal fees on the victims and spending tens of millions of pounds in the process. Friday’s announcement is a welcome relief for so many, but can the Minister tell us why, as its only shareholder, the Government allowed the Post Office to continue to oppose the appeals for so long? Far from it being merely an operational matter, as the Minister has said, will he admit that this represents a gross failure of oversight, and will he tell us how much this has cost the Post Office and, ultimately, the taxpayer? What is the estimated cost of the compensation that will now need to be paid to those prosecuted, and what of those who were pursued, harassed and bankrupted, but not ultimately prosecuted? It is right that the Government have finally announced a judge-led inquiry into this scandal, which Labour called for months ago, but despite this House having expressed its concerns forcefully, the terms of reference deliberately exclude compensation. Will the Minister amend the terms of reference to include compensation and deliver true justice for the victims?
A miscarriage of justice on this scale undermines confidence in the justice system. Is it right that the Post Office has the power of independent prosecution, and is the Minister reviewing it? The victims need justice, not more unanswered questions. The taxpayer needs to know just how much this failure of oversight has, and will, cost. Finally, the Government need to take responsibility for this debacle and ensure nothing like it can ever happen again.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her question—there were a number of questions in that. In terms of the Government’s involvement, as I say, the Post Office’s decisions are operational decisions for it and its board. What happened when—whether there was any Government involvement in terms of the Government shareholder, the board’s appointee, as well as the Post Office—will come up in the independent inquiry, and it is right that they are questioned so that we find out what happened and when.
On the issue of compensation, if the sub-postmasters get involved in this inquiry and share their evidence, they will be able to share their stories and the losses that they have made, both directly and indirectly. However, an inquiry cannot direct compensation; ultimately, that has to be done through the courts.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is clearly not this very good Minister’s fault, but it is clear, is it not, that a monstrous injustice by the state has been visited upon these poor postmasters and postmistresses, leaving us all, I would hope, extremely uneasy. By refusing to allow the inquiry even to consider the compensation that they should be given, are not the Government, who own, fund and direct the Post Office, in danger of making an already truly dreadful situation even worse?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for those personal comments. We are constituency MPs as well, so we can all, I hope, share the horror when we hear the stories of those people, who could easily have been constituents of mine. In terms of compensation, as I say, there are avenues open to those who have been wrongfully prosecuted, there is reason for people to be able to talk about their losses, and it is then for Sir Wyn Williams to present his findings when he concludes the independent inquiry.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
During this pandemic, the post office network has shown what a valuable community asset it is. Cases being reviewed in Scotland and the rest of the UK should result in financial compensation to all those innocent people who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. I pay tribute to all who have worked for justice in these cases. Will the Minister commit today to ensuring that the costs do not put the post office network at further financial risks? Also, does he still not understand that a non-statutory review is not an independent inquiry, as was promised by the Prime Minister?
Paul Scully
In terms of the post office network, it is up to the Post Office to work out how best to compensate people, and it will be looking at that in due course. We will continue to work with the new chief executive, Nick Read, who is looking to put the future relationship with postmasters on a sure footing. In terms of an independent inquiry, this is the judge-led inquiry that has been asked for, albeit on a non-statutory footing. It is judge-led and it is backward looking, in terms of taking evidence from all those involved. When the hon. Lady sees the findings at the end, I hope she will see that, although perhaps not everybody will get everything they want, we will get answers about who knew what, when.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on securing this urgent question? The Minister is well aware of my long-term interest in this topic, which has been a running sore for far too long. How confident is he that the review that he announced last week will gain the support and participation of all the stakeholders involved in this issue, and will it be able to hold to account and hold responsible those who allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to occur? If it cannot do the first of those, what confidence can he have that it will ensure that this intolerable situation will never ever be repeated?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly good point. It is important, first, that Sir Wyn Williams engages with the sub-postmasters, led by Alan Bates, as part of the group litigation, to explain how he intends to investigate and take evidence, and I hope that they would therefore engage. I have talked about the fact that the Post Office and Fujitsu are ready to comply fully with the investigation, but if there are important people with important evidence that is not coming out, for whatever reason, there are mechanisms available to the chairman, Sir Wyn Williams, to look at that further and to re-evaluate.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Two post offices in my constituency are threatened with closure because of the difficulty of recruiting new sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses. What impact does the Minister think the appalling case of Horizon has had on recruitment? Is he anxious about the future of post offices, particularly rural ones but even those in urban constituencies such as mine? What is the Department doing to work with the Post Office on this issue?
Paul Scully
Yes, I am anxious, because it is important that we keep the network up at the target level we set of 11,500. The hon. Lady is right that some of the difficulty is due to the situation gone by; some of it is due to the ongoing complexity of the Horizon system and resource availability. I am glad that the chief executive, Nick Read, comes from a business where he is used to dealing with people as stakeholders, not just as employees, so engaging in a more positive future relationship with postmasters. She is right to talk about rural and urban areas. In London, although clearly we do not want to lose post offices, it is relatively easy compared with some rural areas to get to the next post office, but that is not an excuse to diminish the network in London.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
In his previous response, the Minister said he is anxious about the future of the network. I welcome the statement that the Post Office wants to reset the relationship with sub-postmasters, but if he is anxious, what measures is he going to take to make sure that that actually happens? He says that he expects compensation from the Post Office “in due course”, but will he put a timescale on that?
Paul Scully
On compensation, it depends on the situation of the people involved. Those who have been wrongfully convicted have recourse through the courts. I have regular contact with Nick Read, the chief executive, and other members of the board to make sure that we look at post office closures as reported to me by MPs and from updates, and increase and improve recruitment of postmasters, which will be achieved through a better future relationship.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in thanking all those at the Post Office and Royal Mail who have kept us all going throughout this crisis? As we know, a disproportionate number are from BME communities, who have experienced such death and suffering, like my constituent Varchas Patel and his family. They are pleased that their appeal is not being contested, but they wonder what action is now being taken against those at the top—those in management and leadership positions in the organisation—who presided over this scandal. Or are this algorithm-obsessed Government stuck in a “computer says no” mode?
Paul Scully
I can assure the hon. Lady that the computer very much says yes, which is why we have launched an independent inquiry.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I have not yet had the chance in this place to congratulate my constituency neighbour and former boss on his ministerial appointment.
I have met Carshalton and Wallington residents, including Nirmala Fatania, who have been affected by the Horizon scandal and whose lives have been turned upside down. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Post Office will co-operate fully with the inquiry, that we will learn the necessary lessons, and that we will make sure that nothing like this ever happens again?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend—I did not ask him to say what he did, but it is gratefully received and he can come again.
All of us as constituency MPs hear from people like Nirmala Fatania. We are determined to get the answers through the independent inquiry, so that this can never happen again.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Does my hon. Friend accept that those present or former Post Office officials who perpetrated this disaster and perpetuated the agony of the victims must be punished, not promoted, and shamed, rather than rewarded with honours, as I believe happened in at least one prominent instance?
Paul Scully
Yes, the Honours Committee and any future employers need to look at the background of any person involved in this. However, as I said, the inquiry is independent, and I do not want to stamp my authority on it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to question people and get answers. I want everyone, including people at the Post Office who were involved and are now no longer employed there, to engage in the process.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
For years, pleas from MPs to address this scandal have been ignored because of the Government’s cosy relationship with the Post Office. My constituents Kevin and Julie Carter and Dionne Andrew, like hundreds of others, have had to fight for justice every step of the way as they try to clear their names. They have lost more than the Minister can ever comprehend. What protections will the Government put in place so that never again can powerful organisations behave in this way and use the criminal courts with such unaccountability?
Paul Scully
I am glad to report that the Post Office is not using private prosecutions any more—the Justice Committee met last week to talk about private prosecutions—but the hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about her constituents and the losses they have suffered. I am glad that the independent inquiry will be able to get to the bottom of that to make sure that it can never happen again.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
In my previous life, I remember collecting the mail from post office branches at the time the Horizon scandal was happening. I remember vividly the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses not being able to balance the tills at that time, and having the stress and anguish of that resting over them. While it is absolutely right that we recognise the hole the Post Office is in, it is worth remembering that at its heart—its very core—is not some mythical bogeyman, but hard-working sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the country. The reputational damage that has been done by the Horizon scandal threatens their very livelihoods, and we need to act on this now. With the traditional banking system closing many of the branches in rural communities, what can the Department do to ensure that post office branches have a workable banking system and can offer other services to make these vital rural services more viable?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. It is important to remember what a vital service the post office is for all of us, and we must make sure that while we are looking backwards at the situation with sub-postmasters, we do not threaten the future viability of the network. On banking, we are working with the Post Office as it introduces greater services for various banks to expand the branches and the types of banks they can deal with in-house.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I would urge the 73 Scottish cases whose convictions may be unsafe as a result of this injustice, which was overseen by consecutive Labour, Tory and Lib Dem Ministers, to contact the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister, with his predecessors, write a cross-party letter to the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance apologising for the parts they have played in this saga?
Paul Scully
I would echo the hon. Gentleman’s call for people to make sure they are in touch if they believe their convictions are not safe, because the Post Office is determined to make sure, as it looks back and reviews those 900 prosecutions, that it will be in contact—it is committed to being in contact itself—with anybody it feels is part of the Horizon process.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Last week, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published a report into private prosecutions, which was prompted by the Horizon scandal. Does my hon. Friend agree with its recommendation that any organisation that conducts a substantial number of private prosecutions should be required to meet the same standards of regulation, accountability and transparency as public prosecutors, and will he discuss that with the Lord Chancellor as a matter of urgency?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and as I have said, I pay tribute to the work that the Committee has done. The Government will certainly consider the very many sensible points that have been raised in the report, and we will report back in due course.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
My constituent Della Robinson was formerly a local sub-postmistress in Dukinfield, and she lost almost everything in this scandal, including her reputation. I welcome the latest announcement, but when did the Minister know that the Post Office would not oppose the appeals, what discussions did he have with Post Office officials and did they discuss the amount this would cost the Post Office and, ultimately, taxpayers?
Paul Scully
We discuss that with the Post Office regularly, and it is the Post Office’s decision not to oppose the appeals. This is clearly part of the recognition that it got things wrong so much over a period of time. I am glad that this change of approach is something that can get to the bottom of sub-postmasters’ questions and clearly right the wrongs of the past.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
My father used to be a postman, and I know the vital role that postmasters play in serving many of our communities, especially in rural areas such as High Peak, but the way that many of them have been treated during this scandal is appalling. Can the Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to make certain the Post Office keeps to the commitments it has now made, and that we learn the lessons so that something like this can never happen again?
Paul Scully
My uncle was a sub-postmaster in a rural area, and I saw the way he worked; that predated Horizon. We have watched people like him and my hon. Friend’s father work so hard in their communities, and the last thing they should expect is the scandal that has befallen some of these individuals. We must make sure that through this independent inquiry we get the answers so it can never happen again.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Is the Minister aware that I chair the all-party miscarriages of justice group? I have never seen anything as awful as this: so many people’s lives made a misery; their reputations ruined; their whole future and their families broken up. This is so important that I would have expected today at least the Secretary of State on his knees in sackcloth and ashes. Will the Minister make sure that these people get justice, because this was not done by machines or computers; it was done and organised and managed by people, and they should be held to account? Does the Minister agree?
Paul Scully
The brief answer is no in terms of the chairmanship; in terms of the Secretary of State and sackcloth and ashes, I am the postal affairs Minister so I am the one who set up the inquiry and I am determined that we get the answers the hon. Gentleman is seeking.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, put on record my thanks to our community post offices; they have provided a vital lifeline during this pandemic in my villages and towns in Colne Valley. In terms of the inquiry, can the Minister assure me that my constituent, Maria, who is one of the victims of this scandal, and all the other victims will be able to give evidence so that they will be heard, and that we will get some conclusion to this inquiry within the next year?
Paul Scully
It is up to Sir Wyn Williams how he wants to frame that inquiry, but it is absolutely set up for sub-postmasters to have their voices heard and to report back within about a year.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and agree with what he said. This has been a dreadful affair during which neither the Post Office nor the Government have covered themselves in glory. A constituent of mine was sent to prison as a result of Horizon issues and was forced to sell their family home, leading to the breakdown of their marriage, yet in a letter to me the Government said they had no plans to prosecute anyone as a number of decision makers were involved. My constituent’s life is in tatters; who is going to be held responsible?
Paul Scully
On who is held responsible, let us wait for the response from Sir Wyn Williams and the independent inquiry. I know that, from Justice Fraser’s findings, some names have been recommended to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to discuss and investigate.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like other Members across the House, I have constituents whose lives have been destroyed by this scandal, and I welcome the establishment of the inquiry. Can the Minister assure me that any recommendations that emerge from it will be acted on promptly, and will he undertake immediately to speak to senior management at the Post Office to establish whether structures are now in place to ensure that nothing like this could happen in the interim?
Paul Scully
Absolutely: I want to ensure this is dealt with in a timely fashion, and we will take all the recommendations very seriously, because we want to get to the bottom of this. I continue to work with, and speak to, Nick Read, the chief executive, and listen to him and push him to ensure that the lessons have been learned and the structures are in place.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Campaigners have labelled the review into the Post Office as a whitewash and a betrayal, and instead are calling for a full independent inquiry with statutory powers, as agreed by the Prime Minister in response to my question to him in February, so will the Minister confirm that statutory powers will be given to the inquiry, meaning that full accounts from former sub-postmasters will be heard as evidence and witnesses will be cross-examined, to ensure that proper justice is served?
Paul Scully
The Prime Minister promised an independent inquiry, and that is what we have announced. We want to make sure that postmasters engage with it. The Post Office and Fujitsu have also said they will engage with it. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams to instigate the inquiry and get it under way, and he can always report back if he finds he is not getting the support he needs.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
When you have caught and removed the fox from the henhouse, it is never a good idea to put it back in there to compensate the rest of the chickens. We did exactly that with Lloyds, and I fear we are doing exactly that with the Post Office. There is no obvious means of compensation for those with criminal convictions. The jury is out on the historic shortfall scheme, and those who are employed as sub-postmasters through McColl’s or the Co-op have no direct means of compensation. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to making sure that every single person who was disadvantaged is fairly compensated?
Paul Scully
There is a separate director within Post Office Ltd who is looking specifically at the historic shortfall scheme to make sure that the rest of Post Office Ltd has the capacity to reset its relationship with postmasters, but we will of course look at Sir Wyn Williams’s findings. Postmasters who have had wrongful convictions have other methods of compensation, as I outlined in my original statement.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
My constituent Tracy Major was falsely accused of stealing £24,000 from Anlaby Park post office. She was innocent. She has had her reputation destroyed, she has suffered unimaginable stress, and she is also looking at losing more than £150,000. She has received only £20,000 in compensation. How will the Government and the Post Office ensure she has the justice she deserves?
Paul Scully
If the hon. Lady’s constituent was in the group litigation, the compensation was settled in a full and final settlement that was agreed with the Post Office. The Post Office has said it will not contest the wrongful convictions. We will see what happens in the courts, but anybody who has been wrongfully convicted who was not part of that group litigation will have other methods of returning to compensation.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
Sub-postmasters often operate in very small communities where everybody knows each other. This has been an incredibly painful experience for them, their families and their communities. I welcome the establishment of the inquiry, but will the Minister please assure us that it will not be a whitewash? Many sub-postmasters in my constituency are anxious to know that.
Paul Scully
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will not be a whitewash. I am determined to get the answers we need from the Post Office and Fujitsu and, indeed, from Government in terms of our role. We want to hear from sub-postmasters about their stories, their evidence and their losses. It is now for Sir Wyn Williams, a retired judge, to get to the bottom of it and to get those questions answered.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
People have had their reputations trashed. They have been made bankrupt. Others have gone to prison. What is the Minister doing to ensure that they are assisted while we wait for this inquiry? What we do not need is justice delayed and justice denied. We need action now, so what is he doing to assist those who are in real difficulties?
Paul Scully
What I am doing is announcing the inquiry; one of the big reasons I did not want it to be a statutory inquiry, although I can understand the impetus, is that statutory inquiries can last for decades sometimes and cause even more expense. In this way, we can get the answers within a year, I hope, so that we can put this issue to bed and get the answers that people want.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister is aware of the Justice Committee’s report on this matter. He will know that any wrongful conviction potentially undermines the whole of the justice system. Rather than waiting a year for the outcome of this review, will he meet urgently with the Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), to discuss the specific recommendations that the Committee makes in its report to ensure that safeguards are applied? Through that, we can ensure that the standards applied by those who have the power to bring private prosecutions are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, never less than those applied by the Crown Prosecution Service. Being judge, jury, investigator and victim potentially creates very great conflicts of interest.
Paul Scully
I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Justice Committee for all the work he has done and for the report the Committee published last week. I am always happy to speak to the Attorney General, and I will definitely take consideration in due course of that report.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the progress that we have made thus far in getting at least an element of judicial oversight of this inquiry. Like others, I remain sceptical about whether it will be sufficient, but to proceed on the basis that it is, and that the undertakings that the Minister has given the House today are sufficient to do the job, will he now look at the damage that has been done to the availability of postmasters as a whole across the whole of the country? Communities such as mine rely on them very heavily, and it is becoming more and more difficult with every month that passes to fill those very important positions.
Paul Scully
I absolutely see the right hon. Gentleman’s point. This may well be a contributing factor, but there are plenty of other factors that make it difficult to recruit postmasters, particularly in areas such as his. However, we will do whatever we can to fill those places and keep that network up.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Horizon litigation process has caused immeasurable financial and emotional suffering and distress to the sub-postmasters who have been affected, including some of my constituents. Will my hon. Friend commit to studying whatever recommendations may come forward from the inquiry to ensure that this never happens again?
Paul Scully
Yes—one of the reasons for making it a non-statutory inquiry is so that we can get the answers quickly, study them, put things in place, and ensure that the Post Office has put the structures in place to ensure that it never happens again. We can keep its feet to the fire to make that work.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Communication Workers Union has been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I join others in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for getting this urgent question. The inquiry that the Minister has set up seems to lack statutory powers. Will he comment on that? I know that he has made other comments on that matter. Also, how much taxpayers’ money was spent opposing appeals on the sub-postmaster scandal?
Paul Scully
On a statutory inquiry, as I have said in a number of answers, I want to ensure that we can get the answers quickly, rather than having people, as I described in a previous answer, lawyering up, which adds expense and time for the postmasters who have been through so much. I deal with the CWU on a regular basis. In terms of taxpayers’ money, the Post Office has funded the prosecutions through its own profits.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Sometimes when we hear the words “lessons learned” it can sound a little glib, if not a little trite. Given the extent and the depth of the harm caused by this scandal, can the Minister assure me and the House that we will get to the very bottom of what has gone wrong?
Paul Scully
Nobody but nobody, least of all me, can fail to be appalled by what we read about some of the situations, and some of the hardship and worse that many constituents have been through. That is why I am determined to listen to the evidence to ensure that we get those answers, so that it can never happen again.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The truth is that Ministers have set up a half-baked inquiry in response to this extraordinary scandal, without the powers to fully get to the bottom of this mess. Will the Minister at least commit to returning to this House to set out in full both the compensation arrangements and any financial implications for the future of the Post Office?
Paul Scully
Let us see what the result is from Sir Wyn Williams’ investigations and inquiry in the first place. Compensation is a matter for the Post Office, which has talked about the historical shortfall scheme. It wants to ensure that people who are wrongfully convicted are compensated accordingly.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s decision to seek justice for sub-postmasters. What steps is he taking to support victims of this scandal now, and to ensure that such mistakes never happen again?
Paul Scully
On what we can do, we can look for those answers now—not in five or 10 years’ time. These people have suffered enough. They need answers, and they need to be able to draw a line under the stigma that has been attached to so many. That is why the independent inquiry needs to report back, hopefully within around a year, to be able to draw that line for them.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Minister says he does not want a statutory inquiry. I think many of those affected will be sceptical about his reasons for that. Hundreds of people have been wrongly sued and pursued, with many imprisoned and many more losing their businesses and livelihoods. His Government and previous Governments have been central to an epic scandal. The Prime Minister promised a full independent inquiry. Why is that promise now being broken, like so many others by his Government?
Paul Scully
The inquiry is both independent and in full. It is one thing the Prime Minister promised, and it is one thing we have delivered. It has taken too long to get there, but we will get those answers in a few short months.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed with the Secretary of State’s statement, I remind hon. Members that the conduct of another Member should not, other than by a substantive motion, be criticised on the Floor of the House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. The virus is spreading, both here and overseas. In the past week, over 450,000 people tested positive for coronavirus in Europe, almost double the number of cases a month ago. Here in the UK, the number of hospital admissions is now at its highest since mid-June. Last week, the Office for National Statistics said that while the rate of increase may be falling, the number of cases is still rising. Yesterday, there were 12,594 new positive cases. The rise is more localised than first time around, with cases rising particularly sharply in the north-east and the north-west of England, and in parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now more than ever, with winter ahead, we must all remain vigilant and get the virus under control.
Let me turn to the operational issues on data publication, the future plans for medicine licensing and, of course, the announcement of 40 hospitals made by the Prime Minister on Friday night. I wish to take the first available opportunity to set out to the House the technical issue relating to case uploads that was discovered by Public Health England on Friday evening. It is an ongoing incident and I come to the House straight from an operational update from my officials.
On Friday night, Public Health England identified that over the previous eight days, 15,841 positive test results were not included in the reported daily cases. This was due to a failure in the automated transfer of files from the labs to PHE’s data systems. I reassure everyone that every single person who tested positive was told that result in the normal way and in the normal timeframe. They were told that they needed to self-isolate, which is now required by law. However, the positive test results were not reported in the public data and were not transferred to the contact tracing system.
I thank colleagues who have been working since late on Friday night and throughout the weekend to resolve this problem. I wish to set out the steps we have taken. First, contact tracing of the relevant cases began first thing on Saturday. We brought in 6,500 hours of extra contact tracing over the weekend. I can report to the House that, as of 9 am today, 51% of the cases have now been contacted a second time for contact tracing purposes. I reassure the House that outbreak control in care homes, schools and hospitals has not been directly affected because dealing with outbreaks in those settings does not primarily rely on this particular PHE system.
Secondly, the number of cases did not flow through to the dashboards that we use for both internal and external monitoring of the epidemic. Over the weekend, we updated the public dashboard, and this morning the Joint Biosecurity Centre presented to me its updated analysis of the epidemic based on the new figures. The chief medical officer’s analysis is that our assessment of the disease and its impact has not substantially changed as a result of the new data, and the JBC has confirmed that it has not impacted the basis on which decisions about local action were taken last week. Nevertheless, this is a serious issue that is been investigated fully. I thank Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace, which have been working together at speed to resolve this issue. I thank everyone for their hard work over the weekend. This incident should never have happened, but the team have acted swiftly to minimise its impact. It is now critical that we work together to put the situation right and make sure that it never happens again.
Another important area of our coronavirus battle plan is treatments. As the House knows, the only treatment known to work against coronavirus was discovered here in the UK. As we leave the EU, I want to use the opportunity to improve how quickly we get new drugs to patients, so the UK is joining Canada, the United States, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore in Project Orbis, which will allow international regulators to work together to review and approve the next generation of cancer treatments faster. It will mean that pharmaceutical companies can submit treatments to be reviewed by several countries at the same time, meaning that we can co-operate with the best medical regulators in the world and make approvals quicker so that we can get patients the fastest possible access to new drugs. It is an exciting development. We will join the scheme fully on 1 January, after the end of the transition period, because we will stop at nothing to bring faster access to life-saving treatments on the NHS.
We are investing in hospitals, too. Two weeks ago, I announced to the House that we are investing an extra £150 million in expanding capacity in urgent and emergency care so that hospitals have the space to continue to treat patients safely in the pandemic. I am delighted that on Friday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out the 40 hospitals we will build by 2030, as part of a package worth £3.7 billion, with eight further new schemes, including mental health facilities, invited to bid for future funding and also to be built by 2030. This is the biggest hospital building programme in a generation, and the investment comes on top of an extra £33.9 billion a year that the Government will be providing to the NHS by 2023-24. We passed that into law right at the start of this Parliament, and the 40 new hospitals across England will support our mission to level up our NHS so that even more people have top-class healthcare services in their local area, and so that we can protect the NHS long into the future.
Finally, it is critical that our rules are clear at local level so that the public can be certain of what they need to do to suppress this virus, and I will update the House in due course on what action the Government are taking, so that we can have more consistent approaches to levels of local action, working with our colleagues in local government. For now, it is essential that people follow the guidance in their local area, and if they need to check the rules, they can check on their local authority website. History shows us that the battle against any pandemic is never quick and never easy. It requires making major sacrifices and difficult choices. I know that this has been a tough year for so many, but we are asking people to persevere as winter draws in, because the only safe path is to suppress the virus, protecting the economy, education and the NHS, until a vaccine can make us safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. In recent weeks, we have had people being told to travel hundreds of miles for a test; we have had hundreds of children out of school unable to get a test; we have had tracers sitting idle, watching Netflix; and we have had care home tests taking days to be processed. Yesterday, we had a Health Minister saying that this could be a moment of national pride like the Olympics, and we have had a Prime Minister in a complete muddle over the rules. Now, at one of the most crucial points in this pandemic, we learn that almost 16,000 positive cases went unreported for a week. That means that as many as 48,000 contacts have not been traced and are not isolating. Those thousands of people, blissfully unaware that they have been exposed to covid, are potentially spreading this deadly virus at a time when hospital admissions are increasing and we are in the second wave.
This is not just a shambles; it so much worse than that. It gives me no comfort to say it, but it is putting lives at risk, and the Secretary of State should apologise when he responds. No doubt he will complain about my tone, or say that he will not have any divisive talk, but people want answers. He has just said that over half the 16,000 people have been spoken to by tracers, and they have presumably handed over their contacts, but when will the other 49% be spoken to by contact tracers? How many of the contacts have now been traced and spoken to, and how many are isolating? Why did nobody notice this issue until Friday night? Why did it take until 9.30 on Sunday evening for this to become public? The Prime Minister was clearly aware of the problem, because he said on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday morning that there had been a
“failure in the counting system, which has now been rectified”.
Speed is of the essence when dealing with a pandemic, so when were local directors of public health informed? The Secretary of State says that this is an ongoing issue, so it has not been rectified, as the Prime Minister said on “Marr”. When will it be fully resolved?
Public Health England sources say that they report the data when they get the data from test and trace. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the data could not be handed over to PHE because of the size of the Excel spreadsheet files? Was this an issue at one particular Lighthouse lab, or across all the Lighthouse labs? Why are critical databases in a national pandemic being hosted on Excel spreadsheets? Why are they not using specialist database software? The right hon. Gentleman likes to boast of his background in software development, so did he sign off this system? Was he aware of it? The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the integrity of pillar 2 testing data. His Department is the data controller, so he is ultimately responsible for this mess. It is a mess made up of fragmented systems passing data back and forth between his Department, PHE and outsourcing companies such as Serco and Deloitte, and it is costing us £12 billion. Surely now is the time not to renew Serco’s contract and instead give responsibility and resources to NHS labs and local public health teams to deliver testing and tracing.
The Secretary of State says that the data does not impact decisions that have been made about local restrictions, but areas already under restrictions such as Bury, Hyndburn, Burnley, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle have seen increases as a result of this data. Will those areas and others under restrictions now be given extra help and resources to battle the virus? Infection rates in other parts of the country that are not under restrictions, such as Newark and Sherwood, are climbing higher with this new data, so should we expect more local restrictions this week?
The Secretary of State says that he is set to bring in a new three-tiered system to replace the confusing network that is in place. Will he update the House on what the new criteria will be for an area going into restriction and leaving restriction? So far, it has been a bit like “Hotel California”—you can check out, but you can never leave. Families deserve answers.
The Prime Minister told the House on 20 May that we would have a “world-beating” system in place by June. It is now October. The system is neither competent nor improving. Problems are getting worse. The Government are failing on the basics. When will they finally fix this mess?
Matt Hancock
I will start by answering a couple of factual questions. As I said in my statement, as of 9 am this morning, 51% of these cases have been contacted by the contact tracing system, and their contacts are contacted immediately after the initial contact—concurrently.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the tiering system. Absolutely, extra support will go to areas where there is an increased number of cases. He asked about the criteria in the proposed approach. Of course, we cannot have fixed and specific criteria, because it depends on the nature of the outbreak. For instance, if there was an outbreak in one individual employer, we would not necessarily put the whole local area into local action. We try to make the intervention as targeted and as localised as possible, but sometimes it needs to be broad, as it is in the north-west and across large parts of the north-east. For example, the intervention in the west midlands covers four of the seven council areas of the west midlands, but not the other three, because that follows the data.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the particular IT system in question. The problem emerged in a PHE legacy system. We had already decided in July to replace this system, and I commissioned a new data system to replace the legacy one. Contracts were awarded in August, and the work on the upgrade is already under way. While, of course, we have to solve the problem immediately, we also need to ensure that we upgrade this system, and we have already put in place the contracts to ensure that that happens. In the meantime, it is critical that we work together to fix these issues, which were identified by PHE staff working hard late on Friday night. I want to thank the PHE staff who did so much work to resolve this issue over the weekend.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s final question, we need to ensure that we contact trace all those cases as soon as possible. In two days, we managed to get to 51% of them, and that work is ongoing.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
The Health Secretary deserves enormous credit for the expansion of testing capacity that he has personally championed, but is not the underlying problem that the Lighthouse laboratories have been, and will continue to be, overwhelmed by demand? Do we not need to think about the structures and, in particular, whether the responsibility for NHS staff testing and care home staff testing should be moved to hospital laboratories and universities, in the way that was advocated this morning by Sir David Nicholson, the former chief executive of the NHS? Sometimes it is tempting to think that, by dealing with the latest problem, we will solve the whole problem, but ahead of winter and the second wave, we need to think about whether these structures are right for what we have to deal with.
Matt Hancock
The expansion of the NHS testing is, of course, critical as well. The system in question, where the problem was over this weekend, brings together the data both from the NHS systems and from the so-called pillar 2 systems. The challenge was in a system that integrates the two, rather than just on one side or the other, but my right hon. Friend makes a broader point, which is that as we expand the NHS’s capacity as part of the overall expansion of testing, we have to ensure that we use that capacity to best effect. In many parts of the NHS, increasingly, it is NHS testing capacity that is used for NHS staff testing. That system works well, because the test is local and convenient, and we are looking to expand in exactly the sort of direction that he outlines. I urge colleagues away from trying to bifurcate between the two systems. Essentially, we have a whole series of different ways to access a test, and we need to make sure that people get the tests that are easiest to access for them as much as possible.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The delay in entering almost 16,000 covid cases into Government databases has resulted in last week’s case numbers being totally inaccurate. The Secretary of State says that the updated statistics would not have led to additional measures, but are there any new areas of heightened concern? PHE has blamed the problem on test result files being too big to load on to its central system. Was that, as has been suggested, due to the transfer of data between formats? If the underlying issue was due to the rapidly rising number of positive cases, why was that not anticipated or identified sooner? Can he be sure that something like this cannot happen again?
Just as importantly, this means that none of those cases was registered with the tracing system. While, as the Secretary of State says, people with a positive test got their result and, we hope, self-isolated, they did not get direct advice and they did not give the details of their contacts. From the Government’s data, people with covid report an average of three to four contacts each, so that would represent 50,000 to 60,000 contacts who were not identified and asked to isolate and therefore will have continued to spread the virus. While up to 10 days have lapsed and the opportunity to prevent onward spread may have been missed, the Secretary of State mentions that 51% of cases have been contacted, but on what timescale does he hope to reach all the contacts of those cases? Given that only about 60% of community contacts in England are currently reached, will he involve local authority public health teams in what is now a massive contact-tracing operation?
Matt Hancock
On the core of the hon. Lady’s point, the assessment of the epidemic on the basis of the updated data is core to our approach to tackling the epidemic. The chief medical officer has analysed the new data, which we have now published—on coronavirus.data.gov.uk we can see the data, and that is on the corrected basis. Based on Joint Biosecurity Centre analysis, the CMO’s advice is that the assessment of the disease and its impact have not substantially changed. That is because the just under 16,000 cases were essentially evenly spread, so it has not changed the shape of the epidemic. It has changed the level, in terms of where we are finding the epidemic and in what sorts of groups.
The hon. Lady asks how many contacts have been contacted, as opposed to how many of the primary index cases. As I said, that is happening concurrently, so as soon as the index case has been contacted by Test and Trace and interviewed, the contacts are immediately contacted. As I said, we have got through 51% of the backlog over the weekend, and we have brought in more resources to complete that task.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and everyone in the House hopes that there will be a safe and effective vaccine available during the months ahead, but the head of the vaccines taskforce has said that she expects it to be available to only half of the population, concentrating on the over-50s and the most vulnerable. Is that the Secretary of State’s understanding? What are the implications for the other half of the population?
Matt Hancock
This is a very important question. The vaccines taskforce has done incredibly important work in supporting the scientific development and manufacture of vaccines and in procuring vaccines—six different types of vaccine—from around the world. The work of deploying a vaccine is for my Department, working with the NHS and the armed forces, who are helping enormously with the logistical challenge, and we will take clinical advice on the deployment of the vaccine from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. My right hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee will know that 10 days ago the JCVI published a draft prioritisation, and it will update that as more data becomes clear from the vaccine. That is the Government’s approach: to take clinical advice from the JCVI.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that south Manchester now has some of the highest infection rates in the country, but the figures are skewed by the very high rate among 17 to 21-year-olds. Many of those appear to be students who are confined to halls of residence, so the spread of the virus ought to be contained. May I therefore ask for an assurance from the Secretary of State that we will not have any extra local lockdown restrictions in Manchester as a result of figures that give a misleading picture of the extent of the virus in the wider community?
Matt Hancock
Yes. The hon. Member makes a really important point. This is why I resist the temptation to set a simplistic threshold above which a certain level of action is taken. That is because there might be an incident—I mentioned that there might be such an incident in a workplace, for instance; there might also be one in a halls of residence—where we get a very high number of cases, but if it is confined and not in the wider community we would not want to take action to restrict the social activity of the wider community. That has to be taken into account, along with the data on the number of cases and the positivity, because the number of tests that you put in affects that as well. We take all these things into account in asking both when an area needs to have more restrictions applied and when we can take an area out of restrictions, which of course is so important for everybody living there.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Nobody can possibly doubt my right hon. Friend’s utter commitment to doing his very best in these circumstances, or indeed the good will and hard work of his officials, but this is another incident that further undermines public confidence in the delivery of the Government’s covid response, and it is another example of where logistics and planning have let us down. Why cannot the Government learn from previous successes with the Nightingale hospitals and personal protective equipment? The military were brought in much more overtly to deal with the logistics, planning and delivery of those programmes, and they should be on test and trace as well.
Matt Hancock
Of course they are involved, but this specific issue was in a PHE legacy computer system that we had already identified needed replacing; I had already commissioned the replacement of it and that replacement is currently being built. We knew that this was a system that needed replacing. That work is under way, at the same time as the remedial action to sort the problem more immediately.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We have lost a vital week in the fight against the spread of this virus in our country because of a problem with spreadsheets that the Health Secretary tells us was known about in July. We are paying £12 billion to these private companies to run this service, yet the Health Secretary has told us there are no penalties to them for poor performance. Who is going to get our money back, and who is going to take responsibility? Can the Health Secretary tell us: where on earth does the buck stop?
Matt Hancock
Of course, I have come to this House to be clear and transparent to it and to the nation as to the nature of this particular problem. It is wrong constantly to be picking on a small number of the many, many cogs in the wheel of this system, which was a Public Health England legacy system—although that does not quite fit the hon. Lady’s narrative, it is the fact of the matter. I like her, and she and I have worked together in the past, including on issues such as this. She is normally incredibly reasonable and sensible, and I would be happy to ensure that she gets a full briefing on this one and to answer any further questions she has.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the many thousands of people who have worked so hard throughout the pandemic to make sure that our NHS has not been overwhelmed, but an inevitable consequence of this is that a large number of elective operations have been delayed, including joint replacement surgery, which means that many people, including some of my constituents, are living in severe pain while waiting for procedures. Will he set out the NHS’s plan to make sure that people get this life-changing surgery as quickly as possible? Could some of the welcome additional resource that has been announced be used for post-op rehabilitation?
Matt Hancock
The short answer is yes. My hon. Friend makes an important case. The restart of elective operations in the NHS is now proceeding apace. Of course, the more we can keep the virus under control, the easier that restart is. In any case, the NHS has done a huge amount of work over the summer to try to separate, as much as is possible, the NHS into “covid green” areas, where we have a high degree of confidence that there is no coronavirus, and “covid blue” areas, where there may be, so that people can get the long-term elective work done that is needed. That will include an expansion of rehabilitation. She might have seen that one of the 40 hospitals on the list that the Prime Minister announced was the DNRC—the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre— which is to be built just outside Loughborough.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The majority of Greater Manchester has been under local restrictions for more than two months, yet we now have some of the highest rates in England. The test and trace debacle once again shows that the national system is broken and that the Secretary of State’s measures are not working. He knows that the Greater Manchester authorities are keen to adopt a more localised approach, so if the newspaper reports are right that we are going to get a new tiered system, is this not the right time for the Government to give local areas control over test and trace systems, supported by extra financial resources?
Matt Hancock
I half agree with the hon. Gentleman; it is important that we put more testing resources into the areas where case levels are high, and it is very important that we continue to strengthen the local engagement with the national system—I was talking to the Mayor of Greater Manchester about this only this morning. The challenge is that we also need the scale of the national system, so that where there is an outbreak we can bring huge amounts of resources to bear and make sure that we can really target the support, for instance, for contact tracing. So it is the combination of the local and the national that will get us through this.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Since last Thursday and the Welsh Government’s local lockdown measures, half a million people in north Wales have not been allowed to cross often meaningless county council boundaries without a good reason to do so. That is causing huge disruption to livelihoods and wellbeing, so will my right hon. Friend outline his understanding of the scientific evidence for restrictions on travel such as this?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend raises a very important question, which I know is exercising people who live in north Wales and on the border. I am not going to criticise the Welsh Government, with whom we work closely, but what I will say is that, in England, when we choose to bring in measures restricting travel, we do it with strong guidance at the moment rather than within the law. That is partly because there are all sorts of reasons why people might need to undertake a journey, so even where we advise people to minimise unnecessary travel, we do so with guidance and, in large part, people follow it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The First Minister said on Friday that work was under way to improve the interoperability of the two test and trace apps. As they do not both work at the same time, as I experienced for myself, I wonder whether the Secretary of State can say a little bit more about how discussions between the Scottish and UK Governments are progressing and whether there is some sort of timescale for allowing the two apps to work together.
Matt Hancock
I am delighted to have the chance to agree wholeheartedly with the First Minister of Scotland. We have been working closely together to ensure that the apps work together and interoperate in different parts of the United Kingdom. That upgrade is expected in the coming weeks. The two Governments are working very hard and very constructively on it.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for the way that he has worked so closely with us in the west midlands? He knows that, first and foremost, I am in favour of community solidarity and good sense, rather than legal diktat and Government fiat. Will he commend those universities that have already introduced student responsibility agreements as a way of furthering all of that? Will he bear in mind later on this week that our highly effective Mayor in the west midlands Andy Street, the Labour leader of Birmingham City Council and I are all of one mind, together with Justin Varney, the excellent head of public health in Birmingham, that the current level of infection rates mean that there should be no further changes there this week?
Matt Hancock
I concur with my right hon. Friend on the importance of personal responsibility. We all have a responsibility in this. I have not heard of responsibility agreements with students, but that is a very sensible approach. I spoke to Andy Street this morning, and he made clear to me the need for national and local government to work together. That is working very effectively across the west midlands and across party lines, exactly as my right hon. Friend says. We must continue to do that as we monitor the developments and the data and do all we can to keep this virus under control.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Some local authorities are reporting that up to 500 unexpected positive cases have been downloaded to their system. Some are two weeks old and have had no contact at all from the national system. Directors of public health are angry and frustrated about the lack of joined-up working and the fact that the national system continues to break, despite the promises of both the Secretary of State and Baroness Harding to go for a more locally led approach. When will he start to work better with local authorities and have a more joined-up approach, harnessing their expertise?
Matt Hancock
That is exactly what we are doing—absolutely. For instance, this morning I also spoke to Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, about how we continue to strengthen the join-up between the national and local approaches. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that that is incredibly important.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Until we get a vaccine, the House knows that it is about following the rules of hands, face, space and get a test, but my right hon. Friend will also know that there are different types of test out there. Can he comment on the plans for future testing and on what updates there might be? We have heard talk of saliva testing, finger-prick testing or, possibly, that we may be able to allow individuals to deal with covid themselves.
Matt Hancock
We are doing a huge amount of work to trial these next-generation tests at the same time as expanding the current testing capability. For instance, if we have to have a test, would it not be easier if we just needed some of our saliva rather than to having to put the swab all the way up our nose and down the back of our throat? These sorts of improvements in technology are in the pipeline and we are working incredibly hard to bring them to bear as soon as possible.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The local authorities in the north-east have put forward a proposal to be able to provide a test and trace service regionally. After this latest fiasco, will the Secretary of State now agree to pick up that offer of local testing and tracing and fund the local authorities in the north-east to provide this?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We put an extra £10 million into the local authorities in the north-east to support contact tracing and we are also stitching together the data feeds between the national system and each of the individual local authorities in the north-east. We will keep working hard on that project. I will keep listening to the needs of the local authorities in the north-east and across the rest of the country.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
It is good that we are now testing more than other countries and good that we have a quarter more testing capacity than we had in August, and we are very grateful to the staff of the mobile testing centres that we now have in Oadby and Wigston, but what is my right hon. Friend doing to further drive up testing capacity so that we can stay ahead of this?
Matt Hancock
That is the subject of a huge amount of Government effort, working with the NHS and with the private sector on both the current technology and the new technology. I will just make a point about Oadby and Wigston in my hon. Friend’s constituency. People say, “Where is a local lockdown having an effect?” Well, the answer is in Oadby and Wigston, where the case rate has come down because the good people of Oadby and Wigston have followed the locally applied rules and that has brought the virus back under control. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the leadership that he has shown there, along with the leaders of the county council and of the district council, who have worked really hard together to make this happen.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Despite all the billions that have been spent on testing, we learned at the end of last week that the testing hours in London fell by 43% on the week before. There is also a staggering variation in capacity. My own borough, Westminster, has one of the lowest testing rates in London. Given that the limited capacity means that testing is being directed to those with the highest rates of infection, is there not a very real risk that this will mean that we do not know what is going on accurately across the country because areas that are not getting enough testing are not showing transmission, and therefore we cannot make good decisions? When will we have the testing capacity to allow us to make the right decisions for our people and our economy?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady makes a really important case. First, as she implies, we obviously have to put the testing capacity into the areas with the biggest outbreaks to tackle those outbreaks. I think everybody understands that. At the same time, we have to increase testing capacity, and we are doing that. But thirdly, if an area has lower testing than another area, we have to make sure that we take that into account when we look at how serious the problem is. We do that in two ways. The first is the positivity rate—what proportion of tests come through positive—and the second is the survey data, particularly the Office for National Statistics survey, which shows that rates in London are higher than in some parts of the rest of the country, such as the south-west, the south-east and East Anglia, but not as high as in the midlands and the north of England, or indeed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have to look at the surveys and the positivity, as well as the basic case rate.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I recognise my right hon. Friend’s focus, attention and efforts in responding to the ever-changing covid situation. Does he recognise that there are currently myriad different forms of restrictions across different parts of the country and that can become confusing? What consideration has he given to simplifying the approach to the restrictions? In doing so, would he ensure that any simplification applies to every part of the UK?
Matt Hancock
The short answer is yes. The proposals that we are working through and that I will bring to this House are to have a more simplified approach to the local action that we took. We have shared that approach with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I have discussed it with Vaughan Gething, my opposite number in Wales. It is the sort of approach that would simplify matters further were it undertaken across the UK, but that is a decision for the Welsh Government in Wales, and for the other devolved Administrations, because public health decisions are devolved. I urge the Welsh Government to continue working with us. I urge my right hon. Friend, who is a very strong voice in Wales, to try to persuade the Welsh Government to take that sort of approach across the whole of the Principality.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker. Increasing evidence indicates that so-called long covid is impacting around 10% of those contracting the virus. What assessments have been undertaken of the potential long-term social and economic impacts of long covid, as well as of the lasting pressures on health and care systems?
Matt Hancock
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have had three voices of Wales in a row, including yours, Sir. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman from Plaid Cymru. The impact of long covid can be very debilitating for many months, and some people who caught covid in the initial peak still suffer from long-covid symptoms. We have instituted more research, and we have started—in England at least—a long covid service in the NHS. Just today, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published an approach to assessing long covid, which I would recommend to the hon. Gentleman. That approach will clearly need continued effort so that we can make sure that people who suffer from long covid get the support they need.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On Friday, I and my constituents learned via local media and press reports that there are Government plans to close the hospitals in Lancaster and Preston, with plans to replace them with a super-hospital, which would have obvious implications for other Lancashire hospitals, such as Chorley and Blackpool Victoria. Closing two hospitals in Lancashire to build one super-hospital does not make it easier for my constituents or the people of Lancashire to access vital medical care. Does the Secretary of State believe, as I do, that the next time we hear a Minister talk about building 40 new hospitals, it should come with a health warning that that also means closing 80 hospitals?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I invite the Secretary of State to answer that—I will give some flexibility—please make sure that your questions relate to the statement that has just been given.
Matt Hancock
As well as responding to coronavirus, we need to ensure that we invest in the physical infrastructure of the NHS. I would just correct the hon. Lady, because the proposal in her part of the world is to consult on whether one or two hospitals is the right approach and the right thing for her part of the world. I encourage her to welcome the massive investment in the NHS in Lancashire, and across the country, which will improve care right across this land.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the huge investment in west London hospitals announced on Friday. With regards to coronavirus, should we not focus as much, if not more, on the hospitalisation rate, as opposed to the incidence rate? Often, people do not have symptoms, or have very mild symptoms, and, certainly in London, the hospitalisation rate is a fraction of what it was in April.
Matt Hancock
Of course, the hospitalisation rate is an important factor that we look at, and it is a concern. Unfortunately, the latest hospitalisation rate has risen to 422, which is the highest since the middle of June. Hospitalisations tend to lag behind the number of cases, because people catch the disease and some, sadly, are later hospitalised. We therefore keep a close eye on the hospitalisation rate, and the bad news is that it is, sadly, going up.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The six councils in the Liverpool city region face a budget shortfall of £150 million. On Thursday, the Health Secretary announced £7 million to be split between the Liverpool city region and three further councils—a drop in the ocean compared with £150 million. He knows that local professionals have solutions to the problems of test, trace and isolate. He has shown that there are not just millions but billions of pounds available for Serco, Deloitte, Compass and friends. So when will he invest in local public health teams and sort out the mess of test, trace and isolate once and for all?
Matt Hancock
As I have said, we have been putting the extra money into local councils, as well as using, frankly, all the tools at our disposal, public or private sector—whether people are in the NHS, PHE, a local council or a firm that can bring a capability to bear on this problem. It is one big team effort.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Talking of tools at my hon. Friend’s disposal, Bournemouth University stands ready to help with lab testing. However, it is covid testing in schools that I would like to address. Today the rules state that the entire year group must stay out of school for 14 days if one of the pupils in it tests positive. That causes huge disruption not only to learning, but to working parents, who have to provide childcare. With better testing systems now in place, please can we review this 14-day rule that sends entire year groups home, so that we can keep children both safe and in school?
Matt Hancock
I would love to be able to review that, but only when it is clinically safe to do so. However, I would just point out to both my right hon. Friend and also to all those in education who are following this, including in schools across Bournemouth, that schools do not necessarily have to send the whole year group home; they have to send the bubble home. By ensuring that the way in which they operate keeps people safe, schools can ensure that bubbles are smaller than the whole year group. Many schools do that. The first immediate port of call would be to try to get the bubble smaller within a school, and then we should of course work together on other ways to solve the problem.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in ensuring that we have enough tests for everyone who needs them, and it is incredibly encouraging that testing capacity has increased by 25% since the middle of August. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he continues to work to get testing capacity up even further, so that venues such as Victoria Hall in Keighley can meet demand?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is absolutely right. Testing capacity now stands at over 300,000. We are on track to reach 500,000 by the end of this month. I know what a goal to expand testing capacity feels like. This is a tough and difficult challenge, but the team are rising to it. My hon. Friend has made the case for Keighley so strongly during this pandemic, and he continues to do so in terms of the extra testing capacity needed there now.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
However basic this data error might have been, the consequences are very serious. However, I say to those civil servants working night and day to get this right: the responsibility for this is not on you; it is on those who guarantee the checks to the system. As the Secretary of State has indicated, that is him. With that in mind, can he avail himself of any data process flow charts or other diagrams relating to the processing of this data, and all data quality assurance policies and processes, and put those in the public domain? Yes or no?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to work with the team to see what we can put in the public domain. However, the challenge of a maximum file size error is that it would not necessarily have appeared on that sort of flow chart and, given the massive expansion of the availability of data storage over recent years, would not, I expect, be a feature of the system that is already in train to replace the one that caused the problem this weekend. However, I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Lady has said about the civil servants in the Department and the staff at PHE, who are working so hard during this pandemic.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend gave an excellent answer to our right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The JCVI report is indeed most helpful and reassuring because it prioritises the vulnerable, the elderly and, of course, our health workers. However, it last met on 1 September, and the report is dated 23 September. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if there is more information on the progress of the vaccine, that committee will meet again and we will get another excellent report?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. People are asking questions about how the vaccine will be rolled out and of course I understand why people are so interested in that. We will of course protect the most vulnerable first and we will do that on the basis of clinical advice. The JCVI brings together the best clinicians in this area and it meets very regularly. Decisions of the JCVI will not be on the critical path to the roll-out of the vaccine—I have been assured of that.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
One of my 15-year-old constituents had a covid test over a week ago, and in spite of chasing, is still none the wiser as to whether she has covid or not. Not only is she having to self-isolate, but her mum, a nurse, is having to take the precaution of self-isolating, something she says her ward can ill afford. On top of that, last month, the time taken to get test results back from the national Test and Trace programme to Oldham’s public health team, to enable them to trace the cases that the national programme is failing to get in touch with, was 12 days—12 days, not 24 hours. Will the Health Secretary please tell my constituent how many of the 16,000 or so lost test results were from Oldham, and how many contacts—not cases— have not yet been traced?
Matt Hancock
The good news is that the turnaround time of test results has been coming down. I would love to take up the case of the individual who has not had a result back, as the hon. Lady has described, because that is rare: the majority of cases now come back the next day. I will specifically look into turnaround times in Oldham, because an average of 12 days seems a lot longer than I expected, and I will make sure to get back to the hon. Lady at the appropriate opportunity.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
From speaking to local people, it has become clear that there are still concerns about routine appointments—GP appointments and, increasingly, routine dental care—which are obviously important for preventing problems down the line. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what plans he has to ensure that over these potentially bumpy next few months, people are still able to get those appointments?
Matt Hancock
For all my huge enthusiasm for technology, it is obviously critical for people to have a face-to-face appointment in primary care at their GP’s surgery, if one is needed. We have made it clear that every GP practice should offer those face-to-face appointments in a covid-secure way where they are needed. The vast majority of GPs are doing incredible work, and offering the public the service and the vocation that they went into medicine for. If my hon. Friend has specific examples, I will be happy to look into them, but overall, it is so important that we keep primary care running.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Mr Deputy Speaker, my former student—thank you. I say to the Secretary of State that we are talking about human beings working systems, and I warn him that there will be more glitches. Technology means glitches, so I am worried about him, because we have a long, hard winter ahead. Does he agree with me that what we are doing in Huddersfield, in Kirklees—working together as a council, a local university and a local health trust, putting party political issues to one side—is what we must do this winter? We have to beat this virus, and we have to work together in order to do that.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
First, I welcome the new centre at Keele University campus in my constituency, which opened last Friday, and I thank my right hon. Friend’s Department for that. Secondly, he may be aware of the article in The Times on Saturday that suggested people were having difficulty accessing tests at the centre in Newcastle-under-Lyme itself, which had been walk-up in August but now requires booking. The article suggests that there is plenty of capacity at the centre, but not yet enough at the labs, so could he confirm that this Government are still committed to half a million tests a day by the end of this month?
Matt Hancock
We are committed and on track to the delivery of half a million tests by the end of this month. We have capacity at over 300,000 now. I saw the article in The Times. Of course, one of the good things is that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the case rate had come right down. We had a walk-in centre because it was an outbreak area, and it stopped being an outbreak area because everybody in Newcastle-under-Lyme did their bit and brought the case rate down. That is a good thing, of course, but it does mean that we have to make sure that the testing is targeted at where it is most needed across the country. What I really want to do is have that extra capacity that we are building so everybody everywhere can get it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
In Salford, the case numbers have now risen above 250 per 100,000. As well as this case uploads programme issue today, our local contact tracing programme is having to wait on average four days for data from the national system, and in the worst cases seven to nine days. That is creating unacceptable delay to contact tracing. In August, Baroness Harding said that we would have a contact tracing system that was “local by default”, so what is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that data gets to local authorities in a timely way so that it can be followed up by genuinely local contact tracing systems under the control of our local directors of public health?
Matt Hancock
This is the goal, as the hon. Member sets out, and reducing the times for those transfers is very important, and making sure that the transfers happen effectively and in an automated and cohesive way is very important. But the approach that she sets out of using the national system to do the first attempts at contacting people—to contact those whom it is easy to contact—and then use the local system to contact those where it is more difficult, and where boots on the ground can help, is the approach that we are taking to make sure that we can get that join-up as effectively as possible.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State for working so constructively with Wolverhampton City Council when it requested some limited local restrictions around households visiting other households in their own homes. As we move forward to get the virus down, can we give further advice on how we all can limit transmissions within home settings, especially where we have a vulnerable family member?
Matt Hancock
It is so important that people follow this guidance, and of course the first principle for everybody needs to be “Hands, face, space” and keeping a distance, if possible, within households if somebody tests positive. The other thing not to underestimate is the importance of cleaning, because this virus passes on through the air, but it also passes on on surfaces, and we should all—all—be aware of that.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
It was good to see the Secretary of State earlier today, and I very much hope that he will keep talking to local and regional leaders. As the Secretary of State well knows, the winter months are always the toughest for patients and for staff. This one could prove to be the most challenging that our NHS has ever faced. So can I ask the Secretary of State to guarantee that the NHS will have the funding resources needed to get it through this winter?
Matt Hancock
I welcome the very constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman takes in his local role as well as in this House. Of course, we have put in the extra funding that the NHS needs this winter. We are expanding over 140 emergency departments, because emergency departments need more space so there can be social distancing. We have also put in funding so that we can continue the work on electives, even though it is more difficult, and on infection control—and, of course, as much discussed, on testing. I look forward very much to working with him further as we try to control this virus.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the rule of six and curfew are based on the evidence of what worked in Belgium, and will he continue to provide the whole country with the evidence of what has worked internationally so we can take the whole country with us to defeat the pandemic?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that we have got to learn from things that have worked in other countries. We are constantly looking around the world as well as at the domestic science. I am very happy to work with him to see what further we can publish in terms of the assessments that are made and then presented to us as Ministers to make decisions on that constitute that scientific advice.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is clear that local lockdown areas should have control of test and trace; yet at the weekend the Prime Minister was adamant that it was not failures with his “world-beating” system that have had an impact on our local increases, but that my constituents are just undisciplined in following his confusing and incoherent messaging. Does the Secretary of State share the Prime Minister’s insulting view?
Matt Hancock
It is incredibly important that all of us, as leaders in our local area, reiterate the public health advice that people should follow the rules, which are put in place for a reason. Nobody wants to have these rules in place, but they are important to keep us all safe.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I recognise the scale of the challenge in increasing testing capacity. In Devon, it has increased by over 40% since the start of September. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that work continues to rapidly get that capacity up even further, so that constituents in my North Devon constituency are able to get tested?
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
In the Secretary of State’s statement, he said that 51% of the cases have now been contacted a second time for contact tracing purposes. Can he clarify how many people are still waiting to be contacted for the first time, and how can he say with any confidence that the notification process for those individuals has not been delayed?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In the Secretary of State’s statement, he spoke with pride about the Prime Minister’s announcement on Friday of the additional capital programme for hospitals. In Cumbria, we met that announcement with some dismay. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said, there is a proposal to close the Preston and Lancaster hospitals and merge them into a single hospital somewhere in between. Does the Secretary of State realise that that will mean even longer journeys for acute care for people from the South Lakes? Will he have a word with the Prime Minister, and drop that dangerous proposal from the consultation, so that people in south Cumbria do not have to make dangerous journeys for emergency care?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. That was only touched on briefly in the statement, which was a covid update. It would have been really nice if the hon. Member could have asked his question in relation to the covid update, which is what the statement was mainly about.
Matt Hancock
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As part of the coronavirus response across Lancashire and Cumbria, we want to ensure that the NHS is prepared for the long term, so we are putting a huge investment into Lancashire and the new hospitals in Lancashire. The hon. Gentleman almost mentioned that there is a consultation on whether to have two replacements or one. I entirely understand that he takes a position within that consultation, but it is worth explaining that there is a consultation on whether to replace them with two hospitals or one. There will rightly be full public engagement, with his constituents, those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and potentially yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, on which is the right approach. However, this is a massive investment in the local NHS that everybody should welcome.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House yet again to update the House on covid matters and health matters. He is right, of course, to concentrate on covid, but we also have to worry about people who do not have covid diseases and need treatment. In north Northamptonshire, it is welcome that a Boris hospital will be built just off the A14, which will be state of the art and will replace the town centre one of Kettering. Will the Secretary of State tell me when it will be built, and when it will be finished?
Matt Hancock
As part of the coronavirus response, we must ensure that we keep our physical NHS up to date, and we will build the new hospital in Kettering. We will complete it before 2030 at the latest, and I very much hope a long time before then. I want to say how much my hon. Friend has done to work towards delivering it, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Corby (Tom Pursglove) nearby. It has been a team effort, and I was thrilled to be able to let them know that this is happening, and it will happen before the decade is out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will be lots of opportunities to question the Secretary of State about the new hospitals at a more appropriate time.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
In the past 14 days, New Zealand has had 35 coronavirus cases, China, Hong Kong and Macau 260, Vietnam 28, Thailand 84 and Australia 238. The UK has had 108,000 cases. Our coronavirus strategy is failing. Others show we can fix this and get the test and trace system our people need. So will the Secretary of State do what is needed: kick out Serco, sack Dido Harding, and put the billions of pounds wasted on private companies that are failing into our NHS, which will do the job properly?
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that hospitals such as Queen’s Hospital in Burton should be doing everything they can to reintroduce access for birth partners of pregnant women during all stages of labour, and that this should be treated as a priority?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. Coronavirus brings many challenges, and making sure that we have good infection control not just during childbirth, but during the meetings that are often so critical during pregnancy, is very important. We changed the guidelines a couple of weeks ago, and I know that everybody across the NHS is working their hardest to get the best outcome, and I hope we get there soon.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is nine months since the World Health Organisation first warned of the risks covid posed. My constituents in Southwark deserve to know that the Government are trying to keep them safe and that they can get tested or traced if needed; why no other Government in the world have experienced such problems with Excel spreadsheets, and why the Secretary of State will not take responsibility for this latest world-beating incompetence.
Matt Hancock
Funnily enough, when I speak to my colleagues from across the world we find we often have many of the same challenges, including the need to get the testing capacity up, and the hon. Gentleman may not believe me, but occasionally they ask me what we have done to extend testing capacity quite as much as we have. I am very happy to explain that to both him and his constituents and to the rest of the House.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his statement today does not impact on the decision to keep Redcar and Cleveland, Stockton, and Darlington out of local lockdown restrictions, and does he also see that more testing surely means more positive tests, so should we now be looking at the numbers of people admitted to hospital instead of covid case numbers before considering further lockdown restrictions in local authority areas?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. First, as the chief medical officer has confirmed, this issue does not affect the decisions taken last week, but of course we look at all those decisions each week, and, as my hon. Friend knows, we take as localised an approach as possible, so that rather than bringing in measures for the whole of Teesside, we brought in measures for Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, where the local councils had called for them—whether or not they mentioned that afterwards. We should keep working together and making sure we look at the data—the hospitalisation figures of course, as well as the test positivity, and of course the number of cases. Hospitalisation data is important, but it follows with a lag, so we have to look at the early indicators as well.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Constituents in West Lancashire are worried: constituents of mine were told they tested positive on Friday and they still have not been contacted by Track and Trace or the restaurant they work in. They worry that this is increasing the danger of the spread of covid. They are also worried that the stockpile of drugs held in the event of a no-deal Brexit may be being reduced because of this pandemic. Can the Secretary of State update us on both those points?
Matt Hancock
On the first point, for all those who test positive, receiving that result brings a duty under law to self-isolate. That is the primary way we keep people safe and that has worked. As I said in my statement, as of 9 o’clock this morning 51% of those had been contacted for contact tracing purposes. I very much hope the constituent the hon. Lady mentions will be contacted very soon, if not already. On the final question she asks, of course we have been replenishing the stockpiles of drugs that we used up during the peak. That has been a very important part of the work over the summer, as we prepare to leave the end of the transition period at the end of this year.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his continued engagement with me and other colleagues from all sides of the House throughout this crisis, and also for our new Boris hospital coming to Shotley Bridge. My constituents have three concerns still, one of which is the speed of getting tests back. I know there has been some improvement recently, but will he update us on that? They are also still concerned about the 10 pm restrictions and about clarity on how we get out of local lockdown measures. Will he inform us a bit more about that?
Matt Hancock
The coronavirus crisis is not easy for any Health Secretary, but it was a joy to be able to call my hon. Friend and tell him that we are rebuilding Shotley Bridge Hospital on the site of the old steelworks. It will be absolutely fantastic, like a phoenix in the heart of County Durham. It is a joy to work with my hon. Friend, who asks important questions about coronavirus. As he says, we are reducing the turnaround times for test results. We will continue to work to try to make them as fast as possible.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Will the Secretary of State please outline what measures will be put in place to ensure that all family members of residents in care homes can continue to see their families and loved ones over the coming months, including whether guarantee PPE and testing for families will be guaranteed?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady has taken a close and repeated interest in this very important subject. We have put in place updated guidance on visiting care homes, which is a very important and sensitive balance we need to strike, working with local directors of public health. I cannot give the guarantee she seeks in all areas because it is a matter for the judgment of the director of public health locally, because in some parts of the country the virus is more prevalent than elsewhere. I wish I could, but I cannot. I look forward to continuing to work with her to try to get that balance right.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I welcome the news that the Queen’s Medical Centre and City Hospital will be rebuilt in Nottingham. On PPE, the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in July that in the early days of the pandemic the Government
“went from supplying PPE to about 250 or 260 hospitals…to 58,000 organisations”
such was the pace of change. With the measures the Government have recently taken, and with 32 billion pieces of PPE, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are now in a much better position to deal with PPE should there be any increase in cases as we go into the winter?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The PPE distribution system was described by the head of the armed forces as the biggest logistical exercise he had seen in his professional lifetime. It has been a mammoth effort to get it into decent shape, but it is now in decent shape, I am very glad to say. We have been preparing to solve not only the current problems, but preparing in case of a second peak. We have said that PPE will be free to NHS institutions and care homes for the remainder of this financial year to remove that worry. I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about the warm welcome to the rebuilding of the QMC and City Hospital in Nottingham. It is a place I know well from my family, many of whom are from Nottingham. It is really great that we are able to put in that huge investment.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) that Manchester will not be subject to further restrictions as a result of the contained outbreaks in halls of residence. However, Manchester residents have now been unable to see their loved ones for more than two months—since our rates were less than 50 per 100,000, and they are now 10 times higher than that—and I strongly reject the suggestion that this is somehow because of our own personal actions. Is it not time for a rethink? Blanket, wide local restrictions just are not working according to their own objectives. If we are looking at another six months, this is no life for people to be living and is not sustainable or desirable.
Matt Hancock
There is a challenge where case rates are going up sharply. Of course, the virus does pass on through social contact. We need to work with the local councils to bring the virus under control in Manchester, as in other parts of the country where it is rising sharply.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
On Saturday, my wife and I got our annual flu jabs. I hope you will indulge me for just a second, Mr Deputy Speaker, while I say that the GPs and nurses at our local surgery are doing an outstanding job. It was pre-booked and within two minutes we were in and out.
I do not want to make you cry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but unfortunately I suffer quite badly with vaccines—when I had my yellow fever vaccine I thought my end had come. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people need to be aware of some of the side-effects of vaccines and be crystal clear on the symptoms of coronavirus, so that once they have had their vaccines, they may not necessarily seek covid tests? People should be absolutely clear on the three symptoms of covid.
Matt Hancock
It is too early yet to set out the clinical details of vaccines, other than to say that we have a draft of the priority order for the distribution of a covid vaccine and that we will not bring in a covid vaccine—and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency would not license it—unless we are confident that it is safe. It is at that point, when we know more about the clinical details, that will be able to say more about its effective roll out.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
After our broken test and trace system and the failure to put a protective ring around care homes, and after the recent and preventable outbreaks in universities and the ultimately unnecessary restructuring of Public Health England, the chaos this weekend is symbolic of the way the Government have handled the pandemic. Does the Secretary of State agree that these are his failures and only his alone?
Matt Hancock
Responding to a pandemic is an enormously challenging task. Thankfully, it is a massive team effort, and it is one in which the whole country can be engaged because we all have a part to play.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
London consists of 32 boroughs plus the City of London and covers a population of around 8 million people. We are told that infection rates are going up in each of the London boroughs, but some are much higher than others. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider, when he needs to introduce lockdown procedures, doing so on a borough-by-borough basis and not inflicting unnecessary restrictions on the whole of London, which would be counterproductive in terms of delivering downward pressure on the increased case load. It would potentially bring the economy to a halt and affect the way Parliament works.
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Getting the right geography for any particular action is an important and difficult consideration. Last week’s example, when we took two of the Teesside boroughs into local action but not the other three, demonstrates that we are absolutely prepared to do as my hon. Friend wishes for London. On the other hand, on the same day we took the whole of the Liverpool city region into the same measures, because that was what was appropriate there. We have to take into account travel patterns and socialising patterns, as well as the pure data from the epidemiology and the number of cases, but it is absolutely something that we look at because we want to minimise the number of restrictions that are in place, subject to the need to keep the virus under control.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is full of bravado and bluster, despite a catalogue of mistakes and regular statements. When the truth is spread thinly, people start to see through it. We hear the expression “world-beating test and trace system”—how would Ricky Tomlinson describe it?
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
May I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for the £500 million for Epsom and St Helier hospitals and for taking very quick action after I asked in this House for additional testing capacity in Carshalton and Wallington? Not long after I asked him, we heard that three more sites may open in my borough, which is very welcome. Obviously, those new sites will need the testing capacity to be able to cope, so can he assure me that we will continue the work to get that capacity up as quickly as possible and into boroughs such as Sutton?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We are bringing more testing capacity into Sutton. We have opened more testing sites in Sutton. I can tell the House that the average distance travelled to a test has now fallen to 4.3 miles from over 6 miles three weeks ago. We are also bringing a new hospital to my hon. Friend’s area—a massive half-a-billion-pound investment in the NHS, showing that we are always prepared to protect the NHS for the long term.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Various companies have multimillion-pound contracts, and it is important that we understand their motivation to succeed. Does Serco get paid for voided test results—yes or no?
Matt Hancock
The motivation of my whole team, no matter how they are employed or contracted, is to beat this virus, and we are working together to do that.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his important statement. In South Derbyshire we have world-renowned laboratories locally, and my constituents have asked me to ask: what steps is he taking to increase the number of labs available to process tests, so that we can continue to increase testing capacity as quickly as possible?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right to ask that question, because we are expanding the number of labs as we expand the number of tests. I know that there is great capability in Derbyshire that can be brought to bear as part of this big team effort.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, people in lockdown in Wales are not allowed to leave their county for fear of spreading the disease. For instance, people in Newport, where there are 50 cases per 100,000 people, cannot go to Aberystwyth. But people in Manchester, where there are 500 cases per 100,000 people—10 times the number—can go to Aberystwyth and elsewhere in Wales and spread the disease. To stop this spreading of disease, will the Secretary of State restrict travel out of locked-down areas in England? If not, will he accept that it would be a good idea for people arriving in low-risk areas in Wales to quarantine, or is he happy for the disease to spread without restriction?
Matt Hancock
The challenge is that the primary transmission of the disease is between households and households mixing with one another. The approach that we have taken in England since we came out of the initial full-blown lockdown has been to put travel restrictions in guidance rather than law, because we feel that that is the most appropriate thing to do. That is not the approach being taken in Wales, but that is how we are currently handling it in England.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
It was a political, not a health, decision to pursue a private sector route for testing. Scotland has chosen differently, but there are concerns that ongoing capacity issues in England and Wales will have an impact on Scotland. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Scots will not be prejudiced by the Tory Government’s preference for private profit over public health?
Matt Hancock
Quite the contrary; the UK-wide testing system delivers enormous numbers of tests to people in Scotland, and I know from having studied it that people in Scotland are really grateful for the fact that we work together, with the UK Government delivering testing in Scotland alongside the Scottish NHS delivering testing in Scotland. It is that sort of coming together that people look for during a time like this.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
In Stoke-on-Trent, we were delighted to come off the national watchlist as an area of concern after hard work from Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council and, most importantly, the people of Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke adhering to the public health messaging. Additionally, we have the regional test centre that Councillor Abi Brown and I successfully lobbied my right hon. Friend for and two incoming walk-in test centres in Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend commit further by giving additional funding to help Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Royal Stoke University Hospital to deliver increased testing capacity for the thousands of local health and social care workers across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire?
Matt Hancock
As well as the expansion of testing that my hon. Friend mentions, I can tell him that we are expanding NHS testing capacity within Stoke, and we are putting in the extra funding to deliver that. This man stands up for Stoke so strongly, and he has been making the case clearly and powerfully, so I am glad to be able to tell him that we can do that.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Vaccines have come up a number of times during the statement today. Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear: are there shortages and recalls of flu vaccine going on at the moment? I have certainly been told by a major pharmacy company that there are, and the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote to me yesterday mentioning delays of one month. He did not answer the question from the Chair of the Health Committee. Kate Bingham was very clear that vaccinating the whole population was just not going to happen. Was she correct to say that?
Matt Hancock
On the latter point, we take our advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and it will provide the clinical advice. That clinical advice has not been provided yet, because the data has not yet been provided to it in full from the trials that are ongoing. I could not be clearer about that. The Government’s advice on the distribution of the vaccine for clinical purposes comes from the JCVI, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and all others to read its report from 10 days ago. It was an excellent report.
When it comes to the flu vaccine, we have enough to vaccinate every single person who is in a priority group over the age of 65, those who are clinically vulnerable and the children who are eligible for it. We are rolling that out over the forthcoming months. On Sunday, I spoke to the president of the Royal College of GPs, and we discussed the need to make it clear to GPs and pharmacists—they are at the core of the roll-out—and also to the general public that we have enough vaccine. We are rolling it out over the months to come. It is very important that people come forward, and I am really glad they are doing so in record numbers this year, but it does take several weeks to get that done.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The House should recognise that going from 2,000 tests a day in March to around 250,000 now—hopefully we will see that double over the next few weeks—is a significant achievement, but can the Health Secretary provide any reassurance to sectors such as travel, theatre and events, which are in so much difficulty? Can we use mass testing to help them open up again?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend makes a really important and heartfelt plea. I have been working with the travel sector and discussing the matter with them. While the testing capacity is, as it is now, on the current technology, we have to use it for the clinically prioritised groups, but of course we would all love to see when further expansion can mean that we can use testing more broadly in the sorts of ways that she describes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Since the beginning of this crisis, the Government’s approach has been one of central control. We are fixated on the number of tests, but is the real issue not the number of tests, but what we do with the information we get from them? Before the new restrictions were applied to County Durham, NHS Test and Trace took testing capacity out of County Durham. Is it not now time to just admit that the national system has failed? What is needed is to give responsibility directly to directors of public health, with the resources to do not only the testing, but the more important thing, which is tracing, which they are more able to do than people in national call centres?
Matt Hancock
We put in money, including into the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to do exactly that—to make sure that there is local support. He says we should follow a localised approach. That is exactly what we did in the north-east: when the seven north-east councils came to national Government, they asked for a set of interventions to be put in place, and we did that. That is exactly the sort of approach that we ought to be taking, and we will continue to do so.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The number of people in Dudley who have been triaged for coronavirus testing has halved in the past couple of weeks. It is hard to believe that this is down to reduced demand. What progress is my right hon. Friend making in expanding capacity, so that my constituents can get testing readily when they need it?
Matt Hancock
We are expanding testing. However, I would add that in this House two or three weeks ago, the big item of discussion was excess demand for testing. We put out public health messaging to explain that people should come forward for a test if they have symptoms of coronavirus, but not if they do not, and the number of people without symptoms coming forward has fallen since then. As a result, we can get the testing capacity we have to the people who need it. That has been a success, and I thank everyone in the country who listened to those messages. We have worked hard to increase communications about it, and the demand has been moving in the right direction.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Covid case data is used to decide which areas are in local lockdown, with the impact on hospitality businesses and families visiting loved ones in care homes, and the detrimental effect on the mental health of those missing out on social interactions. Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that the data used to put us in local restrictions is up to date and accurate, and that when we start to get cases down, and as soon as it is safe, we can come out of local restrictions?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We are of course vigilant and we have to bring in local action in some cases, as we have in his area, but we will also bring areas out of restrictions when it is safe to do so, as we did in his area, although unfortunately it then had to go back in again. I would prefer it if places did not come in, out and back in again in that way, but my view is that that is better than leaving the measures in place when they are not needed.
We publish the data, which has now been updated to take into account the issues we had over the weekend, and we will have in place the minimum interventions that are necessary to keep the virus suppressed and to protect the economy, education and the NHS as much as possible until the vaccine arrives. That is the strategy, which is true in Colne Valley and true right across the country, and I look forward to working with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and colleagues across the House to help the country to get through this.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for updating the House on covid-19 measures and for answering questions for the last hour and a half. Thank you very much.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)
Point of Order
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no provision on today’s Order Paper for debating the programme motion, which is listed to be moved forthwith at 10 pm. That motion proposes that the further stages of the Bill—Committee, Report and Third Reading—be taken in single session on Thursday week. The Bill we are debating today is described in the House of Commons briefing document as raising
“one of the most profound issues which can face a democratic society governed by the rule of law”,
quoting not some left-wing non-governmental organisation but the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The last time the Government rushed a security Bill through in this way, I and others had a challenge in the court of law; the Government lost and had to rewrite the Bill. We do not want to do that again, so what can we do to ensure that these profound issues are properly debated, before we allow the Government to break our laws whenever they choose?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. As he knows, it is not a point of order for the Chair, but Standing Orders do not, as he rightly says, provide for separate debate on a programme motion after Second Reading. It is, however, in order for him to raise his concerns during the Second Reading debate and to vote against the programme motion itself, should he wish to do so. The scheduling of the subsequent stages of the Bill is entirely a matter for the Government.
We are now going to suspend for three minutes to enable the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes. Will those leaving the Chamber please do so with social distancing in mind?
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Monday 5th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 20 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This legislation is being introduced to keep our country safe and to ensure that our operational agencies and public authorities have access to the tools and intelligence that they need to keep us safe—safe from terrorists, safe from serious organised crime groups, and safe from others who wish to cause harm to our country and our citizens. Specifically, the Bill deals with participation in criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources—so-called CHIS. These are agents, or undercover officers, who help to secure prosecutions and disruptions by infiltrating criminal and terrorist groups.
Throughout history, those entrusted to uphold the law or safeguard national security have used covert human intelligence to support and progress their activity. From Sir Francis Walsingham’s use of informers to defend the reign of Elizabeth I from internal and external threats, to the deployments by the newly formed detective units of the Metropolitan police in the latter half of the 19th century, to the double-cross system in the second world war, covert human intelligence has always been a vital part of our national security and law enforcement framework.
More recently, though, CHIS have been critical in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots, drugs and firearms offences, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and other serious organised crime. Since March 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism police have together thwarted some 27 terror attacks. As the director general of MI5 said when the Bill was introduced:
“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt…these attacks would not have been prevented.”
I have been advised that between November 2018 and 2019 CHIS operations within the Metropolitan police area alone led to 3,500 arrests, the recovery of more than 100 firearms and 400 other weapons, the seizure of more than 400 kg of class A drugs, and the recovery of more than £2.5 million in cash. Similarly, CHIS operations in 2019 alone enabled the National Crime Agency to safeguard several hundred victims of crime, including from child sexual exploitation and abuse. This is an important and unique tactic; by working their way into the heart of criminal groups, CHIS are able to access intelligence that other investigatory powers may simply never detect.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows how seriously I take these matters and the equipping of our security services to do the job that they need to do, often in horrendous circumstances that affect the integrity of our country and its individuals, but he will also appreciate that safeguards have to be in place. What does he have to say to those who have raised serious concerns that the Bill, as it stands, does not have the safeguards in place to prevent assault, murder and torture, about which there is an absolute prohibition? He knows that we are a signatory to the convention on human rights, so what does he have to say on those matters?
James Brokenshire
I hope I will be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman during my speech, underlining some of the safeguards—the importance of oversight, which we attach equally to this Bill, and the operation of a criminal conduct authorisation, as contemplated by the Bill. I hope he will also have noted the specific reference to the Human Rights Act in the Bill, in order to underline some of the important points he makes about convention rights.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister has reeled off an impressive number of statistics, which justify the use of CHIS operations. How many or what proportion of the operations were undertaken by the Food Standards Agency, which will also come under the ambit of this Bill?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman is drawing me on to talk about some of those wider bodies. I will address that later in my speech, but I point out that the FSA is required to deal with issues associated with misrepresented food—food that may be harmful for human consumption. Therefore the issues of proportionality and necessity are bound within the frame of the Bill, and limit the activities that would be reasonable for such agencies to act upon. Perhaps I can come back to that a little later in my contribution.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
We have had discussions on the points of concern to me, and my right hon. Friend has given answers to three written questions today, which were helpful indeed. He will understand the importance of the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty): that these are significant powers for us to grant in a democratic society. I believe my right hon. Friend has made the point in the past, but will he confirm today that the Human Rights Act trumps the provisions in this Bill which the hon. Gentleman and I are most concerned about?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Again, I intend to draw out this point during my contribution in the House this evening. He rightly highlights the import and implication of the Human Rights Act and what that then imports in terms of the convention rights, which we are clear provide restrictions and inhibitions on how agencies are able to operate.
James Brokenshire
I will give way twice more and then get into some of the important details that I know right hon. and hon. Members would like me to address.
Sir John Hayes
The point surely is that as well as proportionality and necessity, the Bill is particular about specificity, so that those matters that lie outside the specific permission can be challenged in court and can indeed lead to prosecutions. That specificity is at the heart of this measure.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. The issue of specifici—I cannot even say it; I shall settle for saying the specific authorisations that are granted. They are tightly bound and that is important. That is why we published the guidance that sits alongside the operationalisation of the Bill at the same time as the Bill—to give that sense of confirmation and clarity on how it will operate.
Mr David Davis
I hear what my right hon. Friend says about the Human Rights Act, but the defence that the Government put up in the legal case that was brought against them said in terms that the state is “not the instigator” of such activity and
“cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it”.
The memorandum to the Bill states that
“it is to be expected that there would not be State responsibility”.
How is that using the Human Rights Act to underpin the rights of our citizens?
James Brokenshire
I know that my right hon. Friend, rightly, takes these issues incredibly seriously. The issues we are talking about go to the kernel of our national security, and equally, our confidence in our criminal justice system and the way in which our operatives, who are there to protect us, act. I do place weight on what he has said.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way before he moves on?
James Brokenshire
I would quite like to answer the previous intervention before I give way again, and I need to make some progress.
I can say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that the way in which agencies are required to act under the Bill means that they cannot act in a way that is inconsistent with the convention rights, hence the importation by the specific reference to the Human Rights Act on the face of the Bill to underline that. It is important to state that and be clear as to how the Bill operates and the protections. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has tempted me, so I will give way one final time, and then I will make some progress, because I know that others want to speak.
Stewart Hosie
On the point that the Minister just made in relation to the Human Rights Act, proposed new section 29B(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in clause 1 and proposed new section 7A(6) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 in schedule 1, say, for example, that subsection X is
“without prejudice to the need to take into account other matters so far as they are relevant (for example, the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998).”
Why is it not more explicit that there is an obligation to obey the Human Rights Act rather than simply referring to it as an example?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Some may argue that the inclusion of those words was not of itself necessary, because those agencies are already bound by that requirement. We take the judgment, because of the very relevant points that have been made during the course of the debate, that being clear on the face of the Bill in that regard is helpful. It is reassuring. It creates the context as to how this regime is intended to operate, and that is why it is included in the way that it is.
James Brokenshire
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will make some further progress, but I will allow her to intervene on me later.
In order to build the credibility and trust of those under investigations, there are occasions where, in carefully managed circumstances and subject to robust independent safeguards, CHIS may need to participate in criminality themselves. This is an inescapable and essential feature of CHIS use and has always been fundamental to this work. Although I am unable to go into the detail about the specific criminality that a CHIS may participate in, for reasons I will come to, limited examples have been discussed in the public domain. For example, a CHIS may be required to join the organisation that they are seeking to disrupt. This membership alone will sometimes be criminal but will be deemed necessary and proportionate to prevent more serious criminality from taking place. Again, without going into the specifics, the use of that tactic enabled the police and MI5 to disrupt a planned terrorist attack on No. 10 and the then Prime Minister in 2017. The necessity of CHIS participation in criminal conduct has been accepted in the UK and around the world for many years. In December 2019, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that MI5 has a lawful basis for this activity and recognised that CHIS participation formed an essential part of MI5’s core activities. I want to reassure the House that this Bill does not confer the power to carry out a new activity, but enables CHIS to continue to deploy the methods that they already use. Notwithstanding those powers, this Bill puts that existing practice onto a clearer statutory footing, putting the matter beyond doubt as to Parliament’s intentions. The Bill provides certainty for CHIS and their handlers and will augment our ability to recruit and retain in the future in this regard. It is important to stress that the Bill does not change the position of CHIS who have previously been properly authorised to participate in criminal activity. It has no retrospective effect.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Can the Minister explain one difference between the situation that has applied in the past and the situation that will apply in the future if the Bill goes through as it is? We are now legislating to make properly authorised criminal conduct lawful, rather than continuing with the current position whereby MI5 or another authorising authority is able to argue that it would not be in the public interest for prosecuting authorities to prosecute properly authorised criminal conduct, but there is no guarantee of immunity. What we are now saying is that they are not breaking the law, rather than, as in the past, that they were breaking the law, but that it was against the public interest to prosecute. Why the reason for that change?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, makes an important point when he draws that distinction. I say to him that, under the current regime, the Crown Prosecution Service will consider the prosecution of a properly authorised CHIS as perverse. So in essence, the Bill will offer no practical difference in the application of the power, because obviously the conduct will have to be properly authorised, as it does now. If something has not been properly authorised, then clearly the authorisation will not have effect. Where CHIS conduct is outside that authorisation, there will be no impact on the ability to prosecute. Public authorities tightly limit the scope of CHIS criminal conduct, so this will not provide a licence to commit crime outside those stringent limits. In reality, the practical difference between providing a defence and making conduct lawful is limited. Indeed, we say that the provisions actually reflect broader provisions within the current legislative regime, governing all other aspects as well. There is a distinction, which the right hon. Gentleman makes, but in practice, we do not see that there is the fundamentals difference that perhaps some might wish to paint into it.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
One of the problems that the Government have today is that, for those of us who like the red meat of law enforcement and law and order, the Minister has forced us to look inside the abattoir, and of course we do not like what we see. On this point about stringent limits, will he explain why there is not more in the Bill to put those limits in place? I cannot imagine Ministers will be authorising killing or torture, so why are those things not in the Bill, so that the public can have very clear confidence that they will not be authorised?
James Brokenshire
I will come on to that issue—this is why, although I wanted to give way to many Members, I wanted at the same time to make progress with my speech. I will not go into the limits of what can and cannot be done because of this issue of what is known as CHIS testing—providing a list against which sources can be tested, which has practical implications to it. What I can say to my hon. Friend is that I will come on to the import of the Human Rights Act in just a second, if he will be patient.
James Brokenshire
I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very patient.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Minister has talked about practices that are already permitted, but does he appreciate that there are many, many questions about those practices? That is why there has been the Pitchford inquiry, which has now dragged on for so long that it is about to be called something else. Are the Government not the slightest bit concerned about laying down such a piece of legislation before the inquiry has reported, given the history of agents provocateurs undermining progressive movements such as our trade unions and deceiving women in intimate relationships? All of these things have been carried out before, and people have major concerns about that. Will the Government explain why they have no concerns whatsoever about laying down a piece of legislation without having looked at what that inquiry finds?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady makes a serious point. First, there is no retrospective effect—it is quite important for me to state that explicitly. Therefore, actions that have occurred in the past and are subject to further inquiry, and potentially further criminal investigation, are untouched by the Bill. On the position moving forward, I have explained the different safeguards. She refers to trade union activity. Trade union activity is lawful. I recognise some of the concerns expressed, and it is important that I state that in order to provide assurance. This is tightly bound—it is about providing the oversight, the governance and the proportionality and setting out the necessity of this for criminal justice, security and other issues that I have already alluded to. I am grateful to her for intervening to allow me, I hope, to be more specific on that point.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On the previous intervention, there are real concerns about women who are seeking legal redress for sexual assaults at the hands of police officers in the spy cops inquiry. Can the Minister guarantee that if those situations were to occur again, survivors of sexual assault could seek legal redress?
James Brokenshire
I can certainly say that there are clearly ongoing inquiries in relation to this important and sensitive issue. I have highlighted the lack of any retrospection, and I point the hon. Gentleman to what has happened since then and what the police themselves have underlined in this regard. There is an enhanced regime of what are known as relevant sources—in other words, undercover police officers—and the criminal conduct authorisation is in addition to the regime to authorise and approve a CHIS covert source in the first place.
It has never been acceptable, as the police have said, for an undercover operative to form an intimate sexual relationship with those they are employed to infiltrate and target, or who they may encounter during their deployment. This conduct will never be authorised, nor must it ever be used as a tactic in deployment. That is made clear through the code of ethics for the police as well as the updated law enforcement agency undercover operative authorised professional practice.
I hope that I have explained what the Bill does and what it does not do, and therefore how it is quite specific. On the point about what is on the face of the Bill, it is about locking in the existing regime and other safeguards on the authorisation of a source in the first place. That has to happen first, and then, if it is warranted, justified and fits within the boundaries of the Bill, there is the criminal conduct authorisation that sits alongside it, which has to be subject to the earlier authorisation.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that sexual assault and rape are clearly prohibited by article 3 of the Human Rights Act? Does he recognise that the importance of the Human Rights Act in providing a safeguard to this Bill means that it would be helpful to hear wider support for the purposes of the Act from across his Government, not just from him on the Front Bench?
James Brokenshire
Obviously there is the specific reference on the face of the Bill that I have alluded to, and therefore there is that requirement. As the right hon. Lady will know what the convention rights say, for operational and other reasons I will not go beyond what the convention says. There are very clear issues that I will now, I hope, come on to in that regard that will help to draw this out.
James Brokenshire
I will give way one last time and then make further progress.
Mrs Miller
I thank the Minister; he is being very generous. He has been clear that sexual assaults on women such as the ones that have been referred to are entirely prohibited and not allowed, but they have obviously happened. In the past, those cases have been brought forward for proper review. How will they be brought forward in future under this Bill?
James Brokenshire
I have drawn out the separate regime that operates in relation to the authorisation of, for example, undercover officers, as well as the tight remit, the ambit and some of the additional oversight that is provided in respect of that regime. Again, that is all subject to the supervisory nature of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and can, therefore, as with the provisions proposed through the Bill, be drawn out through that route. However, I will hopefully make some more progress and be able to get into how the Bill works and some of the further assurances. I may not be quite as generous with interventions, so that I can hopefully make progress and let other right hon. and hon. Members in.
The Bill amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by inserting a new section to provide a power for public authorities to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. Equivalent amendments are also proposed to the equivalent legislation in Scotland, subject to ongoing constructive engagement with the Scottish Government.
A CCA may be granted only where it is necessary for one of three statutory purposes: national security, the prevention or detection of crime, or in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the UK. It must also be proportionate to what it is seeking to achieve, and consideration must be given to whether the objective could be achieved by conduct that is not criminal. These authorisations will be tightly bound and granted by a highly trained and experienced authorising officer. They must also be compliant with our obligations under the Human Rights Act, including the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Again, I will expand a little further shortly.
A CCA can also apply only where the deployment or engagement of the CHIS has already been authorised under the existing section 29 of RIPA, and is subject to the limits that that section provides. As such, there is a two-stage process: first, the authorisation of the use of a CHIS and, secondly, the separate authorisation of that source to carry out criminal conduct in the tightly prescribed circumstances proposed by the Bill.
It is worth highlighting that, alongside the Bill, we have published draft provisions of the CHIS code of practice, which provides further detail as to how the authorisation process will work and the factors an authorising officer must consider before granting an authorisation. To be clear, all authorisations are precise and explicit. A CHIS will never be given unlimited authority to commit any or all crimes. The effect of an authorisation is to render the authorised conduct lawful. This model is consistent with the approach we have taken for other investigatory powers. Of course, where a CHIS commits any criminality outside the tight parameters of the authorisation, the prosecuting authorities can consider this in the normal way.
Members will understand that, because of the clandestine nature of their work, there are limits to what I can say publicly about the role that CHIS play in saving lives and property, without exposing sensitive information about their methods and techniques. I know that there are concerns about the Bill somehow providing a licence to kill or to commit torture. Let me be clear that there are upper limits to the activity that can be authorised under the Bill, and those are contained in the Human Rights Act. That includes the right to life and the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the legislation makes clear that nothing in the Bill detracts from a public authority’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. Therefore, an act that would be incompatible with the ECHR could not lawfully be granted under this Bill.
We do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to draw up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited. To do so would place in the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states a means of identifying our agents and sources, creating a potential checklist for suspected CHIS to be tested against. That would threaten the future of the CHIS capability and result in an increased threat to the public. Protecting CHIS from prosecution will have achieved little if we cannot also protect them from being identified by the terrorist and criminal groups they inform against, placing them at personal risk.
Stephen Doughty
I am listening very carefully to what the Minister is saying, but will he be clear? This is all predicated on our continued membership of the European convention on human rights and on the Human Rights Act staying as it is, and at the moment we have an Attorney General who has made very clear her intentions towards both those instruments. Can he make it clear that we will stay in the ECHR and that the Human Rights Act will stay as the bedrock of the guarantees on this, but also that other international conventions we are signatories to, including the convention against torture, would also apply in restricting actions that could be authorised under this Bill?
James Brokenshire
I have been pretty clear about the way this Bill operates and the manner in which agencies and the different bodies that can be authorised are able to act. Clearly, I cannot bind this House for the future, but I am very clear that we stand by our ECHR commitments, which is why this has been expressed in the way that it has in the Bill. I hope that is helpful to him.
Mr David Davis
What my right hon. Friend has described is, in effect, a wish not to provide a terrorist checklist, as it were, to test a member of such an organisation. Did he read the article in The Times this morning by probably one of the best Directors of Public Prosecutions of modern times, who would probably know more about this than all of us in this House? It was scathing about that analysis and said it simply did not stand up?
James Brokenshire
I am happy to respond to that point specifically. We are not suggesting that there is routine testing of suspected CHIS in all criminal groups, but there is evidence that this does occur more than infrequently, and I say that in clear terms. We are asking CHIS to put themselves in difficult positions to help the state investigate these criminal groups, and it is our judgment that we need to make sure that we can best protect them, and that means avoiding the provision of a checklist of crimes that can be tested against. I note that this risk is not just to CHIS, but to people who are not CHIS but may be suspected of being so.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent commissioner, established under the 2016 Act by this House, has, in the 2018 report of the analysis on MI5 and other agencies, written very positively about the processes, the applications for CHIS and the rigour that these organisations go through? It is important that the House realises that these processes are rigorous, detailed and already in place.
James Brokenshire
Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. With his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he knows the importance of these national security issues in the context of Northern Ireland. He is right, and this point about safeguards and oversight is precisely what I was about to come on to. It is about the rigorous and careful way in which the agencies operate and the focus that they attach to this, as shown in the response the commissioner provided in his 2018 report and equally by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal when it reflected on this.
James Brokenshire
I will give way, but this is probably the last time as I am conscious of time and of getting others in.
Liz Saville Roberts
In the 2018 report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, one of the issues that raised concern was the sheer prevalence of human error. We are rolling this out to further Departments. Surely, we are also rolling out the potential for further human error.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Lady makes an important point about training and about ensuring that the high standards necessary here are applied. I would say to her that, equally, such focus needs to be applied to those who operate this regime in order to get this right because of the potential criminality that sits alongside it. There are obligations to report errors to the commissioner, and equally the commissioner will report on those too. Rigorous standards are necessary to ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are made appropriately and well, and the way in which that operates now and will operate for all agencies—whether the Security Service, policing or some of the other agencies—is subject to that clear oversight, and the Bill draws that out and makes it explicit.
As I have said, it is important to state that, in view of the restrictions on what can be disclosed publicly, the Government also recognise the importance of robust independent oversight. The authorisation of CHIS participation in criminal conduct is and will continue to be subject to this robust oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The IPC—
James Brokenshire
I am very conscious that I am now eating into the time of others who may wish to speak, so I will perhaps make some more progress, and we will see where we get to.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and his judicial commissioners, have all held high judicial office. The current IPC, Sir Brian Leveson, was most recently president of the Queen’s bench division and is entirely independent of Government. The commissioners are supported by expert inspectors and others, such as technical experts, qualified to assist the commissioners in their work.
The IPC conducts wide-ranging inspections of public authorities and publishes an annual report on the findings from those inspections. The IPC himself sets the frequency of those inspections, and public authorities are required to provide unfettered access to documents and information. The Bill strengthens the IPC’s role by providing that the IPC must explicitly keep CCAs under review and include information on the use of them in his annual report. The most recent report from the IPC found that in all instances MI5’s authorisations of CHIS participation in criminal conduct were proportionate to the anticipated operational benefits and met a high necessity threshold.
Further, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has statutory responsibility to oversee the UK intelligence community. Hon. and right hon. Friends on the Committee have a vital role in scrutinising the work of the intelligence agencies, and I am grateful to the Committee for its support for the legislation and welcome its expertise as the House considers the Bill in detail. I also note that Select Committees will equally play an important role in scrutinising the work of law enforcement and wider public authorities.
James Brokenshire
On that note, I give way to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Yvette Cooper
I am very grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous with his time. Clearly he makes the case that we need to continue with covert intelligence, particularly on extremist groups that may be proscribed. Associating with them in any way is currently a crime, so clearly he makes a strong case for legislation to ensure that such intelligence can continue in the interests of national security. I know that he recognises, though, that having safeguards is also in the interests of national security and of the intelligence agencies and the police.
The safeguards in place on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the Bill are still very vague. It is very broad and very much retrospective, as opposed to concurrent assessments. Will the Minister look again at the potential for amendments on authorisation and very timely oversight, and on strengthening the measures on Investigatory Powers Commissioners, so that it is possible to get the details of the legislation right?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, we will have continued debate during the passage of the Bill. I believe that it provides strong oversight and governance, but I will continue to reflect. Judicial approval is an important safeguard for the operation of some of our investigatory powers; however, it is not the only way to provide a robust oversight of a power. It is important to recognise the context of this: we are talking about human beings. Some challenging issues operate around this space, which is why we judge that robust retrospective oversight is the right approach, but I will keep the timeliness of that, and how it operates, under reflection so that perhaps further reassurance can be provided, specifically on the point of how soon oversight can occur after an authorisation has been made.
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being generous. At what level will the original authorisation take place in the various organisations? From reading the Bill, it seems to me that the level in the police is a relatively junior police officer. In view of the seriousness that such authorisation leads to, should it not be given at chief constable level, and why can it not be given through a warrant overseen by a judge?
James Brokenshire
I have responded to the latter point on the judgment that we have made in relation to this regime and how we believe that deep retrospective oversight is the right approach. This is distinct from phones or cameras. The use of CHIS requires deep expertise and close consideration of the personal qualities of that CHIS, which then enables very precise and safe tasking. There are different elements to how this operates, and the experience and highly trained nature of the authorising officer in some ways informs the relevant authorising level that is specified within the guidance. Robust retrospective oversight is provided equally by the commissioner himself, to give further assurance.
If I may, I shall turn to a separate point about specific public authorities’ ability to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. The RIPA already lists a range of public authorities that use CHIS for general investigative purposes. Far fewer public authorities will be able to grant a criminal conduct authorisation. Only those public authorities that have demonstrated a clear operational need for the tactic are able to use the power. These are the intelligence agencies, the police, the National Crime Agency, the armed forces, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and 10 other public authorities. Pausing momentarily on this list, I want to highlight the role that these wider public authorities also have in investigating and preventing serious criminal activity. The Environment Agency, for example, investigates the illegal dumping of toxic waste that can permanently harm our environment. The Serious Fraud Office investigates complex fraud cases that risk costing the public millions of pounds. The Food Standards Agency investigates deliberate mislabelling and the sale of unsafe food to the public. HMRC tackles the money laundering and trafficking of illicit goods that would risk significant damage to the economy.
We expect the wider public authorities to have only limited use of this power, because a criminal conduct authorisation can be granted only where it is necessary and proportionate to the criminality it is seeking to frustrate. There will, however, be occasions where CHIS will be critical in providing the intelligence to prevent, detect and prosecute serious crimes. This is increasingly important as organised crime groups expand into areas overseen by these public authorities.
This is an important and necessary Bill—
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful. He mentioned the armed forces very briskly there. Could he clarify why the armed forces might need to engage in criminal conduct? I suspect it is because they each operate their own military police, and that those police might need to have covert operations, but I would be grateful if he clarified that, because there will be suspicious souls out there worrying that there is some other motive for the armed forces being authorised to break the law.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights one particular aspect of the role of the Ministry of Defence. It is difficult to go into detail, but one further example I would give is that it might be necessary to access a proscribed organisation. As I say, the reporting regime is quite specific. Indeed, the oversight that is envisaged—and the oversight in the existing legislation—draws this out quite carefully and clearly for the issues that I have highlighted, on proportionality and necessity, as well as those specific aspects in the Bill, stating that it can relate only to national security, criminality and economic wellbeing. It has to anchor to those three elements, as well as to the Human Rights Act application that we have debated at length this evening.
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is not about providing agents with an unfettered ability to break the law and commit any crime. There are strict requirements that must be satisfied, and robust and independent oversight will be in place. The Bill is really looking to achieve just one thing, which is to ensure that our intelligence agencies and law enforcement bodies with important intelligence functions are able to continue to utilise a tactic that has been, and will continue to be, critical to keeping us all safe. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his opening speech, and for his briefings and approach to this Bill. He has been generous with his time and I appreciate that.
First, I thank our police and security services, the National Crime Agency and wider law enforcement for the work they do in keeping us safe. Those on the frontline put themselves in danger every day to help others, to protect us and to prevent loss of life. That work is vital and in the national interest, and we thank them for what they do on our behalf. We on the Opposition Benches recognise the importance of that work, and of covert human intelligence sources and the results they achieve. The issue is how we ensure that vital work continues, but on a statutory footing and with the strong safeguards that are also vital.
I have listened carefully to what our law enforcement agencies have said about covert human intelligence sources. The Minister referenced the director general of MI5, who has said that
“Since March 2017, MI5 and Counter Terror Police have together thwarted 27 terror attacks.”
His judgment was that
“Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt, many of these attacks would not have been prevented.”
To be clear, that activity is saving lives by stopping terrorist attacks on people.
I have also considered the wider data available, particularly on the National Crime Agency. In 2018, for example, covert human intelligence operations disrupted threats to life, arrested serious criminals, seized thousands of kilograms of class A drugs, safeguarded over 200 vulnerable people, and took firearms and rounds of ammunition off the streets. I also appreciate the role that covert human intelligence sources play in addressing heinous crimes such as child sexual exploitation, and organised crime such as black markets in, among other things, vital medicine. We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of that work.
At the same time, though, that work has not been on a statutory footing. Frankly, it should be, alongside formal safeguards. This activity is not new; it has been going on under existing practices for many years, and it should be on a statutory footing because that will allow for the necessary and robust safeguards that we on the Opposition Benches will be pressing for. It should be on a consistent and clear basis, and a system with clear protections should be in place. As we put this system on to a statutory footing, it is a moment to be clear about what we expect of those engaged in this conduct and the standards we should set; as this Bill passes through the House, it is a moment to detail not just those standards, but how we expect them to be implemented. That is why we in the Opposition will not be voting against this Bill tonight, but feel it should move to Committee for consideration and improvement.
I know that there are deep concerns about the safeguards in this Bill and it is to that crucial issue I now turn. The matters we are dealing with today are difficult for any Parliament; they are deep and serious questions for any democratic society, and raise critical issues that the Government will need to address as the Bill progresses through the House and the other place. It is crucial, too, that there is public confidence in what our security services and other agencies that use covert human intelligence sources actually do with regard to authorised criminal conduct. I entirely accept that an agent embedded in a proscribed organisation is committing an offence every day by virtue of being part of it, but is doing so for the purpose of thwarting plots and stopping greater loss of life. I appreciate that, but it is still vital that the wider framework under which they operate has trust and confidence.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Members of this House, when considering this Bill, should take comfort from the fact that we have one of the most rigorous and toughest oversight regimes in the world for regulating our intelligence services?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I of course welcome the oversight that has been introduced for our intelligence services; the situation is very different from how it was in decades past. However, that does not detract from the additional safeguards that are needed in this specific Bill.
Under the Bill as it stands—I am quoting, because I want to press the Minister on this point—authorisations for participation in criminal conduct may only be granted
“if it is necessary (a) in the interests of national security; (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
The Government need to be clear about what is within the scope of that framework. It cannot and should not encompass any lawful activity, nor should we allow mission creep in the years ahead.
I hope the Minister would agree that a Bill such as this one should have no business whatsoever interfering with the legitimate and lawful work of our trade union movement, which is a cornerstone of our democracy and a bastion of rights. I welcome what the Minister said in answer to an intervention—that trade union activity is legitimate and lawful and therefore is not within the ambit of the Bill—but some concerns have been expressed that the words I quoted referring to economic interests could refer to the legitimate work of trade unions. I would welcome it if the Solicitor General, when he responds to the debate, could repeat the Minister’s assurance that trade unions are not meant to come within the ambit of those words.
In addition to the test of necessity, the authorisation may be granted only where it is
“proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by”
the conduct. I welcome and note the test of necessity and proportionality. Nothing should be authorised in contravention of the European convention on human rights, to which I will return in a moment. But first the Government must justify the need for each and every agency and body listed in the Bill—what powers, what purpose. Nobody expects details on ongoing investigations—of course we do not—but a sense of the type of issues expected to arise is crucial to enable the House to consider that list properly and whether the presence of the organisation on the list is necessary.
In answer to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is no longer in his place, the Minister mentioned, with regard to the Food Standards Agency, mislabelling and unsafe food. We need more detail on that and the links to organised and serious crime. Similarly, the Gambling Commission is another example, and it is absolutely clear as to why that is on the list. I do not propose to go through the list one by one; suffice it to say that each and every one needs to be justified.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have seen how the security services conduct these activities in detail in some cases. When I saw the Bill and the list of organisations, I was a bit shocked, to be honest. The Minister made the argument for the inclusion of the Food Standards Agency; from my experience—not personal experience, I hasten to add—of a case that involved waste theft and the Environment Agency, the lead was the police, and the Environment Agency worked across agencies. I want some assurance as to why it is necessary for the Food Standards Agency or the Environment Agency, for that matter, to have a lead in these situations.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was relieved to have the reassurance that my right hon. Friend’s experience did not involve him personally, but he is entirely right about the reassurances that are necessary in terms of each and every case.
As the Minister has said, there is a section 19 certification from the Home Secretary on the face of the Bill regarding its compatibility with convention rights. In addition to that, I note that in clause 1, what will become the new section 29B(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 mentions the Human Rights Act 1998 specifically. There is a real need for reassurance on this issue, so that the public and the House know that the most heinous of crimes will not be carried out in the name of this Government or, indeed, any other future Government. I appreciate that the European convention on human rights protects the right to life and is clear about the prohibition of torture or, indeed, subjecting anyone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that is important, but the Government need to be crystal clear about their intention for when the courts come to consider this legislation, as they inevitably will. We cannot have any doubts about the Government’s intention or Parliament’s intention.
I accept that it is important that the Human Rights Act is, unusually, mentioned on the face of the Bill, and I notice that the accompanying memorandum sets out the following:
“Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Nothing in this Bill detracts from that fundamental position. Authorising authorities are not permitted by this Bill to authorise conduct which would constitute or entail a breach of those rights.”
What we cannot have is a position, referred to by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in which any argument is put on the Government’s behalf in courts or tribunals that this system is not in place covering the activities of covert human intelligence sources, or that this system is somehow free or exempt from Human Rights Act considerations. Nor could we have a situation where there are deliberate attempts to prevent the Human Rights Act from coming into play. That is why we will be pressing the Government on public limits and on their position regarding those limits on criminal activity to be authorised.
Mr David Davis
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by not specifying in terms, the Government are inviting a challenge to the whole Bill, not under the Human Rights Act but under the torture convention? The international view of torture is more absolute than the international view of murder. Therefore, I think it highly likely that if the Bill goes through as it stands, the Government will be facing the courts within the next year, losing their case and having to rewrite the Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the Bill does not have those safeguards on its face as it should, it will simply be successfully challenged in our courts. It is in nobody’s interests for that position to pertain, which is why I am making this point, on which I hope we can work on a cross-party basis.
Julian Smith
In its legal adjudication on the third direction earlier this year, a majority on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—the special tribunal overseeing the intelligence services—found that the oversight powers currently given to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner provided
“adequate safeguards against the risk of abuse of discretionary power”.
It is important in our debate on the Bill to recognise those comments in that judgment, which is partly the reason that the Government have introduced the Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, an issue to which I will return in a moment, but what he is actually referring to is one of the instances where the Government have tried to argue that the Human Rights Act did not apply. It is precisely for that reason, and because such arguments were raised in the past, that I am raising the point that I am.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I understand that one of the filings that the Government put to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said that
“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
Does he share my concern about the various get-out clauses for the Government in these powers, and does he agree that it is better to have a public limit and safeguards, as they do in Canada for example, on a number of such activities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, both on the Canada model and on the point, which I put to the Government, that we cannot have a situation in future where there is any doubt about what was meant on the face of this Bill. We cannot have the Government having put forward on their behalf the argument that the Human Rights Act somehow does not apply.
Mr David Davis
The Government should not rest too hard on an IPT judgment. It is normal in these intelligence oversight commissions to have unanimity from the judges. In this case it was a 3-2 judgment, and the minority in that judgment described the Government’s argument as “fanciful” and “extraordinary” and as setting “dangerous precedents”, so I do not think they should rest on that at all.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, and the right hon. Gentleman illustrates precisely the point I am making. That is why the position has to be crystal clear. We cannot have a situation where such arguments are being put in written submissions, or in other ways, before a tribunal or indeed any other court. The public limit—this reassurance—is so important because, as I have said, if the Government do not get it right, and if they are not crystal clear on issues such as murder, torture and sexual violence, they will get into trouble in the courts in any event.
Given the nature of some of the networks that the Bill looks to disrupt, there are also clear concerns about the gendered impact of actions by covert human intelligence sources. The Government must seek to uphold the highest possible standards on gender impact. We will be pushing for such safeguards as the Bill moves forward, particularly in relation to rape and sexual violence. Members have also rightly expressed concerns about the risk of a disproportionate impact on black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities. We will push for safeguards on that, too, as the Bill progresses. When the Solicitor General winds up, I hope he can also provide assurances about the work being undertaken by law enforcement to address that and commit to publishing full and extensive Equality Act 2010 assessments.
On those who make decisions to authorise criminal conduct, the memorandum on the European convention on human rights supplied with the Bill states:
“The Bill strengthens the current legal position by putting the power to authorise criminal conduct by a CHIS on an explicit statutory footing.”
A legal framework is needed—I am clear that this activity should not continue in the shadows without clear accountability—but at present there is self-authorisation in the Bill.
If the police were to enter the property of any Member of this House, they would need a warrant to do so beforehand. I appreciate that things in this sphere move at speed, but in a number of areas of law we have judges available 24 hours a day who can offer services and give judgments on things such as emergency injunctions, so we will press that issue of prior judicial oversight. The more serious the crime authorised, the more senior the level of authorisation necessary—the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made that point—subject to that oversight, and there needs to be assurance that the standards that this House sets will be adhered to and implemented.
Clause 4(3) amends section 234 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 to require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to include information about public authorities’ use of criminal conduct authorisations in its annual report. It is stated that that will include statistics on use of the power, the operation of safeguards, and errors, which I will come back to in a moment.
I appreciate that that requirement is subject to the existing protections in the Investigatory Powers Act for information that relates to national security. I also appreciate that public authorities will have to disclose all documents necessary to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. However, as it stands, the requirement is too vague, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
The requirement must involve more than the inclusion of a section or some sort of confidential annexe in the commissioner’s annual report. There is no reason why, for example, categories of crime cannot be published without compromising operational security. Every single authorisation should be notified to the commissioner, who can then provide ongoing oversight. That seems to me to be a far more effective way of giving reassurance on the operation of safeguards and of ensuring that where there are errors—again, I will return to that—something can be done immediately to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again. It seems to me that if this is looked at only on an annual basis, there is more scope for errors to be built into the system. I do not think it is unduly onerous for each and every authorisation to be notified to the commissioner.
I also see no reason why Members of this House—I mean the Intelligence and Security Committee, which deals with sensitive information all the time—cannot have more detail about the use of this power and in what context. Again, that would give far greater reassurance about the use of the power over time and public confidence in it.
In addition, there is the issue of redress and civil claims for wholly innocent victims. In the memorandum on convention rights, the Government state:
“The individuals who are most likely to be affected by the criminal conduct of a CHIS are those with whom the agent is engaging in order to thwart the criminality.”
That may be, but the key words there are “most likely”. What about a wholly innocent person who ends up with material or other loss as a consequence of the actions of a covert human intelligence source?
The position in the Bill is that a complaint can be made to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with regard to these powers, which can be independently considered. I appreciate that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine complaints against public authorities’ use of investigatory powers, including the use of covert human intelligence sources, but that is not the same as a proper civil claim. What if the authorised criminal act is botched? What if there is mistaken identity? Again, that is something that we will press in Committee.
While there is a narrow but fundamental part of the Bill about authorising criminal conduct, I want to talk about some wider issues. In relation to Northern Ireland, it must be clear that legacy issues are not affected by the Bill in the context of the peace process. On the issue of past injustices, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out again that this is not a retrospective Bill, but it has to be clear that those seeking justice for what happened in the past can still do so. We on the Labour Benches are committed to a full, independent public inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984. It will only be by shining a penetrating light on the events of that day that we can have justice, and I commend those who have been campaigning on it for so long.
There is an ongoing inquiry into undercover policing—the so-called spy cop scandal, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy)—chaired by Sir John Mitting. The evidential hearings open next month, and it has to be clear that recommendations from that inquiry will be implemented and victims will not be denied access to justice. I appreciated the Minister’s reassurance that such appalling behaviour was never lawful in the past and will not be lawful in the future. We must never stand to one side on issues like this. We commit again to pressing for justice for all victims. The delays in the existing inquiry have been unacceptable. Victims have been put through a terrible ordeal, and the least they deserve is access to justice.
I also want to talk about the practice of deceitful and unlawful blacklisting. In doing so, I refer to my entry into the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my union, the Unite union, and its financial support for my election campaign to this House. I appreciate that the Bill is a narrow one on criminal conduct, rather than the wider issue of when an undercover policing operation begins, but since the blacklisting scandal surfaced over a decade ago, it is clear that these are not merely allegations. I appreciate that, in relation to blacklisting in the construction industry, we have seen a substantial out-of-court settlement, and there are ongoing proceedings. However, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin’s findings in the Metropolitan police’s internal investigation stated:
“The report concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation that the police or special branches supplied information is ‘proven.’ Material revealed a potentially improper flow of information from Special Branch to external organisations, which ultimately appeared on the blacklist.”
That is a hugely serious issue. The Government should be on notice that we will not hesitate to raise this and hold Ministers to account on the involvement of our law enforcement in the disgraceful process of blacklisting.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s support in that matter, and I am happy that the Minister has made clear that this legislation has no impact on the search for justice in relation to that appalling practice.
The aim of this legislation should be to keep people safe and bring dangerous criminals to justice. I appreciate the assurance that this does not, and is not designed in any way to, disrupt legitimate and lawful trade union activity. Should any Bill do that, it would be opposed by Labour Members.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
From listening to the arguments that have been made, it strikes me that the Bill is presumably intended to protect undercover officers from facing prosecution in a situation where they should not, because they are doing their work. More experienced Members might be able to give me examples of situations where officers have faced prosecution in those circumstances, but I certainly cannot think of any. A few weeks ago, during our debate on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, we were told about ambulance-chasing lawyers, and I am wondering whether we will now hear about police-chasing prosecution services.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly would never use divisive rhetoric about those before our courts who are protecting people’s rights; we should be absolutely clear about that. This Bill is on the narrow issue of criminal conduct. It should not and would not have anything to do with trade union and lawful activity, and if it ever did, it would, of course, be strongly opposed. On my hon. Friend’s final point, existing practice versus what happens now is a very important issue. At the moment, this happens in the shadows: it happens where prosecuting authorities are given specific information and the prosecutions simply do not take place. This should be on a proper statutory footing, with the safeguards we are arguing for.
Labour’s commitment is to work in the national interest to keep people, their families, their community and the country safe. That is why I have taken the approach I have with the Bill. We recognise the importance of this activity being on a statutory footing, which is why I will not be opposing the passage of the Bill today. However, in Committee we will look to press the Government on their position. We will hold Ministers to account, seeking to improve the Bill on the vital issue of safeguards, so that the public can have confidence in the process, while law enforcement bodies can carry out the vital work of keeping us all safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am going to start with a time limit of nine minutes, which is advisory. I put on a time limit of nine minutes so that no individual Member is encouraged to take dozens of interventions and therefore take 20 minutes. I hope that that will be roughly about right to ensure that everybody gets a decent chance to speak on this extremely important issue.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to set a good example.
Both Front Benchers have begun this debate in a solemn, sober and thoroughly non-partisan way. That is greatly to be welcomed. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), referred briefly to the oversight role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I can give advance warning, as it were, that other members of the Committee will be referring—in particular, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)—to at least one amendment the ISC will probably put forward, relating to accountability and oversight by the ISC, at a later stage in these proceedings.
The work of the United Kingdom’s domestic and overseas intelligence agencies would be considerably less complicated and decidedly less dangerous if we could rely solely on the technical triumphs which achieved so much in Room 40 in the first world war, and via the Ultra organisation in the second. Sadly, that has never been the case and, as long as spying has existed, spies in human form have proven indispensable. Covert agents operate under extremely hazardous conditions inside hostile organisations, or cells of organisations, where discovery of their true identity and purpose could prove fatal. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill describe the use of covert human intelligence sources as
“a key tactic in protecting national security and investigating serious crime”,
and the operation of such agents as
“a core part of security, intelligence and policing work”.
It is hard to disagree with that evaluation. If it were known that CHIS agents could never engage in criminal activity in concert with the groups they are infiltrating, it would be simplicity itself for ruthless organisations to devise techniques to flush them out and eliminate them.
Until now, the security service has had an implied power, derived from the Security Service Act 1989, to authorise CHIS agents to take part in criminality. As we have heard, last December the investigatory powers tribunal ruled in favour of MI5 in a case which challenged such authorisations. However, that ruling was by just a 3-2 majority, thus illustrating the point well known to the Intelligence and Security Committee that the switch of a single vote can dramatically change even a carefully pre-planned outcome. [Laughter.] The ISC welcomes the principle behind the Bill to put existing powers to authorise criminal conduct, in certain circumstances, on to an explicit statutory basis.
One of our predecessor Committees was told in 2016 by the then director general of MI5 that CHIS agents are
“the intelligence collection asset that we could not operate without. They give you insight that technical intelligence cannot give”.
Despite necessary redactions, the 2017-19 ISC’s own report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, presented to Parliament today, although it was drafted before I rejoined the Committee, convincingly concludes at paragraph 39 that:
“While there are, rightly, concerns that criminal activity may somehow be being legitimised, the need for such authorisations is clear. What is key is that authorisations are properly circumscribed, used only where necessary and proportionate, and subject to proper scrutiny.”
Like its predecessor, the current ISC believes that these authorisations are essential if innocent lives are to be saved. Indeed, we have seen real examples where precisely that has happened—and where lives would definitely have been lost if a courageous agent had been banned from participating in any criminal activity.
Naturally, this power must be properly circumscribed and must be used, as repeatedly stated, only where necessary and proportionate. At later stages, consideration of the Bill will surely focus on how to apply necessity and proportionality, but I urge colleagues in all parts of the House not to seek too much specificity regarding what criminality meets those standards. Preventing agents inside a criminal enterprise from engaging in a specified checklist of possible crimes would make their unmasking and potential execution very much more likely. It would be dangerously counterproductive to compile such a checklist. We need to remember that there is more than one way for society to have blood on its hands.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Allow me to begin by placing on the record my party’s gratitude to the agencies covered by the Bill for the work they do to keep all of us safe, and expressing our understanding and appreciation that in carrying out that work, there are circumstances where the use of a covert human intelligence source may be necessary. We accept that it can be legitimate to perpetuate a harm in order to prevent a greater harm down the line, and while naturally attention is drawn to the police, the armed forces and the security services in this Bill, the inclusion of the other agencies listed requires equal attention if we are to protect people’s rights.
I think it is a matter of fundamental principle, when we are dealing with the coercive powers of the state, that we are right to proceed with the greatest of care. Although we accept that the Bill seeks to put on a legal footing many activities that we know have always taken place, even if we have not known that they were taking place, we know that often they have taken place to our great discredit. Putting that on a legal footing, where everyone knows the rules of engagement and the legal parameters within which those activities take place, is a positive.
The Bill must do that in a way which ensures proper safeguards to protect rights, and which commands the support not just of Parliament but of the public at large. Scottish National party Members consider that the Bill still has some distance to go in that regard. Although there are principles inherent to the Bill that we can support, there are outstanding concerns that mean that, while we will not be able to support Second Reading, we look forward to working with the Government to improve the Bill as it progresses. I will use the time available to me to outline those concerns.
First, as the Minister well knows from his dialogue with the Scottish Government, the Lord Advocate in Scotland retains concerns about how aspects of this Bill might progress. I know there has been constructive dialogue between the Scottish Government and the UK Government; we welcome that, and we hope and expect that it will continue. We hope those outstanding concerns can be addressed, allowing the legislative competence motion to be laid at Holyrood.
I come on to the principles we can support. Subject to qualifications regarding potential entrapment, no usage beyond that which is reasonable and proportionate, and any viable alternatives being absent, it can, in certain circumstances, be reasonable to allow the law to be broken in order to prevent a more serious harm from taking place. But our questions today relate to what is and is not reasonable, and how to ensure that the safeguards of governance and scrutiny on that are adequate. As has been said by a few Members, the first of those concerns relates to authorisation. The Bill, as it stands, would allow the authorisation of a CHIS by a senior and experienced officer within the organisation authorising it. I hope hon. Members can see the potential conflict of interest there straightaway, no matter how senior and experienced that authorising officer might be. As far as we are concerned, that is inappropriate. If there were to be a form of external authorisation, that would overcome that concern. We are willing to work with the UK Government to find a way that would permit that authorisation in a way that is reasonable, proportionate, appropriate and with suitable independence.
Our second question relates to the reporting of the authorisations and the planned use of a CHIS. An annual report to Parliament seems to us to be a wholly inadequate way of going about that. Reporting each instance to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office can fulfil that role, as long as the reports happen either in real time or as close to that as is operationally possible. We would very much welcome the Minister’s observations on that.
Our third question relates to the scope of the illegality being authorised or rendered lawful for all purposes. The Law Society of Scotland has observed that potentially there are no limits on the types of criminal conduct that could be permitted under this authorisation, which raises the obvious concerns about the potential use of murder, torture and sexual violence. I understand the argument the Minister advanced about the prohibitions that would be placed upon any such activities by compliance with the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, which could act as backstops, but we on these Benches remain unpersuaded on that. Given that there is some doubt as to the long-term commitment of supporters of the Government to those human rights backstops, it would be better to see those actions that are to be prohibited enshrined in the Bill.
We have heard about the possibility of a purity test being used, and I can understand those concerns, but that does not seem to an issue in either Canada or the United States of America, where just such legal prohibitions are already in place. Without that, there are real concerns that the Bill could open the way to legitimising the subcontracting of activities that should not be carried out either by or on behalf of the state. I suggest to the Minister that if the provisions of the ECHR and HRA are deemed sufficient, it would be beneficial to see that written more explicitly in the Bill, as that might provide further assurance.
By authorising law-breaking that is lawful for all purposes, we run the risk of creating an upper limit of illegality, in that it sets out the actions that are permitted without there necessarily being any restraint then on whether or not the actions taken within that parameter of legality remain legitimate, proportionate and appropriate. We would therefore welcome further clarity from the Minister on how Parliament might be assured that any illegal actions authorised for this purpose can be taken and still remain within those parameters, while also being reasonable and appropriate, without going beyond what is needed for that, even if it does not cross that threshold that has already been permitted.
Fourthly, if we are committing a harm to prevent a greater harm, that raises a fundamental question of legal liability. At the margins, the use of these powers could lead to adverse life-changing consequences for the innocent. If individual CHIS operatives are to be exonerated from what in other circumstances would be illegal actions, that might be understandable. What is less understandable is the manner in which the state may ultimately also be able to escape any liability for that, and that is hugely problematic for us.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank we all understand and agree that keeping the public safe often means difficult decisions, but the Bill in its current form is weak where it needs to be strong—strong particularly on safeguards around sexual violence, torture and the creep into anti-trade union practices such as blacklisting.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She makes a number of important points, and we will need assurances on those going forward.
The situation is hugely problematic as it stands, and we do not believe that the Government should attempt to escape their vicarious liability on this issue.
Mr David Davis
I am following with interest what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and, unusually, though he is an SNP Member I have a great deal of agreement with him. However, in terms of civil liability, perhaps the simplest test is to look at one of the worst cases in recent times, which is the Finucane murder. Whatever we think of Mr Finucane—I would have different politics from him—he was an innocent party, but even more so were his three children and his wife, who were there when a state-supported group—almost—murdered him with 14 bullets over his Sunday lunch. That is a good demonstration of the point that, if this civil exclusion applies, those innocent parties—the wife and children of Finucane—would have no recourse. That surely cannot be right.
Richard Thomson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and he makes the point very elegantly. If individuals are to be exonerated for actions that have been authorised, where is the redress for the innocent whose lives are impacted? It is right to look at the extremities in terms of where that might lead us.
In giving the state the ability to uphold rights, we accept that we must also give it the ability to have limited powers of coercion to uphold those rights. However, those powers must never be in conflict with the fundamental rights of individuals. In terms of the Bill, the only way we can ensure that is through good governance, effective scrutiny, limited scope and clarity on the limitations; ensuring that there is accountability for the use of the powers; and limiting opportunities for their misuse. I believe those are legitimate concerns, which many will share, both inside and outside this place, and we hope to see them addressed as the Bill continues its passage.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I would like to put on record my thanks to all those who serve in our security agencies—they keep us all safe every day of every week—and to add my support for this important Bill.
Covert human intelligence sources, or agents, provide invaluable information to the UK’s intelligence agencies and those tasked with fighting serious and organised crime. These sources provide vital information—often time-sensitive—in saving lives. Even as I speak, they are probably saving lives—lives not in the abstract, but real lives; the lives and futures of men, women and children. We know that terrorists are no respecters of age, gender, faith, nationality or community. They seek to kill and to maim, to divide, to terrorise and to spread misery and fear.
Covert sources disrupt plots, secure prosecutions and give our intelligence agencies a critical human intelligence edge. Let me be clear: this type of human intelligence work is unique and cannot, as we have heard from the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, be replicated through regulated signals intelligence or communication intercepts. Covert sources save lives. As the head of the Security Service recently said, without covert human intelligence sources many of the attacks planned over recent years would not have been foiled. Covert human intelligence sources deny terrorists success.
I think there has been some misunderstanding about some parts of this Bill. It seeks to put existing powers on an explicit statutory basis and existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing, and surely that should be welcomed by the House. I am very pleased that the Minister has been explicit today about safeguards. They are needed, necessary and very welcome.
For the record, I would not be supporting the Bill if those robust safeguards and those meaningful checks and balances were not in place. Clause 4 should offer reassurance to any colleague who still has concerns about oversight. In it, colleagues will find a reference to significant oversight measures, with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner having significant powers of scrutiny and oversight.
I referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who rightly referenced improvements of oversight over recent years. However, it would provide further reassurance to colleagues from all parts of the House if those oversight measures were strengthened further to include an annual report to the Intelligence and Security Committee on the use of those authorisations, broken down by each organisation the Committee oversees and by the category of the conduct authorised. The Committee will be looking potentially to table an amendment to the Bill as it progresses through the House, although the Government are at liberty to listen to some of the comments that are being made today. I hope that amendment will reassure those on the Opposition Front Bench, as well.
I am also reassured that all authorisations will be compliant with the European convention on human rights, and rightly so. Indeed, I encourage all right hon. Members and hon. Members to read the Government’s ECHR memorandum, which accompanies the Bill.
Covert human intelligence sources are vital in the fight against terrorism, as well as against serious and organised crime. They are a critical operational element for the security of the whole of the United Kingdom and the whole of the Union. Given the improved oversight and scrutiny, the important application of the test of proportionality, the legislation’s compliance with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and with further amendments to it, I support the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be called this evening to make a short contribution in this Second Reading debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak since becoming a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I start by paying tribute to all who work in our security services to protect us and our freedoms from those who do not operate under the rule of law and do not value our freedoms.
We have heard at some length the background for why the Bill is necessary. People who infiltrate criminal or terrorist groups do so at great risk to themselves to provide that unique source of intelligence. We know that many terrorist and serious criminal acts have been thwarted by that information. Innocent lives have been saved, including that of a current Member of this House. Moreover, because of the largely criminal nature of the people under investigation, the individual is sometimes required to participate in criminal activity themselves. It is therefore important that organisations such as MI5 protect those individuals who are putting themselves at such risk by authorising them to carry out criminal acts in certain limited circumstances and with specific safeguards.
The ISC can only comment on the organisations that it oversees: MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. The ISC strongly supports the principle behind the legislation, and we support the use of criminal conduct authorisations by the security and intelligence agencies on the condition that they are properly circumscribed, used only where it is necessary and proportionate, in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act and subject to proper scrutiny. As this is a Government Bill, it is for the Minister to make the case for the specific provisions within it and to answer the legitimate questions and challenges of hon. Members, many of which he has faced this evening.
The Intelligence and Security Committee has taken evidence from the police in relation to a number of our past inquiries, so I think the Committee would support their use of the powers. I would, however, like to press the Minister, as other Members have already, on the list of bodies included in the Bill, some of which the Committee does not have oversight of, and for which it is not immediately obvious why they should be given such power.
The Minister talked about the mislabelling of food as an example of why the Food Standards Agency, which has already been raised with him, should be included in the Bill. In the Bill Committee, we will really want to see further information about the kind of cases that the Food Standards Agency would be dealing with that makes it appropriate for it to be in the Bill. The same goes for the Environment Agency, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has already raised questions. What does the Minister think about other Select Committees having oversight in the areas for which they are responsible—the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee having oversight with regard to the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency, for example?
Speaking personally, I would really like the Minister to give full consideration to what the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the shadow Home Secretary have said about additional powers to strengthen the oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I am pleased that the Minister has already said that he is willing to look at the timing of that oversight, which could be quite important. I would also like to be reassured about the authorisation procedures and the level at which advance authorisations can be signed off within organisations. What level of experience and knowledge would he expect a person to have, and where will that be set out?
I agree with what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, and I hope that the Minister will look at giving additional responsibilities to the Intelligence and Security Committee to have oversight of the use of these powers. That could really help with the concerns of parliamentarians about the use of the provisions by ensuring a level of ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that in Committee we can look at those proposals in detail in order to achieve balanced and workable legislation that safeguards those who put their lives at risk while upholding the rule of law, to which we all subscribe.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am in awe of the constant, cold courage of those who run huge risks for us as covert human intelligence sources; in fact, in a past life I was involved slightly. I am clear that covert agents play a vital part in disrupting terrorist plots, and they often save lives. It is vital that such agents gain the trust of those on whom they have to report if they are to gain the information that the authorities need to keep us all safe. In view of the largely criminal nature of people under investigation, covert agents are sometimes required themselves to participate in criminal activities; we all understand that. If they do not participate in those activities, it will cause their loyalty to that group to be questioned. Suspicions will immediately be raised and they could be in peril, or, sometimes, in mortal danger. It is therefore essential that covert agents are able to participate in some criminal activity. Organisations such as MI5 need to be able to authorise them to do so—obviously in certain circumstances and with the safeguards that we hope to put in the Bill.
In order to decide whether to authorise such covert agents to participate in criminal activity, intelligence organisations will have to consider whether the anticipated result of that involvement, which is getting information that could help save lives—information rather than intelligence, because there is a difference—outweighs the criminal conduct. This is a very fine balance, and it requires very, very experienced officers to make that judgment. Obviously, we all understand that this is an ethical dilemma for us, but I accept that it is necessary and I will be fully supporting the Bill.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to be called to speak so early.
I listened very clearly to the Security Minister, and I am grateful to him for his thoughtful engagement with me and my hon. and right hon. colleagues in my party. Although I think it is right that some of the issues have been raised in this debate, as they are worthy of further exploration, I want to place it on record that the Security Minister knows that he has our support on Second Reading. We look forward to thoughtful engagement over the weeks to come.
There have been references already to Northern Ireland in this debate; the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report, which was published just today. It spans two years of activity, culminating just before the election, and provides stark reading for those who believe that issues in Northern Ireland have moved on. It provides a very stark assessment of the proportion of MI5’s work that still pertains in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is a need for that work. Those of us who represent Northern Ireland understand that, while the security situation has evolved and got so much better over the past two decades, MI5’s work is still important to us. With that brings the need to operate beyond the realm of what is legal in the truest sense—of necessity our state is required to engage in acts that might not be considered lawful on the face of it. The Security Minister has gone through very clearly and properly what is proportionate, what is necessary, and the appropriate tests that are embedded in the process by an authorising officer, who must be accountable for those decisions through the oversight that has been referred to earlier in the debate. That is crucially important.
During my short time in this Chamber—the past five years—I have referred to the incidents that have occurred in my constituency, including the murder of a prison officer, and the attempted murder of a police officer within the past year. I engage with that police officer regularly. The fear and concern that arose as a result of him being targeted going from his home to his local golf club with a device under his car because of his service in the Police Service of Northern Ireland highlights acutely the dangers that still pertain within our society.
In the past six weeks, MI5 has had an extraordinarily successful operation in Northern Ireland, and we now have within our prison system—not yet before the courts— almost the entirety of the New IRA’s army council. That is a huge success. It was down to not only the bravery of our security services in Northern Ireland but a covert human intelligence source. I am referring to open source data, so there is no concern about what I have shared. It has been raised within the courts. An agent of our state was embedded within the New IRA and its political apparatus for over a decade. Being involved in what he was involved in—being a member of the New IRA—is necessarily a criminal offence as it is a proscribed organisation. Holding information that is of use to terrorists is a criminal offence. Booking a property that the army council was meeting in and therefore enabling our security services to place listening devices and so on in that property was crucially important. That individual—just to encapsulate the dangers that come from this—has now left Northern Ireland and is in protective custody. His name is in the public domain and there is no need for me to share it today.
I noted on the “Irish Republican News” website a brief but quite explicit and chilling threat at the end of its analysis of what happened following the individual’s arrest. It says:
“The apparent exposure of a leading double agent within Saoradh”—
the political body—
“recalls December 2005, when top Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson was exposed as an MI5 agent.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful about matters to which he refers and individuals whom he identifies either by name or otherwise, because I know he fully appreciates that some matters are sub judice and some matters are under investigation, and that we have to be extremely sensitive in these circumstances.
Gavin Robinson
I hope you appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not only do I agree entirely with you but I have been very careful in what I have shared and I will not delve beyond that which is public.
I just want to finish the quote about the case that occurred in 2005:
“After four months living in isolation, he”—
Denis Donaldson—
was shot dead in an attack claimed by another…IRA group”.
That has to encapsulate for Members the severity —the seriousness—of the danger that arises for those who engage on our behalf and who serve our country. [Interruption.] I see that there seems to be some level of concern. Those who have listened to what I have said as I have gone through it should have total comfort. Not only is what I have said appropriate, but they should also know me and the way in which I approach these issues, and understand that it would not be my intention, nor is it my purpose, to say anything inappropriate in this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Just to confirm, I am certain that the hon. Gentleman has no intention of saying anything inappropriate and that he is very careful, but because this is so sensitive, I simply reiterate that there is a difference between that which is in the public domain and that which is sub judice. I have the duty of urging that anything that is sub judice should not be mentioned in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has already made his point very well, and it might not be necessary for him to go into further detail.
Gavin Robinson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making has been made, so I see no need to re-emphasise it or to go over it again. The Minister has our support, and we will engage thoughtfully with him as this Bill progresses. I ask the Minister to look at clause 1(5), which is amending part of RIPA, where it outlines what is permitted within a criminal conduct authorisation. I simply ask the question whether
“for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime”
sufficiently encapsulates issues of self-defence and whether that needs to be expounded more clearly.
The Minister touched on the Bill not being retrospective. He is right that the Bill in itself is not retrospective, but it would be useful if the Solicitor General, in his concluding remarks, could touch on retrospective authorisation of criminal conduct. We know clearly from the Bill that, when somebody is authorised as a CHIS, they can be authorised either at that time or subsequently for criminal conduct. The question is not whether they are authorised in advance, but whether if they engage in criminal conduct that would require authorisation, that authorisation can be given after the commission of the conduct. I hope the Solicitor General will refer to that. I do not see any preclusion of it, as there is nothing contained in the Bill that suggests it has to be in advance. Can it come after the conduct has been engaged in, and people are aware of that and an authorisation is sought for it?
Madam Deputy Speaker, time is marching on, and I will let you proceed. Thank you very much.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
On 12 February 1989, the solicitor Pat Finucane was shot 14 times as he sat down for dinner with his wife and three children in his home in north Belfast. He died in front of them, and his wife Geraldine was seriously injured as well. The 2012 review of the case by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC, concluded that two agents of the state, Brian Nelson and William Stobie, were heavily involved in that brutal killing. This was a truly shocking finding, albeit that Sir Desmond concluded that there was no overarching state conspiracy to kill Mr Finucane. David Cameron issued an apology on behalf of the Government to the Finucane family, one of whom was of course elected to this House last year.
I am afraid this case shows the horrific consequences that can result where decisions about agents are handled badly, where clear and binding rules are not in place for handling covert human intelligence sources, and where proper oversight and accountability is not in place. But I can assure the House that, during my time as Northern Ireland Secretary, I saw the clearest of evidence that modern police and security forces are utterly transformed since the appalling events that were the subject of the De Silva review. That is especially true of agent handling and the legal framework that governs it now. What I saw at first hand as Secretary of State was that today’s police and intelligence services have a rigorous focus on compliance with legal and human rights requirements in all aspects of intelligence gathering, including the use of agents, so that is why I support the Bill this evening.
Agents, as others have pointed out, provide invaluable information and play a crucial role in disrupting terrorist plots and serious crime. The simple fact is that we would become far more vulnerable to, for example, Islamist terrorist attacks if the intelligence services could no longer effectively use agents. More people would fall victim to terrorist attack. Certainly, the nature of the organisations these agents infiltrate unfortunately means that sometimes it is simply impossible for them to remain in place and provide information without some involvement in criminality. I wish this were not the case, but I would provide the reassurance that we already have one of the toughest and most comprehensive oversight regimes in the world for regulating our intelligence services.
This Bill will put that on an even clearer statutory footing by confirming the rules on authorisation of agent criminal activity. The core principle underlying all our laws regulating intelligence gathering is that activities can be carried out only if they are both necessary and proportionate, and under this Bill, that golden thread will continue to run through our rules on the use of agents and authorising criminal behaviour.
While there are horrific legacy cases such as those of Brian Nelson and William Stobie, there have been hundreds and hundreds of other men and women who have been agents whose story is very different. These are men and women who have put their lives at risk to provide information to help the police and security services; men and women who have saved many lives, but whose bravery has to remain unacknowledged and untold for their own safety. We will never know their names, and we will never hear their stories in this House, but for their sake and in order to ensure that we can continue to combat the lethal threats we face from terrorism and serious crime, I urge this House to back this Bill in the Division Lobby this evening.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In the fast-moving electronic age that we live in, I think there is a misunderstanding that somehow, the state can beam into everyone’s communications and listen to everything that is going on, and that that is the way in which modern-day intelligence is gathered. As outlined by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), that could not be further from the truth. The role of human intelligence is of vital importance, not only for our intelligence work in this country but for police work in other areas.
As a member of the ISC, I have seen examples of terrorism cases in which human intelligence has prevented the deaths of our citizens. Is this a pretty area we are dealing with? Honestly, no, it is not. The individuals who the police and other security agencies are engaging with have to interact with people who are not pleasant. That is the nature of the territory we are dealing with, and in order to keep their covers in place, those individuals will have to engage in certain amounts of criminal activity. I have seen some examples of what they do; I am not going to go through them tonight, or refer to any of those cases, because that would be completely wrong. However, as has been referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the obvious one is membership of a proscribed organisation, which would be deemed as breaking the law.
We also need to highlight this idea that somehow, authorisation of these things is a free-for-all. I welcome this legislation, because it will put on to a statutory footing something that is quite a grey area in its legal position, but its opponents seem to think that there is no control of authorisation at all. As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) has just outlined, the authorisations are very clear about what can and cannot be done.
For some unknown reason, a curveball has come into this debate that I had not really expected: the idea that this Bill will affect trade unions. I am not sure how it can do so. Likewise, regarding rape and serious sexual assault, I agree that those safeguards should be there, but I think they are already in the Bill. The individual who did the authorisation would not authorise that, and if a CHIS who was involved in general activities undertook one of those acts, they would not get immunity for doing it. Again, I think a lot of things have been thrown into the debate about this Bill that do not actually apply to it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
With regard to the appropriate checks and balances and the need for authorisation to be proportionate and necessary, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to straitjacket our agencies? There needs to be discretion. Our country works with judicial discretion, whereby judges can depart in exceptional circumstances. Without knowing what will come, it would not be appropriate to straitjacket the action that may or may not be taken with regard to what is proportionate and necessary.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about proportionality, which is key. Clearly the authorising officer will not authorise something if they know that it is disproportionate to the act, which was covered earlier in the debate. I am also pretty confident about what is proposed in terms of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, but like the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I would like to go one step further. We need more detailed oversight in the ISC. It is not necessarily about seeing individual warrants, but there could perhaps be an annual report listing the categories in which warrants were issued. That would be helpful for us to look at, and if we wanted more information about any of those, we could use the powers we have to request that. We may well table an amendment on that in Committee.
I turn to the issue of the other organisations listed in the Bill. There is a tendency sometimes, when civil servants see a piece of legislation, to jump on to it. The list of organisations weakens the strong case for why we need this legislation. I have not yet heard a good justification for why the Food Standards Agency needs these powers. My concern is that the police and the security services—MI5, MI6 and others—are used to dealing with CHIS and giving authorisation, and they have the training. The danger of extending this to other organisations is that the expertise that comes from regular use is not there, and that concerns me. For example, the Environment Agency usually works in co-operation with the police, and I would be happy for the police to have the lead in terms of CHIS, rather than the Environment Agency. In Committee, we need justification for why all these organisations need to be included and reassurance that this is not a case of civil servants seeing this as a good way to add some powers to a Bill.
I support this Bill. This is a complex area, and some of the things that we are asking individuals to undertake are not pleasant, but it is vital work for keeping us safe. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I pay tribute to not only the brave individuals who provide information but the men and women of our security services who work day in, day out to keep us safe.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I support the Bill, and I congratulate the Security Minister on bringing his practical knowledge from many years to guiding the Bill through the House. I want to make four brief points on the security services.
This Bill makes the ongoing function explicitly clear in law, but it is really important that we fully understand that there are already very clear processes in place regarding agent handling and how they interact with criminal acts. As the third direction hearing and adjudication by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal showed, no further powers were required. It was just a win—it was 3-2—but the IPT said that it was lawful. The 2018 Investigatory Powers Commissioner report, which is well worth reading, confirms that there is adequate guidance in place within MI5 regarding agent handling and that the then Prime Minister directed the commissioner to ensure that that guidance was being enforced. The report also points to the quality of applications by MI5 for the use of CHIS, noting that there are strong controls already in place.
The second point is that this Bill builds on an already rigorous oversight regime for our intelligence services. This stringent control environment has developed over many years, but the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 established a new single oversight body. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has had a transformative impact on the level of oversight on all aspects of intelligence gathering. As IPCO’s annual reports show, the double lock on warrantry applications, for example, involves detailed interaction between the authorising Secretary of State and their officials, and IPCO and its judicial commissioners. Anybody who has been involved in the process will know that it is a very strong double lock. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is independent of Government, provides a further independent appeal route, which is available to all at no cost.
The third point, with regard to CHIS, agents and criminality, is that this is an area of intelligence-gathering activity that is invariably difficult to manage in the same way as other intelligence gathering—for example, warrantry —is. We cannot hope to micromanage such activity from this House. The House and colleagues have to take comfort from the initiatives of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the application of the European convention on human rights to CHIS activity, and the role of independent commissioners to provide rigorous oversight. The Bill is clear that these powers do not give carte blanche to agents. The Crown Prosecution Service can still consider prosecutions for activities that fall outside those that have been authorised.
Finally, it is vital to note, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has just stated, that the Bill is not retrospective and will not impact on any historical investigation.
The women and men in our intelligence agencies, and those who supervise and work with them, work behind the scenes, are never publicly recognised. They are civil servants of the highest quality and integrity, and I believe the Bill will further strengthen their ability to do their work.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who made a characteristically thoughtful, measured and knowledgeable contribution to the debate. It is a debate that I am very proud to be part of, because I think the House has approached this subject tonight in exactly the right way. I suspect that we have probably done that because of how the Minister opened the debate. I am also grateful to see him still in his place. He sets a good example that others in Government might do well to follow.
I am, however, a little bit weary when I consider this Bill, because it looks like almost yet another Bill into which so many other things have been ladled, so that at the end of the day, after it has been through the other place, the Government might get what they want. The right hon. Member for York Outer also has a history as a Government business manager and has no doubt been in meetings where he is given instructions to go and defend the indefensible, so that the Government can then concede the indefensible and might then be left with what is defensible. I have to say, it is a tactic that is just a little bit tired and lacks subtlety and nuance. I suggest that this is a good point at which the Government might seek to do things differently.
Considering the importance of the matter, my real frustration with this Bill is that it is a colossal missed opportunity. We all know the importance of putting these things on a statutory footing, and it is a significant advance that we should be doing so. However, that we should do so in such a haphazard way, and which compares so badly with other jurisdictions, such as Canada, which has undertaken the same business in recent years, puts a duty on this House to engage with the Minister and to seek to improve the Bill at later stages.
The House will be aware that I tabled a reasoned amendment, which was not selected. I did that because of the serious concerns I have about the Bill. In the normal course of things, when a reasoned amendment is not selected, one considers whether it would be appropriate to divide the House. On balance, I am persuaded that that is not the right thing to do, but it is important that we should have the opportunity at later stages to give substantial consideration to three particular areas. First, there is the inadequacy of the authorisation, and on that I can do no better than to quote the words of Lord Macdonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, from his article in The Times this morning. He says:
“There is no comfort in allowing senior figures in the police or the intelligence agencies the power to sanction lawbreaking, without the need to first obtain independent warrants from judges or some other authority. Under this bill it will be easier for a police officer to commit a serious crime than to tap a phone or search a shed.”
The second area that causes me serious concern is the total lack of any limitation on the offences that would be covered. We are back in familiar territory here. This is not dissimilar to the territory we were covering when we considered the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. Why would it not, for example, include torture? I would say to the Government’s business managers that if, in Committee, this House were to introduce a limitation on murder, sexual offences and torture, the Bill would be virtually bomb-proof when it got to the other place.
Thirdly, there is the question of the scope. The Minister referred, with quite disarming elan, to the “10 other public authorities” that are covered in the Bill. I referred earlier to the Food Standards Agency, and others have referred to the Environment Agency and the Gambling Commission. This is a matter of concern because, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, including these organisations in the same breath as the police and military intelligence and other serious operators in this field is seeking to do too much. In fact, it would undermine the substance of the work of the more serious bodies.
I am afraid that the answers we have had from the Minister are somewhat lacking in conviction. The idea that the protections or limitations can be found in the Human Rights Act and that they are necessary, because to have them on the face of the Bill would somehow give a checklist to the bad guys that they could use to test and to imperil agents in the field, is, if we consider it in its entirety, somewhat lacking in conviction. The Minister seems to be suggesting that serious organised criminals can get legal advice or will look for themselves to the face of this Bill, but that they will not look to the face of the Human Rights Act. If these limitations are there, they are there for all to see, regardless of where they are. I would also be more persuaded if it had not until fairly recently been the policy of the Conservatives to repeal the Human Rights Act. If we were to see them return to that position, I wonder what protections would be left.
The other point about the protection coming from the Human Rights Act is the one that was made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in an intervention on the Minister. The reliance on the Human Rights Act stands in stark contrast to the position taken by the Government in their submissions to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, where they were adamant that, where an agent is authorised to commit severe abuses such as torture, the Human Rights Act does not apply because—I quote from the Government pleadings—
“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”
It seems to me that the Government are pleading one case here tonight and a quite different and contradictory case in the IPT.
These are all matters to which we can return in Committee. I think we must, and judging by what we have heard from Government Back Benchers today, we almost certainly will. This is an important matter, which it is good to have put on a statutory footing, but the way in which the Government are doing it is cack-handed. It requires this House to do its job and to improve the Bill before it today.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), both of whom made important and powerful speeches. I agree with what both of them said, and the two are not irreconcilable.
It seems to me that the Government, having brought forward a necessary and appropriate measure—it is right to put these matters on a statutory footing—need to bear in mind the need to tighten up the language in a number of places. I support the basic thrust of the Bill, but there is nothing more profound than to authorise the agents of the state to break the criminal law. That can be done only in the most exceptional circumstances, and those circumstances are not things that can be trailed in public, so obviously we need a degree of discretion about how we do it. I will deal swiftly with just a few matters.
First, given that principle, I am concerned about how we deal with the pre or post-authorisation arrangements. Having put the matter on a statutory footing and having previously established the independent commissioner and then the tribunal, I would be worried about the exclusion of pre-authorisation save in the most exceptional circumstances. I am not saying that every type of criminal offence should be excluded at this stage, but when we come to Committee, we should examine whether we should in any circumstance contemplate setting on the face of an Act of Parliament provision for someone committing the offence of murder, for example, or something equally extreme, other than when they would probably be entitled to run the defence of self-defence anyway.
Given the ability of any High Court jurisdiction to deal immediately and swiftly with interlocutory matters, there is no reason to think that the same arrangements cannot be made in relation to the commissioner. The quality of the commissioners— Sir Adrian Fulford and now Sir Brian Leveson—is of such an extent that I would have thought that their early authorisation would be a great support to our security services in doing what they have to do. We must think about where the balance lies.
The second point I wish to deal with is the list of organisations. The obvious ones are there, and of course they must be supported. Like others, however, I question the need to list bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and, up to a point, the Financial Conduct Authority. Is this really a Bill about counteracting terrorism and life-or-death threats, or is it actually just about enabling the National Crime Agency—a worthy body in itself—to deal with economic crime? That may be a legitimate concern, but I do not think it should be put in this type of legislation, unless it is spelled out a bit more carefully.
The Minister of State and I have personal and shared casework experience relating to constituents of overreach and mission creep on the part of Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, which frankly behaved appallingly. Ultimately, it was overridden by the courts, but I am worried that it might be thought that the imprecise definition of serious crime could be stretched to cover some of the cases we have dealt with. The Minister looks as though he thinks that is impossible, but serious crime is not defined in statute; it is a matter of fact and degree. It requires either a definition or, more likely, a more robust pre-application process.
James Brokenshire
I appreciate the contribution that my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is making and perhaps we can continue this conversation. I point him to the issues of proportionality and necessity, the requirement to consider matters that are not criminal to the end itself and the safeguards that the Human Rights Act provides, which I set out earlier. Therefore, there is a strong framework, as well as the subsequent oversight, but I will listen carefully to what he says. I am reflective on some of the timeliness of oversight, as I indicated, and I appreciate his points.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand the spirit in which my right hon. Friend makes that point. I suspect that many of those fears could be set at nought if we can do this sensibly. The point is that without either having an obligation to comply with the ECHR on the face of the Bill and certain most grave offences being excluded in the Bill, or, on the other hand, greater clarity on the timeliness and the way in which that will work, there are still issues that we need to deal with.
Mr Carmichael
Is not another factor that comes into play after necessity and proportionality human nature? It is human nature for people who work all the time in these specific areas—whether that is customs and excise, the Gambling Commission or food standards—to persuade themselves that the thing that they are doing is the most important thing, and they see the whole world differently. The most zealous enforcers of anything that I have ever come across were television licensing enforcement officers. I can say only that I take some small comfort from the fact that they are not on the face of this Bill.
Sir Robert Neill
To my shame, I was once instructed to prosecute a list of television licence enforcements in the Epping magistrates court, when it still existed—a most inappropriate waste of court time, I have to say, thereafter. However, the point is well made.
Everybody supports where we want to go, but a bit of tightening up in Committee would not be awry on all those matters. We have to reassure the law-abiding citizen about, not a deliberate mission creep—not anything done by mala fides—but the over-zealousness of the public official, and that, so often, is actually where things are eroded in our public life. It is about the person who genuinely believes that he or she is doing the right thing, but who does things in an over-zealous way and encroaches, time and again, upon the protections that are necessarily there. That is what I want the Minister and the Solicitor General to take away.
We all want this Bill to go through swiftly, but it would do no harm to reflect a little, improve it and, above all, have faith in the process that we have set in statute with the independent complaints commissioner. For heaven’s sake, if people such as Brian Leveson and Adrian Fulford are not to be relied upon, why not bring them in at the very earliest point in the process, rather than having them retrospectively sweep up and pass judgment? I trust them and I think the public trust them more than almost anybody, and I suspect that that would support morally and effectively the agents that we have to employ under these very difficult circumstances.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I welcome plans to place these activities on a statutory footing. I doubt that any of us can feel comfortable about criminal actions undertaken at the behest of the state, but it is naive in the extreme to pretend that we do not live in a world where undercover operations are necessary. The reality is that we need people to carry out these activities, often in great secrecy and sometimes outside the law, as it stands. The question is surely whether such actions are sanctioned, controlled and approved, or involve rogue elements in a very opaque area. I admire those whose actions keep us safe, and I am only too aware of the risks and temptations that might face individuals embedded in alien environments for long periods. Any legislation must ensure maximum supervision by controllers and handlers.
I want to be sure that the Bill ends up legitimising conduct which is necessary. I recall the dissatisfaction with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as it became apparent that many more agencies were using it to snoop in a way that had not really been envisaged during its passage and that had little to do with security. I acknowledge that the Bill extends beyond national security and covers crime, fraud and other abuses, but we need legislation that is narrow in scope and tightly controlled. We need a presumption against criminal acts unless absolutely necessary and, at all times, behaviour that is proportionate. I want to be certain that the doubts raised by Amnesty that the Bill could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill, are wrong. I want to know that, in accordance with section 9.3 of the code of practice, all material obtained through the authorisation of a CHIS is subject to proper safeguards and any breaches properly reported. We need to be certain, as section 2.12 of the code highlights, that appropriate care will be taken to ensure that it is clear what is and is not authorised, and that all CHIS activities are properly risk assessed. I also wonder if 12 months is the appropriate period.
It seems to me that the Bill can be improved to address those matters. Some items that appear in the code and other safeguards might be better on the face of the Bill. Like others, I want to be clear that what we legitimatise is consistent with this country’s obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. At a time when this House is grappling with some Ministers appearing unduly relaxed about breaking the law, we must be certain that this Bill does not weaken respect for the law, or risk creating a two-tier system with laws for ordinary citizens from which members of Government agencies are exempt. We must know this country will abide by the highest ethical standards, no matter how inconvenient it might sometimes be. We have to know there is no intention of legitimising routine law breaking. I feel we need further assurances about control and supervision, and more about the nature of reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We also need guarantees about further opportunities for Parliament, if the Bill makes it on to the statute book, to scrutinise how it works in practice.
There are those who say we should oppose the Bill on Second Reading. For me, that would mean voting against the principle of a Bill that tries to clarify what is already a very murky area. I believe it is in our interests to try to achieve a viable piece of legislation, but it would be a dereliction of duty if we did not seek to improve the Bill and the safeguards around covert operations. I want legislation that is effective, ethical and does what it says on the tin. The Bill needs improvement and I hope that, if it receives a fair wind tonight. the Government will approach the next stage with an open mind, because that is in everyone’s interests.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and to speak in this debate, in which there have been two significant points of consensus. The first is that it is right to provide for authority to be given to commit criminal offences in appropriate circumstances. The most obvious example of that is the infiltration of criminal organisations the membership of which is in itself an offence. The second point of consensus is that if the first is so, it is better for it to be on a clear statutory basis. For that reason, I welcome the Bill.
That is not to say, though, that there are not legitimate concerns about the Bill, and many of them have been expressed already. There is more to say about the distinction to be made between civil liability and criminal liability—doubtless we will return to that issue as the Bill progresses—but the majority of the concerns expressed so far have been about scope and safeguards, so I shall briefly say something about both those things.
On scope, it seems to me that it is absolutely right that the provisions of the Bill should be tightly circumscribed so that the criminal law is broken to the minimum degree necessary to prevent greater crime. It has been said more than once that the Bill leaves open the possibility that crimes such as murder and torture could be committed with apparent authority. I am not sure that that is so. Clause 1(5) sets out what will become section 29B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. What will be subsections (6) and (7) of new section 29B require a person who may authorise criminal conduct to take into account, first, whether the same objective could be achieved without committing a crime and, secondly, other relevant matters, including the Human Rights Act. That is a somewhat diffident way to express it, but it has a significant effect. Section 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that public authorities, which is what we are concerned with here, may not act in a way incompatible with a convention right, including the right to life and the right not to be tortured. For as long as the UK remains a signatory to the convention and the Human Rights Act remains in force, it must be a relevant matter in the scenarios that have been raised, so the Bill’s meaning in that respect is clear.
Frankly, my concern is with criminal conduct beneath the level of murder and torture but which still may be quite serious. Here, we rely on the wording of what will be subsections (4) and (5) of section 29B of RIPA, as set out in the Bill, to counter the risk that too wide a latitude is given to break the law than is warranted and the consequent risk that an agent takes disproportionate criminal action. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the tightening of language is important here. Under the terms of the Bill as they stand, criminal conduct authorisation may not be granted unless the person granting it believes three things set out on page 2 of the Bill. They are,
“that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (5)…that the authorised conduct is proportionate …and…that arrangements exist that satisfy such requirements as may be imposed by order made by the Secretary of State.”
The first question that has to be asked is what kind of belief is needed. Is it honest belief, reasonable belief? Surely, it must be the latter. It would be helpful if that could be clarified at an early stage. It matters so much because of the weight put on new subsection (4)(b), which states
“that the authorised conduct is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct”.
Proportionality is vital to the rationale and effect of the Bill. It is also vital, of course, to answering many of the perfectly legitimate points that have been raised about the inclusion of some other agencies—several of which have been mentioned—in the list of those that can authorise criminal conduct. It must be the case that it is not proportionate to commit a relatively serious criminal offence to prevent the commission of a relatively minor one. Proportionality is at the heart of what happens in relation not just to agencies such as MI5 but all the other agencies on that list.
Finally, I want to say a word or two about safeguards. It has not been raised particularly in the course of the debate so far, but there are those who say that we should not offer authorisation in advance but instead rely on prosecutorial discretion to deal with those cases where agents commit criminal offences. I yield to no one in my faith in prosecutorial discretion—I have exercised it myself a few times and I know that it can have a significant role to play—but I think it would be wrong to put all of the burden there, and to leave those already taking considerable risk exposed to almost equally considerable legal uncertainty, when there is another way of doing it. It would also be a step back, for those individuals who are taking those risks, from where we are now, where authority and therefore reassurance is given in advance, albeit not on the legal basis that we all seek to achieve.
I have rather more sympathy for the points that have been made about judicial oversight. If we cannot get to a place where prior judicial approval is in place—I am perfectly willing to be persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Minister that there are significant practical difficulties with that—it seems to me fundamentally important that the oversight is as proximate as possible to the action. If it cannot happen in advance, it must happen as soon as possible afterwards. That is an area in which we must all focus as the Bill moves into Committee. I certainly hope it gets there, because I believe it is a good Bill, but, as others have said, it is capable of improvement.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Like others, while acknowledging that regulation of covert human intelligence sources should be on a legislative footing and that they have a role in modern policing, we have concerns about the Bill. I would like to offer some cautionary tales and some lessons from fairly recent history in Northern Ireland about what can go wrong when the state engages in crime, even if Members understand, or potentially even endorse, the outcomes that those agents are seeking to achieve.
In that context, the scale of this Bill is quite something. It expresses no limit on the type of crimes that can be authorised if the agent believes the action is proportionate, the authorising officer need only take into account whether the objective sought could be achieved through means other than crimes, and Members have already addressed the almost bizarrely wide range of agencies that are in scope. I am sure that people have spoken about the early period of operation of RIPA and the scenarios in which those provisions were used incorrectly.
The arrangements for operational oversight and post-operational accountability are weaker than those for phone tapping or law enforcement searches, despite having a potentially much bigger impact. As former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald has said, the Bill will make it easier for a policeman to commit a serious crime than to search a shed.
The Bill would block redress through the courts for those who might experience adverse effects. It is probably disingenuous for the Bill to rely on the Human Rights Act as a safeguard, because this Government have made it clear that they do not believe that that Act applies to the actions and potential abuses of their agents, up to and including torture. The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which we considered just two weeks ago in this House, proposes to severely restrict the possibility of prosecuting those serious criminal wrongdoings, which of course have been illegal under international law since 1948. This Bill will not and cannot be read in isolation from those other pieces of legislation. The fact that the Human Rights Act has been a whipping boy for many, particularly on the Government Benches, means that people will not have faith that it will be allowed to stand in the way the provisions of this Bill.
The existing extraterritorial provisions of RIPA suggest that, in theory, this Bill could apply outside the UK and, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland—that MI5 could, from its Loughshore base in Belfast, authorise a serious criminal act just over the border in Donegal or Dublin. That prompts a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. If the UK authorities were sanctioning or authorising a crime, would they be compelled to notify their counterparts in Irish agencies? Has this been discussed with Dublin? It is not a case of whether they would do these things; it is a case of whether the Bill gives them space to do so.
I speak from some experience in Northern Ireland when I say that serious crimes up to and including murder, particularly when committed by the state, are very possible. That leads first to a generation of victims and survivors, then to deep alienation from the state and further on to the perpetuation of conflict. I would caution Members about going down that road.
Many in the House might say in good faith that agents committing a serious crime was rare, and I have no doubt that most of those involved in this form of policing would not and could not conduct that sort of activity. Unfortunately, we know from very recent history that it was not just one or two bad apples. I will speak carefully because files have been referred to the DPP, and I understand the caution, but there is a continuing investigation into the agent known as Stakeknife. That investigation was discussed at length at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last month by John Boutcher, the former chief constable of Bedfordshire police, who is leading the investigation. He has highlighted how probably dozens of people were murdered by those in control of the IRA, but with the knowledge and sanction of those in command and control of British security agencies.
RUC special branch agent Mark Haddock is believed to have been involved in over 20 murders. As other Members have mentioned, Ken Barrett, a British agent, was involved in the murder of lawyer Pat Finucane, which former Prime Minister David Cameron conceded involved shocking levels of collusion. Multiple agents killed with impunity for Britain, and they were tangled up with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. Current proposals from the Government relating to Northern Ireland already make the families feel like the lives of their loved ones did not matter and that the rule of law does not seem to be relevant in the case of their murders, but the Bill really risks bringing back the ghosts of our policing past.
I want to be very clear: the SDLP acknowledges the realities of life, policing, crime and terrorism. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave a very fair assessment of the continuing a security threat in Northern Ireland, which we are far from blind to. However, the necessary mechanisms have to be regulated under statute to avoid doubt and to uphold the rule of law, which only works if provisions are underpinned by appropriate human rights frameworks and oversight. We are not in the wild west, where the means justify the ends.
I say again that, from the SDLP’s perspective, these are not words that we casually say. We are not a party that points out all the problems and will not engage in the solutions. When the SDLP joined the Policing Board in 2001, our members did so under very serious threats and intimidation by the IRA, but we did that heavy lifting on the Policing Board precisely because we needed a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. We were not just going to leave the details of policing for others to deal with.
That new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland is among the most successful elements of the post-Good Friday agreement era. Policing was so divisive for many generations, but the PSNI and its oversight mechanisms are a bastion of policing in the modern era. In just five years, the Policing Board and its partners in the police, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the community, and particularly the brave young women and men who stepped up and joined the police, together implemented the mechanisms and the oversight recommendations—85% of them—in the Patten report. That included the overhaul and reform of intelligence policing, because there were not at that point any rules governing what an agent could or could not do.
That was the old regime, and it did not serve the rule of law or the purpose of progressing Northern Ireland. The Bill runs the risk of recreating the new in the image of the old. That would betray the work that so many people did, fearlessly and relentlessly, to improve the outcomes from policing. The Bill compounds the problem, with even less oversight than the policing model that we tried so hard to change.
I must also say that this legislation will be viewed in the context of other actions by the Government. The statement on 18 March relating to legacy turned on their head commitments that we had previously received on truth, justice and accountability, and it breaches a treaty. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill turns commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland on the their head, and it breaches a treaty. The Overseas Operations (Service Personal and Veterans) Bill turns requirements for the investigation of crimes and breaches on their head. That is three proposals and three blows to confidence. People in my constituency are watching agog at the actions of this Government and the exercise of arbitrary, unilateral, reckless state power, and I caution Members that constituents in other areas will begin to do that as well. Confidence is being damaged left, right and centre, and a Bill such as this, if unamended, will only compound that error.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate. Like many others, I am astounded at the gravity and significance of this Bill. The Government have said that the Bill seeks to place existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing and reflect existing practice, but of course many have criticisms of existing practice, and the case law shows that the legalities in this area have not yet been fully considered. This Bill goes way, way beyond the status quo, and it comes just over a week after the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which could result in torture and other serious crimes being protected from prosecution.
Barely a week passes without this Government announcing yet another departure from recognised rules of domestic and international law. Just before the summer, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill passed through Parliament, delaying the long-awaited review of Prevent, which fosters discrimination against Muslims, and introducing significant curtailments of civil liberties, which will disadvantage ethnic minorities. Last week, we debated the Coronavirus Act 2020, about which human rights and anti-racist campaigners have raised concerns that powers are being used in discriminatory ways, particularly against black, Asian and minority ethnic people.
The trajectory is chillingly clear. As Unite the union says, there is much to be concerned about in this Bill in respect of the impact on freedom and justice in the UK. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the human rights implications of the Bill. Is it not the case that the Human Rights Act cannot be seen as a safeguard against the authorisation of agent criminality because the Government have previously taken the position that the HRA does not apply to crimes committed by their covert agents? Is it not the case that because an individual cannot currently be prosecuted under the HRA or the European convention on human rights, an agency or Government can only be sued after the event for damages, meaning that there would not be any protection for victims nor any disincentive for agents under this Bill? Is it not the case that covert agents would not only be committing crimes, but be inciting crimes to build their cover and undermine the moral authority of protest movements?
Mr Kevan Jones
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady obviously does not know the way in which covert agents are working. They are under strict protocols now; there is no legislation covering this issue. Although I accept the need for some more protections in the Bill, it gives authorisation in legal statute, which is not there at the moment.
Apsana Begum
I take the point, but I believe that under the HRA a prosecution cannot currently be brought, so that is not a safeguard that is actually in statute. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
Is it not the case that covert agents would not just be committing crimes, but be inciting crimes to build their cover and undermine the moral authority of protest movements? It is, I suppose, why organisations such as Privacy International, Reprieve and others argue that the Government cannot convincingly claim that the HRA will provide a sufficient safeguard. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that today.
Let me come to what is for many the crux of the Bill. There is a grave and real danger that it could end up providing informers and agents with a licence to kill. Put simply, it is deeply alarming that the proposed law does not explicitly prohibit MI5 and other agencies from authorising crimes such as a torture and killing. This is not an abstract or philosophical question. We have seen the consequences of undercover agents in paramilitary organisations operating with what some believe to be apparent impunity while committing grave human rights abuses, including murder. Independent inquiries have found that, at times, when intelligence units of the security forces were running informants they were acting as though the law did not apply to them. This legislation also cuts across a case that is going through the courts—the third direction case—and does not give Parliament the chance to hear the higher Court’s views about the state of the law.
We have heard much rhetoric today about safety and security. Are there safeguards for potential victims of crime, for our trade unions and for people expressing their hard-won right to protest? Are there protections for ethnic minorities—Muslims, in particular—who we know are disproportionately at risk of state violence?
Apsana Begum
I will make progress. This legislation seeks to allow the state legally to act with impunity in its surveillance missions. It hard not to see the Bill as another iteration of the expansion of state surveillance and the criminalisation of marginalised communities. We should not let our fundamental values of human rights, justice and equality be undermined.
On the international stage, we must stand up for the values we share: of justice, human rights and democracy, and of working with others to keep people safe by ending conflict and tackling the climate emergency. It is because I believe in those fundamental values and because I am committed to keeping all our communities safe that I will stand up against the Government’s increasingly draconian approach, which seeks to strip away the very freedoms that people in my constituency and all over the UK hold dear.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Following the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) reminds me of how much we miss her predecessor, who was such a well-respected Member of the House.
Hegel concluded:
“What is reasonable is real; that which is real is reasonable.”
The reality of the means by which we counter the wicked plots and plans of those intent on maiming and murdering Britons—of all kinds and types, by the way—are made reasonable by the character of those deadly schemes. In essence, we must match the most ruthless adversaries in our diligence, determination and decisiveness. To do so is entirely reasonable.
As the Minister said, since 2017 numerous terrorist attacks have been anticipated and thwarted through the skilful efforts of the security and intelligence agencies and the police, but some have not. The death at terrorist hands of 22 innocent civilians in Manchester, including many children, haunts us all. At the heart of our democracy here in Westminster, where four individuals were executed on the bridge and PC Keith Palmer lost his own life heroically resisting the murderer sent to hell by the bullets of other heroes, we saw again what Islamist terror can mean for the innocent. Those and all other tragedies of this type haunt us, but they also harden our resolve. As we are strengthened by grief, those we mission to keep us safe from such ills each and every day need to be sure that we stand for them and by them, and that is just what the Bill does.
Rehman Chishti
Like my right hon. Friend, I fully support the Bill going through. He mentioned the Daesh-inspired extremism. Does he agree with me that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens, and the legislation that has been put through this Parliament on counter-terrorism has been designed with that in mind, irrespective of creed, colour or background? What I have seen with the Prevent and Channel programmes, having sat on the Home Affairs Committee, is that there are now far more individuals from right-wing-inspired extremism than there are from Daesh-inspired extremism. The threat to our country is therefore from both kinds of extremism, and the legislation we put through this Parliament is designed with the duty to protect our citizens of all creeds, colours and background.
Sir John Hayes
That is certainly true, as my hon. Friend will know that I was once responsible for overseeing the Prevent programme and indeed introduced the Prevent duty. Extremism of all kinds that leads to violence and threatens life and limb needs to be countered. The mechanisms we use to do so are common to all those who seek, in my earlier words, to maim and murder us.
When I guided the Investigatory Powers Bill through this House as the Security Minister, I learned that infiltration is a vital tool for our security and intelligence agencies to penetrate terrorist groups. Those brave enough to do so must be credible to those they need to trust them, so it is axiomatic that they must look and sound like those they live among and do as they do. Put simply, if they are to be believed to be a gang member, they need to act like a gang member. If they fail to convince those they infiltrate, it is no exaggeration to say they may be killed—indeed, that is the essence of undercover agents’ work.
The Bill, as has been emphasised repeatedly, provides a clear legal basis for that long-standing, invaluable covert tactic, which enables the detection and discovery of crucial, critical intelligence that other investigative tools might never detect. We have heard, as I have said repeatedly, that 27 terrorist attacks have been averted, in part because of interception and infiltration. Preventing those atrocities has saved real lives of individuals loved and known, who live today thanks to the tireless work of our police and intelligence services.
Of course there must be accountability and scrutiny, as I recognised during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, in which we introduced the double lock to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has drawn the House’s attention. We also established the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, indeed, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. It is critical that we look at things in a way that reassures members of the public that powers are used only where necessary and proportionate, as the Minister emphasised. Our standards must be maintained as we struggle with threats from those who have no meaningful ethical standards.
As well as being proportionate and necessary, the security agencies’ test for all their work, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, is that the particularity of any criminal endeavour entered into must—as the Bill makes clear—be specific, limited and detailed in permission granted. Where the objective can be secured without criminal activity, it will be; criminal activity will apply only where there is no other credible alternative. It is essential that it be limited to only the activity specifically authorised in the criminal conduct authorisation granted exclusively by highly trained and experienced officers. Moreover, there will be effective scrutiny, with authorisations overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the ISC kept informed of the use of CCAs, and the tribunal able to investigate any complaints against public authorities’ use of the power.
Reasonableness is defined by the bitter reality of our continuing struggle against the individuals and groups whose defining purpose is to do us harm. It is my estimation that as terrorists become more adaptable and flexible and as terrorism itself metamorphoses, we will need to look again at the power, resources and legal means by which those whom we wish to keep us safe do their work. Historically, major pieces of legislation have gone through this House perhaps every decade or a little more, but I suspect that we will legislate more often as terrorism changes, particularly as a result of the changing nature of communications and other technology.
We must resource and equip the brave men and women who put themselves at great risk in our interest to keep us safe and to safeguard our way of life. To legislate to give them the much-needed powers provided by the Bill is both timely and, most of all, it is reasonable.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).
I approach the Bill, as I am sure we all do, knowing that what is at stake is trust in our legal system and public consent for those agencies that we empower to protect us all. Given the provisions enabling criminality, sufficient scrutiny is therefore vital. It is right that the Government have sought to remedy the previous murky arrangements and bring clarity through legislation, but the Bill needs to be beyond reproach when it is enacted.
As hon. Members have already identified, the Bill with its ambiguity and its powers gives a legal power to individuals to commit crimes. That is rightly alarming to the public. The phrase
“authorised conduct is rendered ‘lawful for all purposes’”
on page 3 of the explanatory notes must be questioned and clarified. It is not sufficient to state that all public bodies are bound by the Human Rights Act to comply with the European convention on human rights; it must be set out in the Bill, for the sake of public confidence, that the very worst acts of violence, including sexual violence, torture and murder are not permissible. The Bill is looked at by all people, not just those to whom it applies. Confidence in our Government and in our institutions is significant.
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree that explaining the Bill to the public is very difficult. We therefore need to have the safeguards that the right hon. Lady talks about, but the example that she just gave would not get through the authorisation stage, which is overseen by the commissioner at the moment. Does she think that there is another way of doing it, without having a long list of crimes and of what can and cannot be done?
Liz Saville Roberts
That is a very fair point, which we have discussed to a considerable degree. None the less, there is a public revulsion at the prospect of sexual violence, murder and crimes of that nature, which warrant being mentioned in the Bill for that very reason.
Equally profound and disturbing at first appearance is the power to grant authorisations, which will be given to organisations to decide for themselves internally, without judicial oversight and with limited redress for victims. It is quite extraordinary that there is no provision for how innocent victims of authorised criminal conduct might be compensated, which is surely to be expected in the Bill. I also believe—this point has already been well expressed, but I want to add my voice to it—that trade unions have legitimate concerns, given that covert surveillance has been undertaken in the past against entirely legitimate trade union activity in conjunction with criminal blacklisting.
While quick to quote the book of human rights, the Government have failed to quote chapter and verse of what is permissible and what is beyond the pale. Would the use of sensory overload or stress positions by agents constitute torture and be a violation of human rights? Would they then be criminally culpable? What guarantee can the Minister give that a future UK Government, or even this one, might not seek to legislate for derogations from the European convention on human rights? Given the horizon-spanning nature of the criminal conduct covered by the Bill, where is the threshold for authorising acts, such as phone tapping, that rightly concern the public? What does “proportionate” actually mean? If we do not define it, who does? By what algorithm do we assess the range of proportionality? Where is the shift and the mission creep there?
The Government have also empowered a range of organisations with this new authorisation of criminality, from the Environment Agency to England’s Department of Health and Social Care, but how do the Government intend to prevent creep by Government Departments and the erosion of law? What safeguards will the Government put in place within those Departments? Does the Investigatory Powers Commissioner have sufficient measures and capacity to deal in a timely fashion with the incremental increase in his workload?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Member agree that it is all well and good having oversight after the effect, but there is a real danger that the authority providing authorisation before the effect is the same authority that is doing the investigation? We all have systems of tunnel vision when we are in the middle of something and are unable to see the wider aspect, and independence at the pre-authorisation stage is really important.
Liz Saville Roberts
Professional intent, although very laudable in certain circumstances, in this instance could well lead to unpredicted circumstances, and possibly most undesirable ones.
The Bill at present is ill defined and explained, with a focus trained on selected specific issues, and it risks undermining the trust upon which the public agencies tasked with our defence depends. Many, including the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Opposition, have said that that will be discussed on Report and in Committee. It is very important, and will evidently be significant when we are able to table amendments and discuss the Bill in detail. However, consideration is down for Thursday week. There will be a Thursday afternoon for Committee and all remaining stages. That is insufficient for the level of scrutiny that a Bill of this seriousness warrants. I beg the Government to consider whether, in all honesty, that is the impression that they wish to leave on the international stage, on which we hope to lead in the rules-based dimension in the future.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She is absolutely right that public confidence is a critical issue with regard to a Bill of this nature. I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have been listening very carefully to her remarks, and indeed those of everybody today. I sense that one or two Members’ contributions, perhaps including that of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), were not thought to have been much in alignment with everybody else’s. Well, I say all power to her for voicing her views, because it is important that the Government hear everybody’s views, whether or not they are consistent with what might be felt elsewhere.
Having listened very carefully to the debate, I think that, by and large, there is cross-party support for the proposed legislation, notwithstanding the specific issues that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Members throughout, particularly on issues of safeguards and oversight. That support stems from a clear understanding of the role of covert human intelligence sources in helping to keep safe us every day of the week—safe from those who scheme every day to take the lives of innocent British citizens in terrorist attacks like the one that we saw here in Parliament not so long ago.
This very narrowly focused Bill seeks to put on a statutory footing activities that frankly most of us would like never to know about—courageous work done by people who may never have the value of their work recognised publicly because of the security issues involved. The Bill gives those agents a more legally certain environment within which to operate and give more protection, through the safeguards, to those in broader society. In the past, activities that have involved breaches of the law, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, were undertaken on the basis of what appears to have been an implied power. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd talked about murky proceedings. I do not know whether that is the correct term, but it seemed to fit. The Bill removes any ambiguity and, in doing so, ensures that already strong procedures and oversight are more transparent and perhaps, hopefully, more understandable to everybody concerned.
We have heard some very learned analysis of the way that the Bill works from some very learned Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I do not intend to compete with their many years of expertise, but I do want to look at some of the issues that are presented by the safeguards in the Bill.
It was important that my right hon. Friend the Minister put on the record some of the actions that have been undertaken by covert human intelligence sources in the past—actions that could never be sanctioned or authorised either in the past or, indeed, under this new legislation. Understandably, the debate has focused on safeguards to ensure that further such unauthorised behaviour is eliminated. The Bill and the code of practice set out very clear safeguards that, as other hon. Members have pointed out, are for the most part already in place and operational. However, the Bill puts in place a protocol and safeguards to put them on a statutory basis, be that authorisation from a trained and experienced officer, oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or accountability to the Intelligence and Security Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to investigate and determine complaints and grievances independent of Government and any Government organisations.
However, if these procedures are already in place, then I am concerned to hear from the Minister how we are going to make sure that they work better in future, because a number of issues raised in the debate require some further thought and response from the Government. Many are rightly concerned that in the past women have been sexually abused and even raped as part of covert operations. The Minister has been clear that these actions would never be sanctioned, either in the past or now, but regardless of the rules, reports of widespread involvement by officers in these sorts of very serious sexual assaults are concerning and have emerged. What will be done differently under this Bill to stop such blatant abuses happening in future?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady agrees that the Bill is partly about enabling self-restraint, and therefore putting certain things that cannot be done into the Bill provides an understanding for officers so that it is clear, whereas a more general human rights approach could create the danger of it being less clear, just as in Canada or America.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Gentleman could argue that point from completely the opposite side, because by in some way bringing into question whether this piece of legislation will be treated like all other pieces of legislation—in other words, that a Minister will authorise it only if it is compliant, under the Human Rights Act, with sections of the European convention on human rights—I think he actually brings the whole thing into question; probably unintentionally, of course.
Going back to the point that I was making, what will be done differently? First, the Bill briefing note provides some detail on what might be done differently, but there is room for perhaps a little more, perhaps in Committee or beyond. The Bill provides detail on training for authorising officers about the way this new legislation would work, but absolutely no mention is made of training for the agents themselves. Given the problems of the past, can the Minister outline more fully what training agents receive on awareness, knowledge and expertise in the application of the Human Rights Act? I think many Members could do with some training on that at certain stages, because it is incredibly complex, and compliance with the European convention on human rights adds even more complexity.
Secondly, in 2016 the College of Policing published “Undercover policing: Authorised Professional Practice”, which is national guidance for officers. It would be helpful if the Minister updated the House on the status of that guidance, and whether any further operational guidance is envisaged for agents who will be under this new legislation. Covert human intelligence has an impact on many vulnerable people in society, and particularly women who may have had intimate sexual relations with undercover officers. Is the Minister reviewing the effectiveness of the way that policy impact is assessed to ensure that these sorts of blatant breaches are caught more quickly and, drawing on what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam said, caught right away, rather than at a point in the future? The 70-page code of practice that accompanies the Bill is welcome, but perhaps a little unwieldy. How will the intent behind this Bill be turned into practice for agents on the ground?
Finally, if errors are made or agents do not follow the rules, there needs to be a clear and transparent pathway of redress for victims. What is that pathway for victims: what path would they follow under this legislation, and how is it different from what went before? All legislation we pass in this place is authorised by Ministers on the proviso that it accords with the provisions in the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights—this goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—but mention has been made of the defence used by the Government previously in apparently carving out the actions of agents as being separate from the rules applying to public authorities. We have heard an explanation of that already in the debate today, but I think more clarity on that would be helpful when we think about building confidence both within the Chamber and beyond.
In conclusion, I fully support the Bill before us today, and there is a great deal of merit in what the Government are attempting to do. I again pay tribute to all those in our security services who work to help keep us safe. This legislation will put on a firmer footing the protocols within which they work and the safeguards that are there to ensure those provisions work as we intend them to do, which is to bring criminals to justice. Governance, security and oversight will not diminish this Bill; they will strengthen it to give it the full confidence of this House and the people we represent.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
As I am making the final Back-Bench speech, I will not be taking any interventions—apologies.
On 12 February 1989, Pat Finucane, an Irish lawyer in Belfast, sat at his kitchen table to have dinner with his wife and three children. As they ate, two gunmen burst through the door, entered the room and shot Mr Finucane 14 times. He was killed by a loyalist paramilitary group that, as the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, admitted in 2012, was acting in complicity with British security services. Far from stopping Mr Finnigan’s murder, the Prime Minister described the
“shocking levels of state collusion”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296]
in Mr Finucane’s murder. His family are still owed a public inquiry into the murder.
Deeply troubling acts of state agents such as those in the Finucane case are not isolated. In 2010, it came to light that for 40 years, Britain’s police had run covert operations spying on thousands of civilians. More than 1,000 political groups were spied on. Overwhelmingly, it was left-wing, anti-racist and climate justice groups that were spied on, with just three far-right groups included on the list. The spy cops revelations have shown that police operatives deceived women into sexual relationships and even spied on grieving families seeking justice, including the parents of Stephen Lawrence.
This Bill must be opposed. It places no limits on the crimes that state agents can be authorised to commit. It does not prohibit torture. It does not prohibit murder. It does not prohibit sexual violence. Instead, all it requires is that authorising officers themselves believe that the conduct is appropriate, necessary by broadly defined criteria and meets requirements that may be imposed by an order made by the Secretary of State. Even the FBI expressly bans operatives from certain criminal conduct, but this Bill does not ban any type of criminal conduct for British state agents.
The grounds upon which the authorisations can be granted are ill-defined and wide-ranging. They include not only national security but “preventing disorder” and to promote
“the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
That has rightly raised alarm bells for trade unions such as my union, Unite, and justice campaigns such as the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who fear that these powers could be used to interfere with the legitimate activities of trade unions.
The Bill grants these powers to a dizzying array of agencies—not just intelligence agencies and the police, but the Competition and Markets Authority, the Gambling Commission and the Environment Agency, just to name a few. The oversight for authorisation of potentially serious crimes is scandalously weak. There are no provisions in the Bill for warrants or independent judicial approval. Instead, authorisation will be granted internally, which means that incredibly serious crimes could be authorised with less oversight than is currently required for phone tapping or police searches. As the human rights group Reprieve has noted, survivors of the spy cops scandal have sought justice through the courts for abuses they suffered, but this Bill will block future claims being brought forward, since it outlaws civil action against authorised activities. That is utterly unconscionable.
In the Bill’s defence, the Government claim that public authorities are bound by the Human Rights Act, and for that reason, the prohibition of crimes such as torture is guarded. In reality, that offers no protection against agent criminality, because in the Government’s view, the Human Rights Act does not apply to crimes committed by covert agents. The Government told the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in November 2019 that, in tasking agents, the state
“is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as responsible for it”.
According to the Government’s own standards, the Bill will therefore not place any limits on the crimes that agents could be authorised to commit—not on torture, not on murder and not on sexual violence.
Zarah Sultana
I must make progress.
This Bill marks the latest step in a frightening descent into authoritarianism by this Government. In the past two weeks, they have proposed the effective decriminalisation of torture by British soldiers overseas, the shipping of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles away to be imprisoned on Ascension Island, the ban on anti-capitalist teaching materials in schools and now this—licensing undercover agents to commit torture, sexual violence and murder. This descent into authoritarianism should be a concern to us all. It must be resisted.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The serious and sombre tone of the debate, which is appropriate given the measures we are discussing, was set by the Security Minister and the shadow Home Secretary. The debate has been well informed and enhanced by the contribution of former Cabinet Ministers, particularly Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, who have a working knowledge of these matters, and also the former Attorney General and the Chairs of the Intelligence and Security Committee and Justice Committee.
As the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, security is a top priority for the Labour party under his leadership. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, we will be forceful and robust in supporting the fight against terrorism and crime in all its forms. We consider it our first responsibility to keep this country, its citizens and our communities safe. We will meet our duty to support those who put their own safety and lives at risk to protect us. We acknowledge and understand the purpose of this Bill, which seeks to put on a statutory footing the activity of those working to disrupt some of the most vile crimes imaginable, including terrorism, the activities of violent drug gangs, serious and organised crime, and child sexual exploitation.
We know that the threat from criminal and terrorist activity is very real and that the ability to gather intelligence is a vital tool in disrupting this activity, preventing further crime and bringing those responsible for it to justice. Since March 2017, the security services and counter-terror police have thwarted 27 terror attacks. In 2018, covert human intelligence sources helped to disrupt over 30 threats to life, leading to the arrest of numerous serious organised criminals and the seizure of more than 3,000 kilograms of class A drugs, and taking more than 50 firearms off the street.
During the course of those operations, it is inevitable that agents will at times transgress existing laws in a limited way. This activity has been happening for a long time. It is not always comfortable for us in this House to think about what we need people to do to protect us and prevent harm coming to us, but real life is not a film. There is no Superman, it is not a fairy tale and there is not always a happy ending. That is why it is a step forward that this activity will now be properly covered by statute and open to greater transparency, accountability, regulation and safeguarding in a way that it has not been before.
We are told that under this legislation covert human intelligence sources will not be given carte blanche—the Minister made that very clear. It is therefore absolutely vital that during the passage of the Bill we get those safeguards and the processes and structures for accountability and proportionality absolutely right, both for the maintenance of our country’s hard-won civil liberties and human rights and for the protection of those who undertake such activity, as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) outlined so eloquently.
The Bill is certified as compliant with the Human Rights Act, as the Minister set out. All public authorities are bound by it to act in a way that is compatible with the rights protected by the European convention on human rights, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Human Rights Act is specifically mentioned in the Bill, providing important and necessary protection. However, it is right that during the Bill’s progress we will be pressing the Government on safeguards as to what acts can be carried out. I therefore take this opportunity to let the Government know, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) have, about those areas where we believe the Bill requires scrutiny and can be strengthened on its journey.
We need to explore in greater detail how we might get closer to the specifics of what offences can be allowed, as has been done in, for example, Canada and indeed the United States. There is nothing in the Bill to limit or specify the kinds of offences covered, only that they are to be necessary and proportionate. Despite the fact that the Human Rights Act is applicable in all circumstances, we will be pressing the Minister for an understanding as to why offences such as murder, torture and sexual violence are not explicitly ruled out in this legislation.
Moreover, the Bill certifies that an authorisation may be given only if it is deemed necessary
“in the interests of national security…for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or…in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
These are broad statements that could have wide-ranging interpretations, particularly the last of the three, by a large list of agencies. We want to explore some of that and will press for assurances.
We also want to look at levels of accountability and sign-off for authorisation. As the Bill stands, the use of such powers will be overseen by the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who can report on an annual basis. We believe the Bill needs to go further and that each and every authorisation should be notified to the commissioner in real time, so that scrutiny can be robust and ongoing. I also welcome indications from the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee that they too will seek to bring forward safeguards in that respect through amendments.
Sir John Hayes
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments and, indeed, the tone of his contribution, but he must surely acknowledge that being very specific about what covert agents can and cannot do would expose them to great risk, for those they infiltrate would know what their parameters of activity are likely to be.
Conor McGinn
The right hon Gentleman makes a very fair point. I completely appreciate that and have taken into account the comments that have been made by Ministers and those with experience of this, but I just seek simply to see whether there is a way that we can add more reassurance for people around some of the specificity of these matters without exposing people to the dangers that have been rightly outlined.
Conor McGinn
My hon. Friend is doing very well. He has been in the Chamber for only 20 minutes and this is his third intervention, but I will, of course, give way to him.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I did apply to speak, but I was refused by the Speaker’s Office, so I have been listening to the debate in my office.
Would it not be better if we took a Canadian or even an American model, where there are some things that are excluded from the scope of actions? This idea of testing does not seem to cause problems for the Canadians or the Americans.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been refused permission to speak by the Speaker’s Office, but if he had submitted his name in time, he would have been on the list, so I do not quite understand. Perhaps he would like to come and see me and explain exactly what happened.
Conor McGinn
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not mean to start a discussion with the Speaker’s Office. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why I specifically referenced Canada and the United States in terms of the model that we would probe.
I wish to make some progress now and draw to a conclusion. We also have concerns over the potential use of these powers in relation to retrospective action. It says that approval will be sought as soon as it is practically possible. Our view is that there should be a time limit on that, and we would look to a period of around a month. I am happy to discuss this with the Minister as there does need to be some sort of a hard deadline on retrospective authority. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent retrospective action, which could see it being abused. Where there are allegations of historical injustices involving law enforcement and the security services, justice must take its course and the Bill cannot interfere with that.
We will also be carefully scrutinising the number and nature of the public agencies approved for this activity, which was a point very well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). These are serious powers—granting the ability for an individual to break the law—so there must be a clear and substantial case for the many agencies listed in the Bill. We also want assurances that the powers are not to be used to undermine the legitimate activities of trade unions, civil society groups or campaigns. Opposition Members are very clear that there can be no repeat of the historical attitudes and, frankly, the moral and legal corruptions that led to workers being blacklisted, to political interference or, indeed, to inappropriate relationships as the Spycops inquiry will examine. Similarly, it must also be the case that victims who have been wronged are not inadvertently prevented from seeking adequate forms of redress or fair compensation. On the issue of trade unions specifically, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which is the only legal basis for the use of powers to obtain communications, specifies that the monitoring of trade unions is not grounds for such activity, so will the Solicitor-General assure the House—if he cannot do it now, perhaps he might write to me if he would be so good—that nothing in this Bill changes that? Furthermore, the process of blacklisting trade unionists has been unlawful since 2010, with the passing of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, and, again, will he confirm that nothing in this Bill would affect that?
I want to turn briefly to the issue of legacy in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that this Bill in no way impinges on or affects that process. I urge the Treasury Bench to take into account the comments that were made both by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). Let me say this: I know Pat Finucane’s wife, Geraldine, and I know her sons John and Michael and her family. For 10 years, before I came into the House and since I have been in the House, I have steadfastly admired and supported them in their quest for justice, and that is not something that I will resile from at this Dispatch Box now. Let me also say that I do not need to be convinced about the consequences of the state exceeding its power in this arena. I do not need to read a briefing about it. I do not need to hear it in a meeting because I and the community in which I grew up lived with the consequences of it, which is why we need to get this right.
In summary, we on the Opposition side of the House understand the importance of this Bill. I have set out the areas of concern that we have, and where we would like to see the Bill strengthened, we will work with the Government constructively to try to do so robustly and effectively. This legislation puts existing practice on a clear and consistent statutory footing. It acknowledges the need for the role of covert human intelligence sources and, above all else, it must keep the public safe. I believe that security and human rights are not incompatible, but co-dependent, and that will govern the approach that I take as this Bill proceeds through the House.
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
Let me start by thanking colleagues across the House for the constructive way in which Members have approached today’s debate. I think we all agree that national security and preventing serious crime is an area in which we want to ensure that operational agencies are best equipped to protect us and keep us safe, and this Bill does just that. It is in that spirit that we have engaged many Members in advance of this debate, and I can assure Members that we will look to continue to work together as the Bill passes through Parliament.
If I may, I will respond briefly to some of the points made during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Security Minister has already responded to a number of interventions, but turning first to safeguards and oversight, I agree with those colleagues who have emphasised the importance of ensuring that there is robust oversight of the use of criminal conduct authorisations, or CCAs. That is why we have a world-leading investigatory powers regime, and it is why there is significant, independent oversight of the use of those powers; few other countries in the world, if any, have such a regime. With regards to safeguards within the public authority, all authorising officers are highly trained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about training a few moments ago, and I can say that these officers are experienced and have clear and detailed guidance that they must follow in deciding whether to grant an authorisation for criminal conduct.
In response to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), let me confirm that the code of practice sets out that there does need to be a reasonable belief that an authorisation is necessary and proportionate. All authorising officers must be appropriately trained, and the independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner can identify if any public body is failing to train their officers or assess them to a sufficiently high standard. To respond specifically to the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I can confirm that an authorisation must be granted before activity commences. The Bill does not seek to enable the retrospective granting of a criminal conduct authorisation; this is not a retrospective Bill.
I turn now to independent oversight. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is entirely independent of Her Majesty’s Government and has wide-ranging powers to support his crucial oversight functions, which include the ability to inspect all the public authorities able to grant a criminal conduct authorisation at a frequency of his choosing. Public authorities are required to provide unfettered access to all of their documents and information, and the results of those inspections are published within his annual report. A public authority must then take steps to implement any recommendations made by the IPC. This Bill looks to provide robust independent oversight, while ensuring that such oversight does not result in a loss of operational effectiveness. Authorisations may need to be granted at short notice, and here I want to emphasise the human element of CHIS, unlike other investigatory powers. That human element means that these decisions cannot really be retaken; they impact directly on the safety and welfare of covert human intelligence sources.
Sir John Hayes
While dealing with safeguards and scrutiny, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the tribunal has the ability to deal with any complaints about inappropriate use of these powers? Furthermore, will he do as I did when I took the Act through the House and give an absolute assurance that this will not be applied to civil society organisations, including trade unions?
The Solicitor General
Yes I can, and I will come to that point in a moment.
I have been listening to the views expressed in the debate by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam and the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) that providing the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with more real-time oversight would strengthen that oversight. We have always been clear that we are willing to engage with workable proposals; I understand the spirit in which these remarks were made and I am listening carefully.
I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their support for the Bill and recognise the important role they play in providing oversight of our intelligence agencies. The Committee’s oversight role is complemented by the work of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is tasked with providing information on public authorities’ use of the power.
The shadow Home Secretary made a specific point regarding the disproportionate impact on women or members of the BME community. Those under investigation are targeted because of their criminal or terrorist activities, not on the basis of such characteristics. If there are any specific concerns, I am of course happy to discuss them further, but I can confirm that that is the case.
Regarding limits, I understand the concerns expressed by colleagues around the House, but let me be clear: covert human intelligence sources will never be provided with unlimited authority to commit all or any crime. They will never be provided with an authorisation that is contrary to our obligations under the Human Rights Act. The Bill makes that specifically clear. This is not a “licence to kill” Bill. An authorisation is tightly bound: it must be necessary, and it must be proportionate to the activity it seeks to prevent.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and others set out, creating a specific list of prohibited activity, were we to do that, would place into the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states the means to create a checklist against which suspected covert human intelligence sources could be tested. That would threaten the future of CHIS capability and consequently increase the threat to the public. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has wide-ranging powers to ensure that the requirements of the legislation, which have been clearly set out in the House today, are adhered to.
Let me deal with some international comparisons. Different countries have different legal systems, threat pictures and operational practices; simply comparing legislation, therefore, gives only a partial picture. However, with regard specifically to Canada—our strong ally, which has been mentioned a number of times this evening—our understanding is that the parts of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to which Members have referred do not actually relate to covert human intelligence sources. The specifics of what a CHIS may be tasked by the agency to do in Canada—the information some say is contained in the Canadian Act—is not on the face of their legislation. That is our understanding.
Regarding the point made about trade unions, economic wellbeing is of course one of the established statutory purposes for which the covert investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. That is to recognise the threats to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and that they could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. For example, such threats may include the possibility of a hostile cyber-attack against our critical infrastructure, our financial institutions or the Government itself. However, it is not the intention in the Bill to prevent legitimate and lawful activity, including activity by trade union organisations. Preventing such activity would not be necessary for the purpose of economic wellbeing. Trade unions have historically been a bastion of rights in this country and they are, of course, a lawful authority.
In response to concerns about the Bill’s impact on potential victims’ ability to seek compensation, it is not the intention of the Bill to affect any individual’s ability to pursue a claim for compensation where appropriate. It is not the case that any or all conduct by a CHIS could be exempted from civil liability under the Bill regime.
Finally, I have heard several Members, including the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), question the need for wider public authorities to have the power. These public authorities have important investigative and enforcement responsibilities. It is right that they are given the necessary powers to undertake these functions themselves. Very briefly, I could perhaps give an example to do with the Food Standards Agency, which has been mentioned a number of times.
The Food Standards Agency is tasked with protecting consumers and the food industry from food crime within food supply chains. Examples of food crime include the use of stolen food in the supply chain, the unlawful slaughter of animals, the diversion of unsafe food not fit for human consumption, adulteration of foodstuffs, substitution or misrepresentation of foodstuffs, and document fraud. The continuing presence of an individual within a workplace may necessitate them actively participating in presenting, packaging and relabelling produce in order to misrepresent its quality and fitness for consumption, which would be criminal offences. As I say, all public authorities will be subject to the same robust safeguards and oversight and it is right that we equip them all with the powers they need to protect us.
In closing, we should not underestimate the immense contribution that covert human intelligence sources have made, and continue to make, to protecting the public and this country. We can never publicly set out the exact details of what they do on our behalf, but let me assure hon. and right hon. Members that without them lives would have been lost. They are exceptional people, courageous and devoted, and we are all grateful to them. It is right that covert human intelligence sources, their handlers and the public authorities to whom the Bill relates have the certainty and clarity to continue to use this tactic. It is also right, however, that this is subject to robust safeguards and independent oversight. This legislation will achieve both those things and ensure we can continue to bring to justice those who want to do us harm.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Day 1 | Day 2 |
30 October 2020 | 6 November 2020 |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5, 6, 7 and 8 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Insolvency
That the Insolvency (Moratorium) (Special Administration for Energy Licensees) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 943), dated 2 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 September, be approved.
Charities
That the Charitable Incorporated Organisations (Insolvency and Dissolution) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 856), dated 12 August 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 August, be approved.
Education
That the draft Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Bolton) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 974), dated 10 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Future Relationship with the European Union
Ordered,
That Mark Fletcher be discharged from the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee and Lee Anderson be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate on an issue that is of great importance to my constituents. We have a brilliant judicial system in our country—it is the envy of the world—and we get it right most of the time. However, sometimes we get it wrong when it comes to sentencing. The good news is that we have the unduly lenient sentence scheme, a highly successful scheme that allows sentences for certain offences that are unduly lenient to be referred to the Attorney General and, subsequently, the Court of Appeal, to hopefully get the sentences of some of the worst criminals in our society increased.
It is right that the most serious offenders, including those who have committed violent and sexual offences, should spend more time in prison to match the severity of their crimes. The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government he leads will strengthen public confidence in the criminal justice system, and on behalf of the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood, I will support legislation designed to achieve that.
Legislation was recently introduced in Parliament to abolish automatic halfway release for serious offenders who receive standard fixed-term sentences of seven years or more. That includes those found guilty of rape, manslaughter or grievous bodily harm with intent. Instead, a new requirement to serve two thirds of a sentence in prison was introduced, with the existing strict licence conditions on release continuing. That action means that around 2,000 serious offenders will spend longer in custody, keeping the public safe—and rightly so.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
With the permission of my hon. Friend, which I sought in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether he agrees with me that the Government also need to tackle the vexatious liberal bourgeois lawyers who try to get the thugs, villains and crooks that he describes—
Lee Anderson
I welcome the fact that this Government want to go further as part of their determination to protect the public from serious offenders.
The Government have published a sentencing White Paper, which represents the largest reform to sentencing for almost 20 years. Victims will have the power to query sentences for a wider range of crimes, as the scheme has been extended to cover 14 new offences, including stalking, harassment, child sex abuse and other sex offences.
The priority of Government is the safety and security of their citizens. However, the system of sentencing in England and Wales does not always command the confidence of the public. Public protection is a key principle of sentencing, yet all too often we see cases of offending where serious sexual and violent offenders are not receiving sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes.
The passing of correct sentencing is crucial, and based on the right legislation and procedure, it will bring increased public confidence. However, despite the Government’s extension of the scheme in recent years, which has been strongly welcomed in Ashfield and Eastwood, my constituents are still concerned that not enough crimes are included on the scheme’s eligibility list. The extension of the scheme will keep offenders who pose a risk to the public off the streets for longer and help restore public confidence that robust sentences are executed in a way that better reflects the gravity of the crimes committed.
In previous years, we have seen the scheme work well and become increasingly popular. In November 2017, the Solicitor General noted that the number of sentences considered by the Attorney General’s office had more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, from 342 to 837. The Attorney General said that the 833 referrals received by his office in 2016 were a 17% increase from the previous year.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are strict deadlines for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which sometimes mean that a victim or member of a victim’s family who wishes to challenge a sentence is unable to do so because they have not received proper advice? I have the case of Tracey Hanson, whose son Josh Hanson was brutally murdered. She applied in the 28 days but was past the office-hours deadline, so she was not able to challenge the sentence. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for better advice for victims beforehand so that they can challenge sentences properly and be aware of their rights?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I totally agree that more advice should be readily available for the victims of these horrid crimes.
The scheme has seen many recent successes, including in relation to a 28-year-old male from Leeds who was found guilty of rape in 2019. This abhorrent individual was originally sentenced to 14 years and six months’ imprisonment. After the sentence was reviewed as too lenient, it was altered to 18 years, with an extended licence of eight years—that is an extra four years for this vile criminal to reflect on his wicked crime and four more years that he is off our streets.
My constituents in Ashfield and Eastwood are delighted with results such as that, particularly when they see first hand the effectiveness of the scheme in reviewing sentences closer to home. Eighteen-year-old Edi Gomes of Nottinghamshire was convicted of a city centre stabbing and originally sentenced at Nottingham Crown court in May 2019 to 240 hours of unpaid worked. Most of the time, our justice system gets things completely right, but the example of Gomes shows that there are cases that need to be reviewed. He got 240 hours of unpaid work, but a violent offence as serious as wounding with intent and possessing a bladed article warrants a custodial sentence.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he agree that it is not just about the sentence but about the charges in the first place? It is critical that the Crown Prosecution Service matches the right crime with the right charges. For example, the CPS often prefers to charge an assault at a lower level, which means it is likely to be dealt with in a magistrates court and result in a lower sentence, because in the opinions of some in the CPS there is more likely to be a conviction as a result. The cases therefore never get to the Crown Court, where they really need to be.
Lee Anderson
My hon. Friend is quite right: sometimes it is the easy option to put a case through a magistrates court rather than a Crown court. I completely agree, and I want our judiciary system to take the harder option in future to ensure that such vile crimes are put through the Crown court and result in the maximum sentence possible.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is one of the soundest voices in this House who entered in 2019. He is a true champion for the now “blue wall”, as it is dubbed. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we had an example of a young man who was brutally stabbed, along with a cyclist who was passing by. The young man who stabbed them received only a three-year sentence with the promise of an 18-month release. My hon. Friend referred to a case in his area where knife crime was not being handled seriously. Does he agree that, if we are to tackle the scourge of knife crime, the sentence must fit the crime?
Lee Anderson
I completely agree once again that the sentence must fit the crime. The unduly lenient sentence scheme is tailored for such incidents, and I hope that it has been referred to the Attorney General.
Edi Gomes in Nottinghamshire was sentenced to 240 hours of unpaid work and was then back out on the streets. That is not justice for the victim, and it sends out the wrong message to the public and our police. I was therefore delighted to hear that the case was referred to the Attorney General, whose office agreed that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal under the scheme, which ruled that his previous non-custodial sentence was too lenient and that he should be locked up. Following the review, Gomes was sentenced to 18 months in custody.
To have a long-term impact on reducing knife crime, it is essential that the police, the justice system and communities take a stand together. The custodial sentencing decision sends the right message to those who carry and use knives in Nottinghamshire and across the country. The scheme sends a message to the general public that the Government will do whatever it takes to ensure that the people who commit these offences face the full consequences of their actions.
My constituents were further encouraged by the effectiveness of the scheme when, in 2018, two Nottinghamshire drug dealers were jailed over the importation of more than £65 million-worth of cocaine and heroin and handed 16-year custodial sentences. More than 142 kilos of drugs were seized at the helm of the two men, and with their sentences ruled too lenient they each received an extra three years on top of their original sentences. Those men deserve nothing less than 19 years’ imprisonment.
I appeal to the Attorney General to consider extending the scheme to ensure that all crimes where someone has died are eligible for review. Although death by dangerous driving is covered by the unduly lenient sentence scheme, death by careless driving is not. It is my belief that if a crime involves a death, that should be a triggering factor in deciding whether it is serious enough to be reviewed.
There has been some success with the scheme in terms of sexual offences, with the recent example of school bus driver Robert Woolner, who took photos of young girls leaving his bus and was found guilty of attempting to arrange a child sex offence. He will now be imprisoned for longer after his sentence was reviewed under the scheme. Woolner was arrested after he was caught communicating and discussing oral sex with a person whom he thought was a 13-year-old boy. The boy was in fact an undercover police officer, and the offender was arrested in the place where they had arranged to meet. Police then found extreme pornographic content on Woolner’s phone, as well as three videos made during his employment as a school bus driver showing under the skirts of schoolgirls as they left the school bus.
On 17 July, Woolner was originally sentenced at St Albans Crown Court to 12 months’ imprisonment for attempting to arrange or facilitate a child sex offence, possessing extreme pornographic images and multiple counts of recording an image under clothing. Following the Solicitor General’s intervention, the Court of Appeal increased his sentence to two years and six months’ imprisonment. An individual such as Robert Woolner, who is evidently extremely dangerous, shows us exactly why this scheme is necessary.
The Government must continue to work to fulfil our manifesto commitments to bring in tougher sentences. A more efficient approach to sentencing will grow confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to deal effectively with the worst offenders and protect citizens. No one should feel unsafe walking our streets, so I look to the Minister with great optimism and belief that this Government will take the approach I have outlined and seriously consider extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme to cover more sentences. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance, on behalf of the people of Ashfield and Eastwood, to put this debate to this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I bring in the Minister, I just wanted to explain that when the Adjournment debate starts before 10 o’clock, we have to move the motion again. That is why I had to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I hope I did not put him off his stride—it does not sound as though I did.
The Solicitor General (Michael Ellis)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents and for securing this debate on this important topic. It says a good deal about him that his chosen topic has secured the attendance of so many of our hon. Friends and hon. Members for this Adjournment debate.
I join my hon. Friend in recognising, as he did in his opening comments, our brilliant judiciary. They are rightly renowned the world over for their intellectual brilliance and integrity. I also agree with him about the importance of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is a vital feature of our criminal justice system that the Court of Appeal has the ability, and has had for some 30 years, to intervene in the small but important number of cases where sentencing judges get it wrong. Since its introduction more than 30 years ago, the scheme has allowed prosecutors, victims, family members and the general public—in fact, anyone at all— to seek a review by the Law Officers, which means by myself or by the Attorney General, of sentences in the most serious cases that they consider to be unduly lenient.
We have some 80,000 criminal cases in this country per annum, and I wish to be clear that in the vast majority of them—more than 99%—sentencing judges get it right. However, the ULS scheme remains an important safety mechanism to rectify errors in sentencing and to ensure that justice is done in individual cases. As I have said, the number of sentences found to be unduly lenient continues to be a very small proportion, but the number of cases considered by my office has grown significantly, In 2010, 342 sentences were considered by my office, whereas in 2019 that had increased to 577. The Law Officers referred 93 cases to the Court of Appeal, which led to a sentence increase in 63 of those cases.
As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are fully committed to ensuring that justice is done for victims of crime, and the ULS scheme is an important part of that. He proposes an extension of the scheme to cover more sexual offences and crimes where someone has died. Of course, these are clearly serious offences and they are often traumatising crimes for victims and their families, and it is right that they deserve serious and careful consideration by the criminal justice system. He specifically mentioned that the offence of causing death by careless driving is not within the scheme. Two key principles apply to sentencing: the harm caused by a crime and the culpability. In terms of harm, that offence involves the most serious consequence—a death. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that I recognise this, and it is not something we take lightly at all. In terms of culpability, there is an important distinction between dangerous and careless driving, and the sentencing regime reflects that. Sometimes the consequences of a collision may be entirely disproportionate to the culpability of the offender. A relatively minor action by a driver or a single moment of inattention may have horrendous and tragic consequences. That, of course, does not change the fact that the consequences of these cases are dire and devastating for families.
The intention of the ULS scheme is that it is reserved for the most serious cases. That being said, the remit of any extension to the ULS scheme lies with the Ministry of Justice, and the scheme has been extended in recent times. It now covers all cases that are triable only in the Crown court. As well as other serious offences, it covers murder, manslaughter, rape, child sex offences, drug dealing, racially and religiously aggravated crimes, arson, criminal damage and terrorism offences.
Following manifesto commitments by this Government and a further commitment in the 2018 victims strategy, in November 2019 the Government extended the scheme to 14 further offences including stalking, harassment, coercive and controlling behaviour and additional child sexual offences, particularly those involving indecent images of children and abusing a position of trust with a child. I am sure that my hon. Friend and Members across the House will agree that including those horrific and critically damaging offences in the scheme was an important step to take. Those abhorrent crimes carry a distressing and long-lasting impact, and it is our duty to hold perpetrators of the most horrific and serious offences to account.
We have successfully referred cases under the extended scheme to the Court of Appeal. I have done so, including in person. That includes the particularly horrific case of Haitch Macklin, who was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for offences of making indecent images of children. That case involved no fewer than 2,196 indecent photographs and videos in which young children were horrifically abused. I referred the case to the Court of Appeal, and the sentence was increased from 20 months’ imprisonment to four years’ imprisonment.
Every case referred to my office that falls within the scheme is carefully considered by either myself or the Attorney General, and I take great pride in the scheme and the justice that it delivers to victims and their families. I personally present cases in court wherever I can. I presented the reference in the case of Joshua Dalgarno. Dalgarno was an offender who met his former partner on a dating website. He inflicted a range of domestic abuse on her between June and September 2019. The offending comprised a number of violent attacks, obsessive and controlling contact by telephone, controlling the contact the victim had with others, monitoring her telephone and social media contact with others and taking her car. The abuse even continued after the offender’s arrest. Having been released on bail, he threatened the victim and her sister on another occasion, and he had a history of violent offending against his former partners. The offender was originally given a community sentence for an offence of controlling and coercive behaviour. The Court of Appeal agreed with my submission that the sentence was unduly lenient and increased it to three years’ imprisonment.
It is vital that, in cases such as these, abusers are truly brought to justice and victims and the public are afforded protection against further abuse. That is why the ULS scheme is so essential, to ensure that perpetrators of the most serious crimes who inflict violence and psychological abuse on their victims are held accountable.
As well as correcting sentencing errors, the ULS scheme contributes to clarifying the law, recently in the area of so-called one-punch manslaughter and in cases in which offenders believe that they are arranging sexual contact with a child but are in fact speaking with undercover police officers—we are seeing a fair few such cases. The Court of Appeal agreed with my submissions in the cases of Barney Coyle and Michael Taiwo. Those horrific but unconnected cases involved the all too often seen scenario in which, sadly, a punch thrown in the heat of the moment resulted in the death of another human being. The ULS references for both cases led the Court of Appeal to clarify that, notwithstanding that an offender may not intend to kill, the culpability of the offender means that such offences can be of such seriousness that judges need to sentence within the higher categories of the sentencing guidelines.
The cases of Kyle Edwards and Michael Dawson involved the offenders arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences. Both offenders believed that they were speaking with children; however, they were speaking with undercover police officers. I referred both cases on the basis that I concluded that the sentences were unduly lenient in and of themselves, but it was also clear that the application of sentencing law in the area could benefit from clarification. Notwithstanding that the offences do not actually involve a real child, sentences must sometimes—in fact, always—look at the culpability of the offender, too: what did they intend to do if they met the child? The Court of Appeal agreed with that submission and further emphasised the appropriate approach to sentencing in these cases.
I will touch briefly on public awareness. My hon. Friend is right that awareness of the scheme is vital. We receive a volume of referrals from victims and the wider public that indicate that they are aware in principle, but I know that we can do more. The Ministry of Justice is in the process of revising the victims code to address its complexity and give victims more clarity on their rights. My hon. Friend also referred to the sentencing White Paper; as he correctly stated, the priority of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. It is also the Government’s role to provide the right sentencing framework for judges to follow. The ULS scheme is, of course, focused on how judges apply the law and the Sentencing Council guidelines as they stand; it is Parliament that decides the legal framework in which they operate.
My hon. Friend is right that the system of sentencing in England and Wales sometimes does not command the confidence of the general public at large. That is why I am grateful to him for the opportunity this evening to highlight not only the ULS scheme, which I believe commands the confidence of the public, but the measures that the Government and the Ministry of Justice will take to tackle sentencing on a wider scale. The Government will legislate on the measures in the sentencing White Paper in the near future. That legislation will include measures targeted at certain serious violent and sexual offenders so that they will serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than being released automatically at the halfway point.
In conclusion, I am immensely proud of my involvement with the unduly lenient sentencing scheme and the justice that it brings for victims of some of the most horrific crimes. We can only refer cases that appear to us as Law Officers to be unduly lenient, but we will, and do, take the utmost care in that assessment. We frequently receive positive feedback from victims and their families where sentences of offenders are increased; I must say that it can be quite moving when we receive letters and the like from those who have been bereaved, for example, and who are grateful that the case has been reviewed by the Law Officers and referred to the Court of Appeal. However, the scheme is kept under constant review, and I understand that a case may be made that further individual offences or categories of cases merit inclusion.
It is important that there is finality in sentencing for both victims and defendants. Parliament intended this to be an exceptional power, and it is important that any extension is considered carefully. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to carefully review every sentence referred to my office that is within the scheme. The Attorney General and I will listen to any representations made regarding extending and improving the scheme.
Bambos Charalambous
On the point about improving the scheme, the Solicitor General mentioned awareness as an issue. He also mentioned the victims code coming up soon, but can he enlighten me as to whether he envisages there being greater awareness for victims and their families of the existence of the scheme? Many of them are not aware and do not know about it, so they cannot bring cases to his attention.
The Solicitor General
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is right, and we are doing everything we can to make the existence of the scheme more generally known by victims and their families. We are in liaison with the Crown Prosecution Service about how that is done. The victims code should help in that regard. We are seeing a major increase in the number of cases being referred to me and the Attorney General, so the scheme is clearly getting through to a certain extent, but there is more to be done.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for raising the ULS scheme on behalf of his constituents, whom he powerfully and ably represents. I hope I have reassured him that we as Law Officers take very seriously our role in the scheme. I am pleased to be able to highlight some of the recent successes we have had, which have led to violent and sexual offenders being given sentences they deserve and helped to bring about justice for their victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) | Chris Elmore |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Colleen Fletcher (South Ribble) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) | Steve Baker |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) | Patrick Grady |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) | Dehenna Davison |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Mohammad Yasin |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) | Chris Elmore |
Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) | Chris Elmore |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) | Stuart Andrew |
Toby Perkins | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) | Rebecca Harris |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) | Stuart Andrew |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Ian Byrne |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) | Nadia Whittome |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, may I remind the Committee of two things? First, you are well separated by social distance, so please do not change that during the course of the debate. Secondly, if you say anything, will you kindly send your remarks by email to Hansard? Hansard would take your papers, but I think it would be more courteous by email. Thirdly, those sitting in Strangers’ Gallery may do so, and may vote from there, were we to vote, but if they wish to speak, they need to come within the main area. With that, I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 988).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The regulations came into force on 15 September, following an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that the latest epidemiological data and local insights supported the action being taken. The data showed that for Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull, targeted measures needed to be taken to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus. The incident rate in Birmingham had increased to 139.1 per 100,000 people over a seven-day period from 23 to 29 September, in Sandwell to 108.1 per 100,000 and in Solihull to 98.2 per 100,000.
The director of public health considered household transmission to be the primary driver of spread. Therefore, the regulations’ aim was to mitigate the risk of household transmission. The regulations prevent gatherings involving more than one household in private dwellings. That includes outside spaces that are part of those dwellings. The regulations mirror the provisions already in place in parts of the north of England, namely Greater Manchester and Leicester. Since the measures were introduced, the number of positive cases in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull has unfortunately increased, although not at the exponential rate seen in other parts of the country.
The co-ordinated local and national effort, in particular by the people living in those local authority areas, is having an impact on reducing the rate of growth. Household transmission is understood still to be the main driver of the current case levels, so it is crucial that the regulations remain in force and for the people in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull to continue observing hands, face and space practices.
I hope that the summary just provided will provide the context for the regulations that we are debating. Given the urgency of the situation in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull, we used the emergency procedure to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They gave effect to the decisions set out by my right hon. Friend in response to that latest epidemiological evidence and local insight. Before the implementation of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020, the area was not subjected to or under any other restriction.
The measures prevent gatherings involving more than one household in private dwellings and their gardens in the protected area. There are some exemptions from the restrictions, including where all the people in the gathering are members of the same household or part of a support bubble, birth partners for mothers, end-of-life visits, education and training purposes, professional and informal childcare, emergency assistance, to facilitate house moves, to provide care to those who are vulnerable and to enable shared custody arrangements for children.
The definition of a private dwelling does not include specific businesses such as B&Bs, which should follow the covid-secure guidance. Not only do the regulations prevent people who live in a protected area from gathering in a private dwelling or garden with any other household in any location, they also prevent people living outside the protected area from gathering with another household in a private dwelling or garden within the protected area.
We revised the guidance for owners and operators of other settings, including places of worship, in the protected area. It states that they should not intentionally facilitate indoor gatherings between households, or they may be fined or closed by local authorities using new powers. Care homes have also been advised to allow visits only in exceptional circumstances to protect their vulnerable residents. No restrictions have been placed on travel, but people have been advised not to travel with people from other households.
The regulations include provisions making it a criminal offence to breach any of the restrictions or requirements, and as with the national regulations, those who breach the provisions may be issued a fixed penalty notice to fine them the amended rate of £200—or £100 if paid within 14 days—which increases for repeated breaches, up to a sum of £6,400. Offenders can also be fined following conviction.
The concern about the outbreak in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull has been significant, and engagement with local leaders has been extensive and productive throughout this period. I thank the local authority and resilience forum, Public Health England, the Joint Biosecurity Centre, local council leaders and, specifically, the local director of public health, Justin Varney, for all their action and hard work.
The decision to take action was not driven by one number; it was a judgment about the overall situation. The local councils have taken political, strategic and operational decisions in their response to the rising number of cases. They have all engaged extensively, from chief executive level to resilience partners, to increase testing in both targeted and generalised ways. They have focused on increasing compliance with social distancing measures to prevent the spread of covid-19. They are prioritising the protection of the most vulnerable in their communities. Guidance has been published for people living in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull to help them to understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions.
We always knew that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth; it was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks. As with other local regulations that we have already debated, the regulations demonstrate our willingness and ability to take action where needed and to assist the local community in so doing. By mirroring restrictions that have been successfully used in other parts of the country, we have shown that we are learning from experience. We will, of course, use the experience of the measures in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull to inform and help us to develop our responses to any future outbreaks. As I said earlier, there has been a review of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull) Regulations 2020. The next review is due on or before 9 October. We will, of course, make public the outcome of that review.
I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in the scrutiny of regulations. I particularly thank the people in the protected area in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull, who have responded so well to the measures that have been put in place. Thanks to their continued effort, we can see the rate of infection coming under control, and we hope to ease the measures as soon as we are assured that the high transmission rates have been suppressed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The Labour party will not oppose the regulations, but I want to set out concerns and questions that have been raised with me by some of the local Members of Parliament and, in particular, by Birmingham City Council, about how the announcement was made and the confusion it caused; about the need for a clearer, more comprehensive plan for local testing; and about the urgent requirement for more support for local businesses and local authorities, so that we protect jobs and the economy, and help to bring the virus under control. I say all of that in a spirit of constructiveness, because we have to get this right and learn lessons from mistakes made in the past.
I will start with concerns about how the restrictions were announced. I am afraid that when I looked into that, it was almost a mirror image of the problems that we have had in Leicester, with delays and real confusion when important announcements were made, which made people very anxious. I understand that Birmingham City Council and the Government had agreed that the restrictions would ban household mixing in homes and gardens, but household mixing would still be allowed in pubs and restaurants up to the limit of six and that the announcement would be made on Friday 11 September, which is what the Minister has just been through.
I understand that Friday morning came and went and there was still no statement from the Government. At 2 o’clock, the Conservative mayor went ahead with his normal Friday press briefing and read out a statement which said the new restrictions would mean no household mixing, but he did not make the caveat that this would still be allowed in pubs and restaurants. Members can imagine the confusion that followed. It was not until 4 o’clock that the council finally received a draft press release from the Government saying the new restrictions would prevent household mixing in homes and gardens—as was agreed—but also pubs and restaurants, which was completely not what had been agreed.
I understand that the leader of Birmingham City Council, Councillor Ian Ward, then spent the next three hours talking to the Government to try to sort out the mess. Finally, at 7 o’clock the Government clarified the restrictions would not apply to pubs and restaurants. That may not sound a great deal to Members in this room, but for people who own a pub or restaurant and are desperately worried about their future, waiting hours and hours with all that confusion really is not good enough. We also need clarity for members of the public so that they stick by the rules. Keeping people waiting for hours when their lives and livelihoods are on the line is no way to treat them.
I have been through this before with the Minister’s colleagues. How will the Government handle better the announcements on local lockdowns? They will inevitably be difficult, but we need to find a better way, so that we do not make a bad situation even worse.
Alongside any new regulations, local areas need a clear plan for testing to help to bring the virus under control. I am told that there are still real problems with getting access to tests in these areas. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) tells me she has been contacted by NHS workers in her constituency who have to isolate for days at a time until they can get a test. That is not just desperately worrying for them and their families, it has major impact on patients too.
I am told that Birmingham has asked for an extra testing site for key workers across the public sector, so the city can guarantee they will get the tests they need; extra walk-in sites, across the city, because so many people cannot drive and we do not want people who have symptoms using public transport or taxis; extra walk-in sites for students at university campuses; and priority testing for children in social care settings alongside adults who receive social care.
Will the Minister update me on whether she has received those requests and if and when they will be granted? Will she also look into what is an absolutely terrible case raised with me by the city council and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston into unacceptable failures by the Serco-run accommodation for asylum seekers in the city? I am told that 26 people tested positive with corona virus in the Serco-run accommodation in Stone Road. Public health officials went in and found the accommodation was way too over-crowded to be covid-secure, and the city council took enforcement action ordering everybody in the accommodation to self-isolate. Then, unbelievably, the Home Office moved dozens of people out of that accommodation, some to other parts of the city and around 40 people over 120 miles away to Hammersmith and Fulham. I am sure the Minister agrees that it is totally unacceptable for the Government to break their own rules on self-isolation. What will she do to make sure that that terrible mistake does not happen again?
The Chair
Order. It is right to give the hon. Lady a good degree of latitude in this matter, as she is raising important matters, but she must address herself to the instrument under consideration and not discuss matters beyond its remit. The Minister does not have personal responsibility for some of the matters and therefore will not be able to answer. I do not want to cut the hon. Lady short, but maybe she could address herself particularly to the SI.
Liz Kendall
Of course, I hear and understand what you say, Mr Gray, so I will now move on to a point that I believe is related to this SI: if we are putting extra restrictions on to an area, the local council will need extra help to do the testing required to bring infection rates down and local businesses will require extra support. We need a strategy. If we want to see our schools go back, our businesses open up and our universities return and to keep in control of the virus, we must ensure that people get the extra support they need, so that we have a proper system of testing, people properly self-isolate, which did not happen in the case of the accommodation of the asylum seekers, and we bring the infection rates down.
I know and understand that the Minister is not responsible for support for businesses in the area. However, I know as a local MP—and as the Minister will understand—that with the extra restrictions that are being put in place, people are very worried, especially in sectors such as the events industry. I am sure everyone in this Committee knows about, and has probably been to, Birmingham’s National Exhibition Centre—I certainly have, many times in the past—and the Minister will know that the NEC Group turned the NEC in Birmingham into a Nightingale hospital. That was absolutely brilliant work, which we all needed in the city, but the NEC Group says:
“As an organisation who played such a pivotal role in the national effort to combat this virus, transforming our venue into the NHS Nightingale Birmingham, we now need UK Government to show the same commitment to our cause and offer tailored support to the UK #liveeventssector.”
I wonder whether the Minister might raise that issue with her Treasury colleagues.
I have also been asked to raise concerns from the hospitality sector, which, prior to the pandemic, supported more than 135,000 jobs in the west midlands, contributing about £12.6 billion to the regional economy. Companies in the hospitality sector are worried about the speculation that the Government may bring in the restrictions on mixing of households in the hospitality sector that have been put in place in the north-east. Concern has been raised about whether the Government have any plans to do that in Birmingham, Solihull and Sandwell, and I hope she will be able to clarify that point today.
Birmingham City Council tells me that its latest contact tracing data shows that only 2% of the positive contacts it is picking up are in the hospitality sector; 83% are still in households. The council is concerned to avoid any further restrictions, and the leaders of the city council in Birmingham and councils in Solihull, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Sandwell and Walsall have written a joint letter to the Chancellor about support for the hospitality sector. They are really worried about it, because it is already struggling with the restrictions that have been placed on it nationally.
Finally, I turn to the issue of support for the local authorities that, because of these local restrictions, are having to do a huge amount more work. They are already stretched to the limit after 10 years of budget cuts and they really need extra support. I understand that in July the Government allocated funding of around £8.4 million to deal with coronavirus, but the city council is not clear whether that funding is supposed to cover the financial year or the year to July 2021. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that for me.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Perhaps my hon. Friend can explain, or the Minister can when she comes to sum up, but I am not clear about what role Mayors play in this particular situation. Perhaps that is something we could elicit in the response from the Minister.
Liz Kendall
It is difficult; when we are trying to put forward practical solutions for how additional extra local lockdowns work, it needs to be a package including the local extra testing capacity that the city council, hospitals and local universities provide. However, if there are going to be extra restrictions through local lockdowns, support for local businesses and public services also has to be considered. That is the way that we do our business, but it is not how people live their lives. The economy and getting on top of the virus go hand in hand, because if we do not have the support to get on top of the virus, we cannot get the economy open, which we all want.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point, which she should perhaps make on Second Reading in the main Chamber; in Committee, our job is to consider the details of the statutory instrument in front of us, not the wider implications. I have given a fair degree of latitude, but we should now return to the SI.
Liz Kendall
Message received and understood, Mr Gray. I hope the Minister will respond to the point about support for the city council in doing extra testing. The council tells me that it initially expected to get around 20 to 30 contact cases to follow up per day, but it is now getting 300, 400 or 500 a day, so there is a significant gap that needs to be addressed.
People in Birmingham, Sandwell, Solihull, and the people of Leicester, who now cannot see their families in their homes or gardens, want to hear from the Minister how restrictions will be lifted, even if she cannot say when. People doing the right thing and not meeting up with family or the people they love most in their houses and gardens, as these restrictions say, need some light at the end of the tunnel. What are the criteria by which the Government will consider releasing these restrictions, and how will that be fair across the country? We need clarity on those points.
In conclusion, we all want our children back at school, students back at university and businesses back and opening their doors. In order to do that without losing control of the virus, we need three things: an effectively functioning test and trace system, support so that people can properly isolate, and simple, clear messages that everyone knows and can follow. The Government have major problems in all three areas, as the latest loss of 16,000 coronavirus tests, revealed today, clearly shows. The Government must get to grips with these problems, and fast.
Jo Churchill
I thank hon. Members for contributing to this important debate. The restrictions that we have debated in part today are necessary and important for three reasons.
First, it is important to protect the people of Birmingham, Sandwell, Solihull and the surrounding area from this terrible virus. The restrictions we have had to impose have been difficult, but I think that people in protected areas across the country recognise that these measures have been vital to stopping the spread of the virus, and those in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull are no different.
Secondly, the restrictions in those places protect those of us who do not live in that area, and as a result of the ongoing restrictions, there is less risk of the high infection rates in the city and surrounding areas spreading elsewhere. We should appreciate that the restrictions and difficulties faced by those in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull will benefit the country as a whole, and I offer everyone who is under these restrictions my thanks.
Thirdly, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused and effective way. We are learning from what has happened in Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull as we work with local authorities and others, including local Mayors, to respond to future localised outbreaks. We have seen that recently in parts of the north-west and north-east, as well as the west midlands. While the impact of the regulations has not been as significant as we would have hoped, together with the national measures now in force, infection rates in areas of Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull have not risen, as I said, as fast as in other countries. We hope to be able to ease the measures as soon as we are assured that the high transmission rates have been suppressed, to realign Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull with the rest of England’s measures. The next review will take place on 9 October.
I gently say to the hon. Member for Leicester West that it would be wonderful to have a crystal ball, but we do not, so we have to take a measured approach. We know that as the cases rise, the next 10 days are important in understanding how those rises transmute through to people getting infected. Then it will be a further 10 days before we look at hospitalisation. The overarching aim is still to protect the NHS, and that must be our aim. As the hon. Lady said, so much hard work went into the first phase, and so many people helped to set up Nightingale hospitals and so on. That is the same aim that we are carrying on with. After the review on 9 October, when the figures will be understood, more information will come forward.
The hon. Lady mentioned a few things. As the Chair said, some were out of scope, but I will cover one or two of the areas. We consult local authorities, mayors and local directors of public health, and we will continue to do so. It is not purely about the rates: it is about the overall picture in the area, as the hon. Lady understands from her experience. As she said, there is not a constituency MP in this place who does not feel for business owners and constituents who might be subject to these events. We want our schools and businesses open, which is why we have made sure that we have ramped up testing.
The hon. Lady mentioned the pleas from the conference and hospitality sector. I understand that representatives have written to the Chancellor, who I am sure will respond. She would not expect me to comment on many of the specifics, but I would like to pick her up on the fact that the numbers of people who are being contact-traced are exponential by comparison with what was expected. That obviously means that contact tracing—test and trace is up and active—is working. As of 4 October, testing capacity was at 310,288 per day, whereas it was 2,000 in March. On that day, 264,979 tests were processed. If there are specific challenges with testing in specific areas, I would be happy to take those up.
Liz Kendall
The point was more that the local authority was getting a lot more contacts that it had to follow up. It is asking whether it will get the financial support to do that properly. That was my question to the Minister.
Jo Churchill
To move on to the finances, all councils, in producing their local outbreak plans, are being supported by £300 million of funding from the national Government. In particular, we have provided £84,278,494 to Birmingham City Council, over £25 million to Sandwell and over £13 million to Solihull. In addition, each council has received additional funding to provide small business grant funds and retail, hospitality and leisure funds. In Birmingham, that has equated to over £214 million, in Sandwell, it is over £56 million, and in Solihull, it is over £26 million.
The Government are supporting businesses and the population. The hon. Lady mentioned that people perhaps feel compelled to go out to work. The Government have provided further support in recent weeks, ensuring that people on low or restricted incomes can access funds to enable them to self-isolate as they are being asked to do.
I conclude by recording on behalf of the Government our thanks to the people of Birmingham, Sandwell and Solihull, particularly NHS and care workers—indeed, all key workers in the city—for their ongoing hard work to keep our vital services running and save lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
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
Covid-19: Maternity and Parental Leave
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Welcome to the first sitting of Westminster Hall under these very unusual and temporary arrangements. I hardly need remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. As I look around, the Room is a picture of perfection—nobody is less than 2 metres away from anyone else. I ask hon. Members to sanitise microphones before using them and to respect the one-way system for moving around the Room. You will find in front of you a diagram that explains by colours where we are—it is self-explanatory.
Only Members who are sitting on the horseshoe may speak. That is because of microphones and so on, but it also helps us to keep the numbers in the Room manageable. Members may speak only if they are on the call lists. That applies even if debates are undersubscribed, although this debate is not. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups, because those in the latter stages of the call list, who will use the seats in the Public Gallery, need to move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. At the moment, you are all perfectly spaced and able to speak from where you are.
I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the following two speeches once they have already spoken. That does not mean that they can abuse the system by popping in and out again, which will be frowned upon, but obviously, we have to have that rule if we want to move people around in an oversubscribed debate so that some can leave and others can come in. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent the Members in the Public Gallery from moving to the horseshoe. Does anyone have any reasonable questions about procedure before we properly begin?
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Do we move around the Room by passing behind you?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Yes, please—it is a one-way anticlockwise system. I call Catherine McKinnell.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 306691 relating to the impact of Covid-19 on maternity and parental leave.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to be able once again to hold Westminster Hall debates—I am very grateful to all the House staff who have worked incredibly hard to make it possible. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber is not a true reflection of the level of concern about the issue or interest in speaking in the debate, but there are restrictions to maintain social distancing.
There is no doubt, however, about the level of interest in and concern about the impact of the pandemic on new mums, new families and their babies. In a matter of weeks, almost a quarter of a million people signed the petition, which calls for maternity leave to be extended for a further three months. The powerful argument made by the petition is that the additional months would make up for the crucial time that parents have lost during the pandemic and lockdown, when they have been isolated from support networks that are vital for a baby’s development. It would also alleviate some of their anxiety about having to find appropriate childcare and make arrangements to return to work when not only their own world, but the world at large has been turned upside down.
Becoming a parent can be overwhelming. No matter how well or easily a new parent adjusts, it is rarely quite how they imagined it. It is not only the physical changes, such as the impact of the birth itself, but the emotional, hormonal and sleep-deprived journey, that can take an enormous toll on new parents. One thing is for sure: life will never go back to how it was before. Add to that bringing new life into the world in the middle of a pandemic, and there is a clear case for giving new parents at least some more time, if not a whole range of additional support.
The huge support for this petition sparked an inquiry by the Petitions Committee, which I have the privilege to chair. Over the course of the inquiry, almost 70,000 people shared their experiences with us. We held online evidence sessions with expert witnesses, including psychologists, health visitors, childcare sector experts and new parents. I pay tribute to the brave and powerful contributors to our inquiry, to our lead petitioners James and Jessie, parents to baby Elliot, and to Bethany, mum to baby Jayden. I have huge admiration for those new parents who have not only faced significant challenges themselves but have fought to get the help that they and parents up and down the country need.
The message that emerged from our Committee’s inquiry was clear: the impact of this pandemic on new parents has been profound, and a failure to act now risks impacting the mental and physical health and wellbeing not just of new parents in the immediate term but of their babies in the long term. We were told in stark terms that we are the first generation of legislators to know about the impact of maternal mental health on the development of children. We therefore have no excuse not to act.
Many new parents want an extension of paid parental leave to give them time to find adequate childcare and settle their babies for their return to work. In many cases, previously arranged childcare or support from relatives is just not an option. We know that new mothers are at a much greater risk of discrimination and redundancy in normal times, but as we face the seismic economic impact of this pandemic, those risks will become greater.
Therefore, in July our Committee published a report not just recommending the core ask of the petition but making no fewer than 23 recommendations to the Government. Each sensible, constructive and deliverable suggestion was designed to lessen the impact of the crisis on new parents. As well as extending maternity leave, we called on the Government to extend access to free dental care, capture more data on the uptake of parental leave, extend the furlough scheme to include all pregnant women, amend the self-employment income support scheme, update the Government discussions with the baby group sector, fund and provide additional catch-up support, increase health visitor services, provide neonatal leave, pay and rapid testing, conduct an urgent review into childcare and a longer-term independent review, provide redundancy protection for new mums, extend the period for bringing an employment tribunal claim, extend adoption leave and pay, and provide support for special guardians.
Despite the urgency, it was not until September that the Government responded, and it was an extremely disappointing response. Almost every one of our recommendations was rejected. The Government agreed to provide an update on discussion with the baby group sector and hold a discussion meeting with the groups to understand how parents could be supported to return to work. That was the only ask that the Government agreed to. In rejecting our evidenced, reasonable and deliverable recommendations, they demonstrated a failure to understand the deep anxiety of mothers and fathers across the country, and a failure to follow the science.
At People’s PMQs on 10 July, new mum Bethany Jade did an excellent job of putting this issue to the Prime Minister, who promised that he would take a look at our report. Fast forward to September, and I raised it again with the Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee, but he had clearly made no further effort to follow Bethany Jade’s request. The fact that he is a new father during this pandemic makes me wonder how none of this resonated more.
The case is told most powerfully by new parents themselves. Petitioner Bethany Power said:
“I am in shock of the Government’s dismissal.”
Tiana said:
“Mums and babies don’t matter to this Government. It’s more important that people can play golf or get a pint.”
Charlotte said:
“One of the things that I have found hardest and most distressing about this time has been the lack of contact with family and friends. I have seen my family twice this year due to the lockdown and restrictions in place and so have missed this support.”
Sarah said:
“I spent the whole of my third trimester unable to see my family, prepare for my birth as antenatal classes were cancelled, go to shops to buy essentials and uncertain if my husband would be allowed into the birth of our first child. This caused a huge amount of distress for me and effected my mental health”.
Liz said:
“Discriminated against and forgotten about. Not even an extension to free dental care that we can’t access.”
Testimony from the sector has come in thick and fast. On the Government’s claim that the UK’s maternity offer is generous, Emily Tredget from Happity said:
“Whilst it is amongst the longest, it is sadly lacking in terms of financial support, actually being one of the worst in the developed world.”
On protecting pregnant women in the workplace:
“Daily I see women asking for advice after tricky discussions with HR where they’ve been told that childcare isn’t the problem of the employer, or that they can’t go onto unpaid leave and so are forced to resign.”
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who I am pleased is with us today, has introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the issue, which reinforces cross-party support. Will the Government urgently review their approach and bring forward a clear timetable for these planned reforms to be implemented? Women need protection now.
Health visitor services were already stretched before the pandemic and now some have reportedly been forced to care for up to 2,400 families with newborns at a time, which is 10-times the recommended number. Mary Renfrew, professor of mother and infant health at the University of Dundee, has warned:
“Taking resources away from maternity care doesn’t make sense because we know that will create long-term harm.”
Will the Minister commit today to urgently reviewing health visitor provision, in light of the clear evidence that the services are overwhelmed?
On the challenges faced by baby and toddler groups, the First 1001 Days Movement said that the Government’s response
“shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of parent and baby groups.”
The Government continue to fail to listen and their response, published today, claims that there is a “wealth” of Government guidance available, but the sector has said repeatedly that this guidance is not clear enough. Many groups are struggling to reopen, as venues and insurers interpret the guidance differently. Will the Government recognise the problem and make simple changes to the language, as suggested in both our correspondence and by representatives of the sector, to provide much-needed clarity to a sector they have acknowledged is important to parents?
On access to childcare, Maternity Action has said:
“Since March, the Government has rightly spent unprecedented sums to support employment. However, if it does not take urgent action to shore up the childcare sector and enable parents, particularly mothers, to return to work, much of that investment will be wasted… Four in ten working mothers with young children cannot get… enough childcare to cover their working hours.”
Will the Government take another look at this and recognise the challenges that is causing for many working parents across the country?
Even neonatal leave, an existing policy commitment and one that we recommended should be piloted now, was rejected. The charity Bliss has said:
“Research shows families are struggling with the practicalities of having a sick baby alongside job insecurity and restricted finances, and that extra support is desperately needed.”
In conclusion, it has been almost six months since the petition started and many new parents have passed the point at which their maternity entitlement has come to an end. Is the Government’s strategy just to wait the situation out? In the spring, lockdown placed a huge strain on people and local restrictions are causing many to worry that we are heading for more of the same. An ever-growing cohort of new parents have been left without support at a crucial time in their and their babies’ lives. There are many practical and realistic steps, as set out in our Committee’s report, that the Government could take to support new parents. To date, we have heard many warm words from Ministers, but these will not provide parents with the support they need.
There is a long-established principle that, even in good times, a blanket of support is wrapped around new mums and their babies. That is why we have maternity leave, health visitors, post-partum mental health support and a period of free dentistry, to mention just a few. There is a clear evidence base for that. It not only supports and protects new mothers at a time of increased vulnerability, but it protects their baby too. If we believe that giving the best start in life to every baby matters, that matters during the pandemic too.
It is not good enough to say that we are all in this together, when we know that some people are affected much more than others. New mums are clearly hugely affected by this pandemic, and the consequences could last for generations. They have stepped up to the plate. It is time the Government did their part too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Eleanor Laing (in the Chair)
Order. We will start with a time limit of five minutes for Backbench speeches.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and it is a pleasure to speak in this debate on an issue close to my heart, as my son was just four months old when we went down into lockdown in March. We went from having a busy schedule of baby yoga, coffees with other mums, leisurely trips to the park, visits from family—all the things that people do to get through the sleepless nights and caring for a tiny baby—to overnight having no social interaction at all and rarely leaving the house. On top of that, throw home schooling a five-year-old into the mix—holding a baby in a sling or breastfeeding while trying to teach the five-year-old phonics.
For me, being an MP, switching off from work during the pandemic simply was not an option, so when the baby slept, the laptop went on as I dealt with the unprecedented number of emails from constituents. What struck me, though, was that in response to the pandemic, no one in Government seemed to be advocating for the very specific needs of young babies and their families. That matters, because pregnancy and the first few years of a baby’s life are key developmental stages, and adverse experiences and stress during this time can have a long-term impact on a child’s life chances. Sadly, the statistics are clear. The “Babies in Lockdown” report commissioned by the Parent-Infant Foundation found that 68% of parents felt that changes brought about by covid-19 were affecting their unborn baby, baby or young child. The same number also felt that their ability to cope with pregnancy or to care for their baby had been affected by the covid restrictions.
I spoke to some mums from my constituency ahead of the debate, and I want to use the debate as an opportunity to give them a voice. Nic told me:
“Being a new mum, I worry I am not doing enough for my daughter, and also making sure she is eating enough. As the midwife drop-in centres have been closed, I have been unable to weigh her or be able to speak to a midwife or health visitor face to face. That has been a real worry for me.”
Samara said:
“My biggest challenge was feeling isolated at home, trying to look after a baby and a toddler without much support. I felt overwhelmed and alone, so I would have loved some support with childcare from other family members.”
Louisa told me:
“I feel like coronavirus has stolen my maternity leave. The first few months of a baby’s life are about trying to adjust and to get to know your newborn. We had only been going to activities for a few weeks before the support network disappeared overnight. From March until September, my daughter did not meet or engage with other babies. I go back to work in December, and I am already worried about how my daughter will settle into nursery due to her lack of interaction with other adults or babies.”
I also spoke to two mums who gave birth during lockdown. Sophie said:
“I spent four days in hospital on my own after the birth of my first child. I was struggling to establish breastfeeding and felt incredibly isolated. My baby had tongue-tie, but because of covid, the waiting list to get it sorted was six weeks, so we had to pay privately.”
Finally, Rachel said:
“I’ve had mental health problems in the past, so I had a care plan, which involved having a named midwife. That changed due to covid, and appointments were cancelled. My husband was only allowed in 20 minutes before my daughter was born. My care plan had involved having my sister and mum coming to help with the baby, but that couldn’t happen. Three weeks after the birth, I came down with severe post-natal depression and opted to go to a mother and baby unit.”
Many of those stories resonate with me and my own experience. I hope that the Government listen to our collective voice and provide additional support, including resources to allow missed health contacts and other outreach from early years services, such as children’s centres, to take place. Children’s centres have closed at pace over the past 10 years, and that trend needs to be reversed now more than ever, with significant investment given to early years services. Face-to-face health visiting services must be fully restored; again, they require investment, having been cut over many years. Funding is also needed for the more informal support, such as playgroups and drop-ins, which provide a lifeline for so many families but have struggled to reopen their doors. The Government should also revisit guidance about partners being present before and after births.
I thank the Petitions Committee for securing the debate. More importantly, I thank all the parents who signed the petition and called on the Government to listen to their voices. I know at first hand the struggles of the past six months. I applaud everyone who has faced maternity and paternity leave in lockdown. I hope, like them, that the Government are listening.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Petitions Committee for its excellent report, the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) for their contributions to securing the debate, and all the organisations that gave evidence towards the report, especially Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action.
Parents have faced extraordinary challenges, and none more so than new parents during the pandemic. I would like to comment briefly on three issues raised in the report and its recommendations. It certainly was good to hear the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge reminding us all what it is like to be a new mother or father and the uncertainty that we all face at that time. The lack of access to family members—often mum, who is really good at being there at that time—has been very difficult indeed. We are still waiting for my niece to give birth to her first child, another baby conceived and born in the pandemic period.
The first specific issue in the report that I would like to look at is childcare. Members know that one of the most challenging things for our constituents was trying to balance work with looking after their children, when often their childcare provider was not able to provide them with the childcare that they needed, although obviously many nurseries were open for frontline workers and we applaud them for that. I also applaud the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), the Minister in charge of childcare, for the work that they clearly did to ensure that the system continued to work even in these very difficult circumstances. I am thinking particularly of the report’s recommendations 19 and 20, which include a call for a review of funding and of lessons learned. There is always a place for learning lessons, and clearly it has been very frustrating for parents to have to try to balance everything without the childcare that they have come to rely on, but I would like to place it on the record that I think that the Ministers have done an amazing job to ensure that free hours have continued to be available for two, three and four-year-olds, that the funding was there even when settings were closed, and that more than £3 billion continues to be spent on nursery provision. I hope that all local authorities are doing what they need to do to ensure that that childcare is secure for the future.
When we look at other areas, particularly the way in which businesses have dealt with the issue, we see a less rosy story. Employers have found it even more challenging than ever to stay within the law regarding their treatment of women who are pregnant or on maternity leave. The Government are absolutely clear; when I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in May, he said at the Dispatch Box that
“expectant mothers are, as always, entitled to suspension on full pay if a suitable role cannot be found within the workplace.”—[Official Report, 12 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 159.]
Unfortunately, too many businesses failed to hear that or decided not to correctly interpret it, leaving too many women either being incorrectly put on sick pay or starting maternity leave earlier. We know that more women have already been made redundant in the pandemic than men, and that mothers are at much higher risk than fathers of being made redundant from this point on.
Recommendation 4 in the Committee’s report calls for
“clear guidance for employers on their obligations in respect of pregnant women who cannot safely socially distance at work”,
reiterating that women have a legal right to full pay. I fully support that recommendation—albeit that businesses should know that already.
Thirdly, we need better protection for pregnant women in the first place. I have to slightly disagree with the report here, because recommendation 21 calls for bringing in the Government’s recommendations on improving maternity leave. Well, I do not think that the Government’s recommendations are where they should be. I urge the Committee to look at my Bill, the Pregnancy and Maternity (Redundancy Protection) Bill, which would bring in protections very similar to those already in place in Germany to ensure that while women are pregnant, and up to six months after they return from pregnancy, they cannot be made redundant in the first place. Too many women—around 50,000 a year, we think—leave their jobs when they are pregnant, just because they are pregnant. A sharp warning bell has to be sent to the Government, whose own research I am citing, that the law as it stands is not working and needs to change.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank those hon. Members who have led on the issue for many months and set out quite a lot of achievable solutions. It is very clear that the pandemic has affected absolutely everyone in society, but new parents are experiencing particularly acute and harsh point-in-time impacts, because of the disruption to their plans and to services that they would have enjoyed, and because of lost opportunities to bond with family and people in the wider community, interruption to their childcare plans, and the financial hardship that many will experience.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and others outlined some of the feeling about the provision and communication of protections for pregnant women in the workplace and on furlough. I certainly endorse the recommendations of the Committee and, indeed, those of Maternity Action. Unfortunately, the negative financial impacts will have extended to self-employed women, many of whom have constructed their career in that way precisely for a better balance of home and work life. Of course, no account was made of lost earnings due to maternity leave in the qualifying period, and that has left a massive hole in the replacement income for many women, and has exacerbated the gender pay gap that already exists in the relevant part of the economy.
The threat of redundancy is, as others have said, an acute issue, and Members will know that working mothers are already deeply exposed to redundancy or job downgrading. The coming economic challenges, alongside the catastrophic effects on childcare, will sharpen the risk. The advocacy group Pregnant Then Screwed, which has been relentless on the issue, reports 11% of pregnant women being made redundant, or expecting to be made redundant, in the period in question. That is more than 20 times the incidence in the general population. More than half of those women believe that their pregnancy was a factor in the decision. The proportion made or expecting to be made redundant rises to 15% for working mothers, and 46% of those cited issues with childcare provision as a factor. That was already a marginal economic activity for providers and a huge cost for families, if they were lucky enough to be able to find a suitable provider. In that context, the period in which women can bring forward employment tribunal claims should be extended.
As Members have said, the most negative impacts may have been felt in the restrictions on attendance by partners at antenatal sessions and deliveries, and in the immediate postpartum period. There is no doubt about the pressures and challenges that healthcare providers are trying to balance, but the regulations are deeply upsetting for many women at an acutely vulnerable time. The Royal College of Midwives has said:
“Having a trusted birth partner present throughout labour and birth is known to make a significant difference to the safety and well-being of women.”
When the coronavirus is heightening anxiety,
“that reassurance is more important than ever.”
In particular, the changes in rules and their variation across trusts are creating even more anxiety. What women can expect when they are expecting can change more than once during a pregnancy. I appreciate that that is because of the ups and downs of pandemic advice in the community, but I believe such a crucial function should be protected as we are protecting the ability of small children to go to school. Restrictions in this regard should be among the very last to be made.
Women who have just had babies need support in many ways, to rest, to establish breastfeeding, in some cases to recover from major abdominal surgery, and of course just to figure out how to look after a newborn baby. Some women need to stay in hospital for care and specific support, and the rules about partners and visitors are forcing some to choose between hospital care and family care. Many will choose the latter and be discharged too soon, which will create long-term impacts. Midwives, health visitors and volunteer groups are, as other Members have outlined, next to angels in that period in the journey as a parent, with the monitoring, advice and reassurance they provide. It is tragic that that support will not have been available for many.
There will be long-term impacts from this year, for many people, and the isolation of new parents will be a big part of that. It will take imagination and resources to put in place the measures we can. We will not be able to do everything, because of the pandemic restrictions, but the Committee has outlined some measures. France, for example, has just doubled paternity leave allowance. We must make sure that we do the things we can within the restrictions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next hon. Member, the time limit will be reduced to four minutes; but, with five minutes, I call Mr Tim Loughton.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a joy to be back in Westminster Hall. It is a joy to be the first bloke to speak in Westminster Hall after the lockdown, and it is a decided bonus to have you here in the chair and to see so many colleagues suitably “spaced out”, as I think you referred to us earlier.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this debate and on the report from her Committee. It is no mean feat to have achieved over 230,000 signatures. I cannot speak with as much authority as can the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), being so close to having a four-month-old—I am rather closer to being a prospective grandparent—but I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for conception to age two: first 1001 days, and I chair the charity the Parent-Infant Foundation.
Others have already spoken out about the need for greater flexibility for maternity leave and paternity leave, brought on by the particular factors and pressures during lockdown. I agree with much of what is in the report and with what the hon. Member for Newcastle North has said. It has been interesting that the report is very much informed by the personal testimonies of many parents, including many new parents. Parents are facing extra pressures: school closures, with many parents who already had children facing having those children at home as well as going through pregnancy, confusion for employers and employees about what they are actually entitled to at work and what is safe for them to be able to work during pregnancy given the coronavirus considerations, and mixed access to childcare, as the hon. Lady said. There is also the added stress of not being able to have partners at crucial hospital appointments and scans, and in some cases even at birth, and there are some really tragic cases. I quote the case of Emma Kemsley from Saffron Walden who could not even have a partner at a termination when she found out at her 18-week scan that the baby would not survive outside the womb. It was doubly tragic. These are exceptional circumstances. These are not ordinary times.
Babies have become the forgotten part of the population during the pandemic. Over 330,000 babies have now been born in England during lockdown. Many new family members and parents have been isolated from extended family members. They have not had the usual loving care and support of grandparents around them. There have been cases of babies now exposed to other babies recoiling because they are not used to babies. They have not been at those post-natal classes where there is contact with other babies, so they are just not used to them. It is going to take a lot of normalising when we can get back into socialising, which is such an important part of the life of a new baby and of a new parent in particular. The problem in respect of health visitors is that the only families permitted to have face-to-face contact with health visitors are those that have been deemed vulnerable. That is such an important item of support in those early days, and is also an important early warning system for things potentially going wrong. Many toddlers, children and new babies have not had those important early checks, and we hear that up to 70% of health visitors have been redeployed to other hospital community settings during the pandemic. That is a really false economy when the impact that those health visitors can have so early on—for new parents in particular—is absolutely essential. Every year, 106,000 under-one-year-olds are exposed to domestic violence, parental substance misuse or severe mental ill health, yet only 15,000 of them are supported by social workers.
The Parent-Infant Foundation, which I chair, produced the report “Babies in Lockdown” jointly with Best Beginnings and Home-Start UK. The report showed that almost seven in 10 parents felt that the changes brought about by covid were affecting their unborn baby or young child. Over two-thirds of respondents in the survey carried out by us said that, overall, their ability to cope with pregnancy or care for their baby had been affected by covid restrictions. Many families and young parents from lower income backgrounds and black Asian and minority ethnic communities had been hit harder by the covid pandemic. That is likely to widen the already deep inequalities and early experiences and life chances of children. In the report we recommended a “baby boost” to enable local services to support families that had a baby during or close to lockdown, and a new parent-infant premium providing new funding for local commissioners targeted at improving outcomes for the most vulnerable children.
It is essential that those new babies—and new parents in particular—get the very best start in life and the best attachment to their children so that when they arrive at school they are normalised, socialised, ready, greedy and eager to learn and to get on with their fellow children at school. It is a false economy not to be doing more.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The time limit is now reduced to four minutes. I call Sarah Owen.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for initiating this debate here today and by declaring an interest: I had a baby just before lockdown. At the beginning of February, I gave birth to a beautiful little girl. I thank all the new parents who signed the petition and put it on the agenda here in Parliament today.
Throughout this pandemic, we have talked about either very abstract or very specific things such as whether people should go to Barnard Castle. What people really want us to discuss is what matters to them, the real-life issues, such as “Can I see my loved ones in a week’s time? Will I be able to spend Eid or Christmas with my family? Can I celebrate my friend’s wedding? Can I plan my own wedding?”––probably not right now––“Can I be with my partner when they give birth?”. I am glad that we have a chance to talk about something that has a real-life impact on people’s lives today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) said, for many people, including myself, maternity stopped pretty much as covid started. Seven weeks after our baby was born, my partner, who is a teacher, was able to work from home, so I was able to start work, and the need was great, as many MPs saw a huge rise in casework and massive need.
Some of the people who took the time to write to their MPs were pregnant women who were terrified at the prospect of having to give birth alone or to have scans and maternity appointments alone or in very strange environments. It is hard for people, particularly those who have had difficult pregnancies, miscarriages or problems with their health before. It is almost a cliché to say that this crisis has laid bare many underlying problems that have existed for far too long in this country. We know that, even before the pandemic, over 3,000 health visitors had been cut in the past five years alone. It is clear that social distancing––not being able to see each other face to face–– makes it really hard for new mums to get the support they need. We know that this impacts the child but it also impacts mothers, especially. The expert work that health visitors do on such limited resource helps narrow some of the inequalities that we have talked about. We know that seven in 10 new mums hide or underplay any struggles they are facing. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s plans are to restore the vital health visitors we have lost over the last few years and to help babies and parents to catch up on support that they have missed during the pandemic? That is absolutely vital.
When we talk about the very first stages in a child’s life, we look to children’s centres and nursery schools. All the support mechanisms have taken a massive hit because of covid, but they have stepped up. Will the Minister readdress the current situation in nursery schools, which have not been reimbursed for any of their covid costs, because that is an absolute disgrace? We know about the confusion and muddle with Government guidance but I am pleased that trusts have been enabled to allow partners to come in for maternity scans, in particular. I know that my own trust, which covers Luton and Dunstable hospital, has done that. What conversations has the Minister had with trusts? Two weeks ago, I got a written answer that said that he had had none, which is deeply concerning because trusts need to be enabled to do this.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) for whom I am full of admiration. When we first arrived in Parliament, I remember wondering whether any MP had fought their first parliamentary seat so heavily pregnant. I do not think so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her work on this issue. She is right to highlight the issues that underpin this petition. Many of them have been drawn to my attention by an organisation in my constituency, Healthwatch West Berkshire. It touched on points including and most importantly the challenges facing new mothers during lockdown––I will define that as between March and July 2020––such as not being able to see close members of their family, meet their National Childbirth Trust groups if they were in one, or go to a family or children’s centre. The support that we would wish for new mothers was not there.
I would like to confine myself to the proposal in this petition, which is the right to extend paid maternity leave by a further three months to enable bonding and social engaging with other parents and babies through baby groups. I am not going to support the petition, and I shall set out why and what else I think should be done. The first reason is that I am not persuaded that this is the purpose of maternity leave. To look at the statutory purpose we have to delve back into European law. The pregnant workers directive was what kicked off the idea of maternity leave in 1992. Its essence was the wellbeing of the mother. It was about mandating member states to offer 14 weeks for the mother to make a physical recovery from childbirth. In 2009, the European Union looked at it again, and came up with firm recommendations that member states should offer 18 weeks; in fact, it recommended 24. It said that longer leave would have a positive impact on a mother’s health, and that its priority was to help women recover from giving birth and to create a solid relationship with their child.
Maternity leave, I say very respectfully, does not and has never existed for wider developmental purposes, and we should be wary about asking for it to do so, particularly in this country, where women have a statutory right to 52 weeks’ ordinary plus additional maternity leave. I fully accept the extreme limitations that were imposed by the lockdown, but the reality was that that would not have been the entirety of any woman’s maternity leave. To the extent that childcare provision and other services are still limited, I am not persuaded that their offering would radically change if we were to change the period by three months until Christmas, or even into the new year.
My other point is that I am very worried about mothers asking for a further three months’ maternity leave, knowing how vulnerable they are in the workplace. In my experience—I used to be an employment barrister—employers would find that an onerous requirement. While they may not make a woman redundant while she is on leave or even when she has recently returned, if she is caught in a redundancy exercise, say at the back end of 2021, she will find it very difficult to establish causation in an employment tribunal. I am concerned about that.
As to what the Government should do—and the conclusion I reached after 10 years of practice—I think the way to protect, enhance and progress women in the workplace is to embed flexible working practices. We have seen through this crisis how productive and effective people can be through doing their jobs at home. We have seen men doing it for the first time in jobs they never would have thought they could do from home. We have recalibrated our view of flexible working, which can also mean working reduced hours, flexi-working and job shares. My view is that the answer is not in extending statutory leave, but in embedding statutory flexibility in the workplace.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I should make it clear that there is no prohibition on interventions. We can have a robust debate; it is absolutely fine for that to happen.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that nobody will take that advice as a reason to have a go at me—but if they do, they do.
I am delighted to participate in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for initiating it. I want to raise just three points, and I do so in the spirit of asking the Minister to look again to make sure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that everything works extremely well.
The first point relates to childcare. I fully accept that childcare is desperately important to ensure that there is the opportunity for people on maternity or paternity leave to go back to work. I fully accept that, but I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton): it is very important for the children themselves. I, too, have come across children who were born during or just before the lockdown period, but who have been immersed in lockdown, who find it really difficult to engage not just with other children, but with anyone outside their immediate family. That is such a sad thing to experience. I am not quite sure what the answer is, except to build in flexibility and make sure that we have the right sort of understanding people running nurseries.
The second group of people that I ask the Minister to look at, to see whether we are doing the right thing for them, is the self-employed. There are a large number of self-employed people here in the UK, but we know that there are certain things that we have not done right. Can it be right that just under half of self-employed people have had to give up a place at nursery in order to carry on making a living? Can it be right that we ask the self-employed to take into account things that other people, particularly those who are employed, do not have to take into account?
My final point is about those people who are employed. I know that the Minister or one of his associates has raised the question of how companies deal with people who are on maternity or paternity leave. However, as many speakers have suggested, it is still an area that is open to abuse. For example, we still see a large number of suspensions being done on incorrect terms. We also still see a large number of people who are employed in unsafe conditions. I wonder whether it is worth our getting together a group of leaders in this field to make sure that the key messages that we want to get across are really understood and communicated across companies, so that they do things in the right way. We are not asking for anything special, but we are asking that things be done in the right way.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In commencing my contribution to this debate, I pay wholehearted tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and indeed to other members of the Petitions Committee. It is rather extraordinary that the Petitions Committee had an inquiry at all; it is not a common thing for it to do. However, I think that it reflects the strength of feeling for this petition among its signatories—almost a quarter of a million in total—and given the fact that Westminster Hall was not accepting e-petition debates, it was an incredibly powerful thing to do. I am glad that the Petitions Committee not only conducted the inquiry but produced a very robust and encouraging report, which was compelling to read, and made arguments that I have yet to hear substantive rebuttals of. So I thank the hon. Lady for that.
I have no doubt that the Minister who is present here in Westminster Hall today enjoyed the evidence session—I think it was rather robust—and I must say that I have found that he has personally engaged with this issue. However, I have not found the Government to be anything other than tone deaf to the genuine aspirations expressed by mothers, to the concerns expressed by mothers and the wider family circle, and to the imperative of supporting young mothers, young babies and their wider family at a time when we have all had difficulties. I am afraid to say that the Government response was wholly insufficient.
Aside from the contribution of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), I think there is a general view in the debate that more can be done; the hon. Lady was not denying that, just the intended purpose of the petition. Given that we are potentially entering another period of restrictions within wider society—of lockdowns and circuit breakers— I ask that the Government accept today at least that this issue has not gone away. The pressures that have manifested themselves in huge levels of public support for the e-petition and in the contributions that we have made in Parliament through the Committee’s report and through the subsequent report in September show that this debate is not over.
The Government should accept that families—those in which someone is currently pregnant and those in which someone is in the early stages of maternity leave—are still looking for the Government, who have heard that further work on support for the job support scheme and other measures that that can be taken to support individuals throughout society are needed, to acknowledge that mothers and families still remain in a difficult space. Health visitors, no matter how hard those professionals have tried to respond to the needs of those under their care, are still not providing the best support that they would wish to give. They are still relying on online engagement and Zoom calls, when face-to-face contact and getting to see mother, baby and the wider surroundings within the family setting are so crucial, yet it is all still constrained.
I was pleased to ask the Prime Minister on 23 July when the Government intended to respond to the Petitions Committee inquiry. The Prime Minister said he remembered Bethany from Crewe very well and he indicated that he would consider the report and its contents. I do not think anyone who surveyed the evidence in the Hansard transcripts of the Liaison Committee could believe that there was appropriate consideration of the 23 recommendations. That time has not passed; the opportunity still remains. In the name of the 638 members of my constituency who signed the petition and the hundreds of thousands of people throughout this country, I hope the Government will respond.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is good to be back, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on securing this debate.
The Government’s response to the petition so far has been disappointing. Far too many new parents have felt completely unsupported through what should be a time to bond with their newborn child. I urge Ministers to reconsider their response and extend parental leave and pay for families during the pandemic. The Government claim that the UK is among the most generous countries in the world in terms of parental leave. In practice, that is untrue. In fact, in UNICEF’s ranking of family-friendly policies, the UK ranked only 34 out of 41 OECD countries. As highlighted in the Petitions Committee’s report, the unpaid section of parental leave is simply unaffordable for many parents. As always, it is those who are already more disadvantaged who lose out.
The issue is not only about the generosity of parental leave in the UK. We should have that discussion because it clearly deserves our attention, and we can do a lot better, but today the Government need to consider the impact that the loss of access to vital services, including health visitors, has had on families during covid. That leads me to the subject of mental health. The first 12 months are vital for a new baby. There is an enormous amount of physical and also emotional development. Undiagnosed mental health problems in parents can have significant long-lasting consequences for a newborn child. I speak as the chair of the all-party group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. It is crucial that we understand what can affect a child’s health from the start and take a trauma-informed approach to building back from the pandemic. Depression before, during and after birth is a serious condition. It can go unrecognised and untreated for nearly half of new mothers who suffer from it. That was the case before the pandemic, and my all-party group has recommended an extension of the six-week mental health check for new mums.
One problem is the narrative that motherhood is only wonderful, which leaves many women feeling unable to talk to health professionals about their emotional state. In my own pregnancies and births a long time ago now, I remember I did not dare to say that I felt rubbish, because it is often very difficult to cope. That was true before the pandemic and it was true many years ago. Covid has created additional challenges. Some 68% of new parents have said that their ability to cope with pregnancy or caring for their baby has been affected by lockdown restrictions. Not only has informal support from friends and family been much more difficult—we have heard many examples in this debate already—but formal services have been cut down, too. In the long term, we need to ensure that mental health checks for mothers take place across England and Wales. I also support the call for the Government to fund and provide additional targeted mental health support. They should certainly provide more funding to increase the number of health visitors. Again, I remember that the health visitor was a lifeline. Such contact is so important for new mums. All that is necessary if we are to avoid a lost generation because of the covid pandemic.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in such an important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the 337 people from my constituency of York Central who signed the petition, which aims to make things right for parents.
I want to put on the record how important it is to support women through their pregnancies. Will the Minister raise with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care how essential it is that birthing partners and fathers are able to accompany the woman from pregnancy to birth—antenatal care, scans and hospital appointments—and for any care required after birth?
I will touch on two key issues. First, I thank the Petitions Committee for its report and its 23 recommendations, on which I want to reflect in the little time that I have. A constituent has written to me about neonatal care. She is a mother who gave birth 11 weeks early during the pandemic. That is so difficult, not least when her baby was moved to Middlesbrough, which is now in lockdown. She and her family need to be able to spend appropriate time to nurture and be with their baby. Bringing forward neonatal leave by two years would really assist her in that, and doing so now would help her even more. In the same way that the Government have moved at lightspeed to bring in so many measures during the pandemic, I ask that they bring in this important measure to support families in their time of need—April 2023 is too late.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, the second issue I want to look at is the current inequality between adoptive parents and birth parents. Will the Minister take another look at that inequality, not least in the Government’s response to the Petitions Committee report? We know, for instance, that self-employed adoptive parents are not entitled to an equivalent to the maternity allowance that self-employed mothers can access. They can ask the local authority for support, but they may not get it, and it is means-tested, unlike for birth parents. The 2016 independent review of self-employment in the UK highlighted that disadvantage, yet four years on, there has been no redress. I ask the Government: why?
Special guardians are currently not entitled to any form of parental leave or pay, yet they fulfil a crucial parental role. That creates real inequality: research shows that around half of kinship carers have to give up work to care for their children. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who last week published an excellent report about the real hardship that kinship parents face. We need to see real change. Labour would have introduced a year of maternity pay and leave, following best practice, and we need to get that right for all parents.
I urge the Minister to bring forward proposals to ensure that there is no inequality between adopters and special guardians, and birth parents. For many of those parents, bonding with their child and addressing the issues of attachment are so important if their families are to succeed and thrive in future. Despite their response, I ask the Government to revisit those issues to ensure that we can create strong families in future.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact of covid-19 on maternity and paternity leave. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard today, being a new parent is an exciting, scary and, of course, tiring experience—it is rather like being a new Member in this place. Being new parents is a challenge at the best of times, when they have the support of extended family, can attend baby groups and can leave their homes when they please, but having a newborn baby in the middle of a lockdown means that all those challenges are multiplied. That is why Ministers need to recognise the unprecedented experience of those who have become parents during the pandemic.
We have seen various offers and support schemes, but those on parental leave have had no such offers—it is time that we did something about that. As we know, in the time that we have waited to debate the petition—I am very pleased that Westminster Hall debates are back—many of the affected parents have had their maternity or paternity leave pass them by, and they are now grappling with the challenges of childcare during a pandemic. Some of those who have contacted me have had very supportive employers, and that is welcome, but it is not guaranteed. I have heard from other constituents who have not been able to access childcare and who have to consider whether they can return to their jobs at all. Others have had no choice but to take unpaid leave. The Government have previously suggested furlough as an option for people who cannot secure childcare. Personally, I do not think that is the right answer at all. When the Prime Minister said that he would expect employers to be reasonable in such circumstances and that that would be sufficient, it betrayed his lack of understanding about the reality of workplace discrimination.
People who have returned to work have experienced a significant portion of their maternity leave during the national lockdown. The possibility of seeing extended family and friends and attending covid-secure baby groups has opened up, but there are no guarantees. As we have already heard, it is very unlikely that those things will be able to continue in the way we would want. With localised lockdowns, inter-house mixing has been prohibited for many people, and we can see how that affects them on a day-to-day basis. A comment that I received from a constituent has really stuck with me. She said:
“Some days are so difficult. I’ve barely slept, the house is a mess and there is a huge pile of washing to be done. All I need is my mum to come round and hold my son whilst I do this.”
Simple and helpful small interactions often make all the difference.
Baby groups and support from family and friends not only benefit new parents; they are vital for the development of new babies, who look to interact and form new bonds. There will be babies who have had contact only with their parents and not with other babies, and they will take time to adapt to new childcare settings. Even the thought of that—never mind actually doing it—is quite a traumatic experience for parents and their babies. As we have discussed, we know the impact that the early years can have on the rest of a child’s development.
Women who have given birth during the pandemic, and those who are pregnant at present, continue to contend with restrictions on attendance at scans and medical appointments and on access to services. I have heard from constituents who felt a void because they could not see their health visitor in person, and who have been left in pain and distress because they have been unable to receive support from breastfeeding services.
Maternity leave should offer new parents the opportunity to recover from birth and time to adapt to the challenges of a newborn. New parents face having to catch up on missed appointments at the same time as returning to work, and that has many practical implications. The discrimination facing women who are on maternity leave, or who are returning from it, is well documented. As we have heard today, those difficulties are exacerbated in the worst of times. We know it is not business as usual at the moment, so why should it be business as usual for maternity and paternity leave? We should have some changes before it is too late.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My thanks go to the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing the debate. I thank Bethany and the maternity petitioners, Maternity Action, Pregnant Then Screwed and everybody who has been trying to help people at this incredibly difficult time.
This issue has had an impact on my family. My sister-in-law Suzanne had baby Fraser during lockdown—I understand that they may be watching the debate at home. Like all parents, they have been doing their absolute best in the most difficult of circumstances, and we are all so very proud of everything that they have done so far. However, it does not have to be this hard. If the Government took on some of the recommendations made by the Petitions Committee in its report, it would certainly make it a good deal easier for many parents and families right around the UK to look after their wee ones. It would make things just that wee bit easier at this very difficult time.
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. Over the past five years we have seen a worsening of an already precarious situation, with underfunded services, a patchwork of local support and volunteer groups doing their best—with very few resources—to support people when they are breastfeeding.
A report by Dr Natalie Shenker and Professor Amy Brown, which came out in the past few days, deals with this issue. They surveyed over 1,200 mothers who breastfed during the pandemic to see how they were affected by lockdown. Around 40% of the mothers said it had been a positive experience, because they valued the privacy and the time at home—perhaps having a supportive partner there, and perhaps getting a wee bit of extra time to do things. However, around 30% of the mothers surveyed felt that lockdown had been incredibly negative and incredibly difficult for them. They had felt isolated, abandoned and overwhelmed by the intensity of being alone with a baby for such a long time.
Although many of those mothers were able to breastfeed through that, many were not, and they struggled and gave up before they wanted to. The survey found that of the participants who had stopped breastfeeding, only 13.5% described themselves as ready to do so; they had given up before they had wanted to. Others had introduced formula when they had not intended to; the figure was 68.7%, with many of those doing so earlier than they had planned to. A staggering 70.3% attributed their decision to stop breastfeeding to the lack of face-to-face support. Some of that has been because of the lockdown and the restrictions, but the Government could have put a lot more in place to make the situation easier.
The National Breastfeeding Helpline has done incredible work, through its volunteers, to try to help and support people, but with some problems, people really need someone standing next to them to help them when they are feeding a baby. The Government need to do a lot more to resolve the issues of underfunding and the issues around health visitors, which have meant that people have felt very alone and scared when they have been on their own with a baby for a long period.
The situation has worsened existing inequalities within the system. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people, people in poverty, people in small flats with no gardens and people with less educational attainment all found it more difficult to pursue breastfeeding when they really wanted to. I ask the Minister to look at these issues very carefully and see what more can be done to help and support people, not only now but in the future. Funding must go into these services.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking colleagues for their contributions, the petitioners for creating the petition in the first place and, in particular, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the work of her Committee in bringing this issue to the House today. We should not underestimate the impact that the issue has on so many people. It was really encouraging to see so many sharing their experiences in record numbers with the inquiry.
Few issues can be more important to society than how we look after the health and wellbeing of pregnant women, new parents and newborn children, so it is great to see this matter prioritised on the first day back in Westminster Hall. It is a great pity that the UK Government’s response to the recommendations has so far been more of a shrug of the shoulders than a helping hand. I very much hope that the Minister is here today with renewed vigour for taking action. Simply saying that our system is among the best and most generous in the world will not really cut it for those who are struggling financially. Maternity allowances here are far from generous. Indeed, UNICEF ranks the UK among the least family-friendly of the world’s richest countries. It is a worrying thought that, unbound by EU minimums, we may see that under threat.
The Government response to this report so far suggests that they either have not grasped or are not concerned about the extent of the impact of covid-19 on the lives and livelihoods of pregnant women and new parents. It should be an easy decision to extend maternity leave by three months, at the very least, to ensure that those who have unfairly lost income, lost leave rights and lost access to health and dentistry services, to baby groups and to family and childcare support are not disadvantaged even further.
It is safe to say that the Prime Minister is in the advantageous position of undoubtedly being able to enjoy the benefits of having a newborn baby around through this period. That certainly brings much joy in a period of difficulty. However, it would be difficult to argue that he shares the experience of those who are struggling with poverty, low wages, insecure work and loss of access to healthcare support, or those facing discriminatory attitudes from an employer. We have heard from other Members about those who have seen their roles downgraded on their return.
In a survey of almost 20,000 mothers and pregnant women by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, 46% of those who were being made redundant blamed the lack of childcare provision because of the covid-19 pandemic. Thousands of real experiences are summarised in this Committee report, which I hope will persuade the Minister of the need for a more sympathetic response as we look to move forward. So far, the Government have been sluggish in responding to the recommendations in the report, waiting until September before even coming out to say no to most of them. We know that they can rush to react when they want to. They did not, for example, drag their heels in any shape or form when it came to getting rid of procurement rules so that they could splash billions of pounds of public money giving questionable contracts to private companies of their choosing, regardless of evidence of ability to carry out the job.
However, when it comes to the relatively small and inexpensive fixes that would ensure fairness for pregnant women and new parents, the response is far slower. For example, making sure that guidance is clear for employers and employees would stop people struggling unnecessarily and would save on the need for costly, time-consuming tribunals. On 16 March, the Government announced that pregnant women at work were especially vulnerable, but they did nothing to make clear the legal obligations under existing health and safety rules—that, if alternative safe work or working from home could not be secured for those women, they should be suspended on full pay. Instead, many were wrongly forced on to sick pay or unpaid leave, or were forced to use up their holiday entitlement or start their maternity leave early, affecting entitlement to statutory maternity pay for many and reducing their maternity leave when they needed it most.
The Government could have prevented that, but they chose to leave those things in a murky mess, allowing pregnant women’s rights to be ignored with impunity. When I asked how many employers the Health and Safety Executive had investigated and taken enforcement action against since March for breaching obligations to pregnant women, the answer, unsurprisingly, was none.
The pandemic has been a wake-up call for so many. The Government have had the opportunity to respond to the detailed inquiry undertaken by the Petitions Committee. On 8 April, the Chancellor said:
“When you need it, when you fall on hard times, we will…be there for you.”
I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to prove through actions, not words, that they are there for new parents.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a delight to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, and to see you back in the Chair in Westminster Hall, Madam Deputy Speaker. As others have done, I start by thanking Jessie Zammit and her husband James for starting this e-petition, and the 226,000 people who signed it. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) who, as others pointed out, took this issue forward and delivered a really important report. Beyond today, I hope the Government will take far more seriously the issues in the report and give us a much better indication of additional support for parents and families, as we head into what will, no doubt, be an even harder winter with coronavirus.
I briefly thank all Members, particularly those from the Opposition, for their contributions. We heard excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Newcastle upon Tyne North, for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).
Even before the pandemic struck, the system of support did not work as it should. There are too many inconsistencies in the support provided to employed and self-employed parents—or biological and adoptive parents, as we heard—causing some to miss out on vital support that is incredibly important at that time in their lives. The existing flaws have been exacerbated by covid-19, leaving many families in hardship and struggling. The Government’s response to the petition and subsequent report acknowledges that we are living through unprecedented times, but it does little more than express satisfaction with maternity and paternity support as it was before. The number of signatories to the petition speaks to the importance of parents’ and children’s wellbeing at this time, and to a real frustration with the inadequacy of the current provisions and the Government’s failure to provide sufficient additional support in the light of the pandemic.
The Petitions Committee’s report explains why the Government’s claim to provide among the most generous maternity support in the world is quite simply untrue, and why it is challenged by UNICEF, as has been mentioned. The report calls on the Government to capture data on the uptake of parental leave, as well as pay, so that any future review of parental leave arrangements can consider the extent to which parents from all groups are able to use their entitlements, and whether to extend leave or provide hardship grants in the light of that evidence. The Minister should take on board that important call. The UK has seen rapid growth in self-employment in recent decades, so it is of great concern that significant disparities exist between employed and self-employed women. Self-employed women already face additional challenges and reduced incomes after having children. If both parents are self-employed, only the mother can claim an allowance and there is no paternity or shared leave for fathers, which means that caring responsibilities fall to the mother. The entitlements available to self-employed women compound rather than address that inequality. Unlike statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance is treated as unearned income and deducted from universal credit, sometimes leaving women up to £5,000 worse off. Can the Minister give any justification for that unfair discrepancy? I call on him to set out how the Government will address it.
That is just one of the many inequalities in entitlement brought about by an inconsistent welfare system, combined with an increase in precarious work. The Government have pursued an agenda of creating a deregulated gig economy, rolling back workers’ rights and fostering insecurity in work, which has left us in the worst possible position as we now face the devastation wreaked on the economy by coronavirus.
Following the announcement by the Prime Minister and the chief medical officer in March that pregnant women are clinically vulnerable, employers that were unable to make the necessary adjustments to ensure workplace safety were required to send them home on full pay, but many pregnant women were unlawfully put on statutory sick pay, which affected their maternity pay and other entitlements. Labour has previously called on the Government to discount covid-related spells on SSP for the period when earnings are used to calculate statutory maternity pay to ensure that pregnant women do not have their maternity pay cut as a result of being on SSP. It is unacceptable that the Government have refused to do that, and I ask the Minister to reconsider.
In fact, the Minister said that the women affected should simply bring an employment tribunal claim against their employer, despite knowing that that is not a realistic option, given the small window of opportunity for doing so and the huge and growing backlog in employment tribunal cases. Citizens Advice says that its advisers are seeing worrying cases of pregnant women who feel that they have been selected for redundancy because they need more stringent health and safety measures, and demand for the organisation’s discrimination advice page has increased fourfold.
I echo the report’s recommendation that the Government should consider extending to six months the period in which pregnant women and new parents can bring claims before the employment tribunal. Last week, the Ministry of Justice published new figures blaming the 31% rise in outstanding employment tribunal cases on an increase in unemployment because of covid-19. It also warned the Government that the decision to end the job retention scheme and replace it with a job support scheme will lead to a further spike at the end of October.
Given that one in four people are already living under regional lockdowns, and that a second national lockdown is a very real possibility, the issues highlighted by the petition, the report and this debate will not go away. It is not acceptable for the Government simply to restate that the support available is generous and sufficient. The evidence submitted to the Petitions Committee inquiry shows that that is not the case. Substantive ministerial action is needed and I call on the Minister to set out what steps the Government intend to take, considering the problems facing pregnant women and new parents that hon. Members have detailed today. It is simply unfair that too many have lost their leave during this period of lockdown, so the Government should look to what action can be taken. The issues raised here will not simply be dealt with in this debate; they require action from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and the Petitions Committee on bringing forward this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on the way she has conducted it and reflected the campaign of the many petitioners. As she knows, I sat on the Petitions Committee for a number of years, so I know from personal experience how important and valuable it is.
I am sure we can agree that this has been an interesting and informative debate. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) both have previous experience that showed up in their comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) always speaks with common sense, and the rational and reasonable thinking with which he cut through these issues was very welcome. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) has not been in this place for long, I think she has a great future ahead of her. The professional approach and experience that she brought to bear made hers a particularly insightful and welcome contribution.
The online petition asked the Government to extend maternity pay because of concerns about the lack of opportunities for parents, and mothers in particular, throughout the lockdown. Petitioners pointed out the activities, such as baby groups, which could not occur during the lockdown, and how vital they are for children’s development. We have heard a lot about that in this debate. As a father, I know how important social contact is with family, friends and other new parents. It has been quite a while since my children were in their first months and years—they are now in their 20s—but I do vaguely remember those days a couple of decades ago, and just how important such contact is. It provides invaluable support at times of significant change, and I sympathise with new mothers and parents who have been unable to spend their parental leave in the way they envisaged prior to the pandemic and lockdown.
I recognise that new parents want to give their children the best possible start in life; it is what we all want, and I wholeheartedly agree that activities that support babies’ development in those early months and years are so, so important. We are all social creatures, including from a very young age, and social contact is important at all stages. Obviously, since that initial period of lockdown, we have tried our best to relax the social distancing rules that were previously in place. There have been stricter measures, yes, in some local areas as required, but as a result of those relaxations, including the introduction of support bubbles, more new parents are now able to spend time with family, friends and other new parents, while still respecting the social distancing rules.
The online petition that prompted the Petitions Committee’s inquiry and this debate asked for paid maternity leave to be extended by three months in the light of covid-19. As hon. Members have heard, the Government have not accepted the proposal. Maternity leave is provided to enable employed pregnant women and new mothers to prepare for and recover from birth, and to bond with their child, including through breastfeeding if the mother wishes to breastfeed. Up to 52 weeks of maternity leave are available, 39 weeks of which are paid, and all employed women must take at least two weeks’ maternity leave immediately after giving birth, or four weeks if they work in a factory.
Fathers and partners can take up to two weeks of paid paternity leave. They can also access up to an additional 50 weeks of leave, and up to an additional 37 weeks of pay where the mother does not intend to use her full maternity entitlement. Employed parents also have access to up to four weeks’ unpaid parental leave, and that is per parent, per child, so a couple that wishes to take additional time off work with their baby have access to an additional eight weeks of leave per year, and more if they have other children. I know that this leave is not paid, but it is also the case that all employees have access to 5.6 weeks of paid holiday in a year. The entitlement to annual leave continues to accrue while a parent is off work on parental leave.
We have talked a lot in this debate about the data and international comparisons. It is important to look at the fact that our maternity leave, rather than the parental leave that some people suggested, which is a day one right, is one of the most generous in the OECD. When looking at the time, as compared to the money per week and per month, there are other countries that have a shorter period. Although more money may be paid, often that is combined with social insurance and is therefore dependent on the contributions that the employers and employees have already paid.
Wera Hobhouse
It is the unpaid part that is not generous and that is still unaffordable. Will the Minister please respond to that point?
Paul Scully
As I say, it is the overall aspect of the right balance, in terms of maternity leave, between the time and the money that we believe is both generous and fair—getting that right balance as a day one right.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North talked about what we are doing to look forward with care in the early years. The Prime Minister has asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to carry out a review on how to improve health outcomes for babies and children from disadvantaged backgrounds. That review will focus on the first 1,001 days of a baby’s life, from birth to age two and a half. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North says that she is on that committee, which is fantastic. I am looking forward to seeing what comes of that and what recommendations come forward.
On social groups for babies and children, I know how important baby and toddler groups are to new parents and babies, and how distressing it has been for parents to suffer through lockdown. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talked about GPs and what they can and cannot do in terms of health visits. There is a contractual requirement from 1 April 2020 for GPs to offer maternal post-natal consultation at six to eight weeks after birth—live and stillbirth—as an additional appointment to the baby check in the first six to eight weeks. The Government gave an additional £12 million, invested through the GP contract, to support all practices to deliver that.
On mental health, clearly this is a concerning time for mothers. It is important, as we talk about giving mental health parity with physical health, that we are committed to supporting everyone’s mental wellbeing, especially during this unprecedented period. New parents can continue to access mental health services, including virtually, and the Department of Health and Social Care has released more tailored guidance to help people to deal with the outbreak.
Paul Scully
I will not, because I have literally only a minute left and I want the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North to be able to respond.
There is no way I can talk about all hon. Members’ comments in the minute that I have left, but as I said in my response to the core of the petition, the Government believe that the entitlement to 52 weeks of maternity leave and 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance is already very generous. I should perhaps add that those entitlements are provided to enable pregnant women and new mothers to prepare for and recover from birth and bond with their child.
We need to make sure that as we relax lockdown, there are new opportunities for new parents to spend their maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave in the way that they envisaged prior to the pandemic. The recent relaxations have been possible only because we took the difficult decision to introduce stringent social distancing measures, including lockdown. In fact, as we are now learning, we still need to be vigilant at maintaining social distancing, to protect lives.
In conclusion, may I thank the petitioners? We will continue to work on those first early years, to ensure that parents and children can get the support that they want.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the Minister’s response, but I think that the petitioners will be incredibly disappointed in it. He talks about the relaxation of lockdown, but he is talking to somebody to whom the additional local restrictions apply. Most of what he said does not apply to new mums in my area and in many parts of the country, who are increasingly affected.
I want to highlight a couple of issues that were raised in the debate. I loved how the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) challenged our report for not going far enough and not demanding enough of the Government. I very much agree with her campaign, but it highlights how we tried to be reasonable in the report and ensure cross-party support and deliverable asks of the Government, which makes it more disappointing that most of them have been ignored.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) made an impressive speech, but it seemed to ignore the reality for many working mothers, which is that they do not have the agency to negotiate flexibility. They are deeply anxious throughout their maternity period, during this lockdown, about the future of their employment situation.
I want to make one final plea. I did not mention it earlier, because it is not in our report, but I very much support the cause of all new mothers having the flexibility to take birth partners with them into hospital. I want the Prime Minister to respond, as he promised to at the Liaison Committee, more fully to our report, and to make the changes necessary to ensure that every mother can have the confidence of having a birth partner with her in hospital.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 306691 relating to the impact of Covid-19 on maternity and parental leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you all very much for responding so well to the new way in which we are doing things in Westminster Hall. I shall just delay for a moment so that those who took part in the first debate can leave by the one-way system, continuing to stay 2 metres apart. Everyone is doing beautifully. As they do that, I hope that those taking part in the next debate will be coming in. I am taking things slowly to make sure that happens. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill).
Leaving the EU
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. As you have just heard Madam Deputy Speaker explain, we have of course only just resumed sittings in Westminster Hall. It will take a little while to get used to the procedures, but I am sure we will all get the hang of it if people observe social distancing. If Members think of it, wiping the microphones down on leaving will save the Doorkeepers some work.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 241848, 250178 and 300412 relating to the UK’s departure from the EU.
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir David, and a privilege to open this important debate on the day when Westminster Hall debates resume. The petitions are on the subject of Brexit, and the first calls for a halt to it while a public inquiry is held. It has more than 110,000 signatures and states:
“The UK's departure from the EU looms but questions remain about the legitimacy of the Referendum. The Electoral Commission said illegal overspending occurred during the Referendum. Were the vote/any subsequent political acts affected? Article 50 was triggered. Was the overspend known about then? A transparent Public Inquiry is required, now.”
E-petition 250178 has more than 109,000 signatures and also seeks to establish a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum. It also addresses the subject of alleged interference by “foreign actors and governments”, saying:
“This must be investigated under the Inquiries Act (2005).”
The third petition, e-petition 300412, has more 107,000 signatures and states:
“The government should consider delaying negotiations so they can concentrate on the coronavirus situation and reduce travel of both EU and UK negotiators. This would necessitate extending the transition period; as there can only be a one off extension, this should be for two years.”
These petitions mean different things to different people. Some see a halt to the transition period as necessary for the safety of the public, while others see it as a further attempt to delay Brexit by those who oppose it. From my own personal experience, the vast majority of my constituents would fall into the latter category, as almost three quarters of them voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. They would not want a further delay, after four and a half years of delays and false starts, unless it were completely unavoidable.
As far as the majority of my constituents are concerned, the United Kingdom’s 47-year-old membership of the European Union ended on 31 January 2020. However, it is not as simple as that. We are currently in the transition period, which ends on 31 December, and, contrary to points made during the 2019 election campaign about oven-ready deals, things are far from oven-ready and simple, particularly on the trade deal front. As we have seen over the past two weeks with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which has already prompted legal action from the EU, the prospects of a no-deal Brexit are very real.
The Government’s final opportunity to request an extension to the transition period, provided for under the withdrawal agreement, came and went on 30 June 2020. Many would argue that 11 months is already a tight timeline for a complex deal to be negotiated, ratified and implemented, and that does not take account of the covid-19 crisis, which has soaked up much of the UK and EU Governments’ energies. That has led to a number of calls for the transition period to be extended, including the petitioners in e-petition 300412. The petition calls for a pandemic delay, which is perhaps the most compelling reason at the moment.
The Government have much to reassure the public about before leaving the EU in the middle of the current pandemic, and this petition argues that it is simply common sense, in the light of covid-19, to seek an extension, so that important matters can be given the proper attention they deserve. These matters include healthcare workers’ status and rights; imports of medicine, new testing kits and personal protective equipment; the import and export of goods and food; and travel arrangements across borders. I am sure hon. Members will raise these points in the debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response. It is common knowledge that the negotiations were delayed earlier in the year by the pandemic and I would welcome a more in-depth response from the Government as to how they believe that has affected the UK’s readiness for Brexit.
There are important lessons to be learned from campaigns in the run-up to and during the 2016 referendum. E-petition 250178, on foreign interference, points to the serious questions raised by the Russia report, commissioned by the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee. This includes the potential influence of some senior figures within the leave campaign. I would personally welcome a further independent inquiry into that, as called for by the petition, as the Government’s response to the Committee’s report has been lacklustre, at best, so far.
I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that faith in public institutions is at rock bottom at the moment. It is of the utmost importance that, as a matter of public service, we ensure that some mistakes can never be made again. If there was foreign interference, it is vital that we establish to what extent, and what measures can be put in place to avoid such an event ever occurring again. We could make a start by banning the hiring out of the Prime Minister for a game of tennis, for example. However, the timing of an inquiry need not necessarily derail the Brexit process.
I cannot vouch for other constituencies—I have no doubt that Members will be keen to enlighten me—but I wonder how many people in my constituency, where, a year prior to the referendum, a UKIP candidate beat the Tory candidate into second place in a general election, were convinced by foreign propaganda in the referendum campaign to vote leave. Frankly, it would not have changed anything in my constituency.
Vote Leave, the official pro-Brexit campaign group, was judged by the High Court to have broken campaign spending limits during the referendum and therefore to have broken the law. This followed on from an earlier decision by the Electoral Commission and is central to e-petition 241848 in its call for an inquiry into campaign spend. Campaign spending has a great impact on elections and voting, as all MPs will fully understand. If overspending occurs, as was the case with Vote Leave, or it is suspected, the Electoral Commission should investigate it as a matter of course. This follows an initial decision by the Electoral Commission to investigate Vote Leave, but not Darren Grimes of BeLeave, a campaign organisation in receipt of substantial donations from Vote Leave as part of a joint plan, according to the High Court.
We must establish the facts and ensure that all political bodies in the United Kingdom act with the integrity that the law demands. With Vote Leave already having paid a fine of £61,000, it would be in the public interest to know how it affected the result of the campaign in some areas. However, again, using that as a pretext to halt the Brexit process would be seen by many as a tactic to deliberately delay. There is little certainty in much Government policy, but one thing appears to be unshakable: the Prime Minister is sticking to Brexit come what may.
In conclusion, all three petitions have merits that warrant discussion, and all three highlight important issues that require greater transparency and clarity. The Government must make much more of an effort to restore faith in themselves both among the public and in Parliament. Delaying Brexit again is likely to further widen the divisions in our society and our communities. However, to do so without a cast-iron guarantee on imports during the pandemic and without knowing beyond doubt the legality of the actors in the winning campaign, especially in the teeth of the current pandemic, might also harm society. I urge all Members to consider those points carefully.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I would like to start the wind-ups at 7 o’clock. Six people want to speak, so I hope colleagues will share the time between them.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is an absolute delight, Sir David, to be back here speaking in Westminster Hall after quite a long adjournment in this Chamber. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for leading this debate, although I find it ironic, given his past challenges in explaining the Labour party’s policy on Brexit.
The 2016 referendum was the largest expression of democracy in our British history, and the largest mandate of any Parliament in terms of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. The petitioners represent less than 1% of that figure. A Government with a large majority has been elected on a mandate to get Brexit done. We have now left the EU, thankfully, and, at the end of the transition period in January, Brexit will be fully completed.
Yet we still see Opposition Members trying once again to hamper Brexit, as they have done in debate after debate, calling for delay after delay—delays for which I have never voted, and which the British people do not accept. I do not think that anyone would ever have imagined that it would take nearly five years to complete the process—that is quite long enough, according to my constituents.
The public have been clear in their feelings about a Parliament that did not fulfil the democratic wishes of the British people. We have seen enough of the delay and uncertainty that the last Parliament brought to our economy and our country. The transition must not be extended, because by doing so, we will never bring about conclusion or any certainty—we have had enough uncertainty. The British people—certainly my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South—would not accept a further extension. We should certainly not trust the view that an extension is required because of covid. We all know the real reasons why people want the transition extended further.
Labour and other parties opposite continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. Even now, they question what people thought they were voting for and the legitimacy of the process in its entirety. How much have their views changed since the promise to honour the result, whatever the outcome might be? It goes to the heart of British democracy that we honour and trust the decisions of the British people who elected us to represent them in this place.
I know that my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South do not feel that they have benefited from their membership of the EU. They feel that although other areas have moved forward, they have been left behind. What was the only year in which the UK was a net gainer from our contribution to the EU budget? Surprise, surprise, it was 1975—the year of the common market referendum. That is slightly more than a coincidence. My constituents knew exactly what they were voting for when they overwhelmingly backed leave: an end to being controlled by the EU; an end to sending to the EU every year vast amounts of money that we never get back; and an end to free movement for proper control of our borders. That is exactly what this Government are now delivering. The Government’s focus on levelling up will ensure that all communities, in every part of our country, can prosper and succeed.
As I have made clear, I hope that we secure an ambitious free-trade deal with the EU at the end of the year, but whatever the outcome—deal or no deal—it must provide a clear end state and certainty, allowing our country to move forward once and for all. Unlike many Opposition Members, I very much have confidence that our country, our economy and our Government will get through this and flourish in the future.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is delightful to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and to be back in Westminster Hall. I agree with most of the comments made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). First, I would like to declare three unremunerated interests: I am a board member for the Centre for Brexit Policy; I am on the advisory board for the Foundation for Independence; and I was, until just after the referendum, a board member of Vote Leave.
I ask hon. Members inside and outside this Hall a simple question. We have seen a two-pronged attack on democracy since the decision in 2016, which, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said, was the single largest vote in our history. Most people in this country would be absolutely horrified if President Trump challenged a victory by the Democrats in the United States and it went to the courts, but that is exactly what has happened in this country. Many of my hon. Friends who care passionately about this and wanted to stay in the EU simply do not see it in those terms. That two-pronged attack on democracy has come from hon. Members, both from my party and from others, who want to overturn the decision, and from the EU itself, which is less surprising, because it is a non-democratic body that has used many tactics to make it painful for this country to leave, as a warning to other countries that might want to leave. So, I will start with that point.
I will also say that we have left the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) has said, but we are still in the transition period and subject to the withdrawal agreement. I hope that we get a Canada-plus style of free trade agreement, which was on offer at the beginning of this process, and it is another element of bad faith from the EU that that has been taken off the table, as has giving this country third-country status, which is real bad faith.
I hope that we can get that type of arrangement, but it is vital that the final leaving agreement is sovereign-compliant. We need control over our fishing and over how we subsidise our industry, if that is what we choose to do. This country subsidises industry, providing so-called “state aid”, at about half the rate of the rest of the EU, so it is not a big problem.
However, it is vital that we have control of our own laws. That is why people voted to leave the EU, so we need the final leaving agreement to be sovereign-compliant. And we must not have overhanging liabilities that are unaccounted for, to be determined by some future decisions that the EU might make to give us more financial commitments. Finally, regarding the conditions for leaving, we must not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Otherwise, we will not be a truly independent country.
I have supported the decision to leave the EU in many votes in the House of Commons. I did not support the final withdrawal agreement, because I never believed that there should be the possibility of Great Britain being separated from Northern Ireland. The EU has exploited that situation and weaponised the historical situation in Ireland to try and keep control over our laws, so I hope the Government can get an agreement that does not lead to the splitting-up of the United Kingdom in those terms.
In introducing the three petitions, my hon. Friend referred to the legal action that is being taken. It is the most curious legal action. I am not a lawyer, but who has ever taken legal action against a Bill passing through this House that is yet to become law? It is extraordinary. Indeed, it is not only extraordinary in that sense; it is extraordinary in that it goes against the EU policy itself. In the Kadi I and Kadi II decisions—a complicated case adjudicated on by the European Court of Justice—the Court came to the conclusion that
“the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty”.
So the legal action is not only absurd in its first terms; it also goes against the way that the EU deals with its own policy.
I think it was mentioned that several court cases found that actions taken by parties on both sides have been in breach of the law. That is wrong; it should not happen. There is no general election or local election that I have ever been involved in where there have not been problems; that is just what happens in the heat of the campaign. Regarding Vote Leave, the Electoral Commission gave Vote Leave bad advice, and it ended up in breach of the rules, and it has paid a fine for that. I do not believe any of that affected the outcome. The single biggest factor in cash terms was that the Government paid £9 million effectively to put out a remain leaflet, which dwarfed all the rest of the expenditure.
I will finish by swiftly dealing with the petitions. There is the petition that cites covid as a reason for delaying the implementation. I understand at least one motivation behind that. The fact is that if we can control our own laws and regulations, we are in a better position to respond to any crisis immediately and not to be bound by the European Union’s bureaucracy. I will give an example: it took about 18 years for the EU to change the clinical trials directive, and lot of jobs went out of Europe because it was so slow. In order to build our economy after covid and to deal with it now, we need to be completely in charge of our rules and regulations.
Jack Brereton
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the challenge of getting an EU covid recovery package together is an example of that?
Graham Stringer
I do agree. I will not get into a debate about covid, but we need to be spritelier than we have been in response to this crisis, and being in charge of ourselves is the best way to do it. I have previously said that both sides have been found to have been in breach of the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned foreign interference. Did the biggest interference in terms of publicity—when President Obama came over and asked people to vote remain—make any difference? I suspect in many cases that boosted the leave side of the debate.
This country has decided to leave the EU, and we have to get the best deal possible. We have to ensure that we get it to be sovereign-compliant, and not let the EU carry on with what are effectively imperialistic policies. It wants to carry on controlling our laws and regulations. It wants to keep us paying, without our having any say whatever in the creation of those laws and regulations.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
My first ever Westminster Hall debate is on the subject that got us here in the first place. As the first ever Conservative MP to represent Don Valley, an area which voted 69% in favour of leaving the European Union, I felt compelled to speak in the debate because two of the petitions that we are debating, which are now over a year old, demand a public inquiry into the 2016 referendum. The vast majority of my constituents and I believe that the motives behind the petitions are not entirely sincere. Instead, I believe that the petitions were established and signed because people—petition data show that they reside mainly in the southern metropolitan areas of the country—could not accept the referendum result. We really need to move on.
Since the 2016 referendum, some members of the political elite have treated 17.4 million people with complete contempt. Large sections of the media and political class actively tried to rob those people of their voice. Some politicians and journalists stated repeatedly that the desire of the majority to leave the EU was impossible. By the beginning of the last general election, some said that the referendum should not have taken place in the first place, and one major party even promised to cancel Brexit altogether. Meanwhile, petitions such as the ones we are debating were used to grind Brexit to a halt. Through inquiries, people who remained upset at the referendum result sought to overturn the largest democratic exercise in this country’s recent history. That was despite the fact that, after the referendum, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to proceed with the Brexit negotiations. Some 80% of the votes cast in the 2017 general election were for parties that supported our departure from the EU.
Hindsight can be a wonderful thing. I believe that the last election, when many of my hon. Friends and I were elected across the country, is confirmation that petitions such as the ones we are debating do not have the popular support of the people. The 2019 election decisively confirmed that the public did not want to stall Brexit, and indeed that they did not want endless inquiries into allegations that had no substance; they wanted to get on with Brexit and deliver the referendum result. However, we now see renewed calls to halt Brexit, this time due to coronavirus, yet again because a small minority continue to cling to the hope that they can prevent the will of the people.
I, for one, find it awful that my constituents’ views yet again appear to have been discarded, but I make it clear to the good people of Don Valley and across the north that their voices will be heard, and that the Government will get on with Brexit. The Government have already confirmed that they are fully prepared to leave the EU with an Australian-style deal at the end of this year. With coronavirus likely to be with us for many more months or even years to come, why wait? After all, we gave the public the choice in a referendum and two general elections. I think they have made themselves quite clear, so let us get on with what I and many others were elected to do less than a year ago—let us get Brexit done.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have many reasons to be proud of my constituency of Bath. One of the most important to me is its long tradition as an open-minded, welcoming and outward-looking city. Bathonians want this country to reflect those values, which we hold close to our hearts. Bath was one of the constituencies with the most signatories to the petition to halt Brexit for a public inquiry. In 2016, 68% of Bath residents voted to remain, putting us in the top 50 remain-voting constituencies in the UK.
Just days after the referendum, a handful of us residents founded what became one of the most active grassroots campaigning organisations in the country, Bath for Europe. We came together as a non-party political group of volunteers campaigning for the UK to remain at the heart of the European Union. I was a founder member of Bath for Europe before I was elected the MP for Bath. We were ordinary people achieving extraordinary things. We donated our spare time, talent, creativity, knowledge, experience, ideas and resources to keep the cause of Europe front and centre, both locally and nationally.
In addition to organising rallies, marches, speakers, events and regular meetings, perhaps our biggest achievement was our constant engagement with members of our community. Every week, we held street stalls and commuter calls, handing out leaflets and discussing Brexit and what it would mean for our city and our country. We did our research, and we respectfully listened to people, some of whom had opinions very different from our own. We spoke to them in a positive spirit. We became a fixture in Bath, and our constructive dialogue helped to lift the public discourse.
Among the most damaging legacies of Brexit have been the deepening division in our society and an aggressive culture war that seeks to pit people against each other. Bath for Europe stands for equality and fairness. For example, this spring, the group held a virtual EU citizens fair to support those applying for settled status. Bath for Europe remains a force in our city. The people of Bath will continue to uphold the values of openness, inclusion and international co-operation, and I will use my voice to represent their views in Parliament.
It is important to stress that we should not fight lost battles. No EU membership is now a reality. That does not mean that there are not many millions of people in the UK who believe that our place is at the heart of the European Union. Their voices need to be heard too, and I am one of them. Passionate supporters of a football club do not immediately switch sides to the club who won the premier league. They stay loyal to their side through the years, even through relegation, and prepare for better times.
Graham Stringer
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a fundamental of democracy that the losing side accepts the overall result and the winners? That is how democracy works. One does not have to change one’s view, but one has to recognise the result.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I absolutely understand that democracy needs to play itself out, and I do not want to reheat the battles that we had for two and a half years in this Parliament.
However, we have argued again and again that the decision made in 2016 was unclear. We need to make it clear and discuss to the end whether what people understood they voted for in 2016 is really what they wanted. The result is now there, I accept that; we had a very clear election result, and we are now no longer members of the European Union. That is why I say that it is no use to now fight lost battles. But we have a passion to be at the heart of the European Union, and almost half of the people of the UK still believed that going into the 2019 election. They have not suddenly gone away. The winning side has to accept that too, therefore the debates that we continue to have here are not undemocratic. They are part of democracy. People have their voices heard.
EU membership at some point in the future continues to be a Liberal Democrat ambition. I firmly believe that our time will come, but in the meantime I will stand up for all EU citizens here in the UK and for UK citizens in Europe, and make sure that they can live with all their rights undiminished. That is what I now fight for: to keep the flame alive that our place as the United Kingdom is at the heart of the European Union. I will not give up on that belief, and I do believe that our time will come.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be here. In fact, it is such a pleasure that this is the second debate in a row that I have stayed for. I was down to speak in the first debate and when Mr Speaker’s Trainbearer said, “Do you want to speak in the second one?” I thought, “Yes, I might as well get my Westminster Hall score back up.” In the original referendum—gosh, that was so many years ago—I was somebody who voted remain. When I looked at these petitions—the ones to halt Brexit for a public inquiry, extend the transition, and look at foreign interference—my first reaction was one of utter exasperation. To see that covid was mentioned as the excuse for doing these just defied belief.
There is an organisation in Europe that is far more liberal, in the best sense of the word, and far more open to ideas coming in. That is the Council of Europe. It is also almost twice the size of the EU. Has covid stopped its work? Does covid mean that nobody does any monitoring of the appalling human rights situations that exist in certain countries? I am the rapporteur for Turkey in the Council of Europe, and we are holding—it is difficult—inquiries on Zoom with non-governmental organisations in Turkey to make sure that we understand what the Turkish Government are up to, and to say no to them. So the idea that covid is responsible for this is for the birds. It does not hold any water at all. It is a bit of a cheek, actually, to put all three motions together, particularly given the legal bar on extending the transition. Why on earth we should halt Brexit, I have no idea. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) that it is time to move on, and that is exactly what I want to do. I do not want to sit in this place for another three or four years debating Brexit. I have had enough of that. I had enough of that in the last Parliament, and I do not want to go through it again. The country made that decision spectacularly, and I am not going to do that.
But I would raise one issue: the difficulty that we have of conducting these negotiations in open session. Every negotiation is conducted in open session, with people briefing journalists on either side as we go through. The reason for that is that there is a fundamental problem with the dispute resolution mechanism set up when the withdrawal agreement was agreed in the first place. All the effort in that agreement was down to arbitration, which is not an enclosed area. It should not have been straight into arbitration. They should have had, first of all, a process of mediation which is incredibly discreet. Anyone who has been through a commercial mediation will know that they should not blab to a journalist or anyone else about what is happening during that mediation. If I were doing this again—not that I did it, but if we were going through it again—I would strongly recommend that the Government go for mediation. Of course, it is not in the interests of the EU to do that; it does not understand the concept very well.
That is really all I want to say about this, except for one thing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) mentioned the amount that the leave campaign that was fined. The first organisation to be fined for not keeping the proper accounts and not declaring the right amount was the Liberal Democrats, who were fined £18,000 by the Electoral Commission.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I wanted to take part in this debate not because I am trying to stop democracy in its tracks or because, as a brand-new Member of Parliament, I have not had the two or three years of debating Brexit and am desperate to have my fair share, but because my consistency of Twickenham appeared in the top 10 constituencies for all three of these petitions. I know from the result of the referendum, in which 67% of my residents voted to remain, and the humbling and overwhelming result in my favour in the general election, which was largely fought on Brexit, when the good people of Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton, St Margarets and the Hamptons put their faith in me, that the majority of my residents are pro-European and they want me to give them a voice. That is what I am here to do.
It is fair to say that, like me, many are heartbroken that we have left the European Union. They genuinely felt that for economic as well as social and emotional reasons that the UK should remain in the European Union. Many of my constituents are, like me, outward-looking and internationalist in perspective, and have enjoyed the freedoms of being able to live and work in the European Union and fall in love without borders, and simply wished the same opportunities for their children.
Of course I accept, with a heavy heart, that we have now left the European Union—I do not deny that the electorate spoke very clearly in December—but I still fundamentally believe that no deal that could be negotiated could be as beneficial as continued membership of the European Union. I am deeply worried about the long-lasting damage that Brexit will cause to this country’s economy and standing in the world.
The petitions refer to covid, and in particular I want to speak about the third, on extending the transition period. I and my party have vociferously called for that not because we do not accept the result and we want to delay it ad infinitum, but because businesses and business organisations—we are talking about not the Council of Europe, but people who are struggling to keep their businesses afloat in the middle of a pandemic, when jobs are being lost hand over fist—have said time and again that, if we were to end up in a no-deal situation at the end of the transition period, it would be impossible for them to put in place all the infrastructure they need for their supply chains.
Jack Brereton
Businesses in my constituency say to me that it is the uncertainty of delay after delay that is causing the most damage to our economy and businesses. Does the hon. Lady agree that a further delay from extending the transition period would only prolong that?
Munira Wilson
There are two types of uncertainty. Crashing out without a deal at the end of the transition period is complete uncertainty, in terms of the unknown. Although there may be some uncertainty from extending the transition period, at least businesses are able to continue to trade easily. One of the issues that I want to touch on is medicines, about which the industry has spoken out very clearly in the past week or so.
The Government’s choosing to pass the deadline for extending the transition period, as we hurtle towards a potential no deal, was reckless and a monumental act of self-harm for this country. I want briefly to touch on three points. First, on the rights of EU citizens and naturalisation, I am concerned, given that we have already seen some rolling back from commitments in the withdrawal agreement, that the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK are at risk. In my borough of Richmond upon Thames, we have 14,500 EU nationals who are applying for pre-settled or settled status under the EU citizenship scheme. Back in May, the Home Office snuck out some guidance that made it harder for those with settled status to secure British citizenship. That has thrown several individuals’ futures into the air and, unfortunately, despite my letter on the topic to the Home Secretary on 29 May, I have yet to receive a response.
Wera Hobhouse
Are we not talking here about the human cost of Brexit? We are talking about uncertainties, but it is important to look not just at business uncertainties but human people’s uncertainties, and the cruel situations that some of them find themselves in.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely. The business situation is also a human situation, because we are talking about the loss of jobs and livelihoods.
I want briefly to touch on agriculture and food standards, because my inbox has been overflowing with emails about this issue and the many concerns of constituents about the potential for undermining those standards as we enter into trade deals. The Liberal Democrats and others have consistently tried to amend the Agriculture Bill on its passage through Parliament to protect our standards, but the Government have refused to acquiesce on the point. In the case of the Trade Bill, they are refusing any democratic or parliamentary scrutiny. I am not sure how that is taking back control.
In the final area I want to touch on, I must declare an interest. Prior to coming to this place, I worked for nine years in the pharmaceutical industry and I still have a small shareholding in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. On medicines and health in general, it is clear that there is no oven-ready deal as promised back in December. In the midst of a pandemic, people are rightly worried about their health and several constituents have written to me about their concerns about the UK leaving the European Medicines Agency at the end of this year and what that might mean for the licensing of a covid vaccine or treatment. They are also concerned about us leaving the EHIC––European health insurance card––scheme that means that we can get treatment abroad and European citizens can get treatment here. The point about medicines and vaccines regulation applies equally to non-covid treatments.
Before anyone intervenes, I appreciate that the Health Secretary has made an announcement today about the UK collaborating with the US, Canada and other regulatory agencies on cancer medicines. That is welcome and I congratulate the Government on that, but we must remember that the UK is only 3% of the global pharmaceutical market, so if we go our own way on medicines, British citizens will be further back in the queue for new medicines and treatments. Let us not forget that. The deal announced today is only for cancer treatments and there are many other disease areas where British citizens risk being left behind and missing out on innovative treatments.
More pressing is the concern raised by European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry last week. With a supply chain already hit by the challenges of covid during the pandemic, they are very concerned that if we end up with no deal at the end of December, there could be real supply chain issues with medicines crossing the Channel. They have called for an urgent mutual recognition agreement to ensure that important tests and inspections are recognised either side of the Channel.
There is still a lack of clarity about how the Northern Ireland protocol will work in terms of regulated products such as medicines if no trade deal is in place and how medicines shipped from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be treated on the other side of the border. While the deadline for securing an extension to the transition period has passed––though where there is a will, there is a way, so if there were a last minute change of heart, I am sure that the European Union would be all ears––it is imperative that in the short time remaining we secure the closest possible alignment with the EU in terms of customs, of regulations on medicines and other regulated products and of our food and agricultural standards. And let us not forget people––how we treat our EU citizens and how our citizens are treated in the EU.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir David, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on three very important petitions. Each of them, as you mentioned at the beginning, has been signed by more than 100,000 people, and they show the depth of feeling surrounding these issues. It is also, I believe, a great demonstration of democracy in action that people in the street—the public—can have their views heard in this salubrious building.
With your permission, Sir David, I will briefly address all three petitions. The first is “Halt Brexit For A Public Inquiry”. It states:
“The UK’s departure from the EU looms but questions remain about the legitimacy of the Referendum. The Electoral Commission said illegal overspending occurred during the Referendum. Were the vote/any subsequent political acts affected? Article 50 was triggered. Was the overspend known about then?”
These questions remain unanswered. A significant focus for this petition is questions of overspending, its affects and the timing of the release of information relative to the triggering of article 50. There is little doubt, as the Electoral Commission insisted, that more than one group broke electoral law and spending limits, in some cases by quite substantial amounts. It is less clear what the effects have been. A poll by Opinium in 2017 suggested that 26% of Brexit voters felt that they had been misled by promises during the campaign, and that voters in that sample would by then have voted 47% to 44% to remain.
With regard to subsequent political acts, this seems a most serious concern. Evidence gathered and analysed by the Institute for Government in March 2019, but also supported by many other commentators since, points to dramatic consequences. This is not the place for the detail, but an introductory paragraph from the report, referring to the effects on Ministers, civil servants, public bodies, money, devolution and Parliament, states:
“In each area, we find that the challenge of negotiating, legislating and implementing Brexit has called into question how government works in the UK. The roles of the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, of civil servants and their departments…and of parliamentarians and the devolved administrations”
have all seen their roles considerably affected and changed significantly during this period.
As for the timing of article 50, it was invoked on 29 March 2017. One month earlier, on 24 February, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Electoral Commission was investigating the spending of Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe, so clearly rumours of an overspend were well known to the Cabinet before article 50 was invoked. It is therefore my belief that there is sufficient doubt about the legitimacy of the referendum result surrounding spending limits and the political processes undertaken during that time to warrant a formal investigation and that Brexit be halted. I therefore fully support the petition to halt Brexit for a public inquiry into these matters.
Graham Stringer
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the points that he is putting on behalf of the petitioners were actually put to the courts in this country on judicial review, and that the courts threw the case out and said it lacked all merit?
Allan Dorans
I am aware of that, and I await the outcome with some excitement.
The second petition calls for the establishment of a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum. It states:
“There is now strong evidence of serious misconduct during the 2016 EU Referendum, including interference by foreign actors and governments. This must be investigated under the Inquiries Act (2005).”
There are certain reports of interference. The Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament published a report on the interference and concluded:
“The UK Government have actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered.”
It also concluded that the Government’s response was not fit for purpose. It was unacceptable that the Government delayed the publication of that very important report by a year.
Ciaran Martin, the then head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre, confirmed that Russian hackers had attacked British media, telecoms and energy companies over the past year. That the UK Government have regularly avoided looking for evidence is certainly cause for suspicion, but that in itself is not solid evidence of interference. Similarly, their being able only to refer in a press release to suspects as “Russian hackers” does not allow us to form a strong or firm conclusion that foreign actors or Governments were involved.
Where there are strong suspicions in any area of national security in the context of the protection of our democracy, further investigation must take place in the public interest. I believe that that case has been made, based on those strong suspicions; that there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into the circumstances; and that it would be best taken forward by a public inquiry. I therefore add my support to petition 250178, to establish a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 referendum.
Finally, the third petition seeks to extend the transition and delay negotiations until after the coronavirus outbreak has been dealt with. The Government must consider delaying negotiations so that they can concentrate on dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, the resultant health, economic and social upheaval and the unprecedented circumstances that we currently face, which can only be dealt with by a Government with a clear, single focus on the problems on a massive scale that have been caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Doing so would necessitate extending the transition period; there can only be a one-off extension, which should be for two years. There is, of course, an obvious case to be made for extending the transition period.
Notwithstanding covid, the UK is clearly not ready for a hard Brexit. Up to 7,000 trucks carrying goods from the UK to the EU might face two-day delays after the Brexit transition, according to a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lloyds and Barclays were among the first UK banks to give notice to UK citizens living in the EU, warning them that their accounts will be closed on 31 December unless there is agreement. Border control posts at Northern Ireland ports will almost certainly not be ready in time, according to Stormont Minister Edwin Poots. Make UK estimates that UK firms will have to complete 275 million customer forms, up from 55 million, at a cost that HMRC has estimated at £15 billion a year.
I strongly believe that if we asked the public today whether they think we should delay Brexit, even for those reasons alone, a majority would agree. Some Brexiters would not, of course, as we have heard today—getting Brexit done, for some, is more important than dealing exclusively with the current pandemic that engulfs this country and threatens us all with dire and unimaginable consequences.
Public opinion, especially that influenced by our right-wing media, is not necessarily the best basis for policy development. By the Government’s own admission, any deal would be only a bare-bones trade agreement. Their own analysis says that there will be a GDP hit of up to 9% over the next 15 years if we further disadvantage our economy as we seek to recover from covid. All those factors require the undivided attention of Government, without the distraction of contentious negotiations about the arrangements to be put in place at the end of the current transition period. I therefore add my support to petition 300412, to extend the transition and delay negotiations until the coronavirus outbreak is brought properly under control.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition with you in the Chair, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for the way in which he opened up our discussion, and other hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
The concerns raised in the petitions probably reflect the time at which they were launched, which was several months ago. The priority now is to look at the challenges that we face with just weeks to go before the deal that we need on our future relationship with the European Union has to be concluded.
On the issues raised in petition 300412, Labour pressed the Government, perhaps with some prescience, to give themselves some flexibility, when Parliament debated the withdrawal agreement Bill, and we tabled an amendment to that effect just in case unforeseen events might lead to the Government needing some wriggle room. I have to say that at that time we did not anticipate a global pandemic, but nevertheless we made that case. Our amendment was rejected, and the departure date was locked in law. The Government could have changed it before 1 July, but they did not, and neither did the European Union propose a delay.
We left the EU on 31 January, and we will leave the transition period on 31 December. We accept that completely, so I have to say that I share some of the exasperation of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell)—if not for the same reason—at some of the contributions from Government Members and the allegations that they are making about the position of the Opposition. They should—we all should—have some humility and some honesty in looking back at the paralysis in Parliament over the last four years, and recognise that many of the delays were caused by the way in which the Conservative party was tearing itself apart on this issue and that some of those who delayed a deal being reached were those described, I think, by a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Brexit extremists within his own party. Indeed, the Prime Minister was utilising the issue as he egged them on in his rise to power. But we are now into the final month of negotiations, and both the UK Government and the EU are clearly seeking a resolution within weeks to secure the deal that we need by 31 December.
The other two petitions raise real concerns, and they were clearly exacerbated by the Government’s handling of the report from Parliament’s Conservative-chaired Intelligence and Security Committee, the publication of which was deliberately and unnecessarily delayed by the Prime Minister until after the general election. It was damning in its conclusion that the Government
“had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.
As one of its members said when the report was published in July,
“The report reveals that no one in government knew if Russia interfered in or sought to influence the referendum, because they did not want to know.”
There are real issues that deserve consideration, but they cannot halt Brexit, as the petitioners seek, because we have, as a number of Members have acknowledged, already left the European Union. That is the result of the mandate that the Government received in last December’s election, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) mentioned, but it is only one half of the mandate. The other half is to deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised the British people. That pledged an
“ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”,
with
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.
It pledged a deal that would safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”
and keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership.”
That was not a proposal or a wish list, but an agreement—and one that was ready to sign off. In the Prime Minister’s words,
“We’ve got a deal that’s oven-ready. We’ve just got to put it in at gas mark four, give it 20 minutes and Bob’s your uncle.”
Originally, he said that it would be done by July, despite the pandemic, and then, forgetting his words, that it would be done by September. That came and went too, so he set a new ultimatum of mid-October, which he then dropped over the weekend after his conversation with the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen.
As a number of Members have said, businesses need clarity. The Government are providing confusion. The same incompetence that we have seen in the handling of the pandemic is now threatening jobs and the security of our country through the handling of these negotiations.
Graham Stringer
In previous debates during this long discussion, my hon. Friend and I have disagreed. Today, I essentially agree with the approach that he has taken, but is he not being a little asymmetric? It is his job to attack the Government and criticise and analyse what they do, but does he not feel that one reason why there is not an agreement now is that the EU has withdrawn what it offered right at the beginning—a Canada-style agreement—and has also withdrawn the recognition of this country as a third country, which was previously on offer?
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that we have not always agreed on these issues over the last four years, but we are in roughly the same place now, in wanting to secure a deal by December—not just any deal but the deal that the Government have pledged. That deal was not described by the Prime Minister as something that might be achieved; he said it was there, ready to go and we just had to press the button. I will return to the specific question of Canada, because it is important.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not also true that it is unfair to say that Brexit was not done in the last three years because of all the people who wanted to delay it, when it was the Tories and the Conservative Government who did not get the deal done? They dithered and argued among themselves, and even decapitated their own Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Conservative party was also to blame for Brexit not getting done for such a long time?
Paul Blomfield
Indeed, that is the point I was making a moment ago. The agony within the Conservative party, as it tore itself apart, was a significant delaying factor in getting the deal done.
As a number of Members have said, businesses require certainty. We welcomed the Minister back to her place at Cabinet Office questions last Thursday, and I am delighted to see her on the Front Bench today. I will ask her four specific questions, to which I would be grateful for a reply in her closing remarks.
First, can the Minister guarantee to the automotive sector that it will not face any tariffs from 1 January, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s promise, despite the apparent decision by the Government not to press to secure an agreement on rules of origin?
Secondly, can the Minister assure the financial and legal sectors, which are hugely important to our economy, that the Government’s deal will allow them to do business without new barriers, as the Prime Minister promised?
Thirdly, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no weakening of the arrangements that we have had within the European Union to keep the UK safe from serious international crime and terrorism, and, in particular, that we will retain access to systems such as the European criminal records information system, which shares data about prior convictions across EU countries?
Finally, returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), given that the Government have insisted that they want a Canada-style deal, which raises the question of why that is off the table, would the Minister confirm that the Government would be willing to accept the non-regression clause provisions within the EU-Canada deal on workers’ rights and environmental protections? Those are precisely the points that were ripped out of the withdrawal agreement after the December election. If the Government were prepared to accept those, it would be a gamechanger in the negotiations.
Those are straightforward questions because they are all based on promises made by the Prime Minister, so it should be relatively simple for the Minister to say yes to each one of them. If not—I hate to think it—the Government might not have been telling the truth.
The coronavirus pandemic, which is referenced in e-petition 300412, makes it even more important that the Government deliver the deal that the Prime Minister promised, to support jobs, the security of our country, business and people’s livelihoods. As we look to the future, rebuilding from the devastating impact of the virus, we cannot face the additional problems of a disruptive departure from the transition. Covid-19 has taken people’s bandwidth in the civil service, politics and the EU. Businesses have not been able to prepare in the way that they would otherwise have done, because their capacity has been stretched.
It was unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his recent statement to the House, tried to point the finger of blame at businesses for not being prepared. They are not helped by the unanswered questions that remain. Businesses around the country have reasonable questions about trade not only in goods, but in services. The agricultural sector has questions about health, food safety, standards and checks. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) talked about the problems of the pharmaceutical sector. I have talked to many other sectors in my role. Businesses representing critical sectors of the economy simply cannot get a hearing from this Government.
The Government have maintained throughout the coronavirus crisis that they could deliver a deal in the timeframe they have allotted themselves. They will be judged by that promise. As it stands at the moment, they need to get a grip and deliver the deal: not any deal, but the deal they promised last December; the deal that we need for the country to move on.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This is my first Westminster Hall debate since returning from maternity leave. I feel I should have contributed to the previous debate on what it is like to raise a baby during a pandemic as I am a little more qualified.
I have a strange feeling of déjà vu, as though nothing has changed in the year I have been away, but of course many things have changed. We have had a general election and we have left the EU. The language that we used in talking about Brexit today, as if it had not happened, is a little out of date.
I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for presenting the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and for speaking on the three petitions. Hon. Members have put their arguments across with a great deal of vigour, but not rancour, which is a refreshing change from the previous Parliament.
In responding to the calls in the petitions to establish a public inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 EU referendum, or halt Brexit for a public inquiry, or to extend the transition period and delay negotiations, I can state that there are no plans to do any of those things. Two of the petitions focus on alleged breaches of electoral law in the 2016 referendum, but the allegations have been rightly investigated and dealt with by the Electoral Commission, the independent regulator. The case is now closed. Our focus should not be on returning to the divisions of the recent past, but on this country’s bright future.
I will consider various points in further detail: the evident legitimacy of the EU referendum, our stance on foreign interference, the important role of the Electoral Commission, and our future focus and ongoing negotiations with the EU. First, let me deal with the evident legitimacy of the EU referendum. Others have highlighted this today, but I shall repeat it: 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU. More people voted for Brexit than have ever voted for anything else in the UK. It is a pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who is a product of that will of the people.
People from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to leave the European Union. That clear mandate from the people of our Union has since been rightfully respected and delivered. Ignoring the referendum result would have been deeply damaging to British democracy. We saw the damage that the past three years of indecision in Parliament caused. Additionally, the legality of the EU referendum is beyond doubt. It was carried out based on legislation passed by Parliament with clear and repeated commitments from the Government to implement the outcome. The EU Referendum Act 2015 was scrutinised and debated in Parliament for more than 34 hours. The provisions relating to the conduct of the referendum were carefully scrutinised and ratified by Parliament.
More recently in the 2019 general election, the British people cast their votes once again and elected with a substantial majority a Government committed to upholding the result of the referendum. Following the election, Parliament voted with clear majorities in both Houses for the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. On accusations of foreign interference, I emphasise that it is and always will be an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference and maintain the security and integrity of our democratic processes. It is absolutely unacceptable for any nation, including Russia, to interfere in the democratic processes of another country, and we take any allegations of interference in the UK democratic processes by a foreign Government very seriously. We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU referendum. However, we will continue to safeguard against future risks, strengthen our resilience, and ensure that the regulatory framework is as effective as possible. The Government are committed to making sure the rules work now and in future. In July 2019 we established the Defending Democracy Programme, bringing together expertise and capabilities from across Departments, the security and intelligence agencies, and the civil service, to ensure that UK democracy remains open, vibrant and secure. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, we are bringing forward new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to disrupt hostile state activity.
Now I will turn to the important role of the Electoral Commission, which is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that referenda are run effectively and in accordance with the law. The Electoral Commission has the right to conduct investigations into alleged offences, and to take action when offences have been committed. Such investigations are, rightly, independent of the Government. The Electoral Commission did indeed undertake investigations into the EU referendum and, regrettably, levied fines on multiple groups on both sides of the referendum campaign. In addition to the fines levied against leave campaigners, remain-supporting groups such as Unison and the GMB also breached political finance rules, and were fined by the Electoral Commission for failing to deliver an accurate spending return. More serious matters were referred to the police, who investigated them further and, again, found no evidence of criminal activity.
Focusing on the future, we have now entered the final phase of negotiations with the EU. Last week the ninth round of negotiations took place. There were positive discussions in the core areas of a trade and economic agreement—notably trade in goods and services, transport, energy, social security and participation in EU programmes. However, significant differences remain, notably on the level playing field and fisheries. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster provided a written ministerial statement earlier today with an update on this round of negotiations. The Prime Minister spoke to President von der Leyen on 3 October to review the progress of negotiations. They agreed on the importance of finding an agreement if at all possible, and instructed the chief negotiators to work intensively to try to do so, given how short the time now is before the European Council on 15 October, when we hope we can find an agreement.
I am afraid that while I would like to answer with some specifics on the negotiations, it is a little above my pay grade, so I cannot do so on this occasion. Since the last round of negotiations, as set out in terms of reference, UK negotiators have continued in formal discussions with the Commission in Brussels and London. We have been clear from the outset about the principles underlying our approach. We are seeking a relationship that respects our sovereignty and has a free trade agreement at its core, similar to those that the EU has already agreed with like-minded countries such as Canada. As the Prime Minister has set out, there needs to be an agreement with the EU by the time of the European Council meeting on 15 October in order for it to be in force before the end of the transition period on 31 December. By then, if there is no agreement, there will not be a free trade agreement. That would mean that we would have a trading arrangement with the EU more akin to Australia’s. That would still be a good outcome for the UK. It would represent our reclaiming our independence as a sovereign nation. That is what the British people voted for twice. That said, we remain committed to working hard to reach an agreement by the middle of this month.
The Government were elected on a manifesto that made it clear that the transition period would end on 31 December 2020. That is now enshrined in UK law. At the second meeting of the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee on 12 June, the UK formally notified the EU that it will neither accept nor seek any extension to the transition period. Our position remains unchanged. Under no circumstances will the Government ask for or agree to an extension of the transition period. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Lord True have kept both Houses informed of progress throughout the negotiations.
I would like now to turn to some of the issues raised by colleagues in this vigorous and lively debate. I welcome the work that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) is doing to give her constituents a voice. It is right that we bring everyone together, in this next stage of our country’s journey. The International Trade Secretary has repeatedly given assurances on food standards. The Trade Bill is about the roll-over of existing FTAs; it is not about future ones.
I appreciate the contribution from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans). I have always found it peculiar that his party has such distaste for the results of referenda at the same time as they call for more of them, and that they can so unreservedly champion petitions as a democratic device over a good old-fashioned election result.
I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool for the gracious way in which he acknowledged that the majority of his constituents do not want to overturn the referendum result. He asked how the pandemic has affected the readiness of businesses. That has clearly been a challenge, and it was also raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). Unfortunately, the pandemic has meant that businesses are, rightly, thinking of many other things. We are keen to get the message out that things will be changing for those who deal with the EU, whether or not we get an FTA. That message needs to be rammed home, because there is sometimes a misunderstanding in this place that everything will be the same if we get a deal. That is simply not the case, which is why we have done a lot of work on transition readiness. We now have a transition checker on gov.uk that people can go to for information on how to get ready for January, and I encourage people to look at it. We will also publish an updated border operating model this week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) rightly reminded us that we have left the EU. The public have made their views known about further delay, and we will not extend the transition period.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) drew an interesting comparison with the United States. The Government share many of his ambitions for how any future relationship should protect our sovereignty.
I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley in his first Westminster Hall debate, and on a subject about which he feels so passionately. He says we need to move on, and I agree. There is a difference between a petition and an election, as I mentioned earlier. In December, the public made their views clear.
I note that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is vastly more popular in her constituency than her party is with the rest of the country; I think that is because she makes her case so gracefully. I share her regret over the division that we have seen in recent years. I hope we can move on, united over the love that we have for our country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) shared his exasperation that we have to reheat what is now a very old debate. I welcome his valuable work with the Council of Europe.
I wish to thank again the hon. Member for Hartlepool for securing the debate. We have heard a number of arguments on this topic, but I remain entirely unconvinced that we need to launch a public inquiry on the EU referendum or that we should halt Brexit, extend the transition period and delay negotiations. Indeed, the Government have absolutely no plan to do any of those things. Clear legitimacy underpins the EU referendum from the 17.4 million people across our Union who voted to leave and the legal scrutiny that was applied to the European Union Referendum Act 2015. In addition, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we have not seen evidence of successful interference in the referendum, and allegations of electoral overspend have rightly been investigated and dealt with by the Electoral Commission. We now need to focus on our bright future, negotiating our future partnership with the EU and forging trade deals with the rest of the world.
Mike Hill
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the petitioners for achieving over 100,000 signatures on each of the petitions and therefore ensuring that such petitions—within the rules of the House—get debated. I also thank the Front Bench spokespersons, especially the Minister, for clarifying the position of my constituency. It was the largest leave-voting constituency in the north-east. As an individual MP, I represented their interest all the way through.
That takes me to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), whose predecessor was in the same position as I am. We have to remember that these are not party-political debates; they are petitions debates. As a member of the Petitions Committee, I am impartial, irrespective of my views and opinions. I hope I have got that across, because time and again they are seen to be political. That travels into the newspapers, which is not in the interest of Parliament or the petitions system in its own right.
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and the hon. Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for Henley (John Howell) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for their interesting contributions to the debate. It is good to be back in our places in Westminster Hall, and I hope that the petitioners forgive us for mixing the petitions together. Covid has impacted on the Petitions Committee’s operations; hence the need to prioritise this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 241848, 250178 and 300412 relating to the UK’s departure from the EU.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Just before colleagues leave, I want to say that it is very good to be back in Westminster Hall. There are teething problems, particularly with the way I chaired proceedings. Please leave through the door that is marked “exit only”. The Chairman of Ways and Means said that, to save the Doorkeepers coming in, you should wipe the microphones if you have touched them; the wipes are next to Graham Stringer. It would help. If you have any other observations about the way that this session did or did not work, please let the Chairman of Ways and Means know. Thank you.
Written Statements
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future Relationship with EU: Negotiations
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government have made a commitment to update Parliament on the progress of our future relationship negotiations with the EU. This statement provides an update on the ninth round of negotiations.
Led by the UK’s Chief Negotiator, David Frost, negotiators from the UK and the EU held discussions in Brussels on 29 September-2 October 2020. There were substantive discussions on almost all issues.
Discussions covered all workstreams including:
Trade in goods: Core areas of the goods elements of the FTA, including market access, customs and regulatory issues.
Trade in services, investment and other FTA issues: Including mode 4, procurement, digital and intellectual property (including geographical indications).
Fisheries: Quota-sharing and governance.
“Level playing field”: Covering subsidies, tax, competition, labour, environment, sustainable development and governance.
Energy: Including civil nuclear co-operation and electricity and gas trading.
Transport: Road transport, aviation safety and air services.
Law enforcement: Covering a number of capabilities including Prüm, mutual legal assistance, extradition and our future arrangements with EU agencies.
Mobility and social security co-ordination: Social security co-ordination arrangements.
Participation in Union programmes: Covering the general terms for UK participation and Peace+.
Thematic co-operation: Including future health security and security of information arrangements.
Governance: Including appropriate institutional architecture.
There were positive discussions in the core areas of a trade and economic agreement, notably trade in goods and services, transport, energy, social security, and participation in EU programmes. This has however been true for some time. Progress has also been possible on a law enforcement agreement. In other areas, however, significant and familiar differences remain, notably on the level playing field, and on fisheries where the gap between us remains very large.
The Prime Minister spoke to President von der Leyen on 3 October to review the progress of negotiations. They agreed on the importance of finding an agreement, if at all possible, and instructed the chief negotiators to work intensively to try to do so, given how short time now is before the European Council on 15 October.
[HCWS487]
Bilateral Loan to Ireland
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I would like to update Parliament on the loan to Ireland.
In December 2010, the UK agreed to provide a bilateral loan of £3.2 billion as part of a €67.5 billion international assistance package for Ireland. The loan was disbursed in eight tranches, and the final tranche was drawn down on 26 September 2013. Ireland has made interest payments on the loan every six months since the first disbursement.
On 7 September, in line with the agreed repayment schedule, HM Treasury received a total payment of £405,490,687.38 from Ireland. This comprises the repayment of £403,370,000 in principal and £2,120,687.38 in accrued interest.
HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to the loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020. It reports fully on the two principal repayments received by HM Treasury during this period, and sets out details of future payments up to the final repayment on 26 March 2021. The Government continue to expect the loan to be repaid in full and on time.
A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on 29 April 2020, Official Report, column 26WS.
[HCWS486]
Domestic Abuse: Support for Victims
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
Through the Domestic Abuse Bill, this Government are placing a new statutory duty on tier one local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation in England. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, this new duty will commence in April 2021.
To help local authorities plan and prepare for the implementation of the new duty, I am pleased to announce today a £6 million domestic abuse capacity building fund.
I recognise the invaluable work that local authorities do each and every day to help residents in their local areas, including the most vulnerable in our society. This new funding will help ensure that local authorities are resourced to prepare for implementation of the new duty. It will promote more effective delivery on commencement, meaning local authorities will be more quickly able to commission much needed support for those victims of domestic abuse and their children who are currently turned away from refuges and other safe accommodation because their needs cannot be met.
This fund will be allocated equally to tier one local authorities (unitary and metropolitan authorities, county councils, the Greater London Association for London boroughs and the Council of the Isles of Scilly), who will be the accountable body under the new duty. It will be allocated as an unring-fenced grant in recognition that local authorities will know best how to prepare locally. I encourage tier one authorities to use it to engage with their local domestic abuse services, including specialist services for victims from diverse groups.
To further help local authorities with their preparation work, I am also publishing guidance setting out the purpose and suggested outcomes of this fund, and my officials are holding workshops to support local authorities.
Today I am also launching a consultation to seek views on the methodology proposed for allocating funding to meet the new burdens associated with the new duty once it comes into force. The level of funding is of course a matter for the spending review.
I encourage all local authorities to use this range of support to ensure they are ready for implementation in April 2021.
[HCWS485]
Prime Minister's Trade Envoy Programme
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The Prime Minister has today made 15 new appointments to his trade envoy programme.
These new appointments will extend the total number of trade envoys to 31 parliamentarians covering 69 markets. The Prime Minister’s trade envoy programme is an unpaid and voluntary cross-party network, which supports the UK’s ambitious trade and investment agenda in global markets. The new appointments are:
The Baroness Hooper CMG (Gloria Hooper) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Panama,
The Baroness Meyer CBE (Catherine Meyer) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Ukraine,
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to the Caribbean (with focus on 12 Commonwealth Countries),
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to the Western Balkans (covering Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia),
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Helen Grant) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Nigeria,
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Mongolia,
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam,
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Mozambique,
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Tunisia and Libya,
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Kenya,
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Gamier) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Brunei, Myanmar and Thailand,
The Lord Austin of Dudley (Ian Austin) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Israel,
The Lord Davies of Abersoch CBE (Evan Mervyn Davies) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Sri Lanka,
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Morocco, and
The right hon. the Lord Bates (Michael Bates) has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Ethiopia.
They join the following list of trade envoys:
The Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yambury (Jane Bonham-Carter), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Mexico,
The Baroness Morris of Bolton OBE (Patricia Morris), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Jordan, Kuwait and the Palestinian Territories,
The Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Emma Harriet), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan,
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Bangladesh,
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Peru,
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines,
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Tanzania,
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to South Africa,
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Ghana and Guinea,
The Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Richard Faulkner), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Taiwan,
The Lord Popat (Dolar Popat), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo,
The Lord Risby (Richard Spring), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Algeria and Lebanon,
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey Donaldson), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Egypt,
The right hon. the Lord Astor of Hever DL (John Jacob Astor), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Oman,
The right hon. the Lord Janvrin GCB GCVO QSO (Robin Janvrin), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Turkey and
The right hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Norman Lamont), the Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Iran.
[HCWS483]
Northern Ireland-Related Terrorism: ISC Report
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report of the former Committee on Northern Ireland-related terrorism, looking at the key challenges faced by MI5 and others in tackling the threat posed by dissident republican (DR) groups in Northern Ireland.
The current security situation in Northern Ireland (NI) is in no way comparable to the troubles. However, DR and loyalist paramilitary groups continue to be a feature of life and the threat in NI from DR groups remains unchanged at severe, meaning an attack is highly likely. DRs reject the 1998 Belfast agreement and consider the use of violence a legitimate tool. Despite significant pressure from the police and security forces, demonstrated by the recent arrests targeting the New IRA, the terrorist threat they pose is enduring, and there remains a minority who aim to destabilise the peace process, harming communities across NI.
The DR threat is, however, just one part of the wider security picture in NI. The lines are often blurred between those involved in terrorist activity, paramilitary activity, and organised crime. In one way or another, these groups exert control over and exploit those communities for their own criminal ends. To achieve lasting peace in NI these threats cannot be dealt with in isolation.
The Government welcome the Committee’s conclusions on the importance of covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) and in particular the strong endorsement that it is sometimes necessary to authorise CHIS to participate in criminal conduct. This is a long-standing tactic which is vital for national security and the prevention and detection of crime. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill introduced to Parliament on 24 September, and which has its Second Reading in the House of Commons today, provides an express power for the authorisation of criminal conduct, providing certainty to public authorities using this critical tool. The Bill makes clear that a criminal conduct authorisation can only be authorised where strictly necessary and proportionate to do so, and is subject to robust oversight including by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
I welcome this report and thank the Committee for the work that has gone into it. The Government will consider the report in full and respond formally in due course.
[HCWS488]
Union Connectivity Review
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
On 30 June the Prime Minister announced a review would be undertaken into Union connectivity, exploring ways to improve connectivity between our four nations and bring forward funding to accelerate infrastructure projects.
I have now published the terms of reference for this independent review. Chaired by Sir Peter Hendy CBE, the review will make recommendations on how the UK Government can level up transport infrastructure and improve connectivity between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, boosting access to opportunities and improving people’s everyday connections.
Working closely with the devolved Administrations, Sir Peter will look at road, rail, air and sea links, and how they could be improved to fuel the UK’s recovery from the covid-19 pandemic. Sir Peter brings extensive experience and knowledge to the role with over 45 years working in the transport sector—including as Chair of Network Rail and successfully running London’s transport network during the Olympics.
The review will look at how the quality and availability of transport infrastructure between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can support quality of life in communities across the UK while also aiding economic recovery. This will in turn lead to recommendations on whether and how best to improve connections, and whether that includes the need to invest in additional infrastructure by the UK Government. Among other things, Sir Peter will look at the feasibility and conduct a detailed initial assessment of options for improved road and rail connections between England and Scotland, and England and Wales, as well as improved air links across the UK.
The review will also look to the future—considering the role of future technologies and assess environmental impacts of current and future infrastructure. Sir Peter will be expected to publish his final recommendations in summer 2021.
This announcement follows a recent pledge by the UK Government to bring forward funding to accelerate infrastructure projects in the devolved nations—working with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK Government will identify opportunities for “spades in the ground” ready projects to help build up communities and create jobs quicker for people across the United Kingdom.
[HCWS484]