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, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of everyone in Defence, to send Captain Sir Tom Moore our best wishes for his recovery from covid. He continues to be an inspiration to us all, embodying the “Trust, Courage, Team Spirit” motto of the Army Foundation College in Harrogate, for which he is the honorary colonel. From the newest recruit upwards, we all wish him a very speedy recovery.
We are taking several steps to ensure that we are using the estate in a most effective way. They include updating our infrastructure strategy plans; implementing an asset management system across the estate; and increasing investment in the estate to implement the defence estate optimisation portfolio, reducing our footprint and modernising our infrastructure.
Kevin Hollinrake
My constituents are very proud of the role RAF Linton-on-Ouse has had in the defence of our realm, all the way from the second world war to the current day—or near to it. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on any other potential purposeful military uses he has for the base?
Mr Wallace
At the urging of my hon. Friend—the RAF have been in the process of drawing the base down, as he said—we did look at exploring other military uses for that base, but at the moment no long-term military requirement has been identified. Defence is, I am afraid, therefore completing the final assessment, with disposal details to be announced in due course.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
May I join the Secretary of State in sending our best wishes to Sir Tom for a speedy recovery? It is a well-known fact that in the 21st century we need to modernise our defence estates to compete, given changing world needs. The Government have announced the closure of 90 sites across the country, so will the Secretary of State update this House as to how his Department aims to ensure that the British taxpayer is not left paying huge rents on a great number of empty properties, as has already happened, when these sites are closed? How many of these defence estate sites will be affected by the Crichel Down rule?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The defence estate optimisation programme was and is planned to unlock £1.4 billion, to be reinvested in an overall plan of a £5.1 billion investment in the defence estate across the board, helping soldiers, sailors and air force personnel with better quality accommodation and a better training estate. He is right to point out the challenges relating to historical problems with both private finance initiatives and the Annington home deal at the end of 1997. Some of the PFI schemes introduced under his Government lay a heavy burden on the defence budget. We are both examining and negotiating on a number of those areas to try to reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
In this period, about 2,000 personnel, from more than 100 countries, have received some form of defence training in the United Kingdom.
John Nicolson [V]
The Biden Administration have halted the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, with many Democrats citing the killing of civilians, including children, by Saudi forces in Yemen. A freedom of information request by The Guardian revealed that the Government provided training on UK soil for Saudi military. Will the Minister ensure that the Government expose the widely documented crimes committed by Saudi personnel with US counterparts as they undertake this review? Will he take a leaf out of the American book and reassess whether we should be enabling the Saudi regime, given the awful crimes it has committed?
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman will know from the many parliamentary questions that have been asked on this that much of the information relating to licensing is subject to ongoing legal proceedings, but our defence relationship with Saudi Arabia on training includes courses, advice and guidance. This supports the efforts of Saudi Arabia to protect national and regional security, as well as its military’s compliance with international humanitarian law. The UK is not a member of the Saudi-led coalition and we played no role in setting Saudi-led coalition policy.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
As part of the national covid-19 response, Defence has been active in all regions of the UK, providing support in a variety of ways, including through the distribution of personal protective equipment and diagnostic equipment; the planning, construction and staffing of Nightingale hospitals; conducting school and community testing; and providing military support to NHS trusts and support to the vaccine programme. As of 27 January, there are approximately 14,500 personnel committed or at readiness, and service personnel are deployed in every region of the UK.
Claire Coutinho [V]
In the south-east, we are lucky to have more than 300 defence personnel working in a mixture of medical and non-medical roles in our NHS. On Friday, I heard directly from my local trust about how important that has been as a boost to our NHS workforce. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should extend our deepest gratitude to the hard-working men and women who have been working on the frontline of this pandemic?
James Heappey
I certainly do. I am delighted that defence personnel have been of such use to the local authorities in the south-east. Personnel from all three services are employed in a range of roles to support frontline NHS services, both providing direct clinical care and undertaking support roles to free up NHS staff. I know from everything that I have heard from nursing directors and clinicians across the country that their contribution has been of enormous benefit and we are very grateful to them all.
Dehenna Davison [V]
Having volunteered at a new local vaccine centre in Bishop Auckland, I have seen the looks of joy and relief on people’s faces. I was pleased to hear that the Ministry of Defence is standing up more than 40 vaccine quick reaction forces, ready to help ensure that the vaccine roll-out reaches even the most remote areas of the UK. Could my hon. Friend update the House on how many of these teams have been deployed and to where?
James Heappey
With pleasure: 42 vaccine quick reaction force teams comprising 252 defence personnel are deployed across seven NHS England regions to locations determined by NHS priorities. As my hon. Friend says, their primary effort is to ensure that the roll-out of the vaccine is equally paced across the country. Where we can reinforce the efforts of local NHS trusts, that is exactly what these quick reaction teams are there to do.
Jonathan Gullis [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier answer and for the three military planners who are currently supporting the Staffordshire local resilience forum with their covid-19 related planning. Will he expand on the diverse roles that the military planners have carried out in the pandemic so far?
James Heappey
I have been speaking to our joint military commanders in every region and they have all been clear about the value that these planners and their liaison officers have brought in helping the local authorities to understand what it is that the military could do and in helping us in the MOD to get ahead of that demand so that we can get troops lined up. It is clear that, whatever the lessons learnt about the covid response more generally, one of the biggest lessons for the Ministry of Defence is that those relationships at local level are of huge importance and I hope that we can institutionalise them as we go forward.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
May I also put on record my best wishes, and those of my party, to Captain Sir Tom Moore and wish him a speedy recovery?
I have mentioned before that we are extremely grateful for the effort of the armed forces in Scotland, but I must mention the effort that they are making in my constituency at the Castlemilk vaccine centre. It is so good that it even managed to bring the Prime Minister out of Downing Street to my constituency—against all advice, but there we go. What plans does the Minister have to recognise the extraordinary effort and the extraordinary work of those in the armed forces working on the pandemic alongside such brilliant NHS staff up and down the country?
James Heappey
I am not sure whether I agree that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visiting the United Kingdom armed forces hard at work in all parts of the United Kingdom is in any way an inappropriate activity for him to undertake. The great thing about our nation’s armed forces is that they get on with the job at hand and do not seek any recognition at the time. This is their priority; it is our priority. Of course, we have an eye on how we might recognise their contribution when all this is done.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I can tell the Minister that my inbox tells a rather different story. What they want is to be paid properly, to have decent working conditions and employment conditions, and their families to be supported better. But let me ask this. All those NHS and social care workers they are working alongside in Scotland will receive a £500 thank you payment from the Scottish Government. Will he match that for all UK personnel working here and abroad to help fight the pandemic in the upcoming Budget—yes or no?
James Heappey
I will, of course, have a look at what that might mean, if, in return, the hon. Gentleman will consider taxing the armed forces less than the Scottish Government currently do.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
This Government are committed to strengthening the armed forces covenant with measures to further incorporate it into law introduced last week in the Armed Forces Bill. Service charities play an integral role for the armed forces community. We have regular dialogue, and they also provide observations on our progress each year in an unadulterated version of the covenant annual report.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I, too, send my best wishes to Captain Sir Tom Moore for a speedy recovery.
I have long been a supporter of the military covenant, and the local authorities in my constituency are among the first to adopt it, but the Minister will know that the director general of the Royal British Legion told the Committee considering the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill that the six-year longstop will breach the military covenant. Why does he think they say that?
Johnny Mercer
I was Minister on that Bill Committee, and the person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers actually supports the legislation. It does not breach the armed forces covenant. We are clear that that legislation gives our soldiers more rights and protects them in a better manner for the intricacies of modern warfare. Those who continue to peddle untruths about that Bill are doing quite a serious disservice to those who need to be protected from vexatious claims when they serve this nation on operations.
Mr Betts [V]
I am sure that the Minister will agree that local authorities play an important role in implementing the national covenant. In Sheffield, extra priority is given to ex-servicemen when it comes to the right to social housing. There is also a wraparound service that includes employment and skills, and mental health. All that is overseen by a council-appointed ex-servicemen’s champion, Councillor Tony Damms, who works with local charities, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and the Sheffield and district ex-service associations; they all work closely together. I am sure that the Minister will agree that charities and the council working together in that way is a model for the implementation of the national covenant.
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to Tony and to many like him across the country who work tirelessly in the endeavour of veterans’ care. I am clear that the future of veterans’ care is a blended model between statutory and voluntary provision, where there is a role for everybody, and we mark ourselves by the key questions: “How do you access that care? Does everyone leaving who needs it know where to turn?” Until we get there, we continue to need people such as Tony. It is a team effort, and we will get there in the end.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Part of the armed forces covenant is, of course, to look after war widows, including an estimated 265 who lost their war widow’s pension on cohabitation or remarriage and have not been able to benefit from the change in the law preventing that from happening in the future. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State personally have been fighting with the Treasury to find a way to settle this debt of honour. In the light of the latest knock-back, what further plans do Ministers have to try to make good their promise to look after those war widows, who have sacrificed so much?
Johnny Mercer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this issue. The Secretary of State has taken a personal lead and has recently written to Mary Moreland. As a result, the Department is currently considering how we can best support those represented through her War Widows Association, and, indeed, what that support might actually look like.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
I have been speaking to a number of local authorities about their commitment to the armed forces covenant. We already know that many local authorities do a really great job of supporting service personnel, veterans and their families, but having the covenant in law will enhance those responsibilities. When there are more legal responsibilities, will Government funding to local authorities follow?
Johnny Mercer
The Department is looking to issue in due course statutory guidance on how precisely these matters will be achieved. The key thing is that the legislation is very clear that it does not specify outcomes, but simply ensures that a set of principles is adhered to. That is what the armed forces covenant was always about; it was designed never for advantage, but to prevent disadvantage. That is what this Bill does. It is carefully calibrated to ensure that we raise the floor so that the experience for veterans, the serving community and their families is equal across the nation.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
We are implementing changes through the acquisition transformation scheme to improve cost controls. Through the outline strategic case, we are ensuring that the right expertise is brought together at the outset, so that projects are properly risk assessed and, with the right commercial expertise available, set up for success.
Mr Dhesi
The National Audit Office recently concluded that for the fourth year in a row the defence equipment plan remains unaffordable. While the extra money for defence is to be welcomed, how will the Minister ensure that the investment does not simply disappear into a black hole but delivers on the new capabilities we need as a nation to deal with emerging security threats?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman’s point is very wise and we would endorse it. We need to invest in the right capabilities to meet the threats of the future. it is good to hear someone on the Labour Benches speaking sense. We agree that that is exactly where our funds should be directed—to meet the threats of the future. That is being undertaken through the integrated review, which is a cross-Government review. More information will be coming out in due course, but we are very focused on it.
Nick Smith [V]
The defence equipment plan has seen escalating costs over time, and agreeing priorities has proved to be difficult. The NAO says that industry has a prioritised list of funding options following a multi-criteria decision analysis exercise. This sounds worth while, if a bit of a mouthful, so will the Minister commit to publishing that list of priorities?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman needs to look to the outcome of the integrated review that will take place in due course, which will set out the overarching strategic priorities for the Government in meeting the needs of this country across a broad spectrum of foreign affairs and defence. It is from that strategic set of decisions that we need then to ensure that our procurement follows.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The MOD has been leading work to review our defence and security industrial strategy across Government, and we expect to publish the findings of this work in the spring. In our strategy we are aiming to ensure that we can access the industrial capabilities that we need to meet current and future threats to our national security.
Mark Pawsey [V]
That is good to hear. The national shipbuilding strategy reflects the strategic importance of ship systems and the supply chain that provides them. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the world-beating electric power and propulsion systems produced by General Electric in my constituency of Rugby. Will he confirm that those are considered strategic national assets and that they will be included in the Government’s thinking on the forthcoming fleet solid support ships programme?
Mr Wallace
I can certainly confirm that I recognise that many of the benefits of naval procurement are seen in the supply chain; General Electric and other systems providers play a hugely important role as part of the UK’s shipbuilding enterprise. I am committed to maximising the benefits to UK industry in all our defence procurement, within the regulations.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The extra funding is welcome and promises an overdue upgrade of Britain’s defence and defence industry. The Secretary of State talks about the rise in capital funding but not the real cut in revenue funding over the next four years. This year’s defence equipment budget is £16.4 billion, of which over half is revenue-based equipment support. How on earth has he agreed to this cut, and how is he going to meet the future threats to this country and fix the black hole in the budget by cutting day-to-day defence spending?
Mr Wallace
It is great hearing the right hon. Gentleman trying to turn a £16 billion or a £24 billion increase in defence spending into a cut and finding any way, across the budget, to get in the word “cut” so that no doubt at the next election he can claim that somehow we have cut defence spending despite the £24 billion increase over the next four years. We are planning to spend £186 billion on equipment and support between 2018 and 2028. Of course we have to balance revenue spending and capital spending in terms of the resource departmental expenditure limit throughout the process. The reason our Army and our armed forces are different in size from what they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago is defined not just by the threat but by the equipment we have available. The proportion of our RAF that is unmanned, which will grow, of course means fewer people flying aeroplanes. That is the nature of things. If one looks at the US air force, one will see that pattern over the past 15 to 20 years.
It will be quite easy and perfectly straightforward to try to find the right balance, as long as we are defined by the threat and the ambition we need to meet. Some of the money that we have received—the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—is not going to buy new shiny toys in some areas; it is about fixing some of the current problems in infrastructure and so on to ensure that we are more efficient and more productive.
John Healey
I appreciate the Defence Secretary wanting to downplay the real difficulties he faces, but we were told by his predecessor in 2012 that the black hole has
“been eliminated and the budget is now in balance”,—[Official Report, 14 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 262.]
yet less than a decade later the National Audit Office says that for the fourth year running the equipment plan is unaffordable and the black hole is as high as £17 billion. On the integrated review, where he promises answers to these difficult questions, may I urge him not to repeat the mistakes of past Conservative defence reviews by trying to balance the books off the back of forces personnel, industry investment and equipment support?
Mr Wallace
Since taking my post as Defence Secretary I have been absolutely determined to ensure that the figures that both we and the Treasury use are absolutely of the highest quality and transparency.
If the right hon. Gentleman reflects on the NAO’s 1998 report, he will see the same systematic problems in the management of the defence budget: phantom efficiency savings that turned out to have already been spent by other people have been a significant problem in defence for 20 to 30 years. It is not just a governing party problem. All of that has meant that when we publicise the integrated review, we will start from a baseline where we can all be transparent about our figures and trust the figures we are putting before it. I will not indulge in fantasy savings or phantom programmes. I will not allow the services to procure equipment that has a balloon payment at the end, in 10 or 20 years’ time, when it becomes somebody else’s problem.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State and others in wishing Captain Sir Tom Moore a speedy recovery. He has become a living symbol of the very British spirit that we need to get us through this pandemic, and we all wish him well.
May I press the Government on when the integrated review will be published and warn against suggestions that our infantry might be cut by up to 10,000 personnel? If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is the value of spare capacity and the built-in resilience to deal with the unexpected. With that in mind, I invite the Defence Secretary to look at deploying RFA Argus, our hospital ship currently alongside in Plymouth, and other military assets to assist with the international roll-out of vaccines to developing countries. The UK set an example by stepping forward during the Ebola outbreak, and we should do so once again with covid-19.
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. HMS Argus has literally just returned from giving assistance in the Caribbean; she has been helping the populations there deal with the initial outbreak and all the problems. She was involved in dealing not only with the covid outbreak, but with security and making sure that the borders and so on were kept from immigration pressures as well.
On the broader issue of the integrated review, I know I have come to this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions to say it was going to be on a certain date. It will be in the spring. Obviously covid has taken its effect. The No. 1 priority of the Government is dealing with covid and delivering a covid response. That does not prevent defence, with a multi-year settlement, setting out and driving forward, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, a plan to ensure that when the review is launched, everyone will be able to see it. I am determined that it will be done this spring, because it is important not just domestically, but for our international allies to understand the direction of travel on our defence.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
There have been no discussions on this matter. British national overseas status holders who serve in our armed forces already have the option either to apply for British citizenship while serving or to settle in the UK on discharge. BNO veterans who have not pursued these routes and choose to apply under the new BNO route will be on a pathway to settlement in the UK and can then apply for British citizenship.
Margaret Ferrier [V]
During the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the existing immigration rules meant that only 159 of the 654 soldiers who had served in the British armed forces in Hong Kong and applied to live in the UK were successful at the time. With the opening of the new settlement scheme for British nationals overseas, many of those veterans are keen to escape the crackdown of the Chinese Government on Hong Kong. Can the Defence Minister confirm that he will defend their right to UK citizenship in any consultations on the matter with Cabinet colleagues?
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Member raises a good point and a good question. These negotiations are ongoing at the time. We are very clear, though, that those who have served in the armed forces should suffer no disadvantage because of their service, and that of course extends to those who apply for BNO residency, should they be eligible.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
As committed to in the Queen’s Speech, last week measures to further incorporate the armed forces covenant into legislation were introduced in the Armed Forces Bill. The Bill requires those public bodies in scope to consider the principles of the covenant when developing policy and making decisions in health, housing and education—areas that are fundamental to service life.
Caroline Ansell [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his response, and I am very pleased with that support for the family, which is very much in the spirit of our military covenant. What duty will be applied to education, and what support measures are in place for the children of our military families to support their learning in schools both while the parent is serving and later when a veteran?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this issue. Registered service children in the annual school census in England receive the £310 service pupil premium per child per year up to year 11. Since 2016, registered service children, even if their serving parent has left the armed forces, continue to receive the SPP for up to six years while they attend state schools in England.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
One of the ways that enshrining the covenant in law could deliver more for our armed forces is on housing. Surveys continue to show low levels of satisfaction with maintenance, and the Government renegotiate the rents on some accommodation. Will the Minister provide an update on the arbitration process for Annington Homes, and can he assure those living in service family accommodation that he will not bring back a deal that hikes up their rent?
Johnny Mercer
We are currently in the process, as the hon. Member knows, of resolution in that case, and I am not going to comment on it in a public forum, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will write to him this afternoon.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government have been clear that we will not sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We welcome the US offer to extend the new START—strategic arms reduction treaty—with Russia, and we would support that treaty and its robust verification mechanisms continuing.
Patricia Gibson [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep disappointment and frustration felt across Scotland and much of the UK because the UK Government did not join 85 other countries and sign up to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons on 22 January. Can he explain why the UK has failed to support this treaty, and how this is consistent with its strategic objectives and obligations under article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to make attempts in good faith to move towards the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons programmes?
Mr Wallace
The Government did not sign up to it because we do not think it is an effective way of dealing with this. We do think that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a more effective way of reducing both the spread and, indeed, the number of nuclear weapons on the planet, and that is why we favour gradual multilateral disarmament negotiated through a step-by-step approach.
Patrick Grady
It seems as if global Britain is running in the opposite direction of global consensus on this issue. Rather than just hoping that nuclear weapons will never be used and working for some eventual point in the future when they might be eradicated, why will the Government not take the bold steps of signing this treaty and, for that matter, removing Trident from the shores of this country?
Mr Wallace
It may have missed the hon. Gentleman’s attention that other countries, those much less democratic and with much less regard for human rights, are working in the other direction and developing nuclear weapons. One reason we felt that nuclear weapons are important to the United Kingdom, when other regimes such as, potentially, North Korea and others develop them, is as a deterrent. We will continue to believe that, and seek ways to reduce nuclear holdings around the world in a multilateral, not a unilateral way. If I think that some of those adversaries care about some of those countries having nuclear weapons or not, the world might be slightly different, but it is not. We should be careful and protect our friends. We are a provider of a nuclear deterrent for NATO and for Europe. That has kept the peace for 50 years, despite some very aggressive nuclear powers.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
Sustainability is considered at all the appropriate stages of the acquisition lifecycle, from setting requirements to disposal. In addition, we are improving sustainability in the defence estate, which offers a significant opportunity for the future.
Geraint Davies [V]
We face a climate crisis, and we must build back greener out of the pandemic. Will the Government undertake to do more to increase investment in research and development in low-emission planes and ships, working in collaboration with the civil sector? Will he meet me and Airbus, and others, to discuss the opportunities to boost innovation and production of non-military planes and ships—like the US does with Boeing—to help us meet our net-zero obligations? Will he boost exports, so that defence expenditure can be used to defend us against climate change?
Jeremy Quin
We are focused on the Government’s world-leading commitment to net zero 2050, and defence will, without doubt, play its part. A lot of work is ongoing regarding how we can increase our activity in that sphere, but we have discussions with commercial entities and throughout the MOD about how we can tackle carbon emissions throughout the armed forces. That includes, recently, clearing MOD planes to use up to 50% sustainable aviation fuel. That is a good step in the right direction, and others will undoubtedly follow.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Our armed forces are a force for good, providing security, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and defence engagement across the globe. They have a proud track record on the frontline of our national response to humanitarian disasters the world over, from Ebola in west Africa to hurricane seasons in the Caribbean.
Mr Baron [V]
As chair of the British Council all-party group, I suggest that soft power can pay for itself many times over by building links and improving trust and understanding, all of which makes conflict less likely. As the Government assess our international engagement, does my right hon. Friend agree that soft power must be a consideration alongside traditional hard power? Will he assure me that he will make the case for soft power when it comes to the Government’s integrated review?
Mr Wallace
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on the British Council all-party group. The British Council is an outstanding institution around the world—indeed, in my opinion there is not enough of it around the world. The integrated review will enhance defence engagement, ensuring that our armed forces are more forward, present, and active around the world, and involve changes to operational development structures, defence diplomacy and allowances. I completely agree that alongside hard power must come soft power. It can be delivered by the military, as well as by those excellent non-governmental organisations, and organisations such as the British Council. The best way to not get into a conflict is to avoid one in the first place by understanding each other’s issues, and by helping nations and people’s economies to build. That is the first way to go.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The 2020 annual update to Parliament on the United Kingdom’s future nuclear deterrent provides progress details on the Dreadnought submarine programme. The programme, underpinned by around 30,000 defence nuclear enterprise jobs across the United Kingdom, remains on track to deliver the first of class in the early 2030s. The programme will sustain thousands of jobs across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland.
Mr Clarke [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We live in uncertain times and should always maintain peace through strength, of which the nuclear deterrent is the best example. Will he join me in thanking all those involved in both delivering the Dreadnought programme and operating the Vanguard boats with such dedication and skill in the intervening period until they are replaced?
Mr Wallace
Continuous at-sea deterrence has kept us safe for more than 50 years. I recognise and thank all the personnel involved and their families for the tremendous sacrifices they make, and I am proud of all our Royal Navy and industrial partners for delivering this very important Government commitment.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The armed forces have provided a range of support to the British overseas territories throughout the covid-19 pandemic where it has been requested. That has included support to local government and civil authorities in their response, through the provision of defence planners, the deployment of critical care teams, the provision of food and medical supplies, and, more recently, logistical support with vaccine delivery.
Henry Smith [V]
I was pleased that in January the Royal Air Force made two deliveries of life-saving covid-19 vaccines to Gibraltar. Can my hon. Friend confirm how many doses our armed forces have helped deliver to the British overseas territories so far?
James Heappey
Defence has to date delivered 10,725 doses of the Pfizer vaccine to Gibraltar, as mentioned by my hon. Friend. Further deliveries are planned to the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar by the end of today, of 6,825 Pfizer doses and 3,000 AstraZeneca doses respectively. Defence is scoping the delivery of 65,850 further vaccine doses to Ascension Island, Gibraltar and the Falklands throughout February, and of course we stand ready to support vaccine delivery to all the British territories overseas.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
The Government remain committed to ensuring that the professional development of our armed forces personnel continues during this difficult time. The safety of our workforce and their families is paramount. Measures including social distancing and, where appropriate, testing regimes have supported the continuation of prioritised face-to-face training. Alongside that, innovative ways of working and use of virtual platforms has enabled remote delivery of other professional development activity, including for those transitioning to civilian life or undertaking professional qualifications.
Mrs Drummond [V]
More and more women are pursuing careers in the armed forces. Will my hon. Friend look at how their personal development can be encouraged by ensuring that the remaining gendered rank titles are updated to reflect the modern make-up of the services?
James Heappey
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point, and this former rifleman rather agrees. The issue of gendered rank titles is something that the chiefs have been considering. Diversity and inclusion leads are working collaboratively across the services to develop an inclusive language guide for release in the spring. That guide is informed by the wider work that NATO has done to produce gender-inclusive language manuals.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I am pleased to report that throughout the covid pandemic, Defence has continued to maintain a steady drumbeat of orders. Those include recent orders to enhance F-35, a project that particularly benefits the north-west of England, and the next generation munitions solution, which saves £563 million over the course of its contract and supports jobs in Glascoed, Tyne and Wear, and Stoke-on-Trent.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Beautiful Hastings and Rye has a number of excellent small to medium-sized manufacturing businesses serving the defence industry. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that, as part of defence procurement and the levelling-up agenda, those small companies are given the opportunity to benefit from any increase in defence procurement spending, thereby increasing jobs and helping to turbo-charge our local economy?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend has already discussed the brilliance of her small and medium-sized enterprises with me in the past, and I expect I will be hearing a lot more about them in the future. The good news is that with our SME action plan in place, which I would encourage them to look through, SMEs are now accounting for nearly 20% of all defence procurement expenditure. With a £24 billion investment in defence to come forth, there is plenty for them to go at.
Jason McCartney [V]
What progress has been made with the upgrade of the British armoured vehicle capability? What are the Government doing to ensure that those contracts are fulfilled by British-based manufacturers such as David Brown Santasalo, which is based in my constituency?
Jeremy Quin
It was a great pleasure for me and the Secretary of State to join my hon. Friend in visiting David Brown last year to discuss its vital work on Type 26 frigates not only for us, but our allies. Investment in UK armour, as I think my hon. Friend knows, is ongoing with the Boxer programme and Ajax. Other projects are also under active consideration.
Jane Stevenson [V]
So many industries have been hit hard by the pandemic, including aerospace and engineering companies in Wolverhampton North East. I am delighted to hear about more and more procurement contracts. What steps is the Minister taking to start as many of those contracts as quickly as possible, so that we can really help our industrial economic recovery?
Jeremy Quin
I understand my hon. Friend’s question. Throughout the pandemic, we have made certain to maintain the drumbeat of existing orders so that they have continued. Through the interim payments scheme, we have helped to support defence companies with cash where that has been required. It is right that core defence decisions are taken on an holistic basis in the context of the integrated review. However, we have, where possible, advanced procurement in particular on improvements to the defence estate, where tens of millions of pounds of improvements are ongoing as we speak.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Today, I am placing a copy of the Department’s qualitative whole force inclusivity report in the House of Commons Library. It will form part of the evidence the Ministry of Defence is submitting to the Defence Committee’s inquiry into women in the armed forces. The report helps to underline the scale of the task we must address. Given the significance of the issue, I felt that a wider readership was important. The armed forces offer a fantastic career opportunity for men and women alike, but, as the reports highlights, their experiences are not always equal and in some cases are unacceptable. I am determined to level up opportunities for all who work in defence through behaviour and culture change. While much is being done, including the implementation of the Wigston and Gray reports, I am grateful to the Defence Committee for its additional work in this important area.
We take taskforce protection of our service personnel allies very seriously, and want Iran to engage seriously with the international community, especially on its nuclear commitments. We remain concerned over support for militant proscribed groups. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a whole remains subject to UK, EU and US sanctions. Many associated individuals and entities are also designated. We review the list of proscribed groups, but do not routinely comment on specific organisations.
Andrew Percy
I thank the Secretary of State for answering my question before I asked it, which was excellent and very timely. I thank him for his answer. In recent weeks, Iran has once again threatened to crush its enemies. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been testing long-range missiles and drones. I am aware of what my right hon. Friend said in regard to proscribing the revolutionary guard, but this is a country that continues to destabilise the middle east so we really must go further.
Mr Wallace
I apologise to my hon. Friend for jumping the gun, so to speak. The IRGC and its activities in the region are destabilising. That is why the United Kingdom is investing, along with its allies and NATO, in keeping places such as Iraq stable and secure. We ask the IRGC and the Iranian Government to desist from that activity, and to return to the table on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action now that we have a new US Administration. Let us try to resolve the nuclear issue and return to some stability.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentions nuclear proliferation in relation to Iran, but I am disappointed that he makes no mention of New START—strategic arms reduction treaty—which President Biden rescued last week, particularly as Britain is a beneficiary of the stability that it brings to Europe. He made no mention of New START when it collapsed with President Trump last year. He was also silent when the US pulled out of the 34-nation open skies treaty, so why has Britain become a bystander while the international rules-based order has been breaking down? While it remains essential to maintain our UK nuclear deterrent, will he also use the integrated review to reboot Britain’s commitment to help forge the next generation of necessary arms controls and security agreements?
Mr Speaker
May I just remind Front Benchers that topicals are meant to be short and punchy so that we get through the list?
Mr Wallace
First, we did not necessarily write it, but I read the right hon. Gentleman’s good article over the weekend with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), calling for action on a number of these issues. It was not the case that the United Kingdom did not communicate to the United States Administration the importance of both the open skies treaty and the New START agreement. We welcome its return. Sometimes we do things in public; sometimes we do things in private. It is incredibly important, and we welcome the steps that are being taken, but we should not forget that Russia has consistently broken some of these treaties and played on loopholes, both on chemical weapons and nuclear weapons.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his relentless campaigning on this. The recent review by the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee into the case for medallic recognition concluded that it did not meet the level of risk and rigour. However, we are committed to ensuring that we have good wraparound care for those who suffered injury from these operations and exercises at the time.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
Mr Wallace
I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the current contract—which is obviously in the middle of a competition, so I have to be cautious in what I say—is not about driving down terms and conditions; it is about increasing the productivity around getting our boats and ships out on the water and making sure that our men and women of the armed forces are getting the maintenance and the turnaround that is required for taxpayers’ money. I have already met a number of stakeholders, including the leader of the trade union to discuss his concerns. My eyes and ears are wide open to the fears of the workforce, and I shall be working to make sure that whatever comes afterwards is not about driving down conditions, but about increasing and improving service.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Warrior CSP is now at an advanced stage in its demonstration phase. It has been ongoing for a period—it is now 75% through—but all projects are subject to the integrated review. I know that my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on any particular project at this stage, but I will say that it is one of a huge number of contributions that Bedfordshire makes to defence, including across Ajax, Wildcat and Tempest. It is a county that has got a great investment in and support for our services.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. If she writes to me with the specific details, I will be more than happy to help her. However, I am very clear that no previous Government have done more than we have for armed forces communities. We are absolutely determined to get to the root causes of veterans’ suicide, and if the hon. Lady writes to me with the particular case, I will of course reach out and see what we can do.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
Johnny Mercer
I of course pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituents from RE:ACT, and to Richard Sharp, who set up RE:ACT. I think that every vaccination centre in the UK has veterans serving again in what is a national effort to defeat coronavirus. I pay tribute to them, I thank them for their work, and I urge them to keep going.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Jeremy Quin
I am not aware of the details of that case, and it would be unwise to comment without learning more, but I will look into it and write to the hon. Lady.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
Johnny Mercer
There are a number of measures related to service justice in the Armed Forces Bill, which was introduced last Monday. Those measures are particularly focused on improving the experience of those who use the system and make service complaints, making that system more transparent, with more integrity and more resilience to challenge. My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that the Bill will have its Second Reading next Monday. There is some really good stuff in there; I urge her to have a look at it, and I am more than happy to engage with her further on the issues.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes a point, which is that first, we, as the United Kingdom armed forces, are here to help, and will do whatever is needed to help any one of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The amazing thing about the United Kingdom—the most successful political union in history—is that we are here to help each other seamlessly. An 80-year-old in need of a vaccine in London has the same need as an 80-year-old in Caithness. Our armed forces are all of our armed forces, and we will not be playing petty nationalist politics when it comes to defeating this evil virus.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
On behalf of everyone in Bolton, I would also like to wish Sir Tom a speedy recovery. I was heartened to hear that many soldiers have been deployed to set up 80 new covid-19 vaccine centres for NHS Scotland. Can my hon. Friend confirm how many have now opened as a result of this military support?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
We are very proud of the fact that military planners and advisers are embedded in so many Departments of the Scottish Government, just as they are down here in Whitehall with the UK Government, helping to make sure that the response of the Scottish Government is properly resourced with military expertise and planning horsepower. At present, 70 vaccination centres have been identified in Scotland as a result of the support from the United Kingdom’s armed forces, with 11 of those now open.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
I am happy to look into the specific parameters of the issue that the hon. Lady raises. I have been very clear that with representatives of the armed forces in every DWP centre, helping users of the service, we now have a better service than we have ever had for those who use those jobcentres. We are always looking to do more. My heart goes out in this appalling case, and I am more than happy to look at it. However, the reality is that the vast majority of our people have an excellent experience in very difficult times. I pay tribute to the staff at the DWP and all those working in jobcentres, particularly at the moment.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) [V]
James Heappey
We have many team medics, who are trained in advanced first aid and are well used to injecting morphine with some urgency on the battlefield. We are looking at how we might train them to be part of the vaccination process. There are 275 of them currently undertaking training, and clearly, the more of them we can make available, the better we will be able to support the NHS in vaccine delivery.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
The veterans ID card is an important recognition of those who have served. Everyone who leaves the services receives an ID card. The hon. Lady is right to identify the challenges in backdating the cards, with issues of fraud and so on. We are committed to delivering this year, and backdating the cards for all those who have served, so that everyone has an important memento of their service in the UK armed forces.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
James Heappey
I can confirm that that is very much the requirement, and we would fully expect all those whom we send out to support local authorities to be properly catered for. There have been one or two instances —one was reported to me by my hon. Friend—in which the service has fallen short. That is not good enough; we are investigating.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
The Department has worked hard to put our arms around veterans across the community, working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to make sure that our homeless veterans are looked after. We have commissioned studies from King’s College to look at the specific impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on veterans. We are committed to making sure that we do our duty by those who serve, and I am confident that we will do so.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Opposition Day
Unsafe Cladding: Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk; provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately; protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis; and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.
Buying your first home is a life-defining moment. It is exciting and scary. It symbolises security, and the time to start a family and build a future, but for so many what was a dream come true has become a nightmare. The Grenfell tragedy shed light on a crisis of building safety in this country, and hundreds of buildings have the same cladding that caused the Grenfell fire to be so deadly. Thousands have other equally dangerous cladding, and even more have other serious fire safety problems, such as combustible insulation, missing fire breaks and faulty fire doors. Millions of homeowners are caught up in the wider building safety crisis caused by the defects and are unable to sell, remortgage or buy a flat, freezing up 16% of the housing market and affecting possibly as many as 11 million people.
It can be easy to get caught up in the vast numbers, but it truly is a human tragedy. Many in this House will have read or heard Hayley’s story. Hayley was a first-time buyer in Leeds. She bought her flat through an affordable housing scheme designed to help people on low incomes take that first step on to the housing ladder. After moving in, Hayley was told that the roof of her building was covered in dangerous cladding similar to that used on Grenfell Tower, and further inspections threw up more problems with brickwork, insulation, balconies and possibly firebreaks.
Every month, Hayley faced an additional £300 in charges for what is called a waking watch—a 24-hour fire safety patrol that gives little confidence but costs dearly. That £300 a month was as much as her mortgage, and she just could not afford it. The terms of her mortgage meant that she could not move or rent our her flat. Facing mounting bills for the repairs, fire alarms and the looming threat of the costs of fixing the building, Hayley declared bankruptcy. A first-time buyer so recently, Hayley would now struggle to take out a loan to buy a car.
However, the crisis is not just affecting those at the beginning of their housing journey. I was written to recently by an elderly constituent who wants to move out of his flat and into a home that better suits his mobility needs. His block does not have dangerous cladding, but misguided advice from the Government means that he cannot get a survey to prove it. His home cannot be mortgaged, so he cannot get a buyer and so he cannot move into a home where he can be comfortable.
The situation is reflected across the country. People are being forced to pay more than they can afford for a problem they did not cause. Some are paying so much that they cannot keep their home: first-time buyers getting on the housing ladder to secure their future; people trying to move up and start a family; people approaching or in retirement wanting somewhere smaller; key workers such as NHS junior doctor Will, also in the media today, working on the covid frontline in Sheffield and facing costs of £52,000, a doubling service charge each month and skyrocketing insurance costs; housing associations, councils and their tenants; and everyone in between.
Everyone in this House, I think, agrees that this intolerable situation must not go on. People cannot continue living in unsafe homes. Leaseholders should not face mounting bills for a crisis they did not cause. Labour’s motion today expresses three simple principles that we hope will receive endorsement from across the House. First, the Government must urgently establish how much unsafe cladding there is, where it is and what danger it poses. It is extraordinary, three and a half years on from Grenfell, that we still do not have such basic information. Immediately after Grenfell, the Government could have done as Victoria in Australia did and set up a taskforce to establish the extent of dangerous cladding, prioritised by risk, and ensured enforcement against those who refuse to undertake the work. We are calling on the Government to do that today.
Many leaseholders are discovering that there is a shortage of engineers and fire safety specialists to carry out inspections and works. The Victoria taskforce manages the supply chain and ensures that it is directed first to the buildings that are most at risk. It has also prioritised safety by ensuring that the highest-risk buildings are fixed first, rather than the first come, first served approach that the UK Government are currently taking.
Secondly, people’s homes should be made safe as soon as possible. Where there is dangerous cladding on buildings or other serious fire safety problems, that must be fixed immediately. All the big players in this crisis have spent the past few years pointing fingers and avoiding responsibility, and the Government have called on building owners to do the right thing, but there is nothing to prevent building owners from passing on costs to leaseholders, and indeed they have a fiduciary duty to do so in many cases. Leaseholders simply cannot afford it, and they simply should not have to. If someone bought a new car that turned out to be dangerous, they would not expect to be told to take out a loan of tens of thousands of pounds to pay for it—often more than the price of the original car—but here we are talking about people’s homes. The stalemate we have now is leaving hundreds of thousands of people stuck in flammable buildings, and the only way to make homes safe is for the Government provide up-front funding to make that happen.
Finally, the cost of the work should not fall on leaseholders or taxpayers. Residents did not cause this crisis. They bought their homes in good faith only to find themselves victim to years of corporate malpractice, Government inaction and a broken leasehold system. Ministers have promised at least 15 times that leaseholders would not bear the cost, but recently the language has shifted to state that they should not bear “unaffordable” costs, and there is talk of loans. Labour’s motion calls on them to reaffirm and put substance behind their original promises to leaseholders.
Neither should the taxpayer carry the burden. The Government should pursue the dodgy developers, cowboy builders and manufacturers of flammable cladding through legal action—that is the “polluter pays” principle. Where laws need to be changed to make that easier, we should do so. There is precedent for that in Australia. Many councils and social landlords are being stung for the cost of the remediation. The Government have set them two impossible tasks: build to the building targets they have set, and at the same time carry out expensive fire remediation without passing on the costs to hard-pressed tenants. That must also change.
I am a Member of Her Majesty’s Opposition, but I am not here to score party political points. We know that at least 34 Conservative MPs agree that leaseholders should not pay for these costs, and I am sure there are many more who have not yet said so publicly. I commend in particular the work of the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on the Fire Safety Bill. Their amendments sought to protect leaseholders and push the Government to take action. We have tabled our own amendments that build on theirs and fill in some gaps, but the Government have not said when the Fire Safety Bill will come back, and the end of this parliamentary Session is rumoured to be fast approaching.
The Government may say that Opposition day motions are not binding, but it is up to them if they choose not to be bound by the sovereign will of the country’s elected representatives in this House. Many people remember that when the Labour Government were defeated on an Opposition day motion on Gurkhas, they honoured the will of Parliament and changed the policy the very next day. I ask the Government to heed the will of this House.
Further delay and inaction is not an option. Building insurance will continue to skyrocket and the unaffordable cost of waking watch security guards will continue. On top of all that, the colossal cost for fixing buildings will fall on leaseholders. People will go broke. Mortgages risk going into negative equity on a massive scale as more and more flats become literally valueless. We need a solution to this crisis that fixes buildings and ensures that those responsible pay.
I pay tribute to the absolutely inspiring cladding campaigners. I have met some in my constituency of Bristol West and others from across the country along with my colleague, the excellent shadow Minister for housing and housing safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). Those residents just want to get on with their lives. It is a tribute to all of them that they keep campaigning. So many MPs tried to get on to the speaking list today that they could not all get on. I commend colleagues for standing up for lease-holders, whether they are able to speak today or not.
There is cross-party consensus—agreement across both Houses and across the country—that we should put the needs of those first-time buyers, key workers and pensioners first. I am not asking Members to vote with the Opposition; I am asking them to vote with their constituents to show that they will always put their interests first. If Members agree with what is in the motion, they should vote for it. It is as simple as that.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
There is a shared desire in Parliament to ensure that absolutely everyone in our society lives somewhere decent, safe and secure. We are united in that commitment, and our thoughts naturally turn to the still unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower. It should not have taken such a deadly fire, with such a terrible loss of life and suffering, for us to face up to the failures of building safety that have built up over decades under successive Governments. We are determined to do our duty by those whose lives were changed forever that night, right the wrongs of the past, and bring about the biggest improvement to building safety in a generation.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that cladding issues affect thousands of my constituents, as do the wider issues of fire safety and building safety. Will he make clear when the legislation will come forward on both fire safety and building safety? Will he also give us an update on the EWS1 forms? He told the House in November that there had been negotiations, through the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, with lenders, but many of my constituents say that they are still facing serious issues in acquiring those forms.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I shall certainly address the fire safety and building safety legislation as I advance through my remarks. With respect to the EWS1 forms, he will know that RICS has undertaken a consultation on the reform proposals, which ought to reduce some of the burden that some people face. That consultation closed on 26 January, and we await its results, but certainly as a result of the negotiations that we undertook with the industry and with RICS, some 450,000 people who might otherwise have been affected by the EWS1 forms are no longer obliged to complete them.
We know that, through no fault of their own, many leaseholders have found themselves in a most challenging, difficult and, indeed, agonising situation. Their situation is undoubtedly a complex one. Its roots extend over many years, and there are no easy answers.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that leaseholders will not be gagged by confidentiality clauses in any remediation contracts?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. Leaseholders will in no way be gagged by the standard contractual obligations between Government and applicants for Government moneys for remediation. We have written to anybody that has applied to the scheme to make it clear that if people wish to make comments about policy or about their own remediation situation, they should be allowed to do so. I say to my hon. Friend that should anybody from petty officialdom suggest that his or any other constituents do not speak out, they offer that petty official a good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon gesture in response.
Christopher Pincher
I will make some progress; I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later on.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to outline the decisive action that we are undertaking to remove unsafe cladding, to strengthen the regulations and to support leaseholders. We established our building safety programme within days of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Its aim has always been to ensure that residents in high-rise blocks of flats are safe now and in the future. We have worked intensively and extensively to ensure that buildings with dangerous cladding are made safe as quickly as possible and, backed by £600 million of Government funding, real strides have been made in removing this unsafe aluminium composite material—ACM—cladding. Last year, despite the pressures of covid-19, more high rises with ACM cladding were made safe—either their works were begun or they were made safe—than in any previous year, which is nearly double the number in the previous year, 2019. Last month, we reached a major milestone. All high-rise social sector buildings have either had their unsafe ACM cladding replaced or seen the work get under way.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
My constituents in Ipswich are very pleased that they will be eligible for the waking watch relief fund, but it is only £30 million and many are concerned that it simply will not go far enough in addressing all buildings that need a new fire alarm system. What would the Minister say in response to their concerns?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who I know is a doughty campaigner for his constituents in Ipswich. I shall be addressing the issue of the waking watch and the support measures that we are putting in place as I move through my remarks.
I should also say that around 95% of all high-rise ACM buildings identified before the beginning of last year, across both the public and private sectors, are either fully remediated or have seen work commence on site. Indeed, all the buildings with unsafe ACM cladding in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) constituency have at least seen works start, if they are not already fully completed. These figures bear testament to the progress that we have made, the pressure that we have successfully exerted and the action that we have taken over the last three and a half years to get this job done. Where funding alone has not been enough to increase the pace of remediation, the Government have not hesitated to direct expert support to projects. Where building owners have still failed to take action despite that support, we have backed robust enforcement measures, spurring them to act without delay. Indeed, there have been 57 enforcement actions so far, 19 of which have been supported by the Government’s joint inspection team.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way very briefly, and then I must make some progress.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very grateful the Minister. He refers to building owners. Clearly, where there is a contractual obligation for building owners to remediate, that is absolutely right, but does he accept that lots of building owners have no contractual obligation—no legal obligation—to carry out that work? At Nova House in Slough, for example, the building owner simply gave it back to the local authority, which then issued service charges to the residents because there was no contractual obligation for anybody else to do the work. Perhaps we need to look at a wider community, rather than just building owners, to provide a funding solution for this problem.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the nub of the matter, which is the complexity of the situation with which we and those people who find themselves in this difficult situation have to grapple, and that is what the Government are doing.
The Government initially focused our efforts on ACM cladding of the type used on Grenfell Tower because it poses the most severe safety risk on high-rise residential buildings, but we recognise that other forms of unsafe cladding, although less dangerous than ACM, should never have been used. Although many building owners have taken action, some have not. Too many building owners and managing agents in the private sector have been slow in getting remediation work started, which is why we introduced the £1 billion building safety fund to remediate high-rise residential buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding as soon as possible and protect the leaseholders from burdensome costs.
We received 2,840 registrations for the fund, and have been able to make eligibility decisions on a significant number of them that were fully completed. It is disappointing that, despite our requirements having been made clear from the outset, many building owners have been unable to provide the basic information needed to advance works, including information such as the height of their building, the EWS systems on their walls and even sample lease agreements. We have been engaging with registrants and the industry bodies to understand the challenges they have in meeting the deadlines, and have set a new deadline of June based on what we now know about the registrants and their readiness to be able to deliver.
Building owners should be in no doubt: it is vital that dangerous cladding is removed as fast as possible, and the Government will not tolerate unnecessary delays. If they can collect the service charges, they can get the remediation on their buildings done. That applies just as much to small blocks of flats as it does to large ones, and we have given clear expert advice on a range of safety issues for buildings of all heights. Public funding has rightly been focused on remediating unsafe cladding on high-rise buildings of 18 metres-plus. That reflects the exceptional fire risk that certain cladding products pose at that height, as Dame Judith Hackitt observed in her report into fire safety. However, our guidance is unambiguous in stating that building safety is the responsibility of building owners, irrespective of whether their buildings are above or below 18 metres in height. The Government will continue to ensure that building owners—the ones who are ultimately responsible for making sure that these homes are safe—do the right thing.
We have targeted remediation funding where it is needed most: removing and replacing cladding on high-rise residential buildings. Interim safety measures such as waking watch have in many cases been used to ensure that the safety of residents in buildings with unsafe cladding is maintained. However, we are clear that waking watch regimes should only ever be used in the short term, because they are an entirely inadequate substitute for remediation. Some building owners have been using them for too long and have been passing on costs, which are unsustainable to leaseholders and residents, adding to the emotional distress and financial strain that they already suffer. We have been clear that that behaviour is unacceptable and cannot continue, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in December a £30 million fund to pay for the costs of installing alarm systems in buildings with unsafe cladding, thereby reducing the need for a waking watch. The fund is available across England. It is now open and I encourage those eligible not to delay but to start their applications now, so that we can urgently distribute the payments.
It is wrong and unjust for leaseholders to have to shoulder unfair costs to fix historical safety defects that they did not cause. That is why the Government have already set aside £1.6 billion in funding for cladding remediation. The funding was put in place precisely to ensure that the most dangerous types of cladding were removed as quickly as possible without imposing crippling bills on leaseholders. However, public funding does not absolve industry from taking the responsibility for the failures that led to unsafe cladding in the first place by putting materials on buildings that should not have been there.
We have seen many developers and building owners rightly taking responsibility for correcting those defects. They have done so in more than half of the high-rise private sector buildings with unsafe cladding. We absolutely expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to do the right thing and cover the costs of remediation of other unsafe cladding themselves without passing on the cost to leaseholders. However, in many cases, building owners or their managing agents have simply passed on significant remediation costs to leaseholders without regard to the affordability of those measures. That is why we have been accelerating the work to develop a financial solution to protect leaseholders from such costs. There is no quick fix. If there were, we would have done it long ago. It is complex and it involves many parties: leaseholders with different leases, developers, warranty holders, the insurance industry, the mortgage lenders, and the owners themselves. We have to find a solution that is right and proper, that demands of owners and developers that they put right the problems and defects they caused, that is fair to leaseholders who should not have to carry unfair costs for problems that they did not cause or envisage, and that is fair to the taxpayer, who is already shouldering a significant burden in remediating many buildings.
I can assure hon. Members that we will be making a further announcement on this important work “very shortly”, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at PMQs last week. We must recognise that Government funding alone cannot solve some of the deep-rooted issues surrounding building safety. As Dame Judith Hackitt concluded in her review, it is vital that we reform the entire building safety regime, and that means a fundamental change in the regulatory framework, in industry and in its culture.
We are committed to bringing forward the most significant building reform in almost 40 years, with two landmark pieces of legislation: the forthcoming Building Safety Bill that will create a more accountable system, and the Fire Safety Bill, currently before the House, which clarifies the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Taken together, these measures will improve the safety of residents in blocks of flats of all heights.
It may be worthwhile if, before I conclude, I commented on some of the amendments tabled to the Fire Safety Bill, particularly those by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), who is in his place. We fully understand what our hon. Friends are attempting to achieve in their amendments. We entirely understand that they want to remove or reduce the burden on leaseholders, and we wish to do the same. However, having looked at their amendments closely, it is clear to us that their scope, as currently drafted, would mean they would apply only to residents and leaseholders who have had a fire risk assessment undertaken, and not to residents who have suffered an incident or had works done for any other reason. Nor are the amendments drafted in such a way as to allow them to be introduced without significant change to the Bill, both to the primary legislation and to the secondary legislation that must follow. As a result, the amendments would significantly impair the Bill’s progress through the House—they would delay it—and so, having looked carefully at my hon. Friends’ amendments, I encourage them to withdraw them.
The Building Safety Bill is the best mechanism to achieve my hon. Friends’ aims, which are to introduce a new and stronger regulatory regime for building safety in buildings of 18 metres or more in height, and for all construction products. The Bill will establish a new building safety regulator in the Health and Safety Executive, sitting at the heart of the reformed building programme. It will place clear legal duties on those who build and manage buildings in scope of the new regime to manage any risks that they create and, crucially, it will enable the regulator to enforce those laws.
In conclusion, high-rise buildings in this country should never have been fitted with dangerous or unsafe cladding. Successive Governments have failed to confront this issue, but it is this Government who are resolving it once and for all, making homes safer and protecting the residents from crippling costs, and at a pace that the severity of the situation demands. That is what we have already achieved: almost 95% of buildings identified at the beginning of last year with unsafe ACM cladding have now completed or are in the process of completing their remediation; we are advancing applications for the building safety fund; we are appointing specialist consultants to increase the pace of remediation; and we are introducing our additional landmark legislation. We will not let up. This work will be going on long after this Opposition day is over and long after the Leader of the Opposition has issued his tweet. We will not let even the pandemic, which is affecting our country and the world, slow us down. We will work to restore the inalienable right of everyone in this country to live somewhere that is decent, secure and, above all, safe—a place that they can rightly and proudly call home.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Grenfell fire of 2017 was a catastrophic event and its devasting consequences are still being seen even today, with the public inquiry revealing new information each week. I want to take a moment to remember all those who died in the fire—all those lives so needlessly lost. I also want to pay tribute to the tireless campaigning by their families. It is vital that the victims of the fire and their families receive the justice they deserve through the inquiry. It is my hope that, because of the work of the Grenfell inquiry, serious measures will be put in place to prevent another catastrophic event such as Grenfell from ever happening again.
However, when we look at how the UK Government are currently tackling the cladding crisis, we see that their policies fall short. For example, the fund provided by the UK Government is not enough to cover all the properties with dangerous cladding, leading to a first come, first served approach and many people still living with unsafe cladding on their properties. Obviously, housing and local government is a devolved issue, but the UK Government’s building safety programme will undoubtedly have consequences for Scotland. Despite the building safety programme applying only in England and Wales, its advice is being used by insurance companies and mortgage providers in Scotland to guide their decisions. The EWS1 form currently applies only to properties in England, but the Glasgow Times has reported that inspectors are using the form and granting homeowners a certificate of safety. Without the EWS1 being law, homeowners are looking towards England’s cladding situation as guidance.
While these decisions by the UK Government are positive for improving safety, they have meant that many property owners in England are unable to remortgage, sell or insure their properties, as insurance and mortgage providers refuse to accept the risk of external cladding. Residents are not legally responsible for the external cladding and do not have the money to remove it, which has left huge numbers of people completely stuck and unable to sell their properties.
Guidance is now even affecting properties below the 11-metre and the 18-metre mark. Again, while this currently applies only to England and Wales, insurance companies in Scotland are also following these recommendations, thus affecting Scottish homeowners and tenants. Surely the UK Government and the Minister can see that it is completely unfair that residents and leaseholders are burdened with the costs of removing cladding that they had no say in installing. There are certainly reports of residents in England facing huge and very unfair repair bills, while the housing firms that own the at-risk buildings are having their costs recovered.
I recently heard the story of Sophie Grayling, a mother who was so proud to buy her first home in 2017. However, the flat that she bought was part of a building clad in ACM cladding—the exact same type, as we know, used on Grenfell Tower. Ms Grayling’s building is under the 18-metre threshold for the fund offered by the UK Government to remove the cladding, and with cladding remaining in place she has seen the sale of her home fall through, is facing a bill of thousands to fix the block’s issues and, most importantly, every night puts her child to bed with the knowledge that her building is covered in the same material that saw 72 lives lost in the inferno at Grenfell.
It is clear that that is unjust. Homeowners like Ms Grayling now face a Catch-22 situation: they either pay out of their own pocket to fix a problem that is not their fault or stay stuck in an unsellable flat that risks their safety. That story is not unique. More than 1 million people are still unable to remortgage or sell their properties because of the cladding. However, the frustration does not even end there: the UK Government are attempting to silence homeowners currently waiting for support, demanding that they do not speak to the media.
Homeowners applying for the fund to help to pay to remediate buildings will not be able to talk to a journalist. I know that the Minister said earlier that people should not listen to petty officialdom, but in order for petty officialdom to come to the fore at some point a Minister was not doing their job in terms of signing this off. People who are stuck in that incredibly tough position—unable to sell their house and facing massive bills because of the UK Government’s policy—must be able to speak to the press and expose the reality of how the cladding scandal is being dealt with.
In Scotland, cladding has been handled differently. As I said, housing and local government are devolved, so the removal of cladding is within the remit of the Scottish Government. That has enabled Scotland to require buildings to be constructed in a way that aids in the prevention of fires, which has contributed to Scotland having only a handful of properties—albeit, in my view, still too many—with Grenfell-style cladding compared with more than 450 in England.
However, even with that lower number, the Scottish Government are avoiding being complacent on cladding through the building standards futures board, and are continuing to improve building standards across all of Scotland. They are looking at other issues related to fire outside of cladding, such as holistically addressing high-rise buildings to make them safer, leading to requirements that will soon be introduced for sprinklers to be installed in new-build social housing and flats.
The UK Government should similarly address the cladding scandal by placing a focus on those who own and rent properties with unsafe cladding. The people most affected by the dangers of cladding should be at the centre of the discussion. Instead, the UK Government are burdening them with huge costs and the inability to sell or remortgage their flats.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Member has obviously been very critical of the UK Government and full of praise, as usual, for his colleagues in the Scottish Government, but he will be aware that the press reports in Scotland are highly critical of the high-rise inventory and how the Scottish Government have managed it. Furthermore, the group set up by the Scottish Government to allocate the almost £100 million fund that was designed to support people having to deal with cladding issues has not met since April last year. I would like to hear his comments on those points, please.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. Speaking as someone who has 10 tower blocks in my constituency—I do not know how many there are in rural Scotland—I am very familiar with the issue, and I assure him that the conversations that I have on a regular basis with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, Kevin Stewart, indicate that it is a very high priority for the Scottish Government. That is precisely why they have taken that action. I am none the less very grateful to the hon. Member for making what I am sure is not a party political point on what I think we all agree is a very serious issue.
The English fund covers only around one third of the costs to remove cladding in England, and with its being first come, first served, it will exclude some of the buildings in the most dire need of remediation. The UK Government should invest the money necessary to ensure that all at-risk residences in England can have remedial action carried out on them. The UK Government should also follow Scotland’s example of targeted support for the most at-risk buildings to avoid the first come, first served approach.
Instead of the UK Government’s policies targeting the companies responsible for the dangerous cladding, they are burdening homeowners and leaseholders. When we look at preventing further fires caused by cladding, it is important that we keep renters and homeowners in mind, such as Sophie Grayling and her young son, both of whom are stuck in an unsafe flat facing huge bills. We should consider the impact on homeowners and renters who already feel unsafe in their own homes. It is time for the UK Government to step up and truly tackle the cladding crisis, and help those in the most vulnerable position.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]
It is on record that I am a leaseholder, and I face no problems of these kinds. I have been working on leaseholders’ problems for well over 10 years, with the support of the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the Secretary of State, who are now showing that Government understand a large part of the scale of the problems. I believe that it is better if we do not have a vote today. We should look on this debate as a “take note” one. We are all trying to face the problems of our constituents who are living in homes that are unsafe, unsaleable and unaffordable. I pay tribute to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and I look forward to hearing the Chair, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), speak shortly. Its reports on the situation of leaseholders even before we knew about this tragedy and its subsequent reports about the Fire Safety Bill are important.
I wish Michael Wade well in trying to advise Government on finding ways forward, and I commend the then Prime Minister who, on 27 June two and a half years ago, said that the Government do not rule anything out. What needs to be ruled in are, first, making the money available so that buildings can be made safe; secondly, challenging the insurance industry, which is putting premiums up at rates that I think should be investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority to see whether they are fully justifiable; and, thirdly, making sure that in the end, and as we know from court actions and inquiry results we can anticipate, the people who are responsible for this chaos—dangerous chaos—will actually have to pay. I do not think the taxpayer should necessarily have to do it; the Government have to make themselves responsible for finding the way forward.
Those who are responsible—not all, knowingly—include the developers, the builders and the present landlords, some of whom were the developers. They include local building control possibly, national regulators certainly and the component manufacturers. Those of us who have been speaking about the problem for the past three years—and I wish that some of the other advisers to Government on leasehold issues had been saying the same thing rather more clearly—think that this has to be tackled in a way that cuts short waiting for court actions that may take 10 years and provides the money now, by the end of the year, so that work can be started and finished as soon as possible and so that people have homes they can stay in or leave safely, and are affordable. I would trust those on the Select Committee most to work with Government to make sure that we find the solution, and I would hope to know that we have done that before we have got another few months further forward.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I begin by thanking the Father of the House for his very kind comments. Certainly, we have worked together on these issues. I congratulate all the members of the Select Committee as well. We have looked at the issue of building safety, particularly cladding, on a number of occasions, and we have produced a number of reports, all of them unanimously. It is to the credit of all members of the Committee—I notice that the next speaker will be the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is an important member of the Select Committee—that we have done so on a cross-party basis.
I will quote one or two of our very clear recommendations. In 2019, we said that the Government should provide funding to remove
“any form of combustible cladding…from any high-rise or high-risk building”,
regardless of height. In our 2020 report, we recommended:
“The Building Safety Fund will need to be increased to address all fire safety defects in every high-risk residential building—potentially costing up to £15 billion.”
Then we did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, and we said:
“The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects”.
We have been very clear on all those matters: leaseholders should not pay. They should not pay some unidentified, affordable amount or fair amount, and neither should we get into a position of offering them loans to pay off the debts, because what do loans do but put leaseholders in more debt? At the same time, loans would put many of them into negative equity.
The leaseholder should not pay, and we know that developers and others eventually should be held accountable, but as the Father of the House has just explained, so many potential organisations could be held accountable and the legal arguments will go on and on. Many of the developers have gone out of business and do not exist anymore. Yes, we should pursue them, but in the meantime, the Government have to stand up and commit far more funding than is in the Building Safety Bill, which simply does not cover anything like the £15 billion of potential costs. Eventually there might need to be an industrial levy to pay part of it, and it is for the Government to come forward with recommendations, if they so choose.
The issue is not just about high-rise buildings over six storeys—I think the Minister has accepted that point. It is about all buildings where people could be at risk, including residential homes, care homes and so on. It is also not just about cladding, but about all potential fire risks in buildings, such as dangerous balconies, faulty fire doors, missing firebreaks and faulty installation —all the things together that need putting right to make the buildings that people live in safe.
Finally, we talk about numbers, but in the end behind all these numbers are individuals and families living in potentially dangerous buildings with debts around their neck that they cannot afford to pay, unable to sell their homes if they so wish. We owe it to them to get action on this issue immediately.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.
This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACM and non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.
We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.
The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.
The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
In June 2019, Samuel Garside House, a block of flats in Barking, was consumed in a wild inferno, going up in flames in seven minutes. It is a miracle that because the fire occurred in daylight, nobody died, but many residents, mainly leaseholders, lost all their possessions. In Barking, leaseholders are families who a generation ago would have been housed by the council, but with the shocking lack of affordable social housing, their only option is to stretch their finances to the absolute limit by buying a lease. They live on the edge from one pay cheque to the next, and they cannot even afford household contents insurance. They, and thousands of others in my constituency, certainly cannot afford to pay for putting right the mistakes of others. They are locked into an absolute nightmare in unsafe homes, unable to sell, unable to remortgage, and facing mounting bills to fix a crisis they did not create. The Government’s response today had little basis in reality. They have, in truth, shunted this into the “too difficult to tackle” box and abandoned leaseholders,
In three minutes I have three issues. First, the Government must act to protect all multi-occupancy buildings. Fire does not discriminate between one height and another. Samuel Garside was below 18 metres but it was a lethal fire trap. Arbitrary height thresholds do not work. All leaseholders must be covered and existing buildings must also be remediated.
Secondly, I have spent months of research trying to identify the owners of blocks in Barking. Ownership is often hidden. The properties are sometimes held through companies located in tax havens. Freeholders who make easy money by charging a ground rent are getting away scot-free. Freeholders must contribute towards the massive remediation costs, alongside developers, contractors, suppliers and regulators.
Thirdly, the Government must solve the spiralling cost of building insurance. Some are struggling to find any insurance cover at all. Residents of one block are facing a 900% hike in their building insurance. The Association of British Insurers told me that the Government are simply not engaging in a realistic dialogue to produce a scheme where risks are shared between the taxpayer and insurance companies. They have done so on covid issues but they have singularly failed where people are living in danger in their own homes.
I have not forgotten my constituents, but the Government have failed them. Those living in the Ropeworks, Academy Central, Spring Place, Samuel Garside, Central House, Benedicts Wharf, Rivermill Lofts, 360 Barking and Spectrum Building are all being left behind, abandoned by a Government refusing to—
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I say that just for the avoidance of doubt, as I do not think the leasehold property that I own is included in this matter.
The cladding and fire safety crisis has blighted too many lives for far too long. Leaseholders bought their homes in good faith. They would have trusted the developer to build a safe home and they would have trusted the Government to ensure that it conformed with the law. Most would have needed a valuation for a mortgage and nearly all would have used a solicitor to ensure that everything was legal. Governments have encouraged them to buy by offering them incentives to do so. Buyers had every reason to expect that our building regulations were sound and could be more than forgiven for believing that modern flats built in Britain would be safe. However, the events of the past few years have shown that this is not the case. Leaseholders have had to wake up to a sobering reality that the dream of home ownership has turned into a living nightmare as they face huge bills and bankruptcy.
Let me make something clear: the Government are not to blame for this situation. This is not the fault of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State or the Housing Minister; it is a failure of building safety regulation over many decades, involving many Governments. Regardless of what happens today, the Government have an opportunity to sort this out once and for all. They can give leaseholders the certainty and security they deserve and let the unwitting victims of this crisis once again sleep soundly in their beds at night.
The Government may feel that our amendment to the Fire Safety Bill is defective. Perhaps it does not do what leaseholders would like or it would slow the progress of the Bill. There is a simple solution, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman): accept our amendment, tidy it up, and ensure that it does protect innocent leaseholders.
The shadow Minister for Housing and the Leader of the Opposition said in interviews today that we should put party politics aside and work together. I could not agree more. Labour has had seven weeks to sign our amendment—seven weeks of victims of this scandal begging it to join us—and what has it done? It has done as it always does—ignored the opportunity and instead jumped on a passing bandwagon. Labour has led the victims of the cladding crisis up the hill, and now it is going to abandon them at the top.
There are options for the Government, and I know that they are working hard to find one that works, but today I ask them to accept our amendment and once and for all tell the leaseholders that it is not their fault and they will not have to pay.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) [V]
It is shocking that, almost four years on from the Grenfell disaster, the Government have failed to get a grip of the cladding scandal. Despite repeated promises that leaseholders would not bear the cost of fixing this problem, there are countless families living in flammable buildings facing colossal bills for repair work and increased service charges to pay for interim safety measures.
One of my constituents living in Austen Apartments in Anerley is expecting her second child in March. She and her partner, along with their one-year-old daughter, had been hoping to move from their current two-bedroom flat to a bigger family home, but in October they were told that their property was covered in dangerous cladding. That meant they were unable to sell their flat, effectively trapping them in a fire hazard with no ability to move out. The estimated cost of removing the cladding is £30,000. Meanwhile, they face the prospect of increased service charges for a fire marshal and have received a notice from the building owner that the installation of a new alarm system costing £81,000 will be billed to residents.
My constituent told me:
“We live in a state of crippling uncertainty. Our plans to move are on hold indefinitely. We have no choice but to raise our young family in a small flat with no garden that is also unsafe. And we face the prospect that all the money we have worked extremely hard to save in order to buy our first family house will instead be spent on paying for remediation works or steep mortgage fees—through no fault of our own.”
Another constituent from the same building wrote to me:
“I am a single parent with two young children. I am currently not in employment and in receipt of Universal Credit. So, to now be potentially facing astronomical fees on top of already costly service charges is having a real negative effect on my mental health.”
Those testimonies are deeply worrying. While the £1.6 billion building safety fund has been set up to pay for remediation of unsafe buildings, it does not go nearly far enough, and buildings such as Austen Apartments are not even eligible for the fund because they are below 18 metres.
Sadly, Austen Apartments is not an isolated case. Another building in my constituency, in Forest Hill, also below 18 metres, no longer conforms to fire safety standards. Residents have contacted me saying that they are likely to have to split the remediation costs of £350,000 between 11 flats.
My constituents bought their flats in good faith, only then to find out that their homes are a potential fire hazard and that they face huge costs to make them safe. The Government should be doing everything possible to protect leaseholders from these costs and pursue those responsible for the cladding crisis. For the sake of my constituents and thousands like them, I hope that the Government will finally take meaningful action to resolve this injustice.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
Last May, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee heard from Alex Di-Giuseppe, the co-founder of Manchester Cladiators, who told us how it felt to live in an unsafe high-rise building. Describing the fear of residents of buildings where a fire could happen at any point, who faced unaffordable bills, he said:
“It is the fear of living in the unknown…It is the feeling that we are trapped; we cannot sell and we cannot move.”
At the end of last year, ACM cladding remained on more than 160 buildings in England. Although progress on cladding removal is welcome, every night spent in an unremediated block is potentially a sleepless and fearful one, so it is important that we move at pace to fix these problems. Responding to the Select Committee report on cladding remediation, the Government were clear that
“there can be no more excuses for inaction”
from building owners, and they backed up that stance with a £1.6 billion fund for cladding removal, but clear targets are still needed if those building owners are to take their responsibility seriously and fix this problem.
Since the Grenfell fire tragedy claimed 72 lives in June 2017, fire defects have been discovered in thousands of other buildings. We know that the removal of dangerous ACM cladding was far from the end of the nightmare, as inspections uncovered non-ACM cladding and other failures, including missing fire breaks and other serious defects. Again, the Government stepped in with a £1 billion building safety fund to help meet those costs, but the costs are rocketing and leaseholders are being forced to pick up the bill. Although there is agreement that taxpayers should not foot the whole bill, we should consider expanding the fund to ensure that building owners can properly manage the costs associated with remediation, and not pass them on to leaseholders. In too many cases, leaseholders have been asked to pay huge bills to rectify a problem that is not their fault. They face waking watch charges, vastly increased insurance costs, worries about external wall system certificates and a massive loss of property value. They should not be facing those costs.
The Minister made it clear to the Select Committee that leaseholders will not be bankrupted by the remediation costs, but unfortunately that is setting the bar far too high and many have already reached that threshold. We should be ready to step in and stop leaseholders being unfairly penalised by freeholders who pass on costs, and the Government should be leading the effort. We need to take the action necessary to ensure that all our homes and buildings are made safe from fire and the fear of fire.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) [V]
I pay tribute to my constituents—the Grenfell bereaved, the survivors and the wider community. I was shocked by several of the recommendations that came out of the Grenfell inquiry in November and December, especially those relating to building products, their testing and their marketing. It is clear that there have been regulatory and corporate failures. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has announced a new regulator for construction products and will start a review of the testing process.
I think the whole House would agree that we need a comprehensive and speedy solution to the leaseholder situation. Leaseholders are in this dilemma through no fault of their own, and as colleagues have said, in many cases they are sitting on unsaleable properties that are potentially dangerous. I welcome the fact that the Government made available £1.6 billion for cladding remediation, and I am glad to hear in particular of the progress on ACM cladding remediation. However, I suspect that £1.6 billion will not be enough. Today, I call on the Government to put together a substantial and comprehensive package such that we can remove all dangerous cladding on high-risk buildings. I agree with colleagues that we must ensure that freeholders, insurance companies, warrantee holders and developers pay their fair share, but I do think the Government need to put together a comprehensive package.
I was delighted that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor took time last week to hear me make the case for more Government money. I am glad to hear the Minister at the Dispatch Box say we will make important announcements in the short term. It is now three and a half years since the Grenfell tragedy in my constituency. We need to make urgent progress, so I look forward to hearing the Government’s announcements over the next few weeks.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government’s handling of the cladding crisis has lacked any sense of grip or urgency. Almost four years on from Grenfell, it is heartbreaking to see the pain that families are going through. I thank The Sunday Times for its campaign.
Residents are facing lockdown in inflammable buildings with potentially huge bills for repair work, higher insurance, and interim safety measures such as waking watch. They are also unable to sell their flats. An estimated 4,000 residents in Hounslow alone are affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has also supported many affected constituents. They include young couples, now with children, trapped and unable to upsize to a home big enough for their growing family.
The situation is now not just about cladding. There is also a worrying lack of transparency and speed from housing associations such as A2Dominion and FirstPort. They were slow to undertake the survey work needed on fire safety, despite residents asking for clarity a year ago. With permission, I will share part of a letter that my constituent Pamela Canales received last week from A2Dominion. It reads:
“We wrote to you in June 2020 to let you know your building needed an ‘intrusive survey’. Our fire safety contractor carried out an intrusive survey in several different areas of your building…The results showed that there are issues with timber cladding, insulation inside the masonry walls with incorrectly installed cavity barriers between flats and cavity closers”.
It goes on to say:
“If you would like to re-mortgage or sell your flat, the mortgage lender involved will probably ask for an (EWS1 form). Your building received an ESW1 rating of Option ‘B2’—confirming combustible materials are present and remedial work is required. It is likely a lender will ask for more information about what work is needed, the likely timescales and the costs of carrying out the work. Unfortunately, we don’t know that information at this stage.”
On who will pay for the remedial works, it says:
“At this stage it is too early to say. We fully understand this is a key area of concern for residents and this is a top priority for us. We do not wish to pass cost onto leaseholders and will only do this as a last resort.”
A2Dominion and others do not have a good track record on transparency of costs for leaseholders. This morning, residents told me:
“We don’t know how much this is going to cost us. We don’t know if we will have to vacate the building. It’s time for us to have answers. It’s stressful enough already with the pandemic. We can’t go on like this.”
We need a Government-led plan now to fix the cladding crisis that does not burden leaseholders with the cost. Those responsible must pay.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) [V]
I would like to pay tribute to UK Cladding Action Group and End our Cladding Scandal for the massive work they have done, along with the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), to raise the profile of this issue and help millions of leaseholders.
I am sorry that the Labour party, the official Opposition, has played a little bit of politics today. We are very close to having the support in the House of Commons to force our amendment into law. Sadly, the vote today makes no difference whatever to any leaseholders. However, what we can do is focus on the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill, as those votes do make a difference. I say to the Minister that we are very close to having the support in the House of Commons, and we have the support in the House of Lords to keep sending the amendments back. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen and I therefore urge the Minister to work with us to ensure that leaseholders do not have to pay.
I believe that the Department has been incompetent throughout this saga. It has created a whole host of problems, especially with the consolidated advice note published in January 2020. Buildings over six storeys or 18 metres were already involved in this crisis, but the note then involved any building of any height, taking the number from around 1,700 buildings to well over 100,000. On top of that, buildings under 18 metres can still be built with combustible cladding.
We must also focus on fire safety defects. I hear the Minister when he says that the Fire Safety Bill is not the right place for this, but I remind him that the Bill builds on the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which tried to clear up two ambiguities around cladding and front doors. The Fire Safety Bill also ensures that costs can be recovered from leaseholders, which puts that cost on leaseholders in law. The Building Safety Bill is not in front of us, but it will also ensure that leaseholders are liable. That is not acceptable to me, and it is not acceptable to leaseholders. We have been very clear that leaseholders do not have to pay.
The Government must provide a safety net. They must step in and help leaseholders. I will not accept loans for leaseholders. If the Government announce that, I will vote against it. We cannot have leaseholders pay 90% mortgages of £150,000 and then maybe have to repay a loan of £75,000. Building societies and banks will say that they can offer mortgages only if they are affordable, and having such a debt on a property is not affordable. I urge the Minister to work with us to deliver for leaseholders and to ensure that they do not have to pay.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), whose amendments to the Fire Safety Bill I have signed. I will speak on behalf of my constituents in Leeds—they include Hayley Tillotson, whose story has moved us all—who find themselves in desperate circumstances not of their making. They saved up. They bought what they thought was the home of their dreams. It has now turned into a nightmare as the outer layers have been peeled back on each block to reveal the full horror underneath. Their homes are firetraps. They are worthless. They cannot borrow against them. They cannot sell them. They are trapped by waking watch bills, trapped by rising insurance, and trapped by the fear that they will be told they must pay to fix this, even though they are not in any way responsible.
The impact on the mental health of my constituents is enormous, because every day they wake up and are reminded of this nightmare with no apparent way out. Today’s debate is so important, because we, together on both sides of the House, need to give them hope by calling on the Government to draw up a plan to sort the situation out.
Ministers know that the building safety fund will not deal with the problem. Why? Because the cost of making every home safe is way in excess of the money allocated so far, and we know that Ministers are looking at a loan scheme. I am not opposed to a loan scheme in principle, provided that leaseholders are not required to pay the loans back. After all, they did not fail to put in the firebreaks or cover the blocks in unsafe cladding, so why on earth should they have to pay?
This is a story of monumental regulatory failure and of flats being built as cheaply as possible—in many cases without even complying with the building regulations. Like the Minister, I applaud those freeholders and developers who have taken responsibility and sorted things out, but I deplore those who have tried to walk away and claim that it is nothing to do with them. Those who developed and constructed the buildings should pay, the industry as a whole should pay, and the Government should pay because they allowed it to happen. We all have a responsibility for that.
The most important thing of all, however, is that we act now to bring this crisis to an end, because that is what the leaseholders I represent and Leeds Cladding Scandal, which has done such a great job, want. More than anything else they just want to feel safe and secure in their homes once again, so that they can get on with their lives. We have a responsibility to make sure that that now happens.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) [V]
The coronavirus pandemic is all-consuming for many Members of Parliament, but for my constituents in Hendon, another issue is equally as disruptive: the connected problems of external cladding, demand for the EWS1 form, and the potential liability of leaseholders for the removal and replacement of fire hazardous materials in their buildings.
I have spent countless hours working on this issue. Two weeks ago, I asked the Government for a commitment to accept an amendment tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) to the Fire Safety Bill. The amendment would ensure that leaseholders are not liable for remedial works, and I have put my name to it. That cannot be said by everyone speaking today. Given that this issue has been largely ignored by some Members, it is astounding that this motion has been tabled today. It is as though those on the Labour Front Bench did not know about the problem and have ignored the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill. By seeking to push this debate to a vote, Labour Members are pretending to show how much they care, even though they know that Opposition-day debates are not binding on the Government, unlike amendments to the Fire Safety Bill. That is where those on the Labour Front Bench could have shown real leadership, but there has been none.
Two weeks ago I voted against the Government on an Opposition-day motion about universal credit. That was an opportunity for me to show the Government the strength of my feeling, and indicate what I want to see in the Budget in March. Today’s debate is not the same. This is a cynical opportunity for Labour Members falsely to raise the hopes of leaseholders and try to gain some popularity that they think they will translate at the ballot box. My constituents are not that naive, so today I shall be abstaining if there is a vote. I will be spending the rest of my afternoon helping my constituents, and not jumping on a bandwagon.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have spoken a number of times in Parliament about these issues, because Manchester Central has one of the highest numbers of private blocks that are now deemed to be dangerous. I thank the Manchester Cladiators—a fantastic committed group of residents who have been working tirelessly to raise these issues locally and nationally.
The toll—both financial and mental—facing those living in a building now deemed dangerous is heart-breaking, devastating, and simply wrong. It is a national scandal, and as we have heard, it is absolutely no fault of leaseholders. It has also created a completely broken housing market for millions more people. At a time when we are being asked to stay safe at home, living in a dangerous building has particular resonance, not to mention the added uncertainty faced by those on furlough, by the many key workers living in those flats, or by disabled residents such as Georgie Hulme in Hulme Life Buildings, who are anxiously worrying about how they might escape.
Although it is not the Government’s fault that we got here in this way, their response has been inadequate, slow, and unresponsive. The ACM building fund is too small and narrow in scope for nearly all affected buildings in my constituency, including those under 18 metres, such as Hulme Life Buildings, which is unable to apply, despite its residents facing bills of £115,000 each. Buildings with non-ACM cladding or with wooden balconies or walkways, such as Albion Works and St George’s Island, are unable to apply. Buildings where the cladding’s exterior façade is brick effect, such as at Leftbank, and those where work has already begun, such as the skyline buildings, are also out of scope. For those buildings that do meet the tight criteria, the process is too slow and decisions are not forthcoming.
Taken together, all those issues, as well as the lack of accountability for leaseholders in the system, is leading to a broken market. Too many players have stepped away from taking responsibility for building safety, leaving millions of residents in homes that are uninsurable, unsellable, uncertifiable, and with negative equity. The fund needs urgent reform so that more buildings are eligible, and we need a comprehensive taskforce to look at the whole range of issues such as insurance, mortgage lenders, liability and so on. We must fix this broken market and stop a whole generation of homeowners losing everything they have.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) [V]
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. Turning to more serious matters, let us be in no doubt that the issue of building safety is a vital one. It emerges from a tragedy that unfolded before horrified eyes just a few years ago. ACM cladding is dangerous, unsafe, and should never have been used. I understand that through the Government’s £600 million fund, work has at least started on all of the buildings whose owners have given the required information, as well as those in social housing, and interim safety measures such as waking watches are in place. All building owners should take responsibility and progress the work to put in their fund bids now.
In remediating this safety problem, knock-on issues arise, which many Members have articulately raised already. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, leaseholders should not bear the brunt of correcting these problems. I have heard from my constituents Sally Smith and Maureen Wareing, both of whom have relatives in London who are incredibly worried about facing big bills for remediating cladding in their flats. They are uncertain and worried. No one should be put in this position; I can only imagine the fear I would have felt in my 20s, or even my 30s, receiving a letter suggesting that I had a liability for tens of thousands of pounds that was not my fault. I call on owners to do the right thing, and I seek to amplify the comments my right hon. Friend the Minister made in his opening remarks.
Although this Government are putting in extraordinary efforts to make the biggest improvements in building safety in a generation, this is no quick fix, but a really integrated picture. It is technical and complex, and gets really messy quickly, with multiple types of cladding and lots of different people and organisations involved: residents, leaseholders, renters, building owners, building developers—some of which are not around or not in business any more—as well as mortgage providers and insurers. If, as a Government, we rush this, we risk not addressing the problems completely, so to my mind, the worst thing we could do is rush through a suite of measures that does not resolve the issues. What Sally and Maureen’s families need is certainty. Let us get this right first time, and make sure our mantra is “never again” so that we never have another tragedy, and we have a long-term fix for all our residents.
Ultimately, our measures need to give people surety about their safety, give value back to their homes and let people get on with their lives. There should be no mortgage prisoners and no sale prisoners. Let the Building Safety Bill later this year address these points and others. Let us do it once, and let us do it right.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]
The topic of this debate is an incredibly pressing one, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak because it affects so many of my constituents. The ongoing scandal surrounding the replacement of cladding has two main components to which I would like to draw attention by using an example in Poplar and Limehouse: building safety and remedial costs.
New Providence Wharf in my constituency is a development owned by Ballymore housing. The building is covered in ACM cladding—the same sort of flammable cladding that was wrapped around Grenfell Tower. Representatives of the residents’ association at New Providence Wharf have been in touch with me for some time now, but the most recent update I had from them is perhaps the most shocking. Currently living surrounded by flammable cladding, these constituents have told me that remedial work on the building has now been pushed back to May. Those who bought properties in developments such as New Providence Wharf in good faith now find themselves in a nightmare scenario. These leaseholders bought a property under the reasonable assumption that it was safe to live in, but not only are they now struggling to sell or remortgage their homes, they have been left stranded, having to foot the bill for remedial works.
The recent update I have received about New Providence Wharf is that the remediation costs are set to be between £12.5 million and £25 million. These are astronomical figures to fall on the shoulders of those living in the development. With only £5,000 offered by Ballymore, this could mean that each leaseholder would have to pay up to £50,000 in remedial costs. How can this possibly go on?
That is just one example from my constituency of the effects that this scandal is having on so many people’s lives. Residents in dangerous developments right across my constituency are not being supported by their building owners. At New Festival Quarter, leaseholders are being left in the dark about how safe their building is; at Indescon Square, residents have been charged hundreds of thousands of pounds by Galliard Homes for the cost of inspection works; and at New Atlas Wharf—constructed by Britain’s most profitable housebuilder, Persimmon—residents are facing costs of up to £66,000 per flat. But, of course, in this whole debacle buck passing has been the order of the day. The unsafe conditions that such residents are living in will only be made worse by the trajectory of outsourcing and deregulation that the Government continue to follow as they attempt to avoid culpability for the poor housing conditions that so many in this country face.
It is a disgrace that anyone should be living in the same cladding that we all saw burning on Grenfell Tower. Safe housing should not be a privilege for the few; it should be a basic right. The Government need to front up to the mistakes made in the past and work quickly to undo them. The onus must not in any way fall on those currently living in flammable buildings through no fault of their own.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) [V]
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my role as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
For 12 years I served as a member of planning committees on councils, and on my election to this House I founded the all-party parliamentary group for SME house builders. Last year, the APPG produced a report on the future of planning, which made it clear that building regulations are planning regulations’ most important partner. Building regulations maybe did not receive as much attention until 2017, and since have—for the most tragic of reasons. We need a resolution to this that protects public safety and means that we have an efficiently functioning property market regardless of property type.
Cladding has blighted the housing sector, and the concern has been illustrated by many, including the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, and the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector, which I chair. We are well aware of the impact that this crisis is having on the sector, including on buy-to-let landlords, who have been left trapped, as a result of EWS1 forms, with properties that are not safe, not sellable and not remortgageable. Cladding will remain a standing item on the agenda of the APPG for the private rented sector and we will draw on the expertise of those groups.
As a National Residential Landlords Association quarter 4 survey outlined last year, of those respondents who were required to carry out an EWS check on their property, 42% were unable to secure an EWS report, stagnating movement on their property. Although I recognise the good intentions of these checks, a lack of availability is a problem, as Ministers are aware. Despite the Government’s hard work to rectify the outstanding issues, these forms continue to hamper the movement of property, squeezing a market already facing an uphill battle.
As the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report outlined, every property agreement differs in who it allocates responsibility to and for what issues. Solutions are hard, but they are needed. Requesting that the Government front up the money first and then determine liability places a heavy burden on the taxpayer. Suggesting that leaseholders take out loans means that millions would be paying for a problem that they did not create and often cannot afford to fix. Northampton only has one 18 metre-plus tower, and Northamptonshire Partnership Homes was quick to check that everything was safe. Northampton does, however, have a number of 11 metre-plus properties, and the Government’s forthcoming measures on those will be hugely welcome and provide peace of mind. It is abundantly clear that that announcement is needed sooner rather than later for tenants, developers and the housing market as a whole.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Strip away all the technical complexity, and the cladding crisis has always been about two fundamental issues: how can we identify and quickly make safe dangerous buildings; and who is going to pay for them? Both issues haunt those affected by this crisis, but in the long term it is the issue of liability that is in many ways the more terrifying, because leaseholders fear that it is they who will ultimately be forced by the Government to pay the lion’s share of a bill that is projected to rise to over £16 billion. They have good reason to be alarmed, because although we may not know the detail, the broad contours of the proposals developed by Michael Wade that Ministers are considering ahead of the Budget are an open secret—minus an unknown, but almost certainly tokenistic, annual contribution from developers. He recommends that remediation is funded up front by long-term loans attached to individual sites, with the building owner or responsible person then recouping that loan from its leaseholders over a period of decades. In the brief time that I have, I want to draw the attention of the House to what that would mean in practice. First, unless leaseholders were deliberately to be protected from any form of repayment until the point of sale, they would be hit by significant service charge increases.
Even assuming an interest-only repayment model with modest interest rates—say 1% or 1.5%—on remedial works bills at the lower end of the scale, say £30,000, leaseholders would still be looking at an extra £60 to £100, or perhaps more, on their monthly bills, depending on the length of the loan period. What on earth makes Ministers think that leaseholders can manage such costs, and what do they think those additional charges will do to mortgage affordability calculations?
Secondly, the attachment of a loan to a site will immediately devalue the properties within it, instantly creating a two-tier property system and placing a significant proportion of affected leaseholders, particularly in areas of lower property values, at risk of negative equity and bankruptcy. Who is ever going to purchase—willingly—a flat with one of those loans attached, at least unless the leaseholder discounts their total liability from the asking price, with all the consequences that that implies for the housing market and mortgage lenders? The fact that Ministers are even contemplating a proposal of that kind is utterly reprehensible, given the commitments made by many Secretaries of State and Ministers of State at the Dispatch Box that blameless leaseholders in privately owned blocks would be fully protected from cladding costs in all circumstances. If the Government plough ahead with Mr Wade’s recommendation or any variant that punishes leaseholders they will make a colossal mistake.
There are other solutions that can provide up-front funding to accelerate the pace of remediation and that would protect the general taxpayer as well as leaseholders. All that is required is that Ministers give them serious consideration and, more importantly, that they steel themselves finally to confront the vested interests that created this problem in the first place.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to contribute to this debate, very much remembering those who lost their lives and those who lost their loved ones in the Grenfell fire. The scale of that loss and the sorrow are still unimaginable.
In the wake of that tragedy, much important work on building safety has been done, and much ground covered, across the country and in my constituency of Eastbourne. For too many local leaseholders, however, the nightmare of towering costs still looms large and is a source of everyday stress. Up to 40 buildings in my town have been identified as being at risk. ACM cladding is part of that, but in the mix is a raft of historical safety defects that require costly remedial action that is not currently in scope. Over the past year, I have worked with residents, most recently on Friday, when one man described himself as “broken” by the experience of trying to find his way forward. One building alone in my constituency requires works estimated at £5.1 million, which translates as £40,000 to £90,000 per flat—a sum totally beyond the reach of all leaseholders, who bought their properties in good faith many years ago.
The Government have made it clear that building owners are legally responsible for ensuring that buildings are safe, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know shares my dismay and frustration, what enforcement action will ensue against those building owners who have rejected this duty, or who simply cannot be found. How will we ensure that developers play their part too, particularly the smaller subsidiaries of some of our most prominent housing developers?
The Government have made provision, in the form of £1.6 billion, and I thank Ministers for extending the application deadline. However, I would ask for assurances that applications from my constituency in this latter period will not suffer disadvantage in any way. There are concerns about the value of the fund, and whether it will meet the need, so I would very much appreciate assurances on that. It is not right and it is not fair that costs are passed on and that leaseholders are left exposed and vulnerable. I know that much work is going on to bring this to a safe conclusion, and I anticipate Government announcements. I recognise that it is important to get it right, but time is toxic, and I implore Ministers to move with speed so that those residents in Eastbourne still caught up in this nightmare can sleep at night.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
The pain of the Grenfell fire was felt very deeply in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. Those who died were our neighbours and our friends. Some survivors were rehoused in Camden and Brent and became part of our community. Then, one Friday night, shortly after the fire, thousands of my constituents had to be evacuated from the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage after it emerged that they had ACM cladding that was near-identical to that on Grenfell Tower. I ask all those on the Government Benches to consider what it must be like to live in a property that they know could face the same fate as Grenfell, and where a 24/7 waking watch patrol is required to make sure that the building is not on fire. That is the reality for many of my constituents living in the new-builds in and around West Hampstead Square, many blocks in south Kilburn and other parts of Brent, and over 70 private sector buildings in Camden that still have dangerous ACM cladding.
Perhaps the worst part of it is that the residents—the leaseholders—who had no part in creating this crisis, are being forced to pay to fix it and to pay for the waking watches, the fire safety measures and the replacement of the unsafe cladding that threatens their lives. One constituent in Kensal Rise who bought their flat using the Government’s Help to Buy loan scheme wrote to me recently to say that they are being made to pay for cladding remediation works. As she so aptly puts it, it is
“a disgusting abuse that a government would aim to help so many and then bankrupt those they aimed to help by not legally protecting leaseholders from these costs”.
To add insult to injury, none of these people can sell their homes. Many others are unable to sell simply because they are being forced to wait many years for an EWS1 form. Lucie Gutfreund, a constituent of mine who co-founded the End our Cladding Scandal campaign, told me that she and others are effectively trapped, facing crippling bills, and that the mental turmoil is ruining their lives and the lives of so many.
Grenfell was a tragedy. The Government’s response has been a travesty. I am urging Ministers to do what they can and what they should have done a long time ago: make these buildings safe, shield leaseholders from the costs and make those who installed dangerous cladding pay. Anything less is unforgivable.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Like all Members of Parliament, I have had residents raise these issues with me, and in Southend, they are particularly stressful for young couples starting out on home ownership. I say to the new Minister, who I welcome to his place: this is a complex problem that involves decisions by previous Governments of all persuasions, and a solution to it is far from easy. The whole history of freehold and leasehold has been long overdue for resolution, and I believe that the Government will tackle it. However, in the immediate term, I do agree that leaseholders should not be responsible for remedial work to identify unsafe properties with combustible materials on external walls that they bought in good faith. This includes not just unsafe cladding but a number of other deficiencies, such as unsafe insulation and combustible materials on balconies.
Leaseholders, however, should of course be expected to pay for any legitimate maintenance that is reasonable and fair. In most cases, a responsibility for paying for this remediation rests with the owner-developer. When there is a dispute or difficulty to identify the owner, I am asking the Government to make the necessary funding available, pending resolution. It is really unacceptable for people to continue to be expected to sleep safe in their beds at night while surrounded by combustible materials on the external walls of their homes—in many cases, living at some distance from the ground. However, I agree that UK taxpayers—many of whom do not even own a home and perhaps question why they should contribute—cannot ultimately be expected to pick up the costs of the remediation.
I very much support the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s target for completion of the remedial work by June 2022, and meanwhile seek the bringing together of the RICS, the Association of British Insurers, banks, building societies and representatives from the fire safety sector. The Prime Minister was challenged on this issue last Wednesday and he said that
“the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will be bringing forward a plan very shortly.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 371.]
I know that he will honour that. The all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group, which I chair, and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), have worked closely together. On 25 February at 4 o’clock I will be chairing a joint meeting of the groups, attended by leading Members of Parliament, and parliamentarians will have the opportunity to question the Minister, Lord Greenhalgh, directly on this issue. I will also be supporting amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) when the Bill is debated.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate those on the shadow Front Bench on prioritising this debate in the absence of sufficient attention or pace from the Government. I enter into the spirit of today’s debate mindful of the cross-party support for amendments aimed at addressing the issue, and in the hope that we will see that support reflected in today’s vote. Frankly, everyone affected has waited far too long.
In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, more than 60 blocks of homes and thousands of people are affected. People have often bought in good faith and then been told that their home may not be safe. They have since been left in limbo. They include NHS worker Lucy Grayston, who attempted to sell her L&Q flat. A buyer was found, and Lucy, who was five months pregnant, moved out. The sale fell through due to an external wall survey issue, and she is now having to pay for two properties. They also include William Lecky, who celebrated the birth of his new baby with his wife and had plans to relocate to Scotland. They are now trapped in a one-bed property in Borough that they are unable to sell until this matter is resolved.
This could have been sorted by now, with the right political will and wherewithal, but it has not been, despite the Government’s promising 15 times to protect leaseholders. My constituents are still waiting and some face extortionate costs while they do so. One block is paying £40,000 a month for a waking watch, which is well above average and in no way a reasonable fee. I have asked the Government many times about the waking watch relief fund, and I am glad that they have finally published the eligibility criteria, but I hope Ministers will now answer my other questions on the fund. When will applications be assessed, and when will those funds begin to be distributed? The people waiting for news cannot wait any longer. They cannot sell their homes, they cannot reinsure and they cannot remortgage. Some of the people affected have also lost their job due to covid. They cannot afford their existing mortgage, and speed is of the essence. For many people, sadly, all they have seen is delay, and Government guidance has even contributed to the problems they face. For example, homeowners in Sudrey Street, Leathermarket Street and Monmouth Court are all being asked to provide EWS1 forms, despite the height of their blocks not reaching the threshold.
Last year, I raised concerns on behalf of constituents affected and asked Ministers to provide new guidance or clarify existing guidance, given the misapplication of the 18-metre rule. Today, I again ask Ministers to prevent misinterpretation, to ease pressure on the system and to take many of the people affected out of coverage altogether. Today’s motion would address many of the concerns of so many people affected and I hope that it is successful in the vote, to ensure that the thousands of my constituents who are experiencing these huge concerns can begin to plan their lives again.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), and I welcome our new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), to his place. This is a very important issue. Ensuring the safety of the individual is one of the most important functions of the state. I welcome the fact that the Government have made available £1.6 billion for cladding to be removed from buildings and that they are working closely with building owners to ensure that all dangerous ACM cladding, as found at Grenfell, is removed by the end of this year. It is also good news that the vast majority of buildings with ACM cladding have had it removed—or that the work is under way—including 100% of buildings in the social sector. It is remarkable that the Government have achieved that during the covid pandemic. It is necessary work and it must be completed as soon as possible. This Government are bringing forward the most significant building control legislation for 40 years. The Building Safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill are an essential part of the way forward.
As more than £1 billion in public funding has been made available, there is simply no excuse for building owners not to have begun this important remedial work, or for them to be passing the costs on to leaseholders. It is good to note that the Government have introduced several measures to support leaseholders over the last year, including the essential £30 million waking watch fund. That issue prevented many people from being able to sell their homes. The Government will continue to engage regularly with leaseholders to understand their concerns and find ways to protect them at affordable prices.
I am particularly concerned that, through no fault of their own, some flat owners have been unable to remortgage or sell their properties. That cannot be allowed to continue. I have been contacted by a constituent on that issue, who is rightly concerned about a junior member of the family who finds themselves in that position in one of our major cities. The issue simply has to be resolved. It is essential that the Government continue to work closely with all parties, including lenders, for example, to resolve the challenges, ensuring that EWS1 forms are requested only where absolutely necessary, and that the number of surveyors who can complete the work is increased significantly to meet demand.
However, much more needs to be done. The remedial cost will need to be spread over those who are actually responsible. I look to the Government rightly to assist as a safety net, but a safety net only—not the first port of call to pay for everything, as the Opposition invariably do. This is a complex legal and policy problem. We need complex resolutions in a proper timeframe. I am glad that the Government have committed to providing a solution. I appreciated the comments made by the Prime Minister a short while ago, and I look forward to a proper permanent solution. I will not vote in favour of the Opposition’s motion, because it is simplistic and solves nothing. The Government will solve the issues.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
I associate myself with many of the important contributions already made by hon. Members. As has been made clear, the Government’s lack of action over the last three and a half years to tackle the building safety crisis has left thousands of leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes that they are unable to sell or remortgage. Instead, they are being forced to pay enormous sums for remediation and interim fire safety measures such as waking watches.
The untold impact that that is having on people’s lives is deeply concerning. I have heard from countless residents about the stress and anxiety that the scandal is causing, having bought their homes. Some blocks face bills of up to £3 million for replacing the dangerous cladding, as is the case for my constituents living in Norfolk House in Deptford. Then there are examples such as Aragon Tower—a 160-apartment building also in my constituency—where, following extensive testing, the fire break system was found not to be working. When challenged, the developers, Berkeley Homes, refused to take any responsibility, leaving many residents stuck and unable to sell.
Those examples are sadly not unique, as Ministers will keep hearing through the debate. I praise my local authority, Lewisham Council, and its housing body, Lewisham Homes, for their speedy response to the crisis; yet sadly, three and a half years since the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, national Government are yet to resolve these issues. One group that I fear is being overlooked in the debate is disabled tenants and leaseholders. Disabled people caught up in these unsafe blocks face additional barriers. The Leaseholder Disability Action Group—Clad DAG—has raised many concerns, from inadequate evacuation plans to reports of bullying and harassment by stressed residents who resent the extra costs of meeting access needs. That is totally unacceptable. Urgent steps must be taken to ensure that disabled people feel safe in their own homes.
The Government must get a grip of this scandal and put in the proper resources needed so that tenants and leaseholders up and down the country are not left in unsafe homes for a minute longer. It cannot be right that so many people are having sleepless nights because of a problem not of their own making.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who made some good points that I agree with. However, she blames the fact that leaseholders are trapped inside these buildings on the Government’s actions or inactions over the past three and a half years, whereas the reality is that this has come from systemic failure over decades. That is the only thing that could have contributed to a scandal on this scale, which has included developers; cladding and insulation manufacturers, who have not been heavily mentioned in this debate; building control; and building regulations, which are the work of Governments on either side of the political divide for decades. The only way we are going to get through this is somehow by sharing the huge cost of these issues, which is potentially £10 billion to £15 billion, over that whole industry, with some possibly held by the taxpayer. I do think it would be wrong to put this cost at the door of leaseholders.
The Government have taken significant action, with the most decisive being the ban on combustible materials on the outside of high-rise buildings as soon as this tragedy struck—that was absolutely the right thing to do and it came within days of that tragedy. That was followed by the £1.6 billion of funding to remediate these buildings, but what everybody knew—I served on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee during a number of inquiries on this—was that the cost would be much greater. We all accept that fact.
Let me read out what one of my constituents, who lives in Borrowby, near Thirsk, but has a flat in London, wrote to me:
“This has been caused by two main factors, poor building regulations in England across decades and a lack of regulatory oversight, which led to a construction industry that took advantage, put profits ahead of safety and built buildings with combustible materials and with missing compartmentation now regarded as fire traps.”
I absolutely concur with those words, so we need a pan-industry solution, involving cladding manufacturers, insulation manufacturers, developers and installers. The situation with building owners is more difficult, because many of them do not have a contractual obligation. I hear lots about building owners, but many of them are not legally obliged to remediate. But leaseholders should not be involved here, even though they are legally obliged; I would advocate more money into the building safety fund, and a levy spreading the cost around the industry, wherever possible, but not to leaseholders.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to have the opportunity to represent the concerns of my constituents in this important debate. There are a number of buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding in Portsmouth, and I have been speaking to residents and building managers in Admiralty Quarter and Gunwharf Quays in my constituency. Residents in those buildings have suddenly found themselves in unsafe homes and potentially liable for astronomical costs from remediation. They are also unable to sell their homes. One retired resident, who is on a low income, has told me that she faces costs of £20,000 to £30,000 towards the remediation. They are also having trouble accessing the Government’s building safety fund. Delays to the implementation of the fund are preventing vital work from commencing and preventing leaseholders from moving on with their lives, and it is not clear whether the fund is large enough. In the event that they are not covered by the building safety fund, residents and responsible building owners will struggle to establish who is now responsible for the remediation, as it comes with a hefty price tag.
Health and safety must be the priority. Ministers should focus on the rapid disbursal of funds with immediacy, with a relatively low burden of proof and with recovery taking place later, as appropriate. Ministers should also look again at the 18-metre height qualification for applications to the building safety fund. If cladding is unsafe, surely it is unsafe regardless of the height of the building it sits on. Buildings in my constituency fall under that arbitrary distinction, and this is a piecemeal approach to building safety. The fund should apply to buildings of any height.
Instead of asking leaseholders and building owners to embark on a protracted search for accountability and funds, with bureaucratic and time-consuming procedures, the Government should take responsibility for safety, fund the work in full and recover the funds later, as appropriate, and get on with legislating to prevent this from happening again.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
It is a particular pleasure to see the new Minister in his place today. He is a man who has spent a lot of his life working to improve housing conditions for the poorest people in this country, so he is absolutely the right man in the right place at the right time to take forward this hugely important work.
Much has already been said, so the few additional things that I would add are as follows. First, it is important that we look at the other dimensions of fire safety as well as just cladding. I have been asking written questions about fire doors in particular. I was told that we do not hold any central data on the quality and state of fire doors in social housing blocks. I hope that the Government will audit, and get social landlords to audit, the state of those doors, making sure that they have at least the 30-minutes protection that we expect, and that we will work through all the other dimensions of fire safety as well as cladding.
When it comes to cladding, may I express my hope that we will see the people behind this tragedy brought to justice? It has been absolutely extraordinary to watch the proceedings of the inquiry and to see some of what has come out. In The Times the other day, Dominic Lawson summarised exchanges of emails between employees at Kingspan after the Grenfell tragedy. They joked about rigging tests and about how they lied, saying, “Yes, mate, it’s all lies. All we do here is lie.” The testimony of an employee of Celotex, Jonathan Roper, said that his company had behaved in a completely unethical way. Then there are the officials from Arconic, who are refusing to testify at the inquiry, hiding behind the French blocking statute. I hope that the Government will use all the means at their disposal to put maximum pressure on the representatives of these companies to come and face the inquiry and, ultimately, to face justice for what has been done.
Finally, I encourage Ministers to keep going in their efforts to remove unsafe cladding. I welcome the £1.6 billion that is being spent on this. I welcome the progress that is being made in reducing and removing ACM cladding. The removal of ACM cladding from the social sector is great. I hope that Ministers will continue to press on with the new regulator for construction products, so that such a tragedy does not happen again. Ultimately—let me put it like this—I hope that we can make sure that those who are suffering through no fault of their own are not made to pay and that the people behind the Grenfell tragedy are made to pay.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I declare that I am a leaseholder in a block of flats, albeit not one affected by cladding problems.
When the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower struck in June 2017, I was London’s Deputy Mayor for Housing. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you had told me then that, three-and-a-half years later, we would still be trying to force the Government to make buildings safe, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are with hundreds of thousands of people across the country still living in unsafe homes and millions caught up in the wider building safety crisis.
There has been a fundamental failure of leadership by the Government in resolving the question of who pays to remediate buildings, and that has been instrumental in the delay in making them safe. Two related principles must therefore be at the heart of what Ministers do next: first, there must be absolutely no further delay; and, secondly, leaseholders must be protected from the costs of the work. That is why I will be voting today for the Government to provide upfront funding to ensure that remediation can start immediately and then to protect the leaseholders and the public finances from the cost of doing so by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis.
The Government’s failure to get a grip on this situation has left leaseholders facing huge bills, with their lives on hold while the problem is resolved. I wish to draw Ministers’ attention to the plight of shared owners and leaseholders in the Central West building—a block of 69 flats completed in 2005 on Greenford Broadway in the heart of my constituency. Central West was built by Shepherds Bush Housing Association and is home to teachers, social workers, retired nurses, transport workers, delivery drivers, agency workers and many others. Central West is only just less than 18 metres, and so is not eligible for the Government’s building safety fund. Leaseholders face paying for all the works to make the building safe, despite residents being unable to afford the thousands of pounds that that would entail.
I wrote to the Housing Minister about the situation faced by residents at Central West, and I have received a reply from Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities, in the past few days. He wrote:
“it remains building owners’ responsibility to address unsafe cladding on buildings of all heights…and we have called on them to do all they can to protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historic building defects.”
The Government do not have to call on others to protect leaseholders; it is within their power to help leaseholders themselves. The buck stops with them, and we expect them to act.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Happy Birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend the Housing Minister to his place. He is right to point out that the current problem has built up over many decades, and he is also right to decide to resolve the problem once and for all.
Bolton at Home, which serves many of my constituents, has raised concerns with me, ranging from the status of fire doors to fire risk assessments. That indicates how much more work needs to be done on this issue. My hon. Friend the Father of the House comprehensively set out the parties that must be led or forced by the Government to act. He was right to say that it would be better not to divide the House on this motion, but instead use this debate to have the Government take note and take action.
I support the amendment to the Fire Safety Bill in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I urge the Government to build upon it if they do not think it is suitable, in order to deliver certainty and safety for my constituents and many others around the country. People ought not to think that this applies just to huge tower blocks; it applies to a huge range of other buildings too.
The Grenfell Tower events were horrific, but they were nearly repeated on 15 November 2019, when The Cube burned down in Bolton. The student accommodation caught fire and became an inferno within minutes. If it were 4 o’clock in the morning, rather than 8.30 in the evening, we do not know how many deaths there would have been. Would it have been Grenfell mark 2? We have to act, be decisive and comprehensive in our actions, and sort this out incredibly quickly, because this is about people’s safety and physical and mental wellbeing. Many people have put their lives on hold and are waiting to move on—they may want to start a family or get a job—so we have to resolve this issue incredibly quickly.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am grateful for the hard work of the shadow Housing Secretary and her team, which has ensured that this issue is brought to the fore and not forgotten.
Over the past year, we have all been confined to our homes to shield ourselves and our families from a deadly virus. We have been doing what we can to protect our country, the NHS and vulnerable people. Lockdown has bene tough for us all. Imagine if what is meant to be a person’s sanctuary over these difficult months is the exact opposite. Leaseholders have been having sleepless nights, wondering each day whether the flammable cladding covering their homes will catch fire. The deadly combination of a pandemic and a national scandal is impacting millions across our country. Many of those constituents have worked hard to achieve their dreams of home ownership, only to have it turned into a living nightmare. Characteristically, the Government have once again been dragging their feet and are too slow to act. It has been more than three years since the horrific Grenfell tragedy, and thousands still fear for their safety in their own homes.
It must be noted that the Government knew about the dangerous cladding well before then. In my Slough constituency, we sadly have a number of blocks affected. I have been contacted by residents of Nova House, West Central, Rivington Apartments, Lexington Apartments, Foundry Court, Ibex House and Aspects Court, to name just a few. I have raised their concerns personally with Ministers in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I was a member, and with the Leader of the House on the Floor of the House. Some of those residents are paying hundreds of pounds for waking watch, and others are in lengthy communication with the property management companies to ascertain the type of cladding used and when it will be replaced. All of them just want to live somewhere they know is fire safe. In 2021 Britain, that does not seem like a big ask.
Already, an estimated £174 million a year is being spent by leaseholders on interim measures to ensure their buildings do not catch fire. This is on top of the constant fear that they will be held responsible also for the eventual remediation costs, leaving them bankrupt and homeless. This is typical of the Government’s response on this issue—inadequate action forced only after huge pressure from campaigners, charities and Opposition parties. Even their funds available for ACM and non-ACM cladding fail to address the devastating scale of the problem, potentially leaving thousands without support.
Leaseholders are being held responsible for a chain of actions with which they had absolutely no involvement. As one leaseholder told me, they are not the developers of their blocks, they did not select the building materials and they did not certify them as safe, yet they are the ones left picking up the bill. It is very simple: all dangerous cladding should be removed with up-front funding, those who are responsible for the cladding scandal must pay the cost, and measures must be put in place to ensure that this can never happen again.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) to his Front-Bench position this evening.
A few weeks after my election to this place in 2017, we witnessed the tragedy of the fire at Grenfell Tower. We of course remember those who, sadly, lost their lives on that terrible evening, and I welcome the action the Government have taken to ensure that the horror of Grenfell never happens again. However, there have been some unintended consequences that have resulted in some people, through no fault of their own, being unable to sell or remortgage their properties.
I want to use this debate to highlight the case of two of my constituents, Sam and Cora Younger. The Youngers moved to the Scottish borders last year, but have run into serious problems with the sale of their London flat. The purchaser of the flat in London is having difficulties with their mortgage provider, Lloyds bank. The bank became unwilling to proceed with the mortgage because of the cladding guidance. My constituents’ flat is below 18 metres and has no cladding, but Lloyds has insisted that the flat falls into the ambit of the guidance, and it is therefore requiring expensive certification to say that the building is compliant.
The upshot of all of this is that Sam and Cora face having to pay two mortgages and also a stamp duty uplift as they have failed to sell their property within the required time period. This has turned into a nightmare for this young couple and their new baby, and I have a huge amount of sympathy for them. They have been put in this position as a result of the misinterpretation of the guidelines by banks and lenders, and this cannot be allowed to continue. I know the Government are working with lenders to ensure that they take a proportionate and reasonable approach to this, and there are signs that lenders are adopting a more pragmatic approach, but more need to follow suit. These are welcome steps forward, but the purpose of raising the case of the Youngers tonight is to highlight the very personal impact that this is having on individuals and families across the country.
I conclude my brief remarks by remembering those who, sadly, lost their lives in the Grenfell disaster. It is right that we sort this out to ensure that it does not happen again, but we must also protect those being caught up in the unintended consequences of these changes.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have many constituents whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the failure of the Government to act promptly on this issue, and by what can only be described as abusive behaviour by the developers of their properties and neglect by housing associations. I wish to name one developer in particular—the notorious Ballymore Group. It is notorious for its profiteering from extortionate, ever-increasing service and insurance charges. From the start of the cladding crisis, Ballymore has lived up to its track record of failure to communicate with and consult its residents, and its continuing attempts to shirk its own responsibilities and load as much cost directly on to the residents as possible.
My constituents have submitted their case study of their experiences to the Minister. They have explained that, as leaseholders and participants in shared ownership schemes, they are being placed in extremely vulnerable positions, facing the risk of heavy cost burdens. The delay in Government decision making over arrangements to cover remedial costs has meant that many of my constituents are unsure of their safety and unsure when their properties will be made safe. Ballymore has just said not until 2023, and that items such as other safety defects revealed on inspection beyond the cladding will not be covered by the Government grant or by the company. This includes the very wooden balconies that this company installed itself. The scale of the costs will clearly overwhelm the amount allocated by the Government. That, plus the restrictions on what work is eligible for financial support, is resulting in developers such as Ballymore seeking to shift as much of the cost burden as possible on to leaseholders and shared ownership residents.
Shared owners are absolutely over a barrel. They own nothing. They cannot sub-let or sell. The clocks are ticking on short leases. The housing associations are charging premiums for lease extensions but doing nothing to help in any way, while taking a management fee on top of the developer’s management fee. Shared owners now risk having to pay for 100% of remediation and the interim costs, despite owning nothing. How can that be termed affordable housing? The emotional stress on my constituents is immense, especially as many have lost their jobs or had their wages cut as a result of the pandemic.
The message from my constituents to the Government is very clear. They want an immediate assurance, with legislation, that their homes will be made safe and that the developers who caused these problems will be the ones to pay.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to start by expressing my condolences to all who have been impacted by events such as Grenfell. Whether we think of the residents and their families or the emergency services involved, we need to do all we can to prevent a repetition of such events. It is clear to me that those responsible should be paying, and that the Government should provide support where that is not possible.
In such a short contribution, I will focus on my belief that it is clear that we also need to deliver and enforce standards to prevent any risk of repetition. We need both standards and enforcement processes that provide confidence for residents that property is safe.
Like so many on the Government Benches, I speak from experience gained outside this place and a perspective gained in what many call the real world. I spent many years working in the construction sector, and I saw at first hand the frustration of many good businesses whose great products gained specification from architects only for installers or distributors to switch them to cheaper alternatives. The impact of the lack of enforcement is a clear root cause of safety risks but it manifests itself by undermining the viability of our businesses and reducing our manufacturing base. As the Building Safety Bill is finalised, we need to ensure that all products, and particularly imported products, are required to meet our standards, and that unsafe materials are not allowed to enter the UK supply chain and become incorporated into another product, missing quality standard checks. Product quality assessments should be made necessary at all appropriate stages of production.
I am delighted for my former colleagues that the Government are working on fixing the building safety system from all angles, including with tougher regulations and requirements for all construction products, a national regulator to monitor industry-wide compliance, and severe penalties for anyone flouting the rules and compromising public safety. Whether it is for safety or any other specified reason, it is important that products are installed as specified. I welcome the fact that that will support our UK-regulated businesses, and I hope it will frustrate the undermining of standards by cheap, poor-quality materials.
When it comes to the need for fire-safe products, as the son of a fireman I have an absolute understanding that we should not use materials that could unnecessarily increase the risk to any of our emergency services, never mind the people they are trying to help. I would like to express my thanks and respect for all of those who have had to place themselves at risk when things go badly wrong.
I welcome not only the fact that regulations are being prepared but that they will have some enforcement teeth, and I hope most sincerely that we never see a tragedy like Grenfell again.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) [V]
The cladding scandal has wrought emotional and financial devastation upon my constituents who live in affected buildings. The human impact of this crisis on leaseholders is horrendous. One constituent recently told me:
“It is pretty much all I talk and think about. I have thought about killing myself and have started counselling to try to manage the thoughts and my anxiety.”
The Government have not yet offered the scale and range of measures necessary to meet the full impact of this crisis. I hope this debate changes the dial on their approach. I wish in particular to address the issue of insurance costs, which I have raised in this House for the past year. The Islington Gates development in my constituency saw a hike in insurance prices from £36,000 to £321,000. The Brindley House development in my constituency has the horrible honour of being the first building—in May last year—to find itself uninsured as a result of the cladding scandal. It was eventually able to secure cover, but it was being quoted prices of half a million pounds.
I have been writing to Ministers and officials at MHCLG and the Treasury, as well as the Financial Conduct Authority, ever since these issues came to light in my constituency, but to no avail. It is clear to me that the Government need to step in to sort out the insurance costs issue, because there seems to be little relationship between the interim measures that leaseholders are paying for, such as very expensive, state-of-the-art alarm systems, and the cost of the insurance premiums that they are being quoted. That has to be called out, and it is clear to me that some form of guarantee eventually needs to be offered by the Government that reflects a balance of all the risks and affordability for our constituents.
In terms of the way forward, I associate myself with the remarks made from the Labour Front Bench, but I also believe that the businesses, developers and construction companies responsible for putting these buildings up should face some consequences if they do not step up to remedy the defects that they are responsible for. Such businesses should not be able to bid for and receive public sector contracts. I think of developers such as Galliford Try in my constituency, which is failing to engage with leaseholders over Islington Gates. It is eligible to bid for projects that are part of the West Midlands Combined Authority area framework. I do not believe that anyone who fails to live up to their responsibilities and does not pay their due liabilities to wider society should get our money. It is unconscionable that ordinary people who are wholly innocent and have done nothing wrong are losing everything that they have ever worked for, and that those responsible are getting off scot-free. This House should act as one tonight, call time on this behaviour and stand with leaseholders.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Many happy returns to you today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an emotive subject, and the terrible tragedy of Grenfell is still in the minds of those debating this issue today. We must never allow such a thing to happen again, and it is only right that dangerous ACM cladding is a thing of the past. Righting the wrongs of the past has had unintended consequences, and I have spoken to many leaseholders who have found themselves in a terrible position with properties they purchased in good faith, where no problems were identified at the time. They now find themselves with huge bills for remediation works or waking watches. On top of that, they are unable to get insurance and are effectively stuck with their properties, as they cannot be sold. Effective steps need to be taken to remedy the situation.
I am a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and on 24 November the Committee published its report following pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Building Safety Bill. It suggested:
“The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, and…amend the Bill to explicitly exclude historical costs from the building safety charge.”
I welcome the £1.6 billion that is available to pay for cladding to be removed from buildings and that the vast majority of buildings with ACM cladding have had it removed, or the work is under way, including 100% of buildings in the social sector. I also welcome the £30 million waking watch fund and the reforms on EWS1 forms.
The Building Safety Bill will drive up building safety standards and ensure there is greater responsibility for the safety of all buildings, particularly high-rise residential buildings. We must also welcome the creation of the new regulator. We must be very clear that developers are expected to put things right. Although the Government must step in when that is not possible, there can be no blank cheque.
The proposed amendment to the Bill is well intentioned, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. It covers only those premises where a fire-risk assessment has already taken place, leaving out many other buildings. Like all amendments, there can be unforeseen consequences. In this case, my concern is that some of the more technical elements could lead to delays in the Fire Safety Bill getting on to the statute book. We must also consider the amendment dealing with enforcement but not replacement.
For those reasons, although the goal is admirable, I am of the belief that this issue should be pursued through the Building Safety Bill, not the Fire Safety Bill. We must do the right thing by leaseholders. I eagerly await the Building Safety Bill, in which that can further be put into action.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
Who would have thought that almost four years after the horror of Grenfell there would be hundreds of thousands of people still living in tall buildings at catastrophic risk from fire? Who would have thought that as a consequence of that risk many of the occupants of those buildings would be threatened with bills that will leave them penniless or bankrupt? And who would have thought that those occupants would have their lives put on hold: unable to move, re-mortgage or, in the case of shared owners, increase their stake in the property?
This is a tale of how two Governments abdicated their responsibility for Grenfell. It is shameful that the first ask in today’s motion has to be to establish the extent of the risk, let alone get on with the work or protect the victims from both harm and costs. No one should have to live in a home that puts their life and the lives of their family at risk. No one should be trapped in that home because they cannot make it safe or prove it is safe.
This is basic stuff. But even if the Government had got that right, there are a whole load of other problems that they are failing to address. Social landlords have done a better job than private landlords in taking remedial action, but unless the Government are prepared to fund the costs of that, either the landlord will pay, thereby cutting off the funding for new affordable homes, or social tenants and leaseholders will pay. Government funds at present are not just insufficient—estimated at less than 10% of what is needed—but unavailable for many categories of at-risk buildings, such as those below 18 metres. Cladding is identified as the primary risk, but it is only one of many that include limited means of escape, weak fire doors and poor compartmentalisation.
We are concentrating today, and in the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill, on occupied at-risk buildings where either the design or, as at Grenfell, the modifications make them unsafe. What about those currently seeking planning approval? There is a spate of applications for tall buildings, especially in London. I have blocks from 20 to 45 storeys currently in the pipeline. I ask the developer in each case whether: there is more than one escape route, all materials and combinations are inflammable, and sprinklers are fitted in all areas, not just communal parts. The answer is invariably, “We will comply with current building regulations”. This is storing up trouble for the future when we have enough in the present.
I am currently helping residents in 14 blocks in Hammersmith with cladding issues. On average, there is a fire in a residential block six storeys or over in the borough every two months. Thankfully, the efforts of the London Fire Brigade mean they are usually extinguished quickly and without injury, but I do not want to visit another Grenfell Tower, as I did the day after that terrible fire. It is the worst experience of my 16 years in Parliament—indeed, of the 35 years I have represented my part of west London. It is time for the buck passing to stop and for the Government to act.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend the new Minister to his place.
I would first like to offer my own condolences to the families of the 72 people who lost their lives in the horrific Grenfell Tower fire, as well as to the survivors who have been greatly affected by it. Nothing can replace what has been lost, but we must ensure that such a tragedy can never happen again.
To that end, the Government have taken and are taking a number of steps to address building safety issues, including: taking forward the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower report; banning combustible materials from new buildings; introducing the Fire Safety Bill and, later this year, the Building Safety Bill; creating a new building safety regulator and a new regulator for construction products; implementing changes to fire safety regulations; and commissioning an independent review to examine weaknesses in previous testing regimes for construction products and to recommend how we can prevent further abuse of the testing system.
I welcome the fact that, to date, the vast majority of buildings with ACM cladding have now had it removed or the work is under way, including 100% of buildings in the social sector. This has been supported by an initial £600 million fund, together with a new £1 billion building safety fund to ensure that building owners have no excuse not to start this vital work. Crucially, the Government have been absolutely clear that the work must be completed by the end of 2021. They have appointed construction advisers to identify what more can be done to speed up the process. We cannot afford any delay to that process, and I urge private landlords to prioritise remedial work in the same way that housing associations have done. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the expected timeframe for work to be completed on the last remaining buildings in the private sector, as well as what actions Ministers intend to take against building owners who fail to meet that deadline.
The Opposition are calling for leaseholders to be protected from the cost of this remedial work. The Government have been clear that building owners are legally responsible for ensuring that their buildings are safe, and that they must work with the contractors who provided unsafe materials, or rely on their own resources or warranty schemes to deliver that work. Those who are unable to meet the costs of the work can also access the Government funding that I have set out. There should therefore be no excuse for building owners to pass on the costs to leaseholders.
Further to support leaseholders, the Government have implemented a number of additional measures to remove the barriers from those wanting to sell or re-mortgage their homes. Those measures include the introduction of the £30 million waking watch fund, reaching an agreement with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors so that buildings without cladding do not need an EWS1 form, and where a form is required, ensuring that there are enough surveyors to complete that work. I urge the Government to continue engaging regularly with lease- holders so that we can take further action where needed.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
Residents trapped in unsafe buildings are fed up with sympathy; they want action—certainly those in Elizabeth House, Damask Court, Capitol Way, and many other developments in my constituency do. They know that this debate should not just be about who pays. Lord Greenhalgh has admitted that the Government’s building safety fund will not even cover one third of the cladding defects, and residents in Capitol Way know that this debate should not just be about cladding. This is about a whole range of fire safety defects that have turned their homes into a building site for the past three years, and threaten to do so for three years more.
The Minister started the debate by saying that the Government “absolutely expect” building owners to do the right thing. Three and a half years on—really? The Government hold developers responsible. The developers hold the construction companies responsible. The construction companies hold the building control inspectors responsible, and the building control inspectors say that the Government privatised the system of building control, creating a downward spiral of monitoring and control, as inspection became a competition about who would let the builders get away with the most short cuts. Nobody blames my constituents, yet they are now paying for all those mistakes. They are unable to move house, unable to sell their homes, and unable to get on with their lives. They are trapped in unsafe accommodation, with no end in sight.
In advance of this debate I was sent documents that show that many of the fire safety defects that exist in the Capitol Way development were not mistakes. I have reason to believe that that was known by the construction company, Shepherd Construction, by the approved inspectors, Head Projects Building Control, which is now in liquidation, and by the project managers for the development, who were from CBRE. Those defects were known about and recorded in reports that were prepared for CBRE by its quality assurance agent. Those reports were then doctored. Evidence suggests that that took place before residents were moved into those unsafe properties.
Given that there was full knowledge of the statutory breaches of the fire safety elements of building regulations, it is clear that life was put at risk. I believe that therefore constituted a criminal offence, and that withholding such information from leaseholders, who purchased their apartments in good faith, was fraud by false representation. There was a duty to disclose that information, but no such disclosure was made. In my view, that means my constituents were victims of fraud.
In July 2019, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a written statement to say that all cladding remediation would be completed by June 2020. Seven months on, instead of expecting building owners and the construction industry to do the right thing, the Government should wake up, impose a windfall levy on the industry, and get this work done.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I welcome this debate today. It is one small response to the enormous suffering of the people who died in the Grenfell disaster and those who lost loved ones, and also all those who have faced such unbearable burdens thereafter.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that all affected homes should be made safe, the victims of this scandal should not be made to pay, and the main players are clearly avoiding their responsibilities. However, it seems that she and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition are unaware that the only Labour Government in the UK—the Welsh Labour Government—launched their consultation on a new building regime only two weeks ago, having sat immovably on this issue for over three years. For as well as being a desperate, scandalous and unbearable burden for people trapped in their flats in England, the cladding scandal, from Atlantic Wharf in Cardiff to Victoria Dock in Caernarfon, affects the whole of Wales. People who bought their homes in good faith are being left with unsaleable properties, or face astronomical and unaffordable bills to make their homes safe, with no choice but to live in homes that could be fatally dangerous. For those who have to move because of work or family commitments, even that terrible choice is not open to them. In making his call for the UK Government to “get a grip”, I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will pass his remarks on to his very good friends down the M4.
We also heard today that the Leader of the Opposition is calling for a national cladding taskforce. I am not sure which nation he is referring to—perhaps neither is he— but this looks to many people in Wales either like shameless grandstanding ahead of our general election or just a schoolboy misunderstanding of the nature of devolution. I am sure that he joins everyone else in calling on developers to shoulder their responsibilities, and I hope that he will press for Wales to get its fair share of any funding to make homes safe. Alas, I fear that neither the Tory Government in Westminster nor the hapless Labour Government in Cardiff are at all up to the job.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) [V]
People in this country deserve to live in safe accommodation; I think we could all sign up to that key principle. It has been encouraging to see the Government taking forward and implementing the recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry so that lessons are learned and we never see a repeat of the 2017 tragedy. It is true, however, that the right mechanisms and funding sources need to be in place to truly get a grip on this issue in order to give tenants and leaseholders the protection they deserve both in terms of safety and the costs involved in the Government’s overhaul of building safety regulations.
Last summer, I visited Ash and Lacy in West Bromwich East—a manufacturing firm that, as part of its portfolio, manufactures non-combustible components for building exteriors and is leading the way in these innovative technologies, which often exceed industry standards. It was a pleasure to get people’s thoughts on the current situation; I learned a lot that day. Creating technologies like the ones produced at Ash and Lacy will be key to the future of our country’s construction industry. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be keen to accompany me on a visit to its site in West Bromwich as soon as the restrictions allow.
I have an example from my constituency casework concerning the Government’s reform of bureaucracy within the EWS1 form process. My constituent’s family were effectively left in limbo when attempting to gain this form in order to mortgage their property. The bureaucracy and expense of securing a form led to lengthy delays and long periods of uncertainty. I know that this is the case across the country. I am grateful that MHCLG stepped in to secure an agreement with lenders that homeowners in buildings without cladding no longer require an EWS1 form to sell or mortgage their property, so my constituent’s family were able to move on with their lives. In addition, where EWS1 forms are required, the Government are funding the training of 2,000 assessors to speed up valuations to address this and are working with the industry to ensure that the highest-risk buildings are prioritised first.
I commend the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for introducing the Fire Safety Bill, as well as the consultation on it and other measures across government. I look forward to Ministers updating the House over the course of the year on further changes to make homes safer. This year we have an opportunity to completely revolutionise the country’s approach to building safety, and I am backing the Government to deliver it.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
Three and a half years ago, 72 people lost their lives in the horrors of Grenfell Tower, and many hundreds more survivors were injured and traumatised. We must never forget them.
The aftermath of that terrible event revealed the country-wide scandal of developers ignoring building safety and creating homes that are firetraps. The Government have not collected reliable figures, but the Opposition have estimated that 450,000 people are still living in blocks known to have unsafe cladding. This is not just about ACM cladding, but other dangerous cladding, as well as flammable insulation, cavity walls without fire breakers, flammable timber balconies, inadequate fire doors—the list goes on as the costs go up. Repairs are conservatively estimated at £18 billion, which puts the £1.6 billion promised by the Government into its proper perspective. Some of the defects to be remedied do not fall within the Government’s promise of support. What the Government are offering is too little, too late, and the money has not yet been handed over to leaseholders. They need help, and they need it now.
The discovery of the cladding scandal has been followed by Government dither and delay when it comes to helping leaseholders, many of whom feel they have simply been abandoned to their fate, and whose bills are going up now. None of them is to blame for this scandal, yet they are already footing escalating bills that they cannot afford. They are ordinary people simply trying to get a home of their own, or flat owners seeking to let out a flat, suddenly finding themselves in a nightmare of unaffordable costs with no way out. They live in unsafe, unmortgageable, unsellable flats, with escalating insurance costs and skyrocketing service charges to fund expensive waking watch patrols, and they are liable to pay for all the remediation. If a consumer bought a faulty kettle, they would be entitled to get their money back, but there is no consumer protection for leaseholders, just a bigger bill. It is not good enough.
The Government must prioritise helping leaseholders with these unaffordable costs as soon as possible. The developers and rule dodgers who installed this dangerous cladding and flammable insulation—who ignored fire regulations in their development—should pay, not the blameless leaseholders. It is not as if some of these people do not have the money. Last July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided a £4 billion tax cut to the housing and development sector by cutting stamp duty. The Help to Buy scheme has given a huge cash boost to them, so much so that developers between them have made £15 billion in profit since the Grenfell fire, so the Government must take action to extract the costs of remediation from those who perpetrated this outrage and must not make the blameless pay. I commend and support the motion today.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is astounding—no, that is the wrong word. It is shameful that we are still debating unsafe cladding on buildings. It is three and a half years since the awful scenes at Grenfell, yet far too many people are still living with the nightmare that their homes are wrapped in combustible cladding. What is incomprehensible is that despite promising that all Grenfell-style cladding would be removed by last June, there are nearly 50,000 people still living in around 165 buildings over 18 metres tall that are still covered in the same cladding found on Grenfell Tower.
However, the scale is even bigger. We know that there are other types of combustible cladding—not all the same as that used at Grenfell, but equally dangerous. There are at least 450,000 people still living in blocks with all forms of unsafe cladding. Here in Greater Manchester, there are currently 107 high-rise residential buildings that have adopted interim measures as a result of significant fire safety deficiencies, but a further 64 buildings in Greater Manchester are known to have failed the ACM test with no remedy yet, and another 75 privately owned buildings have fire safety issues that are attributable to other unsafe cladding.
I want to be constructive, which is why I support the motion tonight. I particularly welcome the call to create a national cladding taskforce, putting residents at its heart, as they did in Australia. The Government’s joint inspection team just does not have formal enforcement or funding powers. Somebody should urgently carry out an audit to establish the extent of dangerous materials on buildings, prioritise them according to risk, and ensure that there is enforcement against those who do not undertake the work.
We need to protect leaseholders and taxpayers by pursuing those responsible for putting cladding on buildings and recouping costs through legal action against them. We need an absolute deadline to make homes safe. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), suggests June 2022, which I support. We need legislation to protect residents from being passed on historical fire safety costs; enforcement powers against building owners who refuse to start work; and measures to make it easier to recover costs from bad builders.
There are other calls in the motion to help to get the housing market moving again for those trapped in this mess. We cannot afford more inaction. Tonight, we have the chance to properly act on this scandal, to take appropriate action, and to make all homes safe after three and a half years. Our constituents and this country deserve nothing less.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Thousands of residents across Salford live in unsafe homes. They are families, key workers, couples and people young and old who want to be part of the vibrant city that Salford has become. Many scrimped, saved and pushed themselves to their financial limits to buy their home, and they were assured that they were safe—but they were not. Now they not only live in fear for their lives, but face financial devastation for a crisis that they did not cause. One high-rise block in Salford estimates fire-safety remediation costs of up to £100,000 per flat. Buildings even under 18 metres are failing EWS1, and many residents are being forced to pay thousands for measures such as waking watch and increased insurance premiums. Those people are at risk. They are trapped, and they cannot move, sell or even remortgage their homes.
Various Secretaries of State over the last few years have made sympathetic noises. They have even applauded cases where developers have stepped up and footed the bill. However, sympathetic noises were all they were. The Government never legislated to ensure that leaseholders did not have to pay. In fact, the draft Building Safety Bill and the Fire Safety Bill did quite the opposite, and the building safety fund is sadly inadequate and inequitable. The fund set aside only £1.6 billion for remediating buildings. It was only for cladding, despite the Government knowing that the crisis went far beyond that, and it excluded buildings under 18 metres. In reality, the total bill is estimated at around £15 billion for cladding alone.
Leaseholders did not cause this crisis. It was not they who breached safety and building regulations. It was not they who signed their buildings off as safe, and it should not be them who pay for this scandal. The Government have a moral duty to support today’s motion. They have a moral duty to agree to legislate within the Fire Safety Bill for the principle that leaseholders should not pay for historical fire safety defects. They have a moral duty to lead an urgent national effort to carry out fire safety remediation by June 2022, to forward fund that work, and to reclaim the costs from those responsible, or via a levy on new development.
The Government’s first priority must always be the safety and welfare of their people. In the words of one of my constituents, “I just wish the Government would step up and act.”
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) [V]
Many happy returns, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an extremely important and highly complex issue, and it is important to note at the outset what the Government have done so far. A £1.6 billion building safety fund has been provided to remove cladding from residential buildings 18 metres and over, and there is now a requirement for the installation of sprinkler systems in all new blocks of high-rises over 11 metres. The MHCLG already publishes monthly data on all identified high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings where remediation works have taken place or are in progress. The EWS1 form process has been tidied up to a degree, with agreement reached with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to confirm that buildings with no cladding do not require a form. In addition, funding has been provided to train assessors to speed up the valuation process, leading within six months to 2,000 additional assessors to help unlock the housing market. Those things are a step in the right direction, but they are not the end of the journey, as the Government have made clear.
Much of the Government action so far has been aimed, understandably, at buildings above 18 metres in height. However, up and down the country, including in my own constituency of Orpington, leaseholders are living in buildings under 18 metres that have cladding on them. Under the current EWS1 process, people living in such properties are faced with the nightmare scenario that they cannot remortgage, they cannot move home because lenders will not finance mortgages for would-be buyers, and Government support for remediation is aimed at taller buildings.
In my constituency, I have been contacted by constituents living in Cray View Close, the Village Hall flats, and the flats above Orpington’s Tesco. As I have said before in this House, my constituents are trapped and unable to move on with their lives. Indeed, as a result of fixed-term mortgages coming to an end, I note that at least one of my constituents has been moved on to a higher tariff due to the presence of cladding, even though the building concerned is not a high-rise block. In addition, the freeholder at Cray View Close is a local housing association, and it has confirmed in writing to several of my constituents that, all things being equal, costs for future remedial work will fall on the leaseholders. That is devastating news for my constituents, so I warmly welcome the previous comments of my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister that leaseholders should not have to worry about the cost of fixing historical safety defects that they did not cause.
RICS is due to publish the final EWS1 guidance at some point later this month, and it is vital that it gives much greater certainty for lenders. It needs to state very clearly whether an EWS1 form is required for buildings under 18 metres, and if one is, the Government will need to be very clear in the forthcoming building safety Bill about how leaseholders will be protected. It is crucial that the Government get this right and get it right first time.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
It is three and a half years on from the Grenfell tragedy and, as time ticks on, the promise of “Never again” is starting to sound incredibly hollow. The daily stress of living in a building that could go up in flames is bad enough, but the Government’s failure to act and to protect people from both the fire risks and the inordinate cost of fixing them is a disgrace. Suicide, bankruptcy, the threat of professional qualifications being revoked, life savings lost, futures destroyed—that is what tens of thousands, if not millions, of people are facing right now.
In November last year, many of my constituents thought that they may face rising service charges, upwards of £50,000 each, but now they have been given an initial estimate to ameliorate the cladding on just one block of flats, and it is £7 million. That is between £150,000 and £200,000 per flat in one block. Imagine how they feel when Ministers try to spin this issue, repeatedly claiming that 99% of Grenfell-style cladding has already been removed while failing to mention that that does not account for other types of cladding that are potentially just as dangerous. Imagine how it feels when Housing Ministers tweet outrage that leaseholders are being treated badly by building companies and insurers but then fail to legislate to protect them. Imagine how it feels when the Government’s cladding adviser sits on a Zoom call and tells desperate leaseholders, whose flats are now worth nothing, that his only idea is to give them, on top of their mortgages, long-term loans that they will never be able to pay off.
I have now asked the Government three times to ensure that the House is given sufficient time to debate and vote on amendments to the Fire Safety Bill that could prevent costs from being passed on to leaseholders—amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative MPs. If the Government think those amendments have technical problems, they should bring forward their own versions. I urge every Conservative Member to vote with Opposition parties today to show that they are serious about standing up for cladding victims and to put the Government on notice that if they fail to bring forward their own solution, Members of this House will work cross-party to force the Government’s hands.
The human cost is too high. Cladding victims cannot wait any longer. This cladding scandal has to stop.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
No one will ever forget those awful images of Grenfell Tower ablaze, or black and smouldering, nor will we forget the individual stories of suffering and loss, or the pain of the local community. The legacy of Grenfell looms large for all of us this evening, and it is something that occupies daily all those charged with this responsibility in government. I thank the Minister for Housing for setting out very clearly the fact that this is a priority for the Government and the decisive steps that they have already taken. I welcome the very significant amounts, totalling £1.6 billion, that Government have allocated so far to pay for cladding to be removed, and I am thankful that the vast majority of ACM cladding has either been removed or that work is under way to do so.
The fact that work has been completed on buildings in the social sector is a good example for others to follow. Of course, the Government recognise that other cladding needs to be removed in all types of buildings, and that, too, is their focus and objective. The Minister was very clear when he hold the House that it was the responsibility of building owners to make buildings safe and that the Government would work with owners to fulfil their obligations and protect leaseholders, using both carrot and stick.
The related issues along the way are also being addressed in what I view as a pragmatic and effective way: a £30-million waking watch fund to help ensure that these measures are truly temporary; and work with RICS to address the mortgage issues arising from EWS1 forms. I particularly welcome the independent review commissioned by the Government of how some players in the construction industry were able to game the system and play fast and loose with people’s safety, abusing the testing system and shaming reputable companies in the sector. There is indeed much work to be done, but we are making progress towards completion of the vital effort to right the wrongs of the past and to look at what improvements need to be made in the future.
The events of June 2017 shook this country to its core and fundamentally changed the way in which we think about safety standards. I welcome the Government’s determination to protect leaseholders in both the long and short term. I know how important it is to help to restore that feeling of safety and security for those affected, and I do not doubt the Government’s commitment to completing that herculean task.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Julie. There was a seamless changeover of the Chair during your speech. I call Florence Eshalomi.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
This debate is long overdue. I thank my Labour colleagues for bringing it to the House, and I thank all Members who have made a contribution today, for this truly is a national scandal. Many colleagues have rightly reminded us of the horror and tragedy of Grenfell. They have also spoken about the Government’s slowness to recognise the breadth and scale of the issue, their reluctance to get things moving, and the hollowness of their repeated promise that no leaseholder should have to foot the bill.
My constituency of Vauxhall is only a few miles from Grenfell, but today we still have hundreds of unsafe buildings. I have been contacted by over 200 leaseholders living in more than 26 different housing developments, some with multiple high-rise blocks. Each and every one of those leaseholders is now spending their third lockdown in a home with serious safety defects, not knowing when their building will be fixed or even how they will pay for it—or why they should pay for it. In the meantime, they have to pay eye-watering costs to put interim safety measures in place. One block in Vauxhall has to pay over £10,000 per flat just to install a 24-hour waking-watch system. Another block paid £130,000, before spending an additional £40,000 on an alarm system. These interim costs alone are causing so many leaseholders to become bankrupt, not to mention the additional stress and anguish. That is why one of our demands today is for a waking watch fund to be fast-tracked to leaseholders as a matter of urgency.
There is so much more that the Government can and should be doing to right the wrong that is the national cladding scandal. They have the opportunity in the forthcoming Fire Safety Bill to support amendments from Members across the House. I urge all colleagues to show their support, and to care and stand up for their constituents, by voting in favour of today’s motion.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
We all remember the horrific scenes at Grenfell, and we can never allow that to happen again. For me, this comes down to one simple fact: leaseholders across the country are currently trapped in homes—for many, their first home—that they cannot sell, rent or otherwise financially dispose of. Many are being asked to pay extortionate costs for remedial works or temporary solutions such as waking watches. Sadly, some have already been forced to take what they see as the only way out: financial ruin through bankruptcy.
It cannot be right that anybody is trapped in a home that they cannot financially dispose of, able to escape only through bankruptcy, especially when the reason behind it is not their fault. If this trend continues, many more—potentially thousands—could be forced into bankruptcy, with thousands of homes sat empty across the country that, accordingly to lenders, are financially worthless. I completely accept that the solution is going to be far from simple, and that the reason these blocks are facing these terrible circumstances are many and complex. Time prevents me from going into them in any great detail, but they are part of the reason why I support the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).
I want to raise a particular example of leaseholders in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington. I do not want to name the block specifically, because my constituents are currently going through legal proceedings and I do not want to prejudice the case. Like thousands of others, these leaseholders live in a block that is under 18 metres in height and has some cladding on it. We have had difficulty communicating with the builders and the owners, and the lenders are refusing to budge, leaving the residents trapped in homes with what has now been revealed to be a fraudulent EWS1 form. Many sales have fallen through, the mental health of residents is deteriorating, and some are already facing the terrible prospect of bankruptcy.
There are stories like this from all over the country and especially here in London. This is not about apportioning blame, and I welcome the support that the Government have put in place so far. Blocks such as the one in my constituency sadly have not been eligible for any specific support so far, and it is clear that developers, lenders, freeholders and so on are not stepping up to their responsibilities so far; they are hoping that the Government—[Inaudible.] They certainly did not cause this problem, and neither did leaseholders. Sadly, it falls on us to find a solution. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken and I urge them to move at pace to ensure that constituents such as mine are not left behind. In all this, charging remedial costs back to the leaseholders or using a system of loans is not the answer. My leaseholders in Carshalton and Wallington did not cause this problem, and they must not bear the cost of fixing it.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I thank the shadow Front Bench for this incredibly important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) also wanted to speak today, and I want to put on record the excellent work she is doing for our city on these issues—in particular, in challenging the obscene service charge hikes of tens of thousands of pounds that are being passed on to leaseholders. In Liverpool, an estimated 8,000 people are affected by unsafe cladding, and the distress and anguish felt in our community as a result is difficult for me to do justice to. People are living and sleeping in fear, and when they wake up they feel threatened by the financial costs.
Rituparna Saha from the UK Cladding Action Group told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, in a heartbreaking evidence session, that
“I would summarise my life as pretty much a living nightmare. I have spent every single waking moment when I am not working my day job trying to figure out how to make my home safe without going financially destitute. Unfortunately, my experience is not an uncommon one; it is shared by thousands of people just like me… We are constantly anxious, both for the safety of our families living in these dangerous buildings and also the pretty much blank cheque that we are being forced to write to fix defects that were not of our making.”
The HCLG Committee’s November report on the draft Building Safety Bill recommended:
“The Government must recommit to the principle that leaseholders should not pay anything towards the cost of remediating historical building safety defects, and, in order to provide leaseholders with the peace of mind they deserve, amend the Bill to explicitly exclude historical costs from the building safety charge.”
I urge the Minister to take on board the many powerful contributions that we have heard in the debate and take up the actions contained in the Opposition’s motion. How can the Government sleep easily in their beds knowing that thousands of tenants and leaseholders cannot sleep at all?
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) [V]
We have all heard the adage “An Englishman’s home is his castle”. I am sure that there must be a more gender-inclusive update of that saying, but nevertheless, it is as true today as it has always been, which is why so many aspire to be homeowners. But it goes deeper than aspiration: it is about meeting our fundamental needs as human beings. Abraham Maslow identified with his hierarchy of needs that housing is vital for shelter, security and stability, and is a place to love and nurture our families and a way of being rooted that gives us a feeling of belonging to our communities. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Housing recognise that in his opening remarks. So when an event as devastating as Grenfell happens, for all those who sadly perished, those left behind and the scars etched on the community, it is right that we move as swiftly as possible with inquiries and implement lessons learned. I am pleased that from conversations I have had with the Housing Minister, he is very mindful of the need to bring forward legislation, but that the complexities of cladding on buildings and all the sectors involved in remediation requires it to be done in a comprehensive and thoughtful way.
While the subject of the debate today is not a widespread issue in Guildford, I speak on behalf of my constituent, Jasmin. Jasmin is a single mum who, through a change in her personal circumstances, bought a flat through a shared ownership scheme and works hard with a dream of fully owning it and having something to pass on to her daughter one day. The four-year-old building that she lives in has failed to receive a EWS1 form because of insulation under the cladding. She is very concerned that all the time, energy and effort she has put in could leave her bankrupted if she is presented with a bill for remediation and stuck if she is unable to be sell. This has been made more difficult by the fact that the housing association has been silent and the developers have refused responsibility for remediation.
I thank the Minister for the understanding that he has shown of how much this wide issue impacts on lives and urge him to continue to speak to all the sectors involved, so that a solution can be found for my constituent and many like her in the country. However, it is not just for Jasmin that I speak; I am mindful of new developments proposed in the heart of Guildford that will be built upwards. I hope that it will be reassuring for my current and future constituents to hear of the announcement of a building safety regulator and a construction products regulator. It is right that we desire to build beautiful, but it is a must that we build safe.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
In British history, Grenfell is a tragedy that will never be forgotten. It highlights the horror of a significant building development error that cost so many people’s lives before their time. Despite the Government’s promise to get rid of all Grenfell-style ACM cladding by June 2020, not only has that not happened, but the Government still do not have reliable data on the number of blocks of flats with unsafe cladding. Labour’s latest estimate is that there are at least 450,000 people in homes with unsafe cladding. That is a resounding number of people. If life is so valuable, why has so little action been taken by the Government to remedy this?
Those living in potentially dangerous situations are everyday people. Many have been working tirelessly during the pandemic. Some are food bank volunteers, administrators and other key workers. They are retired people, families, first-time buyers, shared homeowners and so on. Millions of homeowners are unable to move, remortgage or rent. The Government’s dither and delay has left innocent leaseholders feeling trapped. What was once their dream home has become a recurring nightmare.
The Government have the power to end that nightmare. The vote today is to ensure that the costs are not passed on to residents and that those responsible for the cladding scandal are pursued. While leaseholders wait for the Government to act, some are becoming bankrupt. There are costs that residents should not have to pay, including waking watch and huge insurance rates.
My constituent Paul is completely despondent. He told me:
“Builders took shortcuts. Regulators failed to regulate. Freeholders are not doing the right thing. As expected, they are passing potentially ruinous costs on to leaseholders. In addition, some leaseholders must bear the emotional and psychological burden of living with waking watch while trapped in unsaleable properties.”
Twenty residents so far from the Parkside estate in my constituency have reported being unable to sell or mortgage their flats for the same reasons. I pay special tribute to James, who leads the residents association at Parkside, and Lewisham Council for its dedication to working with residents and holding the housing association and developers to account. Labour has a plan to end this crisis and lift homeowners and renters out of danger. It is time that the Government listened, prevented delay and made people safe by ending this nightmare for residents.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
This debate is taking place in the long shadow cast by the Grenfell disaster. Anyone who has seen that charred edifice silhouetted against the sky will understand why it is so important that nothing of that kind happens again. At the time of Grenfell, I happened to be living in a block of flats, and came home one evening to find fire watchers in the street patrolling the blocks. Such a sight outside the building where I lived and slept at night was very disturbing.
This debate is timely. It is important to remember, of course, that Opposition day motions such as this offer only non-binding resolutions, but I understand why the Opposition would seek to secure a debate on this subject, and I understand the feeling of urgency.
This is a complex matter. It affects those who try to do the right thing by saving up to buy their own home, and those who face possible costs or feel that they cannot move. Many of my constituents, although they are not directly affected, have written to me movingly about family members who are. This matter also affects the construction industry, the mortgage industry and many other sectors. Although action is required, I hope it will be understood that the Government must act quickly but correctly; it is important to get this right. I am reassured that Ministers understand the importance of this issue and are working quickly to resolve it.
It is important that new buildings are safe. The Building Safety Bill will raise building safety standards, particularly for high-rise buildings. That legislation, the Fire Safety Bill and other measures across Government will mean that high-rise buildings are safer. I am also pleased to see the creation of a building safety regulator, which will implement a tougher regulatory regime for high-risk residential buildings, with enforcement action against building owners who do not ensure that their buildings are safe.
We also need to ensure that existing buildings are safe. I am pleased that the Government have created a building safety fund with £1 billion of funding to cover the cost of removing unsafe cladding on buildings over 18 metres. I understand that the application deadline for that funding has been extend, which will hopefully increase the number of buildings that will have their cladding removed. The Government have also taken steps to remove aluminium composite material cladding, which was used on Grenfell, as a matter of urgency. A £600 million fund has been made available to remove ACM cladding from all types of buildings over 18 metres. Working with building owners, the Government have made good progress in removing that, including in the social rented sector.
There is a lot of work to be done on this issue, and I am sure it will considered at greater length when the Fire Safety Bill comes back to this House. I look forward to further statements from the Government on this very important matter in due course.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
For some hours now, we have been hearing accounts of those whose lives have been ruined by an appalling situation caused by a mixture of deregulation by Government, the greed of some developers and their failure to take responsibility and then continued inaction by Government to address the situation.
In my almost six years as an MP in a city that has seen much new house building, these failures are, sadly, all too common. It is not just the cladding issue, serious though that is, but the abuse of leasehold that sees people trapped with unexpected and inexplicable charges and the frankly dreadful standards of some construction. I was staggered to visit a very expensive property in the centre of the city a few years ago which had to be completely rebuilt twice because of basic and fundamental errors in construction, causing huge heartache and distress to the owners, made worse by the almost sure knowledge that adjoining properties were likely to be no better, but their owners could not face the huge battle to try to get redress. All this came against a backdrop of huge profits and fantastic so-called bonuses for individuals at the top of some of these companies. It also came against a backdrop of deregulation of building control and inspection that creates the perfect environment for such abuse to flourish, and all this under the watch, or lack of it, of a Government happy to take political donations from these people. Frankly, it stinks. People in that sector need to think very hard about their responsibility.
We have heard much about the cladding issue and we know that it has left people marooned and trapped, unable to sell, unable to move, their lives put on hold, often with a spectre of endless bills to pay, for faults not of their making. In Cambridge, I have had numerous representations from residents of the Kaleidoscope estate who rightly tell of their own circumstances. There are the young mums whose dream homes have turned into a nightmare. Sadly, it is not the only development. There is the flagship Belvedere that has been a problem since Grenfell; Pym Court; and the Grand Central development. I am afraid that I do not have time to list all the problems, but the problems have been made worse by the abject failure of the NHBC guarantee and the consistent failure of developers to take responsibility. If it were not for Brexit and covid, my guess is that this national scandal would have got the attention it deserved earlier. The leader writer in The Sunday Times had it right yesterday, when they said:
“Those who created this problem—the builders and their suppliers, some of whom have shown a blatant disregard for public safety—should be made to pay for it. The blameless leaseholders should not. The government has to use its muscle, and not be influenced by whether some of these businesses are Tory donors. If not, more than 4.5 million affected leaseholders will know exactly who to blame.”
That is not Labour speaking; that is The Sunday Times. Today is the start of shining the light on those who are responsible.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), to the Dispatch Box. I always think that there is nothing like a baptism of fire for a new Minister.
Portishead in my constituency of North Somerset is one of the best examples in the United Kingdom of the development of a brownfield site, taking an old power station and turning it into a world-class marina. It is an attractive and desirable place to stay, the consequence of which is that large numbers of people have invested considerable sums to be able to live there.
We all welcome the response of Ministers that it cannot be right that leaseholders have to worry about the cost of fixing safety defects in their building that they did not cause. We welcome the more than £1.5 billion that the Government have put into this, but it cannot be right that all the burden for remediation falls on taxpayers. Where a problem arises from regulatory changes made after construction, assuming that the proper standards were met, it is reasonable for public money to be used, but that in no way absolves the construction industry or the NHBC of their responsibilities. For example, at Ninety4 on the Estuary in Portishead, a survey carried out to the external façade in July last year identified “combustible materials which are not only non-compliant with current building regulations but might not have been compliant with regulations in force at the time of construction.” It would be outrageous if taxpayers’ money were to be used in this circumstance.
Those who have built substandard dwellings need to be held to account, because these underlying issues give rise to others. Insurance, reselling and property values and the availability of mortgages are just three. Can my hon. Friend tell me what talks the Government have had directly with the big banks, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association of British Insurers and NHBC? Will he take account of the fact that there is some sharp practice going on, especially in relation to surveys. Extortionate amounts are being paid by tenants for these surveys in relation to EWS1. I have one in front of me, which talks about incorrect height information, 24-hour monitored CCTV when there is none, timber decking to balconies when the balconies are composite decking and stacked balconies when they are open balconies—the list goes on and on.
In formulating the response to the consultation, which we look forward to hearing, may I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that this is not just about buildings? In fact, it is not about buildings; it is about people. It is about their hopes and their fears, their savings and their future. All the Government’s instincts on this issue have been right and the amount of money put aside is generous. What we now require is not good intentions, but delivery.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am glad to be able to speak on this important subject, although to call it a debate might be to slightly over- dignify it. Labour’s argument that dangerous cladding must be addressed urgently with up-front funding and money sought from those responsible for building unsafe properties is so indisputable that the Government are not planning to oppose it today, but nor are they willing to accept it and turn it into action to actually help leaseholders and people living in potentially dangerous flats.
We all have examples in our constituencies, and constituents worried about their children trying to get on to the housing ladder elsewhere. The hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) underlined the importance of getting it right, saying that this accounts for the delays we have seen so far, but our constituents deserve better than the lack of action in the three and a half years since Grenfell. It is not nearly good enough. If anything, residents’ worries have grown even more acute during the pandemic, when so many people will have been forced to stay at home day after day, week after week. This has had huge impacts on mental health for everybody, but how much worse for those worrying about the safety of their own homes and the financial impact that this also threatens?
The situation is clear: tenants should not have to stay in homes that are unsafe, leaseholders should not have to pay for remediation for conditions that they were assured met appropriate standards and the Government have it within their power to take steps now to end the misery that has beset so many people for the last few years. They should support this motion and act now.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) [V]
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) to the Dispatch Box.
I do not think any of us can ever forget that morning, waking up to see the tragedy unfolding before our eyes at Grenfell Tower—a tragedy that must never happen again. People must feel safe in their homes, and we must make it a priority to ensure it never happens again and what steps are taken need to be right. Since the tragedy, £1.6 billion has been made available to pay for cladding to be removed for those living in potentially dangerous buildings. Alongside this, we are delivering the biggest changes in building safety in a generation, introducing new laws to ensure people’s homes are always safe, and this vital work has continued throughout the pandemic. These commitments will drive up building safety standards and make people’s homes safer, while protecting those least able to pay from having to foot the bill.
I welcome the news that removing dangerous ACM cladding from every building in the social sector has either now been completed or is under way with clear timeframes in place. This Government have been very clear that they will not accept dangerous ACM cladding being on buildings. There is also a timeline of not beyond the end of this year, with enforcement action against building owners that fail in their duty to do this by the deadline that has been to set. While £1.6 billion has been made available from the Government, this vital work can be funded from other sources, including warranties, building owners and developers, and the industry needs to pull its weight to make this happen.
Although there are many lessons from the Grenfell tragedy, a deep concern has been that a small number of companies in the building and construction sector have been recklessly gaming the system, resulting in unsafe materials being used on new buildings. I am also hearing that there are those in flats bought on a leasehold basis who have faced several additional unforeseen costs that have risen because their building contains cladding, such as waking watch costs. I am shocked by the scandal of these waking watch fees.
I am pleased to hear that 201 households from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk have accepted an offer of accommodation, with over 95% of these being found new permanent homes. That is deeply reassuring, but there is deep frustration that a very small number of building owners are still yet to start this process, recklessly putting lives at risk. I am sure every single one of us agrees that we must never see this tragedy again. We must prevent this from ever happening again. We must give people the peace of mind that the places they call home are built with safe materials and that the place people call their home is their safe haven.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Shortly before Christmas, residents in the Wicker Riverside complex in my constituency got a knock on the door one evening and were told to leave their homes immediately, with no indication given as to when they could return, because of multiple building safety failings. I am grateful for the quick response I got from the building safety Minister Lord Greenhalgh and for his help in getting residents back before Christmas, but their problems remain, as is the case in respect of many buildings across Sheffield. We are talking about ACM and other unsafe cladding, compartmentalisation problems, and issues with materials used on balconies, all of which are making homes unsafe. These problems were not created by the residents but they are being expected to pick up the cost for them. Clearly, that is the central issue we are facing today.
These people have stretched their finances to the limits to buy their home—often they are at the start of their working lives, although some are nearing retirement—and now they face unaffordable bills to make good the mistakes of others. These costs will break them, and this is taking an appalling toll on their health, as they face losing their homes and bankruptcy. These are lives destroyed by the actions of others—irresponsible developers, often those who have collapsed their companies having walked away with the profits—and inadequate building inspections. These leaseholders are the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure, which is why it is the responsibility of government to step in, own the problem and resolve it, without any of the costs falling on leaseholders, either now or in the future, through the loan schemes that we understand have been considered.
In addition, the Government must act now on building insurance, both to keep down escalating costs and to make sure that proper cover is in place in the small number of cases where buildings are uninsurable. Using the full resources of the state, backed by any new laws that are needed, the Government must then recover the costs from those responsible for the misery they have inflicted on leaseholders. That is the way to end the cladding scandal.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My constituents will be absolutely furious that the Government appear to be rejecting not only our amendments, but those of the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith). My constituents have been constantly told that they will not be made to pay for fire safety problems they are not responsible for, but leaseholders are already paying for them, with huge bills for waking watches, outrageously inflated insurance premiums and eye-watering variable mortgage payments. My constituents are paying through the nose now. These costs are inescapable, and they are taking a real toll on already stretched finances and on the mental health of my constituents—lives are on hold. This is the result of a crisis my constituents did not create.
Let me again raise with the Minister one of the biggest cases in my constituency. Stratford East Village, the former Olympic park, has fire safety risks that go way beyond cladding: defects that violated fire safety regulations in place long before the Grenfell tragedy. The Olympic park contractors were working for the Government, and they should not expect my constituents to pay for it, but they are doing so through huge insurance premiums and watch costs. In one case, the cost of insurance has been raised sixfold in a year.
However, the Olympic park is far from the only area affected in my constituency. In West Ham we find problems no matter where we look, and the same is true in Canning Town. I have been asked to make representations to housing associations so that they understand the impossible circumstances residents are in and to ask them to be flexible. They have to look at their policies on staircasing, sub-letting and buying back from the leaseholder. It is really important that Ministers do not forget how over-extended my constituents already are. London is different—I am sorry, but it is—simply because of the cost of housing here. In 2019, the median house price in Newham was 13 times the median earnings of residents; in 2017 and 2018, it was even higher. It is the legacy of utterly unaffordable housing. When we add in the recession and the financial impacts already experienced, threatening leaseholders with further costs just is not fair. It is cruel.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
This debate and this whole issue is about people. It is about what they hold most dear—their homes. Our home is where most of us feel safest; it is our haven, and so often our financial security. I know the misery that so many leaseholders in my constituency are going through because of this crisis. It is important that leaseholders should not be made to pay for the remedial safety works required, and that they should be helped out of the nightmare that they find themselves in through no fault of their own.
One of my defining moments as leader of Westminster City Council was in the aftermath of the Grenfell fire, when I saw at first hand the devastating effect that that fire had on so many lives. Seventy-two people lost their lives and paid the ultimate sacrifice, and we must never forget that. Having spoken to Ministers, I know that they are determined to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again, but we must support all leaseholders to be able to draw a line under this torrid time.
I appreciate that the vast majority of buildings with ACM cladding have now had it removed, or the work is under way, including 100% of buildings in the social sector. I certainly welcome the £1.6 billion in Government grants that has helped towards that, and I hope that we see more help moving forward. It is beyond me why building owners and property developers think it is acceptable to expect leaseholders to pay for remedial work such as cladding replacement when leaseholders bought their homes in good faith, in many cases many years ago. I will continue to fight on leaseholders’ behalf to ensure that building owners and developers are held to account.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s plans to introduce the Building Safety Bill and other legislation that is obviously needed. I understand that the Government are working to introduce that Bill very soon. I hope that they will introduce building safety measures and new laws to ensure that people’s homes are always safe and can be relied on.
I reiterate the issues with mortgages and ensuring that people can sell their homes and remortgage. It is unacceptable that people find themselves in this dreadful situation. I understand that work has now been done on the external wall fire review forms—EWS1 forms—and that the Government have put £700,000 towards training more assessors so that we can do more of the surveying that is required to get the housing market moving.
Let me conclude by saying that leaseholders should never have been put in this position. These building materials should never have been allowed to be used on these buildings. I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject today, and I really hope that the Government continue to listen and will bring in fire safety measures as soon as possible so that the dreadful tragedy of Grenfell can never happen again.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
We have today heard a long list of residences that continue to have cladding on them and people stuck in them, not able to sell and without enough resources to fix the problem. I have two serious cases here in my constituency and many more minor cases—Royal View and Grand Ocean to name a few.
One of the big problems is the arbitrary limit on size that the Government have introduced, meaning that while hundreds of flat owners in taller blocks may receive some support, those in shorter blocks, which may still have decent safety concerns, may not be able to sell their houses or get mortgages. They are stuck. It is not right that any leaseholder should have to pay for these mistakes. These were mistakes of deregulation and of not allowing independent assessments, in which multiple Governments took part. We, collectively, must now ensure that we fix that. We will do that by making sure, irrespective of what party holds the reins at the time, that our nation’s Government step in.
What is government for? It is to ensure that our people are safe from external and internal threats, but currently they are not safe when they live in these buildings. Their finances are not safe. The Government must act as the underwriter in this case. Of course they must protect public finances and, using the courts, legislation, levies and other means, they must get the money back. They must ensure that no individual is harmed. It is not good enough just to say that leaseholders should not pay.
There is a popular method of organisation whereby leaseholders have a share of the freehold, including in a number of blocks in my constituency. But they were not the builders. They were not the contractors. They were not the people who made this mess. They got their surveys done, and they bought in good faith. Often they bought to the limit, because they wanted to get on that ladder. We now have insurance issues, and we know that wider leasehold reforms are needed, but it is not right that the Government allow people to suffer as they are at the moment. Opposition day motions used to be binding, at least morally, on the Government. Let us do the right thing now and support our leaseholders.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
Just as with covid, the Government are too slow to deal with the unravelling building safety crisis. Three and a half years on from the devastating Grenfell tragedy, hundreds of thousands of people still live in unsafe homes, and millions are caught up in the wider building safety crisis. Government inaction has left innocent leaseholders facing lockdown trapped in flammable homes and paying colossal bills for repair work—in some cases leading to bankruptcy—as well as hundreds of pounds per month on interim safety measures such as waking watch.
Fifteen times, Ministers promised to protect leaseholders, and today a vote will be forced in Parliament to ensure that costs are not passed on to residents, and that those responsible for the cladding scandal will be pursued. The motion is a good one. It calls on the Government to establish a proper audit of the risk, to provide up-front funding, to protect leaseholders from costs by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis, and to get the job done.
I have constituents in London and Quadrant apartments, including West Point and Saxon Chase. Those people cannot sell their homes because fire safety inspections have not been carried out or an EWS1 completed—the Minister referred to that point, which I thank him for. I look forward to the RICS survey and its outcome. Residents in properties in Wood Green have been asked by their freeholder to pay £10,000 between them for a fire risk assessment. One states:
“If I cannot pay the bill for remedial works, the freeholder can bankrupt me and make me forfeit the lease, making me homeless in retirement. I worked for over 45 years paying Income Tax, National Insurance, mortgage payments, service charges, council tax and other housing costs, yet I now face possibly losing my home because the Government decides that leaseholders should pay for the failings of builders, freeholders and Government regulations.”
Residents in the Clarion property 1 The Roundway have not been able to sell or remortgage following an EWS1 assessment in 2019. Furthermore, some residents in Muswell Hill are living in a new block where internal fire safety protection was not put in properly and is incredibly costly to put right. The residents are making a claim to the NHBC through a solicitor, but are worried about what the outcome will be.
We are all aware of the immense stress of coronavirus and the public health crisis, but let us today not add more pressure to people already under strain. Let us vote for the motion and get this done.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
As, I think, the 73rd speaker in today’s debate, I do not think I will be making any unique points, but I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice to those calling on the Government to act: to act to ensure that all my constituents are safe, and to act to protect our constituents from unfair charges.
I have been contacted by numerous leaseholders who are facing unacceptable pressures. They describe panic attacks, sleepless nights and tears, living in fear of fire and in fear of looming bankruptcy. For example, constituents tell me that their building, a recently converted office block, may qualify for a proportion of the non-ACM cladding fund, but that it is also fraught with myriad other problems, including missing cavity barriers and substandard fire doors. They already face bills for waking watch costs and survey work. They anticipate that their building insurance will increase by 200% to 300% this year. One says:
“This is weighing heavily on my and my wife’s minds…I purchased a newly converted flat. I had a survey. I did the due diligence.”
My constituents did nothing wrong, yet now they face crippling upfront charges.
Of course, my constituents are not the only ones whose dream home has become a nightmare through no fault of their own, yet developers and property owners seem to be getting away with it. Those leaseholders need your help, Minister. The Government should and could pay the upfront costs, and ensure that developers and building owners are held to account and pay for the remediation measures needed. That is what is needed. That is what this motion seeks to do. I hope that all those who want to protect leaseholders will support the motion tonight, as I do.
Minister, I look forward to your response and I know that my constituents are listening to you, too, in this debate. They know that the only hope of their getting out of an impossible situation is for the Government to act, and to act quickly. I hope you will take the opportunity to do so.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), to his place. I look forward to working together constructively over the coming years.
As we have heard this afternoon, nearly four years on from the Grenfell fire in which 72 people tragically lost their lives, hundreds of thousands of people the length and breadth of our nations are living in buildings wrapped in flammable cladding, constructed without fire breaks and insulated with inappropriate materials, paying thousands for the round the clock waking watch schemes, with insurance premiums going through the roof. This is the nightmare that is the cladding scandal, a nightmare magnified by the need to seek sanctuary in our homes during the pandemic and successive lockdowns.
Listening to the debate today and the insightful contributions from 71 right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, two questions come to mind. First, are buildings and, very importantly, the people living in them markedly safer since Grenfell? The answer is clearly no. Secondly, has the Government’s response been extensive and at pace? Certainly not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) highlighted the tragic case of Hayley. She had a dream of home ownership and she had a brand-new flat, and then: welcome to the nightmare that is the cladding scandal. She has now declared bankruptcy, and that point was highlighted by the BBC only yesterday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) referred to the heart-breaking case of a young couple in her constituency who are now unable to sell their flat and move on with their young family because they are trapped by the EWS chaos and the Government’s advice note 14. That affects 16% of households, and that needs to be fixed, certainly in substance. I hope the new Minister brings that to his post, rather than a ministerial press release.
The Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), rightly highlighted the nightmare of insurance premiums going up at astronomical rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) also referred to that. One such case in her constituency, Brindley House, has seen a 1,300% increase in insurance premiums. Only yesterday I had constituents in Weaver Vale contacting me about that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) referred to a 1,000% increase at The Decks in Runcorn. Those are some of the many aspects of the cladding crisis with which Members from all parts of the House are very familiar.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
A number of constituents have contacted me about the problems they have been facing having to pay for the removal of dangerous cladding. They have put their lives on hold. They have not been able to get out of dangerous relationships. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is down to the Government to take more action to ensure that those responsible actually pay for the removal of cladding?
Mike Amesbury
I agree with my hon. Friend. It certainly is time for the Government to get a grip. It would be remiss of me not to highlight and thank those campaigners who will keep on pressing for justice and change: Grenfell United, the End Our Cladding Scandal campaign, the all-party parliamentary group, the Select Committee, Inside Housing, The Sunday Times, the Mail and the Mirror. All have highlighted stories bringing alive in this Chamber and beyond the hundreds of thousands of voices of those trapped in thousands of buildings up and down this land.
Three and a half years on from Grenfell, the Government still do not know the number of buildings truly at risk, because they have failed to this day to draw up a risk register or a priority list, as our motion calls for today. Building safety needs to be turbocharged by a national cladding taskforce.
What created the building safety or cladding scandal in the first place? First, I suggest it was the regulatory regime of the past and, secondly, as highlighted by many Members, it was some in the industry whose purpose was to maximise profit margins to such an extent that the moral compass of humanity—the safety of people and their quality of life, or even the right to life itself—was not even an afterthought, as illustrated by the evidence presented so far to the Grenfell inquiry.
This crisis certainly is not the responsibility of innocent tenants or the millions of leaseholders now living in flats valued at zero, who are mortgage prisoners as a result of this scandal. That point has been made time and time again by Members from all parties today. Leaseholders cannot pay, and they should not pay. Our motion is a clarion call to all Members and would enshrine that principle in the building safety landscape.
The Government’s response so far to the crisis has been one of dither and delay. We have legislation coming down the line and a building safety fund as a reaction to determined campaigners and strong voices in Parliament, but the size and scope of the fund is nowhere near sufficient, and the remediation of buildings has been carried out at a snail’s pace. Despite the recent spin from Government Ministers, nearly 60% of private sector buildings identified with Grenfell-type cladding are still wrapped in ACM.
Turning to the building safety fund, 2,820 applications have been made, with only 405 proceeding with an application for funding so far. The funding will cover only around 600 buildings, and only those that are 18 metres or above—a system of first come, first served, with gagging orders and chaos hard-wired into it. I say to the Minister that nobody will be silenced; the chorus for justice will get louder and louder.
Mr Dhesi
I thank and commend my hon. Friend the shadow housing Secretary and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition for having a clear plan, because at this point in time, the Government have not even ascertained the extent of the problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister, who has been conspicuous by his absence, needs to issue a statement and show a clear plan, because this crippling cladding crisis is having a debilitating impact on millions of our constituents?
Mike Amesbury
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I certainly do agree.
Over the past few months, Ministers have started publicly to row back on their previous promises to protect leaseholders from historical remediation costs—statements made at least 15 times in the public domain. They now refer to affordable, reasonable and fair costs, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. At the same time, their appointed adviser, Michael Wade, has been devising yet another way to pile the costs on hard-pressed leaseholders, through a 30-year loan costing thousands of pounds a year—a mini mortgage on top of existing mortgages, waking watch, and astronomical insurance costs. Welcome to the cladding tax.
The draft Building Safety Bill even attempts to enshrine a building safety charge in law, through clauses 88 and 89. The proposal to impose a charge on leaseholders has met considerable opposition on both sides of this House, in the form of amendments to the Fire Safety Bill and undoubtedly to the Building Safety Bill in future. The Opposition will be supporting the McPartland amendment to the Fire Safety Bill.
Members across this House have the opportunity today to come together, stand up for their constituents who happen to be leaseholders, and protect them with deeds in the Division Lobby, not just words—to send a message to the Prime Minister and the Housing Secretary to change track, turbocharge building safety with a national cladding taskforce, fund works up front, and then recover from those who are responsible for this mess. The polluter pays. They should set a hard deadline of June 2022, and pursue those responsible relentlessly. This is the way that we create pace; this is the way that we protect the public purse and leaseholders; and this is the right thing to do: support this motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)
Mr Speaker—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I fell at the first hurdle! Let me begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to today’s very important debate. For my part, it is 410 days since I was last called to contribute to a debate in this Chamber, and I would never have thought then that it would be to speak from the Dispatch Box, responding to a debate on behalf of the Government. My parents would have been very proud.
It is a privilege to respond to this debate. There have been some comments on social media about the fact that I have only been a Minister for 15 days, and therefore perhaps do not deserve the opportunity to do so. To that I would say that in the time I have been in the House, building safety has been incredibly important to me. I presented a ten-minute rule Bill that sought to tackle what I described as the “invisible killer” of carbon monoxide poisoning. In many ways, that description could also apply to ACM materials, as we have discussed this afternoon. I could not agree more with the frustrations that have been expressed by Members on both sides of the House.
During the debate—and unfortunately I will be partly guilty of this too—there has been lots of talk about the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have been impacted, and the millions, if not billions, of pounds that the Government are applying to solve the problem, but let us remember that this issue comes down to individuals. In the opening speech, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) mentioned Hayley’s story, and others did too. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned Sophie, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned the Youngers from his constituency who had bought a property in London. This is all about the plight of individuals, and I feel that personally in my responsibility as Minister. Perhaps I felt that strongest when we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). I had been an MP for only a matter of weeks when the terrible Grenfell tragedy occurred. I am grateful for the work that she has done, picking up the role of working with the families of survivors of the tragedy to press their case. She does that assiduously, not just with Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers but with the Treasury.
Yes, some developers and building owners have taken responsibility for correcting defects. That applies to more than half of the high-rise private sector buildings with ACM. Warranties have been honoured, and legitimate cost recovery by the original contractor has happened. That is as it should be, but it is far from the whole story. Some contractors have dragged their feet, and we have heard shocking testimony given to the Grenfell inquiry about manufacturers of safety-critical materials gaming test systems, selling products that do not perform as advertised, and refusing to take responsibility. I am grateful to Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for raising that matter.
I hope the House will understand that there is a limit to what I can say about the inquiry. For their part, the Government have a very clear position. Putting lives at risk, ignoring safety regulations and shunning those responsibilities is not acceptable in any way, at any time. No contractor should ever feel safe engaging in that disgraceful behaviour. No one should ever feel unsafe in a high-rise home as a result of contractor error or malpractice. That is what the Government are determined to achieve.
We have taken concrete steps, not only to hold those responsible to account, but to fix the problems that have come to light as effectively as we can, as fast as we can. That is what our building safety programme is designed to do. It was established within days of the Grenfell Tower fire, and it is about making homes safer as quickly as possible, focusing on the most unsafe homes first; ensuring that residents of high-rise blocks of flats are safe and feel safe now and in future; and ensuring that a tragedy like Grenfell never happens again. This is a matter of the highest importance. It is not a matter of party politics.
During the debate, several Members, including the hon. Members for Bristol West, for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), mentioned the waking-watch fund. Some of them were grateful for the £30 million that the Government have provided, although the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked when the funds would be available and applications would be open. My understanding is that the Government have worked collaboratively with Mayors across the country in many combined authority areas, but that the Greater London Authority has yet to reach an agreement, so there will be a delay from the GLA. I ask him to put pressure on it to make sure that it comes to an agreement with the Government very soon so that we can continue with the assessment of those applications and the issuing of funds. I ask him to put pressure on it to make sure that it comes to an agreement with the Government very soon so that we can continue with the assessment of those applications and the issuing of funds.
Several Members referred to the EWS form. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) mentioned sharp practices in the provision of those forms, and gave us an example of that. I am therefore delighted that the Government are providing £700,000 to allow us to train up to 2,000 people who will be capable of producing these forms to make sure that they are more accessible.
Conservative Members and, towards the end of the debate, Opposition Members made reference to the Fire Safety Bill and the amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). Personally, I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) agrees with me that the Fire Safety Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for that amendment and the Building Safety Bill is obviously the correct place for it. Trying to shoehorn the amendment into an inappropriate Bill will serve only to delay the progress of a very important piece of legislation, so I hope that my hon. Friends will decide to find another place for it.
Perhaps the most significant issue that Members have been considering is the question of who pays. In many cases, leaseholder agreements allow building owners or their managing agents to pass on significant remediation costs to leaseholders. This could result in leaseholders being faced with unaffordable costs. I think there is consensus across the House that this would be completely unacceptable. For that reason, the Government have been accelerating work on a long-term solution to this problem. We are working at pace to develop a financial solution to protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs. It is important that we get this right. I can assure Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement on this important work at the earliest opportunity.
In conclusion—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to suspend for three minutes to allow for the safe exit and entrance of Members, and the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.
Covid Security at UK Borders
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to immediately introduce a comprehensive hotel quarantine system for all arrivals into the UK, thereby securing the country against the import of new strains and maximising the effectiveness of the country’s vaccination programme; to publish the scientific evidence which informed the Government’s decision not to introduce a comprehensive hotel quarantine regime to flights from all countries; and to announce a sector support package for aviation focused on employment and environmental improvements.
I am grateful to the Minister for coming to speak in today’s debate. I think it is the first time that I have appeared opposite her in one of these debates.
Last week, the country passed the heartbreaking milestone of 100,000 deaths as a result of this awful pandemic. I know that everyone across the House mourns all those lost, and we think today of all the families up and down the country for whom life will never be the same again.
Our United Kingdom is a country of incredible resources and many of the world’s finest scientists. It has the dedication and brilliance of our wonderful NHS and care workers—indeed, all our frontline workers—and yet we have still ended up with the worst death toll in Europe and the worst economic hit of any major country. We have to learn the lessons fast. More than 50,000 people who died as a result of this awful virus in the UK died since 11 November. We have to ask why the United Kingdom has fared so badly, not as some sort of academic exercise, but to save lives.
In recent days, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said:
“You’ve got to go hard, early and broader if you’re going to get on top of this. Waiting and watching simply doesn’t work.”
That is the lesson that he is advising the Government to draw: to go wider when they can. But are Ministers really learning that lesson?
We are an island country. Our border protections should have been one of our strengths throughout this pandemic, unlike countries that have very long land borders that they would have had to police. Instead, it has been one of our greatest weaknesses. Our country’s doors have been left unlocked. First the virus and then its mutations have been imported to our shores. The lesson is that failing to act quickly and decisively leads only to greater pain further down the line.
From 1 January to 23 March last year, only 273 people from four flights were formally quarantined, when over 18 million people entered the country by air. That came at a time when we all saw the terrible scenes in northern Italy of hospitals being overwhelmed, when our constituents were contacting us questioning why there were not better and more effective controls at our airports, and when our own chief scientific adviser to the Government said
“a lot of the cases in the UK did not come from China”
and that they
“came from European imports and the high level of travel into the UK”
at that time.
I wrote to the Home Secretary in April to ask her to learn the lessons from that, but still the UK remained an international outlier. In May 2020, the UK stood with only Iran, Luxembourg and the US Virgin Islands in having no border protection measures in place. In that first national lockdown, 446,500 people—nearly half a million—arrived in the UK. It was not until 8 June last year that formal quarantining was introduced. Even when border testing was made compulsory, which was only this month—10 months after the first lockdown began—the Government still had to delay the implementation as they could not get the necessary systems in place. Where has the proper strategy on border testing been? This essential and vital strategy would have made such a difference.
Rather than careful planning, we have experienced chaotic scenes at Heathrow, even in recent weeks. Covid is not going away. We need this strategy, and we need it now. The Government border policy has lurched from one crisis to another devoid of strategy, and we have seen that only in recent weeks with the announcement of the Government’s latest proposals on hotel quarantining. Limiting restrictions to just a small number of countries means that the protections do not go anywhere near far enough, with the threat of new variants coming in from other countries not on the red list. In the words of the Government’s chief scientific adviser, are they really going “hard, early and broader”? Absolutely not. Again, it is too little too late. Even when Ministers made the announcement, they had no date for bringing it into effect.
Our vaccine roll-out is a source of great hope for the whole country, and great credit must go to our scientists and all those involved in the vaccine programme, but the biggest threat to the vaccine programme is from mutant strains of the virus. We know where some mutant strains have emerged because of the advanced genome sequencing that detected them, but too few countries have that expertise. We know the virus will mutate further, and we cannot risk one of those mutations undermining our vaccines. Back-Bench Conservative MPs who do not support this motion today are sending a message that they are willing to take that risk.
The hard truth is that we have no certainty about where the next more dangerous strains of Covid will emerge. We have been warned that new strains are already potentially threatening vaccine efficacy, and yet we still have around 21,000 visitors entering the country daily. It will make no sense to people that Britain’s borders are still open while the country is locked down. That is why Labour is calling for decisive action today through a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy, and that would mean a policy of enforced quarantine restrictions on arrivals. Of course I accept that there would need to be exemptions, especially in areas such as haulage to keep the country functioning, but our starting point must be a comprehensive policy. Failing to adopt that policy risks undermining the huge gains that have been made by the vaccine roll-out, threatening life and hope.
The existing quarantining system is not working. To see that, we have only to look at the Government’s own figures, which show that just three in every 100 people have been successfully contacted for quarantine compliance —yet another Government failure. Other figures suggest that just one in 10 passenger locator forms is checked at airports. None of that is good enough, and it has happened because the Government have failed in their duty to properly drive a consistent strategy and high performance through our measures at the border and the checks of the isolation assurance service.
Yet those inadequate measures are still our protection against the virus for all but a limited number of countries on the red list. Devoid of strategy, the Government continue to be behind the curve, hoping for the best. It is little wonder that there seems to be such confusion and unedifying counter-briefing among the Cabinet on the policy, because frankly, it makes no sense. We do not even know at the moment when the policy will be introduced and whether the Government propose legislation for it, as has been speculated.
I have great respect for the Minister, as she knows, and it is great to see her present for the debate, but I note that the Home Secretary is not participating in it to defend Government policy, which after all is part of her departmental responsibilities. Frankly, she has every reason not to be present, given that the Home Office has lost 400,000 police records and she still has not explained what has been lost, let alone how she will retrieve it. We also know what her personal view is of Government policy. There has been alleged briefing to newspapers that she does not agree with Government policy, but if there was any doubt about what her view was, we can all watch the video of her telling Conservative party members that she advocated for the borders to be closed back in March last year.
We know that the Home Secretary does not support, and has not supported, the Government policy on the borders that she has had to defend in public, so who does support it? The Health Secretary, who was said to be opening the debate instead of her, is not present either. It is said that there have been briefings to newspapers that he is another Cabinet Minister who does not agree with the policy. Perhaps the Minister can outline and promise to publish the full scientific data that underpins the Government’s decision to create a so-called red list of countries, and set out not just the commencement date but what she envisages the exit strategy from the measures to be.
How on earth can the Government be assured that the measures will prevent emerging strains from countries outside those on the red list? The truth is that the Government cannot answer that question. As a result, the policy is fatally flawed. A comprehensive quarantine policy would give us the best possible chance of preventing a new strain from undermining the astonishing collective sacrifice of the British people. It cannot be right that, with the ineffective quarantine system that is in place, 21,000 people continue to enter the country on a daily basis.
I recognise, of course, the huge challenges to the aviation sector and its supply chains, the impact on the tourism and hospitality industry, and the number of jobs that it supports. I have heard about it in my own discussions over the past year, and when I have been able to visit our airport frontline. Let me also pay tribute to Border Force, the police and our wider law enforcement community. They have worked heroically, but the gaps in our defences that have existed and do exist are not their fault, but the failure of Ministers.
That failure also extends to economic support. It is why the Government must come forward with the long-promised sector-specific support deal called for by my hon. Friend the shadow Transport Secretary, saving jobs and ensuring that there are environmental improvements as set out in this motion. Let me be clear: we need to see this support package, and the money needs to be properly targeted to meet its aims. We have seen appalling fire and rehire tactics, which should be outlawed. That practice has no place in our country and it is an insult to workers. Staff salaries should be protected with a clear commitment to workers’ rights, and let us see a commitment to cleaner fuels and other cutting-edge low or zero-emission technologies. Companies’ tax bases should be in the UK, and there should not be dividends paid until a company is commercially viable. UK-based suppliers must be the priority, and operators must comply with consumer rights regulations. The Government have known the need for this for months, and inaction and continuing inaction is not the answer.
As hon. and right hon. Members cast their votes today —indeed, whether or not they choose to cast votes at all—I ask them to think back and learn the lessons. If we had introduced quarantining for high-risk countries only a year ago, what would have happened? As one Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies member, Sir Jeremy Farrar, put it:
“We need to learn the lessons from 2020…If we’d imposed restrictions in January and February last year we would probably have imposed them on high risk countries—China maybe. But almost all the virus that arrived came from Europe.”
There is no point, either, in offering a false choice or a bogus dilemma between protective health measures at the border and the economy. Our best chance of breathing life back into the UK aviation and tourism industry is to be able to lift as many restrictions as possible here at home as soon as it is safe to do so with the vaccine roll-out.
Crucially, that would all be put at risk if a new strain took hold that is resistant to the vaccine, yet the quarantine policy as it stands does precious little to stop that. It cannot predict where the next strains will emerge, and in its current form it cannot stop arrivals in the UK breaking quarantine rules. The existing quarantine system just is not effective. The Government have created an Achilles heel that undermines the heroic efforts of the British people in tackling this virus. Members across this House believe that as well—perhaps even members of the Cabinet. Now is the time to act. Lives will depend on it and our futures depend on it. I commend this motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I welcome today’s debate on a matter that is rightly of huge public interest. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, we have had a challenging time, but I know that everybody across the House will be cheered by the news of the vaccines, and the number rolled out over the weekend—nearly 1 million, at 931,204—is quite staggering. As of today, over 9.2 million people have now received the jab, and every elderly care home resident in England has been offered the vaccine. The roll-out will accelerate in the coming months, and with the combined news that the UK today has secured another 40 million extra doses of the Valneva vaccine, in addition to the 60 million we already had on order—taking our national total to over 400 million vaccine doses—we know that, with each jab, we have clearly moved that step closer to the more normal life that people crave. It is our strong vaccine portfolio that offers great hope not only to the people of this country, but across the world, because unless we are all safe, no one is safe.
As hon. Members recognise, however, the challenges posed by covid-19 are still here today and we must continue to make the difficult decisions to protect the whole population. There is no question but that new variants pose new threats—threats that we must overcome to protect the progress of the vaccine programme and, of course, to protect the sacrifices that everybody has been making for many months now. It has meant that we have had to take tough action at our borders, which we have done. Earlier in the pandemic, border restrictions were about stopping the onward transmission of infections from countries with higher infection rates, but the new variants from abroad pose a different and new set of risks, and we do not yet have a full picture of those risks.
Of particular concern is a risk of having a variant that escapes the vaccine. We have a high degree of confidence in the vaccines, and confidence that the vaccine will work against the variant that was first identified in the UK, but we have also begun studies on the variants that were first identified in South Africa and Brazil in four laboratories. We will continue to work with our scientists and the UK vaccines taskforce to understand how quickly a new vaccine could be rolled out if needed.
We have also launched our new variant assessment platform, working in partnership with the World Health Organisation, which offers genomic expertise— something we lead in—to help other countries across the world, because, as I have said, we are only safe when everyone is safe. Much of what the hon. Member for Torfaen suggested sounded a little like he wanted to shut down against the entire world. Only a few months back, he, the hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked us when we were going to lessen quarantine. We have to have a flexible programme, where we build a response.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on that point, because it is absolutely right that I mentioned the blunt tool of a 14-day quarantine back in June last year. That was because the Government did not have their own test, trace and isolate system up and running to avoid the blunt tool of a 14-day quarantine. The point was about the failure of the Government, not the inconsistency of the Opposition’s position.
Jo Churchill
As with all science, we are learning more but, as we do, we must continue to do all we can to protect this country.
It is right that new border restrictions are tougher. On 18 January, the UK temporarily closed all travel corridors and added a requirement for anyone coming to this country to have proof of a negative covid test taken in the 72 hours prior to departure. All travellers have had to complete a passenger locator form, which must be checked before they board and then self-isolate on arrival for 10 days. Our stay-at-home regulations are clear: it is illegal to leave home to travel abroad for leisure purposes. Going on holiday is not a valid reason for travel.
We have also banned all direct travel from over 30 countries where there is a risk of known variants, including southern Africa, South America and Portugal. This is a ban on entry for all arrivals, except British, Irish and third country nationals with resident rights in the UK, who have been in the travel ban countries in the past 10 days. But as the Prime Minister said on 27 January, we must not be afraid to go further if necessary, and on the 27th, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined the further steps that we have been compelled to take, and I will lay them out.
With regard to those entering the UK, first, the police have stepped up checks and are carrying out more physical checks at addresses to make sure that people are self-isolating. Secondly, we are continuing to refuse entry to non-UK residents from the countries already subject to the UK travel ban. Thirdly, we are introducing a new managed isolation process in hotels for those who cannot be refused entry, including those arriving home from countries where we have already imposed international travel bans. They will be required to isolate for 10 days, with very few exceptions and only where strictly necessary.
With regard to those travelling out of the UK, first, we have increased our enforcement of the existing rules, because people should be staying at home unless they have a valid reason to leave. We will introduce a requirement for people to declare their reason to travel, which will be checked by carriers prior to departure and again at the border. Secondly, we are increasing police presence at airports and ports, and those without a valid reason for travel will be turned around and sent home or face a fine. Thirdly, this week we are again reviewing the list of exemptions from isolation so that only the most important and exceptional reasons are included. I am clear that our approach must be firm but flexible, and not the one-size-fits-all approach advocated by the hon. Member for Torfaen.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister referred to police checks. The data published last week showed that, when the police are doing these very minimal checks at the moment, if they find that nobody is home—so clearly nobody is self-isolating at that address—they take no further enforcement action at all. Does she not think that is crazy?
Jo Churchill
And that is why we are working as quickly as possible across Government and using everything at our disposal to ensure that we have an efficient method of ensuring that people are doing what the vast majority are doing. We not only have the police stepping up; we also have the isolation assurance service. The number of people sampled per day for calls is 1,500 out of those who arrive. We make a total of 3,000 IAS calls a day and send another 10,000 texts. These are repeated contacts with individuals, and it is a considerably different picture now from the one that may have been the case back in the middle of last summer. As I say, we have started, and this is a flexible, firm approach that can be stepped up and down.
The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about a blanket ban across all countries and for all things, but actually, with regard to making sure we are safe, it must be firm and flexible so that we can ensure not only that we keep ourselves safe in this country but, as the pandemic takes its course, that we can respond appropriately. This blanket ban from all countries that he is talking about—
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It’s not a ban; it’s a quarantine.
Jo Churchill
I apologise—the hon. Member for Torfaen is talking about a blanket quarantine from all countries. He mentioned an exemption for hauliers. What about other exemptions? What about elite sport, or medical emergencies, or the plethora of other issues, particularly around security, which I know he is extremely exercised about? He also knows, as I do, that there are specific minute details that this blanket ban—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course we would need exceptions, but surely the Minister must agree that the starting point has to be a comprehensive position, and that that is what will secure our borders.
Jo Churchill
No, the right point is to work as quickly as possible across all the different Government Departments that are involved to ensure that we have the correct policy so that we are doing the appropriate thing, rather than having a blanket ban and then repeatedly coming back and saying, “What about this. What about that?” We need to ensure that we have an appropriate system that has been reviewed and thoroughly looked at by all the different Departments involved—the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport, the Cabinet Office and others—so that everybody has made sure that there are no gaps in the system.
This is not just about what the Government are doing; it about what we are all doing. In so many ways, our efforts begin not at the border but at home, with the actions we take to stay at home. The hon. Gentleman spoke of how we can protect the NHS in order to save lives, and in that respect every one of us plays a vital role in driving the rates of the virus down and denying it the opportunity to mutate and give rise to new variants.
As we take the necessary steps at the border, we recognise the challenges they present to industry. We continue to support our air transport sector, including airlines, airports and related services, and by the end of April the sector will have received some £3 billion of support through the covid corporate finance scheme and the job retention scheme. I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) will talk more about this, but last Friday we launched our airport and ground operations support scheme, which will support eligible businesses through this difficult time, with airports and ground handlers in England eligible to receive up to £8 million each. That will help them to continue to prepare for a future when international travel is ready to take off again, because we must have a system that fits our playing our part in the world.
It sounds to me that by working out a policy that expects quarantine from everyone, far from looking at ourselves and far from being outward looking, Labour is proposing that we close our doors. That cannot be right if we are all going to walk together and beat this virus. I want to reflect that the Government and indeed the whole country take pride in our being global Britain, a place with a history and culture of being open, outward looking and supportive. Even as we are compelled to take tougher steps at our borders, that spirit lives on, through our leading role in COVAX, boosting global access to covid-19 vaccines; through our new variant assessment platform, bringing British expertise to the world; and through that vast, powerful network of medical and scientific communities collaborating on a worldwide scale so that we can overcome this global challenge. The hon. Member for Torfaen and I agree that medical science can bring so much to helping people in this country .We have spoken about it before, but actually the challenge is bigger now and if we are to meet that challenge, we must remain open and outward looking, while having a proportionate and measured approach to ensuring that the right restrictions are in place for people quarantining.
Finally, even though the perilous situation we face today means we must put so much of our international travel on hold, there is no brake on our ambition to help the world become safer or to do what is our first duty: to safeguard public health, protect the NHS and keep people safe here at home.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Stuart C. McDonald, let me remind everybody who follows him that there is a three-minute limit on contributions. For those who are delivering theirs outside this place, there is a clock in the bottom right corner of their monitor or device. Please could you keep one eye on that, so that you are not going to be cut off. For everyone who makes a contribution in the Chamber, the usual clocks will be in use.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
If the Government do not learn from mistakes they make during this pandemic, those mistakes will be repeated, with the same terrible consequences. Let us be clear: this Government have made significant mistakes on covid security at the border. I accept that some of those mistakes are easier to see now with hindsight, but others should have been and were apparent at the time. Indeed, the UK approach to borders stood out like a sore thumb for significant parts of last year, compared with the actions taken by even neighbouring countries. It is not just me saying that, because the Home Affairs Committee has said it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has repeatedly pointed out the flaws in the Home Office response over the past year, as one would expect from such a distinguished and knowledgeable home affairs shadow. I pay tribute to her for that work and look forward to maintaining the challenge she posed to the Home Office on this issue and on many, many others.
Of course, the Home Secretary herself has accepted that the Government got it wrong, saying that she argued for border closures last March. That raises questions about why she stayed in post when she was overruled, rather than arguing for essential border closures from outside the Cabinet. Last week, she accepted that there were
“still too many people coming in”—[Official Report, 27 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 406.]
to the country. That is a stark admission so far into a pandemic. The new measures announced last week by the Home Secretary just about amount to a step in the right direction, but, as is typical of much of the Government’s response to this crisis, it is not a decisive step; it is a hesitant half-measure, when what we needed was bold action.
The Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, has said that the Scottish Government and the SNP believe that
“a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine is required”.
“Comprehensive” is certainly not how we would describe the very limited scheme that the UK Government have drawn up, so we support the Opposition motion. If the Government really want to persuade us that this tentative hotel quarantine policy will genuinely make a difference, Ministers must tell us what estimates they have made of the numbers who will be impacted by these new requirements? How many hotel rooms do they believe will be required? On the other hand, how many thousands of people will continue simply to pass straight through the airports, and out on to public transport and into our towns and cities?
Put simply, we support a more comprehensive scheme because that is what the evidence points to. Professor John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told the Home Affairs Committee:
“The places that have had very effective quarantine measures do not ask people to quarantine in their homes.”
So why is the UK not learning more quickly from international best practice? Instead, the UK has offered a half-baked measure that does not bring comfort to the disastrously impacted aviation industry; nor is it decisive enough to appear capable of making any real difference to covid in this country. The Government have tried to operate a timid middle-way compromise, and instead have helped neither public health nor industry. In relation to the South African strain, the stable door was closed half-heartedly, and only after the horse had well and truly bolted.
Both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have expressed concerns that the measure does not go far enough. Although public health measures can take the devolved Governments so far, with border powers and passenger data in the hands of the Home Office, co-operation is required. The preference would be to have strong and consistent quarantine rules across the UK, so I ask Ministers and the Home Secretary to listen and engage very carefully; as and when the devolved Governments seek to go further than the half-baked UK measures, I hope that they will co-operate and provide support.
We need a more comprehensive scheme to protect from covid arrivals at the border. At the same time, we need a bespoke and comprehensive package of support for the aviation industry. From the outset of the pandemic, it was clear that one of the sectors that would be most impacted was aviation. The UK Government clearly felt the same and promised sector-specific support, but the one Government who jumped into instant action to support the sector were the Scottish Government, who provided 100% rates relief for a full year, which has now been extended by at least three months, with the aim of extending it longer. It took the UK Government six months to do anything similar.
With the vast majority of flights grounded, the situation facing the sector is still absolutely dire. Tens of thousands of jobs have gone in the sector, and many that remain have been forced to accept lower terms and conditions. I ask the Government again to support the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to outlaw that practice. The sad truth is that, without further support, tens of thousands more jobs will go, so the Chancellor must deliver urgent help, including: action on furlough extension; reversing the decision on tax-free shopping; extending rates relief; and much, much more.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that all these issues will be of increasing importance in the months ahead. As we look forward, with some guarded optimism, to getting cases back under control and as vaccines are rolled out, declining domestic transmission means that preventing transmission from international arrivals becomes more important, not less—if we really are serious about suppressing this virus. I dearly hope that the Government are serious about that. If so, they should support this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will be a three-minute limit on all contributions from now on, apart from the Front-Bench contributions at the end of the debate.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am very disappointed with the Labour Front-Bench position on blanket hotel quarantine. Over the last year, I have worked quite collaboratively through the Transport Committee with all Opposition Front Benchers, and this seems a strange turn of events. I hope it is not based on sample opinion polling in certain seats that the Labour party lost, because it does not make any sense or feel consistent. I have a great deal of respect and time for the shadow Home Secretary, but I appeal to him to think again. The measure would decimate the aviation industry. In my couple of minutes, I want to highlight why I believe it would be so difficult.
First, let me say that the answer is what we are doing already: vaccination. By mid-February, we should have vaccinated all the people in this country who represent 90% of the mortality risk. If things go to plan, and they seem to be, we should have taken that to 99% by a couple of months later. That is how to deal with the coronavirus situation: to vaccinate and keep everybody safe in this country, rather than trying to draw a ring of steel.
I am concerned about the ring-of-steel argument. As the shadow Home Secretary said, there would have to be exemptions. Our hauliers, for example, would have to be exempt, and the list would be longer. As soon as we have breached that ring of steel, then, arguably, what is the point of having it in the first place? That is why we are not like New Zealand or Australia. It is much harder for us, with our position in Europe, to be able to keep our borders as secure as the shadow Home Secretary would like.
The other point about a secure international border policy is that it could lull us into a false sense of security. In New Zealand, for example, the vaccination programme will not reach the general public until July. Compare that with this country: we have not tried to shut our doors, but left them partly open, and then started to vaccinate our people to make them safe.
I am really concerned about what this policy would do to the aviation industry. What has become clear from New Zealand and Australia is that, once we bring in this policy, it would be difficult to move away from it. Those countries have no plans to do so for this year. The aviation industry is on its knees. This is the last thing that it needs. We look like we will come through this situation with our great vaccination programme. I urge that we do not bring in blanket approaches such as this, but keep the nuance and look at the rules depending on the risk, which is what we have done very well so far.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), a fellow Select Committee Chair, although I take a very different view from him, based on the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee has heard. This debate is urgent. We need to protect the vaccine programme from new variants, such as those from South Africa and Brazil. Ministers have rightly said that border measures are needed to stop the spread of those new variants, but with news today of the increase in the number of new South African variant cases in the UK, it is clear to us that those measures are not working. The Government have not done enough and we have not learned sufficient lessons from abroad and from the first wave. I urge Ministers to do more.
For a month after the South African variant was found, the only focus was on direct flights, even though our Committee report showed that direct flights were not an issue in the first wave—only 0.1% of cases came from China, but 62% came from France or Spain where there were no restrictions in place. Even now, people returning from high-risk countries are not tested on arrival, still do not have quarantine hotels to go to, and can still go straight onto the tube or train at Heathrow. The promised new plans from the Government still have big holes. The majority of travellers will not be covered by quarantine hotels and, again, they will not be tested on arrival, even though they could have been on long and crowded journeys since their last test several days ago. All the additional police checks in the world will not make a difference if, when the police find that there is nobody home, no further enforcement action is taken.
The UK got things badly wrong the first time round: barely any quarantine; no testing; and all restrictions inexplicably lifted on 13 March so thousands of covid cases were brought back into the country, accelerating the pace and scale of the pandemic. The countries that have controlled covid best—New Zealand, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, and Taiwan—are those that took early firm action at the borders to try to stop any covid cases at all. They are global trading nations, but they took early action and, as a result, kept schools, businesses and communities open and saved so many lives.
There are two ways that the Government could be learning from those countries now: extend quarantine hotels to cover far more travellers, as New Zealand and Australia did, or follow the South Korean approach, which combines additional testing on arrival with a mix of quarantine hotels and designated quarantine transport, much stronger checks on home quarantine, and no trips on public transport. South Korea has lost 1,400 people to covid; we have lost 100,000. If we had our time again in the first wave and had the chance to take much stronger border action to save lives and keep our communities open, we would have done so in a shot, so please let us learn those lessons now as we deal with the new variant.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
The past 12 months have been devastating for many people in my constituency and around the economy in different sectors—in hospitality, events, and entertainment. Jobs have virtually disappeared overnight. What has been particularly striking to me over that time is how many of the people in my constituency had been dependent on the travel sector for their job or their business. In a year when international travel has virtually ground to a halt, and it has by comparison with where we were before, their predicament is dreadful. While for many businesses there is some light at the end of the tunnel as the vaccination programme brings forward the day when lockdown restrictions can end, the same cannot right now easily be said for the travel sector. The issue is not about whether we can give people the chance to sun themselves on a beach; it is about the future of a sector that is crucial to our economy and that simply cannot cope with the loss of a second summer season in a row. This impact on a crucial sector is why the motion today is so poorly thought through.
I have to say, reluctantly, that I support the measures the Government have taken to restrict access to the UK from countries most at immediate risk from the new variants of the virus. Of course it is not desirable, but it has to happen. It is right to take a precautionary approach, but imposing these kinds of border restrictions on a blanket basis would have the effect of destroying even more jobs both here and elsewhere for no apparent reason, because the reality is that virus rates are higher here than in many of the countries people are coming from.
The challenge now is to ensure that the restrictions are as short-lived as possible and that we can reopen travel for this vital summer season without the risk of generating a resurgence of the virus in doing so. A solution to this, in my view, is before us and the Government must now take it. Last week, the Health Secretary told me that he was confident that lateral flow tests were a fit and proper way of preventing infection being imported into nursing homes, so why are they not the cornerstone of our strategy to open up airports and other means of travel, not right now, because the current restrictions are necessary, but as part of a plan to reopen the sector properly later this spring? Test people before they depart and test people on arrival. That way, we should not need to quarantine people. If a test result can show infection at the point of arrival and we can back that up with a properly policed quarantine system, there really is no reason why travel cannot reopen later this spring for a proper summer season.
If we do not do that, the result will be waves of job losses in a sector that is vital to the future for all of us. That is why the Opposition are being so thoughtless, in my view, when they call for this blanket lockdown. The consequences will be more businesses going bust and more jobs lost. That we cannot afford any more of than we absolutely have to for health reasons.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
From the outbreak of the pandemic, I have taken an extreme precautionary approach, encouraging early, longer and more severe lockdowns. That is why I support the motion before the House today. With 100,000 dead we need decisive action. But yes, we also need the aviation strategy that the Chancellor promised us over nine months ago and that we have yet to see.
To ensure that any system of border control operates effectively at our airports, we need a sufficient number of well-trained professional staff at the immigration passport control points. The team at border control at Heathrow is known for its professionalism and commitment to high standards of service delivery. Many of them are my constituents; in fact, many of them are my neighbours. They have worked throughout the pandemic with some risk. Members may recall that some months ago, tragically, a father and daughter working in this role lost their lives.
Just at a time when we need these staff most and should respect the role they are playing, the management within the Home Office is provoking a strike. The Home Office management has decided, extraordinarily, that this is the time to rush through an imposition of new working rosters that are making it impossible for many staff to work effectively, especially those with disabilities and caring responsibilities. Staff who have been working on the new roster are all reporting that it has been chaos. It has put the operation at risk and made social distancing difficult. There are multiple examples of covid-secure bubbles being breached by managers because of a lack of staffing and the poor organisation of the new fixed rosters.
The Public and Commercial Services union, which represents the staff, has balloted its members. On a 68% turnout, 96.4% voted for strike action. That is how angry they are. The union will now seek a return to the negotiating table to try to resolve the staff issues. No Government should be sanctioning actions by its departmental managers that force their staff to resort to industrial action in this way, especially not in the crisis we now face. I urge the Minister to look into this matter again and intervene to resolve the dispute, so that these dedicated staff can continue to provide the vital service we need to protect our community, especially as the Government, and the Opposition proposals that we are debating, require staff to work effectively and supportively, and to be respected.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
It is 12 months since the first cases of covid-19 hit our shores. Back then, I doubt whether many of us could imagine how the virus would affect our lives throughout 2020 and 2021. It has tested our approach to a global pandemic to the full. It has brought out the best in our NHS, our carers and our public services, and in our sense of community, with the many heroes who have stepped up to help others. I get that the situation is unlike anything that Governments have had to deal with in modern times. Decisions are a matter of life and death, and every country has adopted different strategies to deal with covid-19.
It is easy to criticise, and we have got some things right. The approach to trialling and procuring vaccinations, and upscaling roll-out very quickly, is a real success. However, I cannot help but think that we failed to learn from others earlier in the pandemic, and their best practice. I serve on the Home Affairs Committee, and last year we took evidence from officials in Honk Kong, Singapore and New Zealand—three common law jurisdictions that took different, tougher public health approaches early on. They were much quicker at locking down than us, and they all placed strict restrictions on their borders, with enforced quarantine. We knew back then that it was working, which prompts the question why a similar approach was not taken here. For months, our borders have effectively remained open.
We have been lucky so far. The new strains that have been identified still react to the vaccines, but a future strain might not do so. Until we have some control over international spread and global immunisation there remains a risk here in the UK. Life in New Zealand is nearly back to normal: people can gather, kiss, hug, go to pop concerts, fill stadiums, and enjoy life. Our southern hemisphere cousins called it right: tough—very tough—measures at the start; and strict controls at the border to help control the virus in the country and get back to ordinary life more quickly.
We opted for looser lockdowns, polite requests to self-isolate, allowing international travel to continue in large part, an endless cycle of local restrictions, tiers and national lockdowns—but never getting the virus down sufficiently to stop it bouncing back. Tragically, there are over 100,000 dead, each number a real person. The vaccine offers the first ray of light in over 12 months, but it is still not too late to tackle the border issue, alongside a sectoral support package for aviation. The cross-infection of a new mutant strain will set back any progress that we have made in defeating the virus, and that is why I support the motion.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
Sadly, there are no shortcuts to dealing with covid. Between June and August 2020, Scotland almost eliminated covid, with minimal community transmission. At the same time, England and Wales were also doing well. That was a real opportunity to consider the impact of the slow response, such as in Italy, and what had worked across the world, including approaches in Asia-Pacific and New Zealand, which had experience of managing similar pathogens in the past. It was also an opportunity for cool heads and collaboration, and for dealing with issues such as the £45 billion allocated early on for testing—that testing, however, was slow to materialise. We know that only 30% of people who should self-isolate do so, given the financial implications of doing so. That amplifies community transmission, and people do not have the financial means to self-isolate. Instead of having porous borders, we could have spent time improving our border biosecurity. That was an early lesson from our friends in New Zealand.
Because we did not do that, we imported a soup of different strains, with limited transmission suppression across the country, which is precisely why new variants are emerging. That is how viruses mutate. Last week’s announcement by the Home Secretary was welcome, but those tougher measures at the UK’s external borders are months overdue and reflect what many other countries have had in place since the beginning of the pandemic. Despite having responsibility for public health, the Scottish Government cannot unilaterally close the border in Scotland.
That brings me to vaccine nationalism, which has been an emerging discussion point in recent days. Fourteen per cent. of the world has 83% of the vaccine stock. We urgently need to correct that, not just because it is unjust, but for the long-term management of covid, without which there will be no long-haul holidays and no meaningful aviation recovery, and while the JCVI and Governments across the UK work on vaccine deployment, that will be for nought if our borders remain porous.
On test to fly, many lateral flow test devices are insufficiently sensitive. That is accepted by the Scottish Government, but not by the UK, and it is a mistake in the making. The PM’s bulldog optimism has not stopped covid. Only by learning from others across the world, deploying corrective measures at our borders, and working to distribute vaccines equitably will we beat covid. The burden and the solution are shared across the world.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
When I saw the motion tabled by the Labour party on covid security at the borders, I was surprised, given the party’s remarks on the subject not so long ago. Only last summer, members of the shadow Cabinet were arguing for the Government’s quarantine measures to be lessened, and they later claimed in the House that those measures were a mere “blunt tool”. Their flip-flopping is a further example of their hollow opportunism, and Labour Members have relied on hindsight in their public statements throughout the course of the pandemic.
Let us look at the facts regarding the Government’s actions. Everyone arriving in the UK is required to isolate in either a hotel or at home. The Government are taking steps to ensure that those returning from high-risk countries do so in compliance with the isolation measures. Those include greater physical checks to ensure compliance during the mandatory isolation period. That was introduced hand in hand with the requirement for each and every passenger from abroad to present a negative covid-19 test result before departing for England. Furthermore, the suspension of all travel corridors is evidence to my constituents of the far-reaching steps being taking to tackle the threat of newly found and ever more infectious variants of the coronavirus.
Let us be clear about the nature of this threat. These measures, which I believe are far-reaching, are vital to tackle that threat, which risks undermining the roll-out of our vaccine programme. Given the world-leading success of our vaccination programme, we must do all we can to protect it. The Government continue to do that by using some of the strongest measures in the world. Those measures have allowed us to deliver a vaccination programme that delivers more than 250 jabs a minute—a daily rate that is higher than anywhere in Europe—and a programme that will have offered everyone in the top four priority groups a jab by the middle of this month. Why would we want to undermine that success?
The United Kingdom is a world leader in so many areas, and we should take pride in our ability to create and manufacture the world’s first coronavirus vaccine, which has already been given to more than 8 million people. Let us work together in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, without party political positioning. We need to move forward with pride in our nation, build back better, and see the global Britain that we have long awaited.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
A year ago, when we first became aware of the novel coronavirus emerging from Wuhan province, countries across the globe had the opportunity—indeed, the responsibility—to plan how they might have to address such a contagious virus. The UK had a number of advantages, as one of the wealthiest states in the world, and with our scientific expertise and irreplaceable NHS, with its committed, albeit overworked and underpaid, staff. Yet our death rate has become among the very worst in the world. Some day we will have a full inquiry into what mistakes were made. The Government do not seem to want to learn any lessons until the pandemic is over, but one among the litany of measures that were introduced too slowly to be effective, or not at all, will surely be that we squandered the advantage we have as an island nation in properly controlling our borders. Last week, I asked the Home Secretary why we could not have followed New Zealand’s example of establishing early, strict border and quarantine measures. She gave no good answer. We recently passed the tragic total of 100,000 deaths, while New Zealand has had a total of 25 and none since September. In addition to that protection, the public in New Zealand have had the freedom to live their lives in ways we can only watch with envy from our lockdowns, dealing with correspondence from increasingly distressed and depressed constituents in lockdown 3.
Our Government did not take early and decisive action like fellow island nation New Zealand. At every stage, they have acted too late and too weakly. I understand the dilemma that Ministers wrestled with—health versus the economy—but that was always a false choice. Just as we have suffered one of the world’s worst covid mortality impacts, so we have been dragged into one of the worst economic consequences. Half measures have helped neither our health nor our wealth.
As a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and a proud trade unionist, I find concerns raised by Government Members about the impact on the travel sector to be somewhat disingenuous. The consequence of not acting is to condemn every single other sector to the chaos and continuing misery of indefinite rolling lockdowns and the risk of a new variant that takes us back to square one, rendering their sacrifices worthless. We can give the travel and aviation sectors targeted support, which the Government have failed to provide, as well as biosecuring our borders.
Labour’s motion today calls for decisive action—for closing the stable door before the horse has bolted for a change and introducing a comprehensive hotel quarantine system for all arrivals into the UK, rather than waiting for fresh variants to be identified and then applying measures to those countries once it is too late, or leaving the door open for people to make their journeys via countries without such restrictions in order to get around the measures.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to make this speech, because the Opposition motion would have us treat people from countries where there is virtually no covid in the same way as those from countries with very high levels. It makes little sense to me to place people from New Zealand in hotels. Any threat created by their travel, for example, can be dealt with by a period of self-isolation. I applaud the Government’s logical and proportionate approach. Of course, as with all things associated with covid, we need to keep every measure under continuous review, but right now the logical approach is to ban flights from areas of very high covid levels and for hotels to be required where appropriate.
The Opposition motion also lacks logic. The literal wording of the motion has clearly not been thought through. It requires “all arrivals” in the UK to quarantine in a hotel. It actually states:
“That this House calls on the Government to immediately introduce a comprehensive hotel quarantine system for all arrivals into the UK”—
not some, but all arrivals. The shadow Minister said there would be exemptions for hauliers. That does not change what we will actually vote on. The motion provides for no exemptions, so this measure would have to include pilots, air cabin staff, and any engineer working in aviation or in the channel tunnel. The motion would entail all those people, when they arrived in the UK, going into a hotel for 10 days. It mentions no exemptions—not even for people bringing the Pfizer vaccine to the UK from Belgium.
Either the Labour party supports the literal wording of the motion and wants to stop every person coming to the UK whatever the circumstances, or it does not and the motion is just worded for political effect, highlighting the ridiculous nature of Opposition day debates now. It has to be one or the other. We are asked to take Opposition day debates seriously. Labour has tried to change what we are voting on, and only nine of its Back Benchers applied to speak in the debate. It clearly does not take its own debates very seriously.
We therefore cannot support this motion. The current measures are logical and proportionate. I believe it is right that we check why passengers are travelling to avoid unlawful and unnecessary trips. We have been criticised on one occasion for being too strict, and on another for being too lax. This virus is a moving beast and we need to be flexible too.
Anyone can play party politics with this virus, but what is needed is a constructive approach. It is positive that hotels are being used in this way, given that they are not being used very much at the moment. We must also bear in mind the impact on our aviation industry, so I welcome the measures that are being brought in there, but I do not welcome this motion.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. I heard the Health Minister’s contribution. It is very interesting that this is a Home Office Opposition day, but we do not have anyone from the Home Office ministerial team responding to it. I think that is very telling. Just a few days ago, the Home Secretary claimed that she is an advocate of tougher restrictions than those that her own Government introduced in March. I suspect that the reason that there is not a Home Office Minister responding to a shadow Home Office Opposition day debate is that they could not find one willing to speak up for the Government’s policies. The Home Secretary knows that it is her responsibility to protect our borders and keep people safe, and I suspect that she did not want to speak up for the Government’s policies in this area.
The Health Minister said that the Government need to do everything they can to protect people, but they have failed to do that. Britain has the worst death rate in the world. It has the worst death rate per capita of any major country over the course of the virus. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) was absolutely right to say that, as an island nation, we should have had a huge advantage over our European counterparts, but it has been wasted by the Government’s policies.
Going right back to the start, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has said consistently, the Government have been too slow to lock down and too slow every step of the way. Two weeks before we went into lockdown, we were inviting thousands of football supporters from Madrid to a packed stadium in Liverpool. We had people coming from all kinds of countries that we knew had very serious covid rates, with no checks and balances whatever.
The Government should not expect anyone to trust them when they say, “We’re taking a proportionate approach. You can believe that things will be okay if you leave it with us,” because every step of the way, things have not been okay when we have left the Government to pursue things as they want. I very much welcome the motion introduced by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and I will be supporting it with great enthusiasm.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Everyone in this House, I hope, is clear that we have one common aim: to get the virus under control, and in doing so get back to normal as quickly as possible and save as many lives as we can. For every quarter of a million vaccinations, about 1,000 lives are saved. Every day sooner that we get the economy back open saves us about £1 billion, and crucially jobs and businesses will be saved up and down the country.
We achieve that by doing two things. First, we must vaccinate the people—the most vulnerable first—and drive down the number of deaths and hospitalisations. Secondly, we must control the movement of people and stop the virus spreading. We have done a huge amount in the UK to limit the spread, and I know that many people are very frustrated by some of the restrictions, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. We also have to control the spread from elsewhere. I welcome the measures to ensure that those from red flag countries stay in hotels, but in truth they are just building on what is already in place. For many months, anyone from any country has had to quarantine. Now, given the new variants, it seems sensible that those from the most at-risk countries need to quarantine in hotels.
What irks me is the way the Opposition are behaving. The Leader of the Opposition, when in the shadow Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), said at the Dispatch Box:
“Why would we want to be outside the European Medicines Agency”?—[Official Report, 31 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 827.]
It was a rhetorical question from a learned Member used to rhetoric in the courtroom. Why indeed? Last year, the shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), suggested that opting out of the European vaccine system would be akin to acting like “dumb and dumber”. The Leader of the Opposition posed too clever by half, seemingly unanswerable questions, but now we have a clear answer. Out there in the country they can see why. Britain avoided a bumbling, bureaucratic living nightmare of an EU scheme. Britain’s vaccination rates are four or five times the EU average. Now the Leader of the Opposition pretends he never wanted to be in any EU vaccine scheme, but the public will decide on the facts.
Today, the shadow Home Secretary comes here to attack the Government, yet he said in a Labour press release on 7 June last year that we must have a
“more targeted approach that allows the blunt tool of 14-day quarantine to be lifted”.
Today, Labour Members have tried to say that it is not hard enough, and that that has always been their position. It is like Labour is trying to conduct a thought experiment with the British people. Schrödinger’s cat has become Starmer’s policy. The British people deserve straight answers at a time of national crisis. That is what they are getting from the Government, and it is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition keep flip-flopping all over the place.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
It has taken over a year for the Government eventually to implement a limited form of quarantine at the borders—a glacial pace of decision making that we can ill afford as the pandemic continues. The recent announcement was yet another half-measure and an all-too-familiar fudge of a thing—half-done, and that badly.
The evidence, of course, speaks for itself. Countries that locked down comprehensively and promptly have so far had better covid-19 outcomes. The Prime Minister’s “softly, softly” approach prompts the question: whose interest does this Government serve? His alignment with select business interests has distorted public health efforts from the start, from the billions spent on dodgy private procurement contracts to the ill-fated eat out to help out scheme, which helped to raise the tide of the pandemic into the second wave.
Despite the great effort of the people of the four nations to endure another testing lockdown, the Prime Minister sees fit to allow most travellers to enter the UK without undergoing strict quarantine measures, overruling in the process the wishes of both his Home and Health Secretaries. This policy ignores the risk posed by people arriving from overseas while carrying existing variants from non-high-risk countries, and there is no guarantee that this approach will safeguard against other variants emerging in non-high-risk countries.
Not only are the new measures weak in their practical application, but they are morally weak as well. It was of course Edmund Burke of the Conservative party who first coined the phrase “geographical morality” to describe the impunity with which the British elite acted abroad in countries under the yoke of the British empire in the 18th century. Under the new broader measures, that concept has been reversed. It is now business leaders and the rich from both home and abroad who can act with relative impunity, free to travel in and out of the UK while the majority of us live on under strict lockdown. The Government cannot shake their commitment to the ideology of hyper-individualism. Whenever possible, they prioritise the liberty of predominantly wealthy individuals above the common good, stubbornly ignoring the truth that covid-19 has laid bare for all to see: the deep interconnectedness of our society and the planet.
As has been the case since the beginning, these measures are part of a wave of blinkered wishful thinking set once again to come crashing down on the rocks of reality. That reality being that the virus has no interest in notions of individual liberty, and these futile attempts to apply quarantine measures selectively equally mean nothing to the virus. Only strict quarantine for all arrivals and proper support for hospitality and business will see us safely through.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
The Government must finally act on securing our borders by introducing a comprehensive plan to protect the country against the import of new strains and maximise the effectiveness of the vaccination programme. With that in mind, however, it must not be overlooked that increased border measures come with increased pressure on the aviation industry and staff in the sector.
Earlier in January, the Home Office imposed a fixed roster on the Heathrow primary control point in what is widely viewed as a rushed implementation that has led to equality concerns, with many staff with disabilities and caring responsibilities unable to work to the new roster. As outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that led to officers processing passengers at Heathrow passport control points to vote overwhelmingly for strike action over the imposition. Feedback from PCS union members on the primary control point has described the newly introduced fixed roster as a “shambles” and “chaotic”. Additionally, Border Force is currently only spot-checking 10% of all passenger locator forms, which provide the necessary information for quarantine compliance. The Government must ensure that sufficient support and resources are made available so that border staff are able to do their jobs properly.
Alongside this, the Government must announce a sector-specific support package for aviation. The largest aviation union, Unite, suggests [Inaudible.] already lost their jobs. It is about time that the Government stepped in to put in place a sectoral deal, like they promised, and protect those jobs. The Government must make good on their promises, act fast, and step in where necessary to protect employment and our economy across all sectors. However, this must not be an unconditional bail-out for companies. Tackling climate change needs to be central to this support, both for the aviation sector and for building back greener across our whole economy. I hope everyone across this House will support this motion to ensure a robust plan is in place to protect jobs and set clear commitments to help tackle the climate emergency.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). It is a shame that so few Labour MPs applied to participate in their own Opposition day debate: there are only nine on the list, and that is sad. I wonder whether their heart is not really in it.
The subject of this debate is a matter that affects the constituents of Derbyshire Dales, who have raised it with me on numerous occasions since the commencement of the pandemic. We want proportionate border control: that is essential. The United Kingdom already has some of the strongest measures in the world to prevent new strains of coronavirus from entering the country. At this stage, the restrictions are well balanced and sufficient; they are firm, thought through, and nuanced.
The Government are focused on protecting the UK’s leading vaccination programme—a programme that we should all be very proud of—and reducing the risk of the new strain of the virus, or any new strain, being transmitted by somebody coming into the UK. That is why the Government announced further action to strengthen these measures. They are also looking at health measures, reducing passenger flow, increased police enforcement, and ensuring that anyone returning from a red-list country completes their quarantine at a designated hotel. This was further improved on 18 January, when all travel corridors within the UK were suspended, meaning that all international arrivals who have departed from, or transited through, any country outside the common travel area in the previous 10 days will be required to self-isolate immediately for 10 days on arrival. This includes British and Irish nationals.
I am concerned that Labour’s position on borders has swung from one extreme to the other. First, the Opposition criticised the Government for imposing stricter border measures in the summer, then called for quarantine to be ceased, and then claimed that our measures are not strong enough. Once again, Labour is playing politics at a national level—it is good opportunism, but I believe the public see through it, and that they see the flip-flopping on this issue.
I am concerned by the Opposition’s suggestion that there should be a blanket provision that all arrivals to the United Kingdom should quarantine. Being a lawyer, I look at the words, and this is clearly an ill-thought-through suggestion. There is no mention of exceptions in the wording. There is, of course, a limit on suitable hotels and accommodation, and if the Labour proposal were taken forward, the cost would be very high. Are the Opposition really saying that only those of our citizens who can afford to stay in a hotel can return home? I do not think they have really thought this through. Also, if there are very low-risk countries, are we saying that arrivals from those countries should needlessly spend that time and that money in hotels? There needs to be a sense of proportion.
The Government have acted swiftly in providing increased support to the genomics industry to help identify new covid variants abroad, for the benefit of mankind as a whole. We are an outward-looking nation—a trading nation—and we are helping the world through this work. It would be inconsistent with this global assistance to impose an unfocused blanket ban, so I will not be agreeing with the motion.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
Time and again during this pandemic the Government’s incompetence has cost lives. They have been too slow to lockdown, too slow to build an effective test-and-trace system, and too slow to secure our borders. Despite the UK tragically passing the covid death toll of over 100,000 people, the highest in Europe, the Government still have yet to learn the lessons. We must make sure that our borders are secure with a comprehensive hotel quarantine system for all arrivals to the UK. That is why I support the motion.
The Government have belatedly introduced a partial quarantine system, but that includes only 33 countries. We need a hotel quarantine regime that goes further and covers all countries. The police force is stretched and lacks the capacity to check that travellers are quarantining at home. Since quarantine requirements were introduced on 8 June, only 332 fines have been issued in England to travellers failing to self-isolate. Last November, Sky reported that the police took no action against 1,400 overseas travellers who may have broken quarantine rules. That just goes to show the challenge that the police face in taking enforcement action without a more effective quarantine system.
We need to learn from other countries on how they have tackled the pandemic and how they have managed to reduce the infection rates and save lives, ranging from Australia and New Zealand to Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Even developing countries have a more effective quarantine system using hotels and other facilities, so the idea that we cannot do this because we do not have the resources is ridiculous and needs to be addressed. As many hon. Members have stated, there are new variants that put the vaccination effort at risk. This month the Health Secretary said:
“The new variant I really worry about is the one that is out there that hasn’t been spotted.”
Our biggest defence against these new variants is strict border controls through effective hotel quarantine regimes.
Throughout this crisis, the Government have been one step behind. It is time they took the advice of the chief scientist, who says that the lesson is to go earlier and act fast. It is vital in order to protect the vaccination programme we have set up that we ensure that our borders are secure. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the scientists, the innovators, the NHS workers and all the volunteers who are vaccinating the population right now. We cannot afford for that work to be undermined by not securing our borders. The Government must act; they should adopt this motion. That is why I support the motion.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
It is extraordinary to be taking part in an Opposition day debate that is so poorly attended by the official Opposition. This is their opportunity to hold the Government to account on covid security at UK borders, and only nine of their MPs have turned up—nine out of over 50 Back-Bench speakers. I suspect that it is because they know that their leadership does not really have a policy on this issue. In the summer, Labour said that there was too much covid security at the border. In the words of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon):
“Labour—like families and businesses up and down the country—are keen for the government’s quarantine measures to be lessened”.
The shadow Home Secretary said that the Government should be
“putting in place a more targeted approach that allows the blunt tool of 14-day quarantine to be lifted safely and quickly.”
But now there is too little covid security at the border. Far from quarantine being a blunt instrument, more of it is needed. The Opposition are the Goldilocks of border restrictions, swinging between too much and too little, depending on which they believe will generate the most favourable headlines.
In contrast, this Government have a strong package of covid security measures at the border. We require everyone to present a negative covid test on arrival in the UK. Everyone who travels to the UK must self-isolate for up to 10 days. We have banned flights from the highest-risk areas. British citizens travelling back from these countries will need to self-isolate in a hotel. We are checking the reason for travel at the border. We are increasing enforcement there and increasing physical checks by the police on those self-isolating at home.
We know that we must act fast to contain new variants, whether they are home grown or from overseas. That is why we saw surge testing rolled out today in areas of the country where the new South African strain has been detected, though I note that none of those found to be infected have travel links to the area. That is why we have thrown the kitchen sink, table, chairs and all the utensils at the UK’s vaccine programme, which is powering on at pace, having to date vaccinated nearly 9 million people.
There you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Government are working hard to protect their citizens. The Labour party does not know what to do. It does not have a coherent border policy. I know it, the public know it, and even its own MPs know it. That is why so few of them showed up today.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this most important debate, as the Minister called it. The Liberal Democrats will support the official Opposition at its conclusion. We agree with the motion, and we welcome the limited steps that the Government have announced, though of course it is, yet again, too little, too late. I would say in passing that there must surely be a limit to the number of times we can hear Government Ministers “welcome this most important debate”—we have had two already today—and then see them decline to put their MPs through the Division Lobbies at the end of it. If it is that important, they should surely take part in the Division at the end.
It was unfortunate that we did not get to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who was originally on the call list to speak. She has apparently been given the opportunity to spend more time with the national executive committee of her party. Time will tell whether it is an astute move of party management to give her time on her hands, but I am sure that those of us who regularly take part in such debates will miss her contributions from the Front Bench.
All around the world it is there for anyone who cares to look to see that those who are most successful in tackling the spread of the virus are those who crack down hardest and earliest. Unfortunately, in this country we have a Government that can always be relied on to do the right thing, but only once they have tried everything else. We hear today the news that the South African variant of the virus is now to be found in several United Kingdom communities. It is already too late to keep it out, but it not too late to stem the flow and to mitigate its worst effects.
The frustration that I have, and that I hear from my constituents time and again, is that the Government are prepared to spend eye-watering sums of money, but then undermine the effectiveness of that by trimming at the edges. If ever there were a case of the ship being spoiled and lost for a ha’p’orth of tar, it is seen in the way in which the Government act. We know—this is the biggest frustration of all—that in a few weeks’ time we will be back here when the Government will do exactly what the Opposition parties are asking them to do today, but by that time we will see the consequences of their misjudgment, which will be measured in lives that have been lost unnecessarily. That, surely, is a tragedy for us all.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The failure of the Government to fully secure our borders against covid-19 from the start of the pandemic has undermined the effectiveness of the UK’s public health measures. I support a hotel quarantine system, but it will not be effective in preventing the spread of covid-19 unless it encompasses all arrivals into the UK. The limited quarantine restrictions imposed on travel from only 30 or so countries have come too late and, with 21,000 travellers currently entering the UK every day, are just not sufficient to safeguard the advances being made by the vaccine roll-out.
We are at a critical point in the vaccination process, and we cannot risk importing covid-19 cases and variants that are resistant to the vaccine.
While public health must be the priority, alongside greater public health restrictions must come greater economic support for airports. The Australian and New Zealand Governments have backed up aviation shutdowns with thorough aviation-specific support packages, but here in the UK, the Government’s sector support package is half-hearted. Luton airport in my constituency has been hit hard by the pandemic, and the impact is having a cumulative effect on our local and regional economy, as the airport supports more than 10,000 jobs in supply chain businesses.
As it is owned by Luton Borough Council, significant income from the airport is used to directly fund local services and voluntary organisations. However, Luton airport is only eligible to apply for around £5 million from the recently announced airport and ground operations support scheme, which equates to only 6% of its annual fixed costs—a drop in the ocean. The meagre support offered smacks of a Government who do not fully understand the aviation business cycle and the current precarity of the sector, given the extent of the fixed costs. As the Airport Operators Association states:
“With airports effectively closed again by the Government’s travel restrictions, much more significant support is now needed.”
Aviation needs Government to commit to extending the business support and job retention schemes, to extending the airport and ground operations support scheme to cover 2022 and to alleviating airports from regulatory and policing charges for 2021-22. To help airports bounce back, there needs to be phased support while commercial activity is rebuilt—support that facilitates the protection of jobs and provides an ideal opportunity to accelerate the transition towards green technology.
On a final note, with the recent announcement that Public and Commercial Services Union members working for Border Force at Heathrow have voted for industrial action against the imposition of fixed-term rosters, I urge the Transport Secretary to work with the Home Secretary to ensure that the pandemic is not being used as a cover to force through new working arrangements.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
One of the great pleasures of recent weeks has been to see lines of people queueing up outside in Market Harborough and up in Oadby to get their vaccines against the coronavirus. It has been an inspirational effort, involving everyone from Britain’s amazing scientists to NHS workers—the doctors and nurses who are rolling out the fastest vaccination programme anywhere in Europe. We have now managed to vaccinate more than France, Spain and Italy put together. It is a fantastic effort, where we really are among the world-leaders.
With that inspirational background in mind, and that success that is bringing us closer every day to getting back to normal—[Inaudible.] Of course there must be support for people in the transport sector who are badly affected by this, and I welcome the fact that somewhere between £2.5 billion and £3 billion of aid has been given to the air transport sector alone, but we are right to tighten the borders to protect the effort we have made on vaccinations.
It is right that we are bringing in the new 10-day quarantine, with the option to go to five if people—[Inaudible.] I welcome the extra policing—[Inaudible.] I encourage Ministers, in all the different things they are doing, to get things in place and stand ready to go further as appropriate—[Inaudible.] I think that the red list and the hotel quarantine is an excellent idea, and I commend what Ministers are doing there. We are learning from the—[Inaudible.] All have had in common strong health borders, so it is great to see that Ministers will stand ready and will, I am sure, add to that list and tighten that regime further if necessary.
It is also very good to be bringing in the new requirement that people have to have a negative test within three days of travelling to the UK. Again, let us bring that in —it is an excellent measure—and stand ready to tighten the nut further if necessary. That could perhaps be through, in countries where it is possible, adding a lateral flow test or doing other things to add to the health border.
Overall, I congratulate Ministers on the decisive steps they are taking. I think it is good to be bringing in these health borders as Britain, now leading the world in vaccinations, tries to get back to normal in a safe way, protecting lives. We have seen today the new South African variant arriving in the UK. That is a warning to us all and shows just why these measures are so desperately needed. I support what Ministers are doing, and I stand ready to support them as they go further and tighten the nut.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
The covid-19 pandemic has heralded a challenging period for the aviation sector, and the new increased measures announced for the UK border last week will only make this situation more challenging for businesses and jobs in the weeks to come. There is a very clear and pressing need to increase the level of business support for aviation and aerospace companies to help them survive this pandemic. The Scottish Government have provided support to the sector within their available powers. However, the UK Government can and must do a lot more both in helping to strip out the fixed costs for the industry and in allowing the industry to invest and plan for the future.
My party has been consistent in calling for tough measures to be taken at the UK border in recent months. We now know that UK Ministers are planning to set up a hotel quarantine scheme for people arriving in the UK from 30 red list countries, yet the Home Office has still to provide full detail of the criteria that will be used either to add countries to or to remove them from its list, or of how passengers can be prevented from flying into the UK via a third country to get round the quarantine requirement. This matters. Last May, Sir Patrick Vallance told the Health and Social Care Committee:
“One of the things that looks clear is that early in March the UK got many different imports of virus from many different places”.
All too often throughout the pandemic, the UK Government have been susceptible to magical thinking, taking the path of least resistance only to pay a much heavier price later. With mutations in the virus, there are huge dangers inherent in only partially closing the door, as the UK Government propose. We desperately need to get ahead of this virus with supervised quarantine to allow the vaccination programme to do its job of saving lives. The lesson that we should have learned through this pandemic is that the best way to save lives and to protect jobs is to act early and to act decisively. The SNP has a strong preference in that regard for our having quarantine rules that work right across the UK.
The Scottish Government cannot unilaterally close the border, but believe that a comprehensive system of supervised quarantine is required. We are acutely aware that any measures taken that are significantly out of line with the rest of the UK might risk displacing travel to other airports, so we very strongly take a four-nations approach. However, we cannot get away from the fact that the UK Government have so far failed to go far enough in closing the door to further infections from overseas, and if the UK Government will not act, then the Scottish Government must. I look forward to hearing tomorrow about the tougher supervised quarantine measures that we judge are necessary to protect public health in Scotland. As so often in the past, where the Scottish Government have led, the UK Government eventually follow. I hope that, in the interests of us all, they are not far behind in doing so.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the news today that the vaccine roll-out to care homes has allegedly been completed. It is a shining light in an otherwise bleak landscape of failures by this Government to get on top of this pandemic, support the NHS, protect livelihoods and save lives.
The delay by this Government in implementing effective track, trace and isolate for those travelling to the UK from abroad has left gaping holes in our defences against the virus. These holes risk undermining the progress we have made with our vaccine roll-out. Limiting protective measures to travellers from just a handful of countries undermines the huge sacrifices our communities have made by risking exposing us to potentially vaccine-resistant covid-19 strains as they emerge around the globe. Recent statistics show that about 21,000 people are entering the UK every day, each one risking the introduction and transmission of a dangerous new variant. Under the current policy, by the time new strains emerge, it will already be too late to take action to protect ourselves. This approach has no clear basis in science, and I call on the Government to heed the warnings and expand their quarantine programme to include all travellers from abroad before it is too late.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to resolve the Department’s industrial dispute with Border Force staff at Heathrow airport. They have just voted for strike action, and I would like to state my solidarity with their cause. This action risks further disruption to covid security and protections, and I urge the Home Office to resume negotiations with the PCS to find a resolution to protect our workers and travellers.
Last month, the National Audit Office found that the £22 billion test and trace scheme had failed to reach enough contacts and that only 40% of tests were returned within 24 hours, which is well below the Government target. The current quarantine checks, which have been outsourced to Sitel, are reaching just 3% of UK arrivals, leaving us effectively completely unprotected and exposed to worrying new strains of covid coming in from overseas. Can the Minister explain exactly what has led to this failure by these companies, what action the Government are taking to penalise those contractors that have not met their responsibilities and what the Government intend to do now to improve these dire statistics? Sitel and Serco have been had millions of pounds out of the public purse.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—SAGE—has warned that our so-called world-beating test and trace system has had only a marginal impact on reducing the spread of the coronavirus. Rather than mobilising existing and effective public health expertise, the Government have chosen to put dogmatic ideology over public health. They have now spent a budget larger than those for our policing and fire services combined, handing out multimillion-pound contracts to big private outsourcing farms that have failed time and again to deliver. We must limit international travel, alongside introducing a support package for the aviation sector focused on employment and environmental protections.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
We have heard a number of criticisms from the Opposition tonight. In opening, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said that we had left our country’s doors unlocked. He pointed to the border controls between 1 January and 23 March, when only 273 people were formally quarantined. What he did not say was that, at that time, neither the World Health Organisation nor the chief medical officer or the chief scientific officer were giving any advice to the contrary. In fact, when Professor Whitty appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee on 9 December, he said that he could not have done anything different. He said that the “data streams were incomplete” and that
“we did not realise how widespread it was in Europe, because there wasn’t testing in many of the European countries. We knew it was in Italy, but we did not realise how extensive it was in Spain and France for a while. That is an example of lack of information.”
So quite what sort of a crystal ball the Opposition think we should have been using has never been made clear.
When the Government imposed quarantine, the Opposition laid into us again. On 3 June, the shadow Secretary of State for Transport asked the Home Secretary:
“Can the Home Secretary explain the evidence she has seen that underpins her decision to introduce a blanket 14-day quarantine”?—[Official Report, 3 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 878.]
Another Opposition Member put it this way to the Home Secretary:
“The horse has bolted…She will not be able to screen people at ports, she cannot track them when they leave the airports, she cannot enforce quarantine when people get to their homes…so she will not be protecting anybody.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 876.]
Today, when we are taking a targeted approach and enforcing quarantine by placing arrivals from high-risk countries in hotels, we are under attack again. Labour Members say nothing about whether they agree with our policy of requiring all arrivals to produce a negative covid test or our policy of increased police enforcement. They say nothing about what scientific evidence they are relying on to say that we are choosing the wrong strategy.
At every stage of the pandemic, Labour’s approach has been to look at the Tories and suggest something different. When something goes wrong, it is a Tory failure, and when something goes right, anyone deserves praise but the Tories. To illustrate this, the hon. Member for Torfaen tonight praised the scientists and the many other people responsible for the vaccine programme. Whether the Opposition like it or not, it was Tory decision making, a Tory procurement exercise, a Tory logistical operation and a Tory vaccines Minister that have enabled 9.2 million vaccinations to get into the arms of some of the most vulnerable citizens in this country in a vaccination exercise that has been as moving as it has been magnificent, and this Conservative Government can rightly feel proud of that.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
I welcome the recent announcements by the Home Secretary to implement additional public health measures at our borders, as recommended to the Government by the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), and of which I am a member. However, the Government’s announcement last week was, as we have seen time and again throughout this pandemic, too little, too late. It did not go far enough. The APPG recommends that quarantining at regulated locations should apply to arrivals from all countries, and that testing should be done on arrival at the airport and subsequently. Such measures have proved successful for countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand—just compare their case and death rates with those of the UK.
On arrival at the airport, the myriad private options for testing are confusing and the rules are perverse. Just this weekend, I received an email from a Whitton resident who had chosen not to participate in the test to release scheme, because of the prohibitive costs of a private test, and to self-isolate at home for 10 days instead. She was subsequently offered an NHS test as part of a research programme, yet was told that an NHS test delivering a negative result would still require the full 10-day isolation but that exactly the same test provided privately, at great expense, on day five would result in immediate release if negative. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on whether that policy is based on scientific or medical advice.
Although the NHS should be praised for making excellent progress with the vaccination programme roll-out, without much firmer controls at our borders it is like having the heating on with the windows open. Today’s announcement is testament to that, and the costs and sacrifices of lockdown are immense, so let us not squander those gains. We will be able to emerge safely from lockdown only with a combination of tougher controls at our borders, a functioning test, trace and isolate system, and vaccination.
Having a constituency so close to Heathrow, I must make a few remarks on support for the aviation sector, which needs to come with clear environmental conditions. Many of my constituents work in the aviation and travel sectors, and have lost their jobs or been at risk of losing their jobs under draconian fire and rehire schemes, which ought to be outlawed, but which the Government have refused to take action on. The airport and ground operations scheme provides limited welcome relief but does not go far enough and was finally implemented only last week. It is clear that the aviation sector will probably never fully recover, and even then it will take a long time to partially recover. A sector-specific package is needed, with strong green environmental strings attached, alongside a comprehensive programme of retraining and reskilling, and investment in green transport and infrastructure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
This issue means a lot to the representatives in Northern Ireland, not simply from the aerospace industry and tourism angle, but because of the very concept of border security. I represent a constituency that has been affected and devastated by the lack of security on the border. Although this is a different battle, the stakes are the same: the preservation of life. Over the weekend, we have seen at first hand the need for this House to regulate our security, safety and access to medication, after the threats of Europe to the supply of vaccines to Northern Ireland. That is not a surprise to me; I have warned in this House before about passing the Northern Ireland protocol, and this is why my colleagues and I voted against it. I am aware that today we must and should focus on health and borders in respect of a different remit, but I could not let a debate that mentioned the UK border take place without crying out for UK parity, and for a redress of the wrongs perpetrated against the UK, and specifically Northern Ireland, by the Northern Ireland protocol. I urge every Member of this House to take responsibility and join us in urging immediate change.
When the decision was made to impose UK-wide travel restrictions, I understood and agreed with the rationale, and I joined the queue of MPs frantically contacting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was known at that time, to get constituents home. I understood the need to provide protection as best as we could so as not to overwhelm the NHS. However, we must also determine restrictions on an individual country basis. It is clear that we must support aviation and aerospace companies now if more strict measures for the border are implemented, which all but close the aviation sector. Airlines will not have the capital to invest in new aircraft, making the road to recovery for the UK aerospace sector harder and longer without Government support. So to help companies plan long-term investment—the Minister referred to this earlier—in the next generation of greener aircraft in the UK, the Government need to present an exit strategy or a road map for the measures at the border limiting overseas travel. We need the Government to back the sector with specific support now or risk the sector falling in the UK.
We have also been making clear the need for greater co-operation on travel logs from the Republic of Ireland. Although indications have arisen only in the past week that the information will finally be shared, this brings me back to the concerns I have about the traffic flow, which has allowed those with all kinds of variants of covid to cross the border on the Irish side. Although I understand that the Garda Síochána will decide to prosecute those over the border, what has been made abundantly clear is that there is a border that can be enforced when it suits, and safety and the isolation of covid is needed by us all. I ask the Home Office to establish more formalised rules regarding the Irish connections through Shannon and Dublin. If a British person from Newtownards can be questioned for travelling to the mainland for a family funeral, there is a necessity that the same safety measures are in place to stop anyone arriving internationally from Dublin and coming to Northern Ireland.
I have two requests to make to the Home Office: secure the Northern Ireland border, as it is securing mainland GB; and further, work with other Departments to ensure a thriving aerospace and tourism industry post-pandemic. They are not easy asks, I know, but they are absolutely vital.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
My constituency is home to Birmingham airport and there is nothing that I would love more than for people to be able to go on holiday, for things to return to normal, and for the airport to be the bustling economic heart of the region that it was before covid. However, that is not the reality that we are in.
Throughout the pandemic, the health of our country has been at the heart of the Government’s decision making. During the last 12 months, in my view, the Government have taken robust action. I speak of the Government restricting travel from a list of countries in February. In March, the Prime Minister told people to stay at home and to travel only for essential purposes. In May, we experienced further measures, which included a 14-day period of self-isolation for those who travelled back to the UK, passenger locator forms and fines for those who broke the rules. In July, we saw travel corridors introduced, which were kept under constant review. In short, our approach evolved as the scientific data and the global understanding of the pandemic evolved.
As we continue to move forward towards vaccinating the entire British public, we must take difficult decisions that require tough measures. That is why the latest measures of restrictions were announced, and I support them. It can only be a positive step forward that the police have increased checks to ensure that travellers are complying with self-isolation rules, but the UK continues to refuse entry from a number of countries subject to the travel ban and has introduced of a managed isolation process for those who cannot be refused entry to the UK. This new process, which uses hotels, will require individuals to self-isolate for 10 days. I welcome these new measures, as I believe that they will go a long way to securing the public health of our country.
As we approach the final days of this pandemic, we must continue to be vigilant against the new strains and rising infection rates. The news of over 9.2 million people having received their first vaccine is extremely encouraging. We simply cannot allow the progress of our world-leading vaccination programme to be hindered. I am sure, however, that Ministers have taken these decisions after much wrangling and it has ultimately been in our national interest. In my view, the Government have taken the right decisions at the right time. Protecting our people and preserving our aviation industry has been paramount, and I will continue to work with the Government as we embark on our path to recovery.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
It is right and proper that, at a time when new variants are emerging across the world, we act to shore up our defences and maintain an agile approach that can react to changing circumstances, particularly in the light of the news today on the South African variant, which is affecting part of my constituency.
Suspending all travel corridors two weeks ago was a painful decision to take. We are a truly international nation, a travel hub, but it was the right decision. We are making huge progress through the vaccination programme, and I commend the work of the Minister for vaccine deployment—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—particularly today, when the new Avanti Meadows vaccination centre opens in my constituency to add to the fantastic work already under way at Bishop’s Stortford football club.
With herculean efforts and brilliant progress being made each day, we must not on any account become complacent now, but as I said, this decision and others like it come at a cost for the aviation sector in particular. I hold the ambition to safely open the airways as soon as possible. I am particularly keen to support Stansted airport, where a number of my constituents work. To enable that, though, the support that the Government have offered to the aviation sector is crucial: a potential £8 million for every airport, the new global travel taskforce to support the industry, and the many billions of pounds of support through schemes such as the furlough and business interruption loans.
We have a secure strategy in place to mitigate the risk of new variants entering the country, and this has been built from a solid platform that has protected our borders for many months. With the way in which these measures are now described by some Opposition Members, though, I would forgive the public for believing that we have a great big sign on the door saying, “All welcome—no matter what”, but that could not be further from the truth. We are requiring all passengers from abroad to present a negative test before departing for England; we are enforcing mandatory self-isolation periods for arrivals; we have suspended the travel corridors; we are introducing isolation in hotels for British citizens coming from red list countries; and we are increasing police checks, which will be helped by the extra police numbers in my constituency. We will also all continue to act on advice and take all factors into account.
The Opposition’s motion is yet another mix of hindsight and shadow boxing around Government announcements, so I certainly will not be supporting it. I back the Government’s strategy and fully support the agile approach they are taking, which allows us to react quickly in a perpetually changing environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry that we have not been able to get everybody in. The last Back-Bench speaker will be Ben Everitt.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe they call this the headline slot, so thank you very much.
I am old enough to remember the Labour party’s position on free movement, so I am excited to speak in this Opposition day debate on our borders. The motion calls on the Government to
“immediately introduce a comprehensive…quarantine system for all arrivals into the UK”,
which does not seem to fit entirely with the free movement of people that we know and love from Labour policy.
There are two things that I want to major on in the short time I have to address the House tonight: the practicalities and the politics of the motion before us. I will start with the practicalities. Milton Keynes, as the House will know, was host to one of the coronavirus repatriation centres when, almost this time last year—time has flown—repatriations were taking place for British nationals and their dependants from Wuhan over to the UK. Quite frankly, it is a bit of a palaver getting people into converted hotel accommodation safely, given what we knew then and what we know now about the virus. I wonder whether Her Majesty’s official Opposition have clearly thought through how we get arrivals from overseas into hotel accommodation in the UK safely and in a covid-secure manner, because what they are suggesting is quite a logistical exercise.
Moving on from the practicalities, I turn to the politics. I mentioned that I was old enough to remember Labour’s last policy on borders, and I am old enough to remember the last time that an inadvertent policy position threatened the Northern Ireland protocol. Perhaps the Opposition Front Benchers might want to clarify how the common travel area between the UK and Ireland would be affected by their proposals. Would this be another EU diplomatic incident moment? Are they riding roughshod over the Northern Ireland protocol?
Quite frankly, I think we have some of the strictest measures in the world to prevent new strains of coronavirus from entering the UK. We have pre-departure testing, passenger locator forms, quarantine on arrival for at least 10 days, and a complete ban on flights from the highest-risk countries. What are the Opposition offering that is better than that?
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank all Members who have taken the time to speak in this debate at this critical moment for our nation. We have heard a great number of insightful contributions. I refer particularly to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who was very clear that, from the start, not enough has been done; we have not learned the lessons. Even now when people are told to self-isolate and have a visit from the police, if there is no answer, there is no follow-up. We cannot keep the country safe if we cannot ensure that people are following the rules. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the professionalism of the UK Border Force staff at Heathrow, many of whom are his constituents. This is not about the quality, experience and dedication of our frontline workers; fundamentally, this is about the Government’s failure of policy and failure to take action.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) the repeated feeling that the Government just have not learned the lessons. The most important lesson, surely, is that we have to take swift action at the right time. The opportunity is here. This is not hindsight. We are looking ahead. We are seeing new strains coming across the world and we are saying that our vaccination roll-out could be affected if we do not get a grip. This is looking ahead, trying to help the Government to avoid what could well follow, because none of us wants that—none of us wants to risk the vaccination roll-out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) quite rightly said that this is not a false choice set up in the way the Government want, whereby we have to choose between a health intervention or an economic intervention. They go hand in hand. If we are to have a health intervention, which is the right thing to do because this is a health crisis, then we marry that with an economic intervention, such as financial support for the aviation industry which has been devastated now for a year because of different lockdowns and the Government’s failure to have a coherent forward-looking strategy. It is crying out for more support and the Government have failed to provide it at every opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) rightly asked the question: where on earth is the Home Secretary? This debate was secured by the shadow Home Secretary. Where is the Home Secretary? We looked in the Aye Lobby just in case she was waiting to vote, but she is not there either. I am not sure where she is. Maybe she does not want to be her own hypocrite by having a view completely in line with the motion down for debate and voting on, while having to stand at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps she values her job more than the public interest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) talked about financial support being contingent. The Government talk a lot about the £3 billion support for aviation. That is correct—although, by the way, it is a fraction of the overall value to the UK economy—but it has come with no conditions: no conditions on jobs, no conditions on the supply chain, no conditions on UK taxpayer status, no conditions to rule out the payment of dividends. These are all the very basic measures we need.
Then, of course, there is our green recovery. How can we really build back better and rebuild this country to a vision we can be proud of? My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) rightly said—this was a theme throughout most of the contributions —that the Government are always one step behind. There is a danger now, when we feel as though we are getting closer and closer, and vaccinations are being rolled out, that our amazing NHS staff, local government workers and our armed forces on the ground making a difference could be undermined if we fail to take action at this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) again pointed out that the Government failed to take action. We have seen tens of thousands of people in aviation losing their jobs. We see more who have been threatened with fire and rehire. These are real-life consequences where people are not just facing a health pandemic and a health crisis, but are worried about how they are going to pay the mortgage. And where were the Government when the people of this country asked for help? They were nowhere to be seen when it came to aviation. It was a drop in the ocean. Aviation has a long way to go before it can rebuild.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) talked about the track and trace system. Is that not the crux of why we are even having this debate in the first place? The track and trace system, which should have been world beating—God knows we paid for it—failed this country. It failed to keep tracing in place, so we cannot rely on it. Every intervention has to make up for a system that is fundamentally broken. We always have to go that bit harder because what we were promised has not been delivered.
We heard from Conservative Back Benchers. If we tot up their years of service, I am quite sure the Father of the House has given more service than the lot of them put together. These are all the new intake desperate for promotion. By the way, I hope they get the promotion they have auditioned for today, but I am afraid it is a failure of leadership that ignores the fact that we are in a very different position today than we were even last summer. Today we have a number of new strains of the virus that could undermine our vaccination roll-out. When we have the end in sight, there is also the threat that it could be undermined. That is the real danger.
We have no idea where the new strain might come from that would undermine all of this. It could come from anywhere in the world. When we talk about nations being on a list, we of course need to bear in mind that some nations have higher infection rates than others, not least the UK. The truth is that it is individuals who carry the virus—not nations. If we do not have a programme in place to manage incoming passengers—individuals who may be carrying the virus—we cannot control it in the way we need to.
What is more telling in a sense is that the Government almost nod to the fact that their 10-day self-isolation system does not work. They compare the 10 days of self-isolation—by the way, they reach only 3% of contacts in that scheme—with hotel quarantine. If someone is told to self-isolate at home for 10 days and they do so, what is the real difference if they are self-isolating in a hotel? The Government know that many people do not adhere to the rules that are there to protect us all.
We see amazing work from our frontline heroes as vaccination continues to roll out. They have shown us what we have always known them to be: our NHS workers, the armed forces and local government are the very best of us, and they prove it day in, day out. We must not put that at risk. We must not allow such a poor system to risk undermining that gallant effort. The public are aghast, and the Government are on the wrong side of the public. How can we have a policy that says that the door to a local school is shut, but the border is open? It defies logic. People want to know that the Government have a coherent plan that will get us through to the other side.
We recognise that every health intervention needs to be accompanied by an economic intervention. We fully recognise that doing the right thing to protect our country will have an impact on aviation and jobs, so what we are saying is, “Marry the two together. Do the right thing for a health intervention, but make sure there is financial support.” The Chancellor promised a sectoral deal a year ago. That is what we are calling for—we are entirely in agreement with him, but he is taking time to deliver on his promise.
We have made it very clear that any financial support must come with clear conditions. It cannot just be a bail-out. The Government need to listen to the debate. The country is calling for leadership to look forward and get us through to the other side. The Government must not put up barriers on this. They should come with us, do the right thing and get ahead of the virus.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Let me begin by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. We must keep this horrendous virus under control so that we can roll out the vaccines as quickly as possible and get back to our normal lives. I do not doubt that the whole House, whatever Members’ views, is united behind and resolute about that common goal.
The Government have always sought to steer a protective but practical course through this crisis based on scientific advice. In the fact of a lethal enemy, we will continue to act in the best interests of the British people. We will continue to protect lives. We will continue to distribute our world-leading vaccine programme, because that is what will defeat the coronavirus. We will do everything to ensure that we can support an economic recovery that is as strong as it is safe.
The delivery of an effective vaccine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) has noted, is the best way to protect the most vulnerable in our society, to save thousands of lives, and ultimately to support the easing and removal of restrictions so that we can return to an era of safe international travel, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) have said.
The whole country owes a debt of gratitude to the incredible health workers who are administering the jabs, as the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), among many others, have said. Vaccines have already been administered to 9.3 million UK residents and key workers—that is more than in the rest of Europe combined. As my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and for Newbury (Laura Farris) have noted, that is due to the decisions that this Government have taken.
However, we cannot rest while the vaccines are being rolled out, and we have to take measures to protect our health and safeguard the NHS. That includes taking firm action to address the risk of new variants of the virus entering the UK and spreading through the population, potentially hampering that vaccine effort. There is no single measure that mitigates that risk entirely—it is the layers of actions that we have discussed today, in combination with the vaccine programme, that will turn the tide on the coronavirus.
As the Home Secretary set out last week, in the light of increasing concerns around new variants, mandatory quarantine measures for those arriving from high-risk countries are an essential next step to safeguard public health, and I assure the House that we are working urgently and will share those details shortly. But I stress that this essential step is just one part of a wider co-ordinated strategy to protect the nation. From the start of this pandemic, we have taken a robust approach to prevent imported cases of covid-19. That has included self-isolation requirements and the use of travel corridors to manage entry from high-risk countries. We have kept that approach under regular review, and changes have been made when the scientific evidence demanded it.
Robert Courts
I am sorry, I will not, because I am so short of time.
That is why we acted quickly to suspend all travel corridors following the surge in cases this winter; it is why we recently introduced pre-departure testing requirements, whereby passengers require a negative test before being allowed to travel to the UK, to further protect against imported cases; and it is why all international passengers arriving in the UK are required to complete a passenger locator form.
On enforcement, recent statistics show that enforcement action and the hard work of border officials has resulted in almost full compliance from those entering the country. Border Force has made 3 million spot checks, and it now aims to achieve 100% checks to tackle PLF and PDT non-compliance at the border, along with 100% covid compliance checks.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Minister explain what he means by 100% compliance checks? Does he just mean people filled in the form, or does he mean they were actually checked to see whether they were self-isolating at home? If it is the latter, how does he explain the police figures from last week, which found a whole load of people who had been at home where no enforcement was taken?
Robert Courts
The right hon. Lady misheard me. I said that Border Force is working towards achieving that 100% check.
However, there is no room for complacency. We have taken additional steps to limit new covid-19 strains entering the country through the use of travel bans. We have banned travel from southern Africa, Brazil, South America, Portugal and the United Arab Emirates. We will be stepping up police enforcement, making sure that only those who absolutely must travel are leaving the country and checking that those who return are complying with the rules.
We can be clear that we already have in place a system of great robustness, as was noted by my hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt). That includes pre-departure testing, a passenger locator form with enhanced enforcement, and 10 days’ isolation—all assuming someone is not coming from one of the red list countries from which travel is banned, remembering that travel corridors are currently suspended.
In the time that I have remaining, let me deal with the main topic—why not a full travel ban? We have taken the robust but balanced approach that I referred to earlier. We have carefully considered all available options, including applying blanket restrictions, but they are not appropriate for our current situation. We are an island nation yet a global hub, and we are different from Australia and New Zealand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, among others, noted. It is critical that we allow freight to keep moving, and at present 40% of it arrives in the belly of passenger planes. That is the food on our tables, the PPE in our hospitals, the online goods that people order, the supplies that people working at home use.
No one should be fooled that a blanket approach, as we are having urged upon us today, would work. We have to look at what it would achieve. We have only to look at the United States, which closed its borders entirely in the early stages of this crisis and now has one of the worst pandemic experiences in the world, to see how vain that hope could be. Nor is it clear, as the Chairman of the Transport Committee said and as New Zealand and Australia have seen, how borders, once closed, will ever open up again. I therefore disagree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that we should follow that approach.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Cultural Centres and Sporting Facilities: North West Durham
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In January 2020, after 18 months of work, Durham County Council—Labour-led for 102 years—produced its plan “Leisure Transformation”. Well, they say, hide it in the title if you can. All North West Durham gets from that £63 million is “refreshing the existing offer” at two leisure centres—no new services or facilities, but perhaps a bit of corporate signage.
Ninety-five per cent. of my constituents who responded to my survey on the issue say that the situation is totally unacceptable. It is a particular slap in the face for the people of Crook, who in 2011 had their swimming pool closed and demolished within weeks. Their town is not even mentioned in the 38-page executive summary that was presented to the Labour council cabinet. It is also a slap in the face for Consett. Five years ago, it had a new leisure centre built, but it is now closed, due not to covid but to terrible contracting and oversight by Durham County Council.
I would like to read a couple of the comments that people made on my survey. One said:
“If Crook Leisure Centre ever gets a pool, do whatever you can stop DCC from taking it over—I work at another DCC leisure centre, and their management is absolutely appalling.”
Another said:
“what is unacceptable is that 5 years after”
the leisure centre in Consett opened
“it should need to be closed for structural repair, this highlights a lack of due diligence”
in the entire process.
As the Secretary of State said in the House last week, Labour-run Durham County Council is in the process of building a £50 million new county hall on a floodplain. Even during the pandemic, Councillor Tinsley of Willington led a committee that approved a 3,500 square feet roof terrace to be added to it.
My constituents are fed up of being ignored by a Labour council and some faux-independent hangers on. They just want a reasonable cut of the cake when it comes to local leisure facilities. Often in spite of the council, my communities really come together when it comes to local leisure and sport. Aside from the pandemic, which has been a huge issue locally and has really knocked the sector for six, in general it has been thriving. We have four great football clubs: Willington, Tow Law, Crook and Consett. The juniors at Consett and Crook are going from strength to strength.
I have a fantastic local rugby union club, which I have visited on a couple of occasions, including one of its rather boozy social events. Up in the dale, we have some superb facilities and teams, including Durham Dales Hockey, which is desperately in search of a pitch. I will make a pitch for one to the Minister at another time. We also have some superb cycling and walking locally across the north Pennines, in the beautiful area of outstanding natural beauty. We have some great gyms that provide a huge local services, and many other things.
Covid has knocked so many of those facilities and sports clubs for six. I appreciate some of the support that the Minister has given, but they are essential to people’s mental health and wellbeing, so I really encourage him if at all possible to put that sort of activity right at the forefront of reopening. The truth is that many of those community clubs might get a few crumbs from the council’s table, but they are not really getting a look in when it comes to proper capital support.
People in North West Durham feel left behind not just in leisure, but in cultural spending. For the county as a whole, the closure of the Durham Light Infantry Museum was a real hammer blow. There is some support from the council, which runs the Empire theatre in Consett—currently closed not due to the pandemic, but because it needs massive repair work—and some excellent investment is going in, but we need to ensure that this cultural hub can drive the town centre regeneration that so many of us want to see.
Central government and the lottery have stepped up during the pandemic. The heritage emergency fund has supported Ushaw College, the Durham Wildlife Trust, and the Weardale museum. Unusually for me, I will praise the national lottery rather than call it into question, because it did provide some excellent support for those community organisations. The cultural recovery fund has delivered over £1 million for our local music education hub, our local cultural entertainment centre based at Stanhope and, again, Ushaw College, which I visited just a few weeks ago to see its fantastic light display.
Again, culture is driven and sustained largely by local groups and local people. I visited Jack Drum Arts with Baroness Barran, and it does get some council support, but compared with what is going to other parts of the county, particularly the City of Durham and some of the projects the council see as the flagships, it really is pennies on the dollar.
Over in Leadgate we have some really good community projects, such as the Roxy. I have already written to the Secretary of State about it, and I urge the Minister to visit as well. Some fantastic work is going on there to turn things around and bring it to public view though the community investment company. It is a superb facility, which David has basically been working on by himself and raising money for locally, and I would really like some extra support. I had a recent meeting about it with one of the Minister’s colleagues, but what is happening on the ground needs to be seen to get a feeling for it because, again, it is not really getting support from the council. Down at Crook, a local group is trying to revive the Empire Electric Palace, but the council is not stepping up to support it. The open-air swimming pool in Stanhope, which has faced real difficulties during the coronavirus pandemic, is another local institution that I will be fighting for over the coming years.
I have some asks of the Minister. When central Government cash is being distributed, wherever possible please put it in the hands of local communities and local organisations rather than in the hands of the council. The cultural recovery fund has been excellent in my area, but I urge the Minister to consider extending it if possible. The fantastic Weardale Adventure Centre is probably the largest local employer at the top end of Weardale, but it cannot currently apply for cultural recovery fund money and it would really benefit from support—the team there is fantastic, and I have visited several times. Anything that the Minister could do to ensure that support can be accessed by more institutions would be really appreciated. I would love a visit from the Secretary of State or from the Minister just to see some of the great local community work that is going on both in local community sports and in the local community groups that are trying to revive the local area.
For too long, North West Durham has been left out on a limb. If the county council is spending £50 million on a new county hall with a roof terrace and £63 million on local leisure with none of it coming to my area, we have to look elsewhere for support, and that is what I am calling for today. Please ensure that funding goes straight through to local community groups in the towns and villages of North West Durham.
Finally, my constituents are a proud people who are fizzing with creativity, which can be seen in some of the great work of the Glass & Art Gallery on Medomsley Road in Consett, which is just up the road from my office. The lady there has worked on stained glass windows for churches across the globe. Some great young artists are doing fantastic outdoor painting and works, including on some of the shopfronts and at the Duke of Wellington pub, which is just down the road the other way from my office. There is real local enthusiasm, and local champions are pushing things from kids’ sports and activities all the way through to the Weardale museum.
It is clear that the sectors of leisure and culture have been hit by covid, but it is those sectors that, crucially for communities such as mine, will really help to drive us out of it, particularly for the hospitality sector, which relies on the footfall from those people. Minister, please hear our pleas. Please ensure that that funding goes straight through wherever possible, and do not allow us to be constantly hamstrung by a county council more interested in itself than in local people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for securing the debate. Sport and physical activity are more important than ever as we continue to fight against covid-19. I appreciate the passion with which he advocates for the provision of sport and leisure facilities in his constituency and, indeed, the broader issues that he raises about cultural investment in his constituency.
My hon. Friend’s constituents are lucky to have him championing their cause. We have spoken many times about the issues and, indeed, the opportunities within the remit of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in his constituency—from sport, to heritage, culture, tourism and, indeed, gambling. I would be delighted to take him up on his offer to visit his part of the world in the near future and see at first hand some of the entities, institutions and people he proudly mentioned.
As hon. Members will be aware, on 4 January the Prime Minister announced the third national lockdown and asked people to stay at home to control the virus, protect the NHS and save lives. As a result, indoor and outdoor sports facilities, including swimming pools and leisure centres, have unfortunately had to close. Sport and physical activity are crucial to our mental and physical health. They are a powerful defence against the covid-19 pandemic, and we will need to raise levels of fitness among the population as we prepare to return to our normal lives, now that the vaccination programme has begun. Our local authority leisure and sports facilities will play a key role in enhancing our national health.
My hon. Friend focused particularly on the provision of swimming facilities. Of course, swimming is a wonderful way to exercise and a popular choice for many people to be active, including of course in County Durham. In Parliament, we are fortunate to have a very active all-party parliamentary group on swimming, which I have had the pleasure to meet on several occasions since the pandemic began. Swimming has a wide variety of benefits, including reducing stress and anxiety, improving health and wellbeing, building endurance and muscle strength, and improving cardiovascular fitness.
Furthermore, we all know that learning to swim saves lives, which differentiates it from many other sports, important as they are. Saving lives is a really important part of why swimming is so important. That is why swimming pools were one of the first sports facilities to be reopened following the initial lockdown, and were able to stay open in local tiers 1 to 3. The report “The Importance of Pools Post-lockdown”, published by Swim England back in May last year, highlighted how a 25-metre pool on its own can generate about £7 million of social value in the community and save the NHS and social care systems more than £1.2 million.
It is therefore no surprise that my hon. Friend is advocating for a swimming pool in his constituency. Before the lockdown, around 14 million adults in England went swimming each year, with more than 1 million children learning to swim outside of school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme, so it is a pleasure to hear him champion swimming in his constituency and, I understand, express disappointment in the current levels of provision there.
Support for sports facilities in north-west Durham has been taken up with Sport England directly. It is the arm’s length body with responsibility for activity levels and sport for DCMS, and I know that it would welcome further discussions with the council and my hon. Friend to develop a more robust assessment of the area’s strategic leisure needs. This will not be a standing start: since 2016, Sport England has invested over £425,000 of lottery and Exchequer funding in the North West Durham constituency, and since 1995, over £4 million. This includes £313,000 to Consett YMCA and over £80,000 to the Crook community leisure centre to support multi-sports facilities and to increase participation.
On the arts and culture side, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, through the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund there have been several awards to date in North West Durham—he mentioned some of them—totalling over £1 million in funding and including such entities as the Durham and Darlington music education hub, the Association for Cultural Enterprises, and the St Cuthbert’s Society. That funding goes directly, as he requested, rather than via the local authorities.
More broadly, to support the return of grassroots sports, including swimming pools, once restrictions can be reduced, the Government have provided unprecedented support for businesses through tax reliefs, cash grants, employee wage support and a whole variety of other measures. We developed a £100 million support fund for local authority leisure centres. This national leisure recovery fund seeks to support eligible public sector leisure centres to reopen to the public, giving the sport and physical activity sector the best chance of recovery to a position of sustainable operations over the medium term. A total of £100 million is available as a biddable fund to eligible local authorities in England, and it will be allocated in a single funding round. My officials are currently in the process of assessing bids for the fund, and funding decisions will be communicated shortly.
This is all on top of the funding that Sport England has provided, which has comprised over £220 million to directly support the sport and physical activity sector, with £35 million set aside as a community emergency fund for our very important sports clubs and exercise centres. On 26 January, Sport England published its 10-year strategy, “Uniting the Movement”, and it also committed an extra £50 million to help grassroots sports clubs and organisations affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
The Government, both with direct grants and through their ALBs, are doing what they can to help local councils and institutions to sustain their sporting and cultural offerings. My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for his constituents to get their fair share—or fair cut of the cake, as he described it—of any local and central Government investment. I hope that his local council is listening to his pleas, because he seems to be expressing some frustrations with its resource allocation decisions of late—frustrations that some of his constituents apparently share.
In terms of sport provision, as Sports Minister, I hope that councils always endeavour to provide access to facilities for as many people in their area as possible. One of the key drivers of increasing activity levels is of course easy access to sport and leisure facilities, and we rely on councils for that. Indeed, I praise councils for prioritising leisure facility provision, but it is not just a matter of how much they spend on sport and leisure, but where they spend it. This is a debate to be had locally rather than for me to dictate here in the Chamber today. I hope that my hon. Friend can and will have constructive discussions with his local council. No doubt this will be a political issue in the upcoming local elections, where I am confident that the local Conservative team will have a particularly compelling manifesto for his constituents to consider.
The past year has been like no other, but I really appreciate the collaboration we have had with all DCMS stakeholders at national and local level. I am determined that the sports and cultural sectors emerge from the pandemic stronger than ever, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in achieving just that.
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) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Patrick Grady |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Alan Campbell (Ogmore) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Sammy Wilson |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anthony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (Con) | Sammy Wilson |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Chris Loder |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Sir Alan Campbell |
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
With our borders open and our schools closed and the Prime Minister introducing new quarantine measures, the recent aviation test and release announcement is now in tatters. We want to decarbonise and we want to give the industry confidence, but the Jet Zero Council, much lauded by the Prime Minister, has met only once and has no workstreams and the Government are dithering over financing the airspace modernisation programme. When will the Secretary of State step up?
Grant Shapps
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman missed my speech yesterday at Davos where I addressed that subject in detail. In fact, I want to correct the record of the House: the Jet Zero Council has actually met on two occasions and—wait for the punchline—has sub-committees that have met on many occasions, because they are the work horses of the Jet Zero Council and they bring together academia, the sector itself, Government and international partners to deliver zero-carbon flight by 2020. I refer him to my speech of yesterday, which he can get to from my tweet at @grantshapps.
[Official Report, 28 January 2021, Vol. 688, c. 537.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport:
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman missed my speech yesterday at Davos where I addressed that subject in detail. The Jet Zero Council has met on one occasion but has sub-committees that have met on many occasions, because they are the work horses of the Jet Zero Council and they bring together academia, the sector itself, Government and international partners to deliver zero-carbon flight by 2020. I refer him to my speech of yesterday, which he can get to from my tweet at @grantshapps.
Work and Pensions
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Maintaining the uplift would cost a huge amount of money—somewhere in the region of £6 billion. But it is not just about that. Throughout this pandemic, we have always looked at how best to support the poorest, most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. Because this is an ever-emerging and changing situation—that is the very nature of a pandemic—we have to keep everything under review. That is why the Secretary of the State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister do meet regularly to discuss all these issues. I want to make one further point because it was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee: yes, we will continue the roll-out of universal credit, as we committed in our manifesto, ensuring that those on legacy benefits and working tax credits are moved across by 2022.
[Official Report, 18 January 2021, Vol. 687, c. 644.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Maintaining the uplift would cost a huge amount of money—somewhere in the region of £6 billion. But it is not just about that. Throughout this pandemic, we have always looked at how best to support the poorest, most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. Because this is an ever-emerging and changing situation—that is the very nature of a pandemic—we have to keep everything under review. That is why the Secretary of the State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister do meet regularly to discuss all these issues. I want to make one further point because it was raised by the Chairman of the Select Committee: yes, we will continue the roll-out of universal credit, as we committed in our manifesto, ensuring that those on legacy benefits and working tax credits are moved across by 2024.
Written Statements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Zimbabwe
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
On 1 February 2021, I imposed asset freezes and travel bans on four individuals under the Zimbabwe (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The four individuals designated were involved in brutal crackdowns by the Government of Zimbabwe on public protests. This includes events that led to the deaths of six demonstrators in August 2018 and of 17 demonstrators in January 2019, and resulted from the Zimbabwean security forces’ use of excessive and disproportionate force. As a result, the designations focus on some of the most egregious human rights violations since President Mnangagwa took power.
This is the first set of designations of individuals under the UK’s autonomous Zimbabwe sanctions regime since the regulations came fully into force on 31 December 2020. These sanctions are not targeted at the wider economy or the people of Zimbabwe. The UK is on the side of the Zimbabwean people and we will continue to work to reduce poverty and help Zimbabweans secure their constitutional freedoms. This sanctions regime seeks to press the Government of Zimbabwe to: respect democratic principles and institutions and the rule of law in Zimbabwe; refrain from actions, policies or activities which repress civil society in Zimbabwe; and comply with international human rights law and respect human rights.
These sanctions sit alongside the asset freeze on Zimbabwe defence industries, which was transferred from the EU Zimbabwe sanctions regime to the UK’s autonomous Zimbabwe sanctions regime at the end of the transition period on 31 December.
The full list of designations is below:
Owen Ncube – Minister of State for National Security
Anselem Nhamo Sanyatwe - Formerly Brigadier General, Commander of the Presidential Guard and Tactical Commander of the National Reaction Force
Godwin Matanga - Commissioner General of the Zimbabwe Republic Police
Isaac Moyo - Director General, Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO).
[HCWS749]
Hong Kong British National (Overseas) Route
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I am pleased to confirm that the Government have launched the Hong Kong British national (overseas) (BNO) route on 31 January 2021.
The introduction of the Hong Kong BNO route follows the imposition of the national security law on Hong Kong by the Chinese Government in June 2020, which restricted the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and breached the joint declaration.
The basis for this route was established through changes to the immigration rules made on 22 October 2020, creating a route to settlement for BNO status holders from Hong Kong.
Eligible BNO status holders, and their family members, will be able to come to the UK to live, study and work. After five years in the UK, they will also be able to apply for settlement, followed by citizenship after a further 12 months.
As I have said throughout the development of this route, this is absolutely the right thing to do, in recognition of the historic commitment of the UK to the people of Hong Kong, and specifically to those who elected to retain their ties to the UK through obtaining BNO status.
I am also pleased to announce that from 23 February 2021, applications to the route can be made through a fully digital process, using the new technology developed for the UK’s points-based immigration system.
This means that if an eligible applicant holds a BNO, Hong Kong special administrative region (HKSAR), or EEA biometric passport, they will be able follow a quicker and easier process by submitting their biometrics to validate their identity through a smartphone app, rather than visiting a visa application centre. Successful applicants will receive a digital status, which they will be able to check and prove online.
BNO status holders and their dependants are the second group after EEA nationals to have access to this new digital process, which further upholds our commitment to them.
In addition to the new route for BNO status holders, individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the new points-based immigration system, which will enable them to come to the UK in a wider range of professions and at a lower general salary threshold than in the past. They are also able to use student routes and have access to the youth mobility scheme.
Further detail about the route, including detailed applicant guidance, can be found at www.gov.uk/british-national-overseas-bno-visa.
HMG is working to ensure BNO status holders who take up this offer feel fully supported and welcomed when starting their life in the UK. I look forward to welcoming applications from those individuals who wish to make the UK their home.
[HCWS751]
Design and Building Standards
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
In late 2018, the Government established the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission. Under the leadership of Nicholas Boys Smith and the late Sir Roger Scruton, it was tasked with championing beauty in the built environment and advising the Government on the reforms needed to ensure new homes are built to much higher, locally popular design standards and reflect local character and preferences.
The Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s report, “Living with Beauty”, set out 45 policy propositions, for Government and industry, on ways the planning and development process needed to change to provide the conditions for building more beautiful places. The report set out three principal aims: to “ask for beauty”, to “refuse ugliness” and to “promote stewardship”.
When the report was published, we welcomed the commission’s recommendations and committed to taking forward as many of them as possible. We agreed with the commission’s assessment that the design quality of new development is too often mediocre and that systemic change would be needed to ensure design and beauty were a core part of the planning process, not an afterthought.
Over the past 12 months, we have undertaken a review of the existing planning system to consider what changes the Government could make to deliver on the commission’s ambitions. As part of this, on 6 August we published “Planning for the Future” which included proposals for putting beauty at the heart of the planning system. This set out the importance of setting local expectations on design, ensuring communities have their say and promoting more widespread use of digital technologies to open up the design and planning processes to communities and encourage more participation in the planning system.
Following this work, on 30 January 2021, we published a comprehensive response to the commission’s report setting out clear steps the Government are taking to embed beauty, design and placemaking in the planning system.
First, we are proposing significant revisions to the national planning policy framework to put a greater emphasis on design and beauty. For the first time in the modern planning system, beauty and placemaking will be a strategic policy in their own right. This will put an emphasis on granting permission for well-designed buildings and refusing it for poor quality schemes. To ensure local preferences lie at the heart of this, we are asking all local authorities to work with local communities to produce local design codes or guides, setting out the design standards that new buildings will be expected to meet. These reforms will empower communities to expect and demand beauty in the built environment.
Secondly, we are also introducing a new expectation that all new streets should be tree-lined. This will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment for tree-lined streets, improve biodiversity and support the Government’s wider ambitions to plant 40 million trees. The updated national planning policy framework will also include wider changes to address environmental issues, including on managing the risk of floods, supporting heritage listings and amend the rules for the application of article 4 directions. The consultation on the revisions to the national planning policy framework was launched on the 30 January 2021 and will close on 27 March 2021.
Thirdly, in line with the commission’s recommendations, we have produced the first national model design code. We agree with the commission’s view that the use of local design codes, in which communities have a say, is an effective way of setting design expectations that will shape and deliver beautiful homes and places. Whereas a design guide sets out high level principles of good design, a design code sets out illustrated design requirements that provide specific, detailed parameters or constraints for the physical development of a site or area. The national model design code provides a clear framework setting out the parameters that contribute to good design and a step-by-step process for local authorities to follow to produce their own local codes and guides. We have made clear in the national planning policy framework that all areas should produce their own codes or guides, based on the principles set out in the design code. The Prime Minister also recently set out his 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, which will create, support and protect hundreds of thousands of green jobs, whilst making strides towards net zero by 2050. This includes plans to make cycling and walking more attractive ways to travel, making our homes, schools and hospitals greener, warmer and more energy efficient and protecting and restoring our natural environment, planting 30,000 hectares of trees every year, while creating and retaining thousands of jobs. This vision is at the heart of the national model design code which puts a strong emphasis on building greener and more energy-efficient developments.
Fourthly, to ensure communities understand the principles and vision set out in the national model design code and to support them to apply it, we intend to establish a new Office for Place within the next year. This organisation will draw on Britain’s world-class design expertise to support communities to turn their visions of beautiful design into local standards all new buildings will be required to meet. We will be establishing an interim Office for Place within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a transition board chaired by Nicholas Boys Smith tasked with considering what form the organisation should take, informed by responses to the “Planning for the Future” consultation. The interim Office for Place will begin the work to drive up design standards now. This year it will be piloting the design code with 20 communities and empowering local authorities to demand beauty, design quality and placemaking, through training on the principles outlined in the code. We have launched an expression of interest for local authorities to apply to be one of the first 10 pilot areas and the recipients of a share of £500,000 to support this work. We are seeking views on the draft national model design code, alongside the national planning policy framework consultation.
Fifthly, the Government are also relaunching the community housing fund, making £4 million available to help community land trusts bid for funds to support them to prepare bids for the £11.5 billion affordable homes programme. This programme is the largest investment in affordable housing in a decade and will provide up to 180,000 new homes across England, should economic conditions allow.
Looking forward, the Government’s “Planning for the Future” White Paper published on 6 August 2020 outlined a set of reforms that are intended to lay the foundations for future house building and economic development, whilst meeting our commitments to design, the environment and climate. As more homes are delivered under the new system, they will be built to higher standards, placing a clear emphasis on design, beauty, heritage and sustainability and ensuring that communities are at the heart of the planning system. We are currently analysing the 40,000 consultation responses and will publish a response in due course.
Finally, the Government are also encouraging local communities to nominate historic buildings, monuments, parks and gardens and other heritage assets they value so they can be protected through the planning system. Following an overwhelmingly positive response to the expressions of interest, funding has been doubled to £1.5 million, allowing 22 areas to develop and update their local heritage lists, instead of the ten originally announced.
The response to the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission’s report, along with the reforms to the national planning policy framework, the national design code, the intention to establish the Office for Place and our wider proposals to reform the planning system, will ensure that for the first time design is established as a core pillar of the planning process. They will encourage a more diverse and competitive building industry. They will make the planning process more digital and accessible for everyone, not just those with planning expertise or with the time to attend late night meetings. They will support communities to define their visions of good design and empower them to demand these standards are met in all new developments. Ultimately, they will ensure that beautiful homes and places become the expectation and the norm.
[HCWS750]
Free Trade Agreements
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
In under two years, HM Government have secured trade deals with 63 countries, which covered £217 billion of trade in 2019. Taken alongside our recent deal with the European Union, trade worth £885 billion in 2019 is now covered. No country, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, has conducted trade negotiations concurrently on this scale nor with our ambition.
We reached agreements with some of our largest trading partners such as Canada, South Korea, Switzerland and Norway—and agreed economic partnership agreements with South Africa, Kenya and others. Most recently, on 29 December 2020, we secured a trade agreement with Turkey—worth £18.6 billion in the previous full year. All have been on the basis of providing continuity to the existing trading arrangements that we enjoy and providing a firm foundation for deeper trading relations in the future.
This strong progress not only accounts for 97% of the value of trade with non-EU countries that we initially set out to secure agreements with—it goes further. Since the beginning of the transition period, we expanded the ambition of our programme to go above and beyond its original scope. In doing so, we secured agreements with Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and Turkey, which accounted for £72 billion of trade in 2019.
This has been the culmination of extensive work led by my Department, working hand-in-hand with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and carried out across the whole of HM Government. While this has been a difficult time, we and our partners have adapted our work—as far as possible—to reflect the reality of the global pandemic, and respecting public health, to bring forward deals that work for British businesses and the British people.
Parliamentary scrutiny has, and always will be, important in trade negotiations. All continuity agreements are laid in Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG) for scrutiny, and we will continue following this process for future trade agreements.
HM Government have built on statutory commitments by voluntarily publishing parliamentary reports alongside agreements, identifying and explaining clearly any differences with previous EU agreements. My Department has held close and constructive discussions with the parliamentary Committees on the progress of our programme over the last few years too; I was pleased to see this engagement praised by the Lords’ International Agreements Sub-Committee in their report on working practices.
Trade remains a reserved matter, but we have engaged with the devolved Administrations, crown dependencies and overseas territories on the continuity programme regularly, including through sharing of texts and providing implementation support.
Where a continuity agreement was unable to complete the CRaG process before the end of the transition period, we have brought them into effect via “provisional application”, or through a “bridging mechanism”. These are tried and tested methods, used widely around the world, and do not affect Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise these deals under CRaG. All signed agreements will be submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. We have also recently re-published a technical note outlining how we have brought agreements into force and effect, as well as those we have not been able to complete, due to entry-into-force considerations.
Many deals have been done—even where it was previously thought by some to be impossible—but we have always been clear that we will only agree to a deal if it is in the British national interest, irrespective of deadlines. Likewise, factors in those countries with who are negotiating, such as elections or delays in forming a government, can intervene and halt trade negotiations.
As a result, it was not possible to secure agreements with Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Algeria, Montenegro and Albania by the end of the transition period. British exports to these markets totalled less than £1 billion in 2019, or just 0.07% of our total trade.
In addition, though we were unable to sign an agreement for entry into force on 1 January, Ghana reached a consensus with us on the main elements of an agreement on 31 December 2020. All these countries remain valued partners on a range of economic and security issues, so our message is clear—if they wish to regain the terms of trade that have existed in recent past, they will find a willing partner in Britain. We have published updated guidance on gov.uk to make sure businesses are aware of the changes that came into force at the turn of the year.
Our continuity programme will deliver a real and positive impact for British businesses and consumers. And this is not the end of the journey. There is more to do in the months and years ahead.
All the deals my Department is negotiating will bring trade and investment to Britain—delivering economic growth, creating opportunity in every corner of our great country, helping Britain bounce back.
Trade leads to better jobs and higher wages for workers; and more choice and lower prices for consumers. Trade helps protect our environment and protect our health. Trade is a force for good and I look forward to making further progress in the future.
[HCWS748]
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today, the Government submitted their notification of intent to begin the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) accession process.
This notification of intent comes shortly after the UK celebrates one year since leaving the EU and becoming an independent trading nation.
It is our first step in accession to the CPTPP which is part of a big strategic move that aims to deepen the UK’s access to fast-growing markets and major economies of the future, including Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam, for the benefit of UK business.
Joining the £9 trillion free trade area will cut tariffs for vital UK industries like food and drink and cars and create new opportunities for future industries like tech and services, ultimately supporting and creating high-value jobs across the United Kingdom and helping the country build back better from covid-19.
Unlike EU membership, joining does not require the UK to cede control over our laws, borders, or money.
The UK would be the first country to take forward accession negotiations since the agreement was formed in 2018, putting us at the front of the queue to become the next full member. A number of other countries have also expressed an interest in joining, including Thailand, Colombia and South Korea.
Joining is a critical part of the Government’s wider trade strategy, which aims to deepen links with some of the fastest growing parts of the world, partnering with countries who believe in free and fair trade.
The CPTPP is one of the most important free trade areas in the world, accounting for 13% of global GDP in 2019. CPTPP GDP would rise to 16% if the UK were to join.
The CPTPP removes tariffs on 95% of goods traded between members and reduces other barriers to trade across four continents. The CPTPP countries accounted for £111 billion worth of UK trade in 2019, and the 2016-2019 annual growth in UK trade with CPTPP member countries was 8% a year. Joining now opens the way to further increase trade with these economies, enabling the UK to build back better by bringing more opportunities for our businesses and supporting jobs for our people.
Benefits that membership will bring for businesses include:
Modern digital trade rules that allow data to flow freely between members, remove unnecessary barriers for businesses, and protect commercial source code and encryption.
Eliminating tariffs quicker on UK exports including whisky—down from 165% to 0% in Malaysia—and cars—reducing to 0% in Canada by 2022, two years earlier than through the UK-Canada trade deal.
Rules of origin that allow content from any country within the CPTPP to count as “originating’”; for example, this would mean that cars made in the UK could use more Japanese-originating car parts, such as batteries.
Easier travel for businesspeople between CPTPP countries, such as the potential for faster and cheaper visas.
As well as removing trade barriers, the CPTPP helps businesses trade easily across borders and keep supply chains open and predictable. Joining the CPTPP will help us diversify our supply chains, which could help make us more resilient in an adverse environment such as the coronavirus pandemic.
Joining the CPTPP also creates an opportunity to help level up the UK. UK regions and nations exported between £1 billion and £3.7 billion worth of goods to CPTPP countries last year, including £2.4 billion worth of exports from Scotland, £2 billion from the north-west, and £3.1 billion from the east midlands.
CPTPP membership is a key part of the Government’s plan to position the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade deals that support jobs and drive economic growth at home, while also positioning us as a champion of free trade and reform of the rules-based system abroad.
The CPTPP sets modern rules in areas of increasing importance for UK industry and business. This includes strategically important sectors such as digital, financial, professional and business services. Digitally delivered services from the UK to CPTPP members, for example, already hit £18.7 billion in 2019; joining now creates an opportunity to unleash forward-leaning parts of our economy like this.
Furthermore, membership puts the UK is in a prime position to help reshape these global rules in UK strengths like digital and data, and in services.
It would help to secure our future place in the world as a leader in a network of countries committed to free trade and send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that as an independent trading nation the UK will champion free trade, fight protectionism and remove barriers to trade at every opportunity. In doing so, we aim to turn the UK, a newly independent trading nation, into a global hub for businesses and investors wanting to trade with the rest of the world
Over the last two years, we have engaged with all 11 member countries at both ministerial and official level to discuss UK accession to the CPTPP. All CPTPP members have welcomed the UK’s interest in accession.
As part of one of the largest consultation exercises run by the UK Government in 2018, we sought views on potential UK accession to the CPTPP and are using these responses to inform our preparations. We are continuing to engage business, civil society, and trade unions on an ongoing basis where they can outline their priorities.
As we have committed, the UK will publish their negotiation objectives, scoping analysis, and consultation response for public and parliamentary scrutiny, and when we are ready to begin formal negotiations.
We will only accede to CPTPP on terms compatible with the UK’s broader interests and domestic priorities.
The Government have been clear that the NHS and the price it pays for drugs is not for sale in any trade negotiations—including the CPTPP—and that they will not sign trade deals that compromise the UK’s high environmental protections, animal welfare and food standards.
[HCWS747]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The timing for this debate is quite tight, so I urge all noble Lords to please keep to their allotted time.
The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Relations Committee The UK’s relationship with the Pacific Alliance (8th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 386).
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by thanking all the then members of the International Relations Committee when this report was first published; the excellent clerk and support staff for their work; and, especially, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who urged us to look at this area and whose expertise greatly benefited the committee, and from whom we will hear shortly.
This is, of course, a delayed debate, in the sense that publication was actually more than 18 months ago. Things inevitably move on, as they certainly have done in relation to the subject matter of this inquiry and report. It is a pity in a way, not least because it means that the initiative in discussion and new insights into important issues tend to slide away from your Lordships’ House into other fora. I know that some colleagues will want to say something about these long delays, which may be inevitable, between the publication and debate of Lords reports. In the meantime, at least this delay gives us the chance to update ourselves on fast-moving events in the region we are looking at today. There is sort of a silver lining to the delay situation.
The Pacific Alliance currently brings together Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. It was founded in 2011 and covers trade and a whole range of wider issues as well. It is one of a number of trade associations and organisations in the Latin America region. In global terms it is relatively small, with a total population of 210 million people, compared with the giant new networks that have sprung up in Asia and are now reshaping the whole of world trade and commerce, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—which I will talk a bit more about in a moment, or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, which, with a market of 2.2 billion people, dwarfs even the European Union.
The Pacific Alliance is certainly thriving, although it has had to survive quite a few political bumps and changes along the way, including several since we wrote this report. As the Financial Times rightly warns, all these will certainly continue. Also, British trade relations with the region have been pretty modest in recent decades, involving in fact only about 0.7% of our total exports and 0.6% of our imports for the four countries in the alliance, and indeed with only 1.5% of our total exports going to the whole of Latin America. Of course, in the distant past things were quite different, and Britain had a far larger and deeper connection with South America. So it may be thought a little strange that your Lordships’ International Relations Committee chose back then to undertake even a short inquiry—as this one is—on these four specific countries, when most of our inquiries tend to be on major and overarching foreign policy issues rather than bilateral single-country relationships.
But there were at least two reasons why we did this. First, the Pacific Alliance is a classic example of the way that world trade is changing. We are not looking at a static picture at all, but at a very fast-evolving one. Saplings grow, sometimes very rapidly, into big trees with wide-spreading branches. The PA is not a customs union; it is something much more modern. I would say it is more of a product of the digital age, when data and services start to form the bulk of international exchange.
If we look at the new world trade pattern as a complex new jigsaw, which it is, the Pacific Alliance is certainly one of the pieces without which the picture is not complete, and to which the time has come to give renewed and close attention. Linkages between the Pacific Alliance and another major Latin American trading group, Mercosur, could well develop soon. Ecuador could join before long. There are co-operation agreements with the Eurasian Economic Union—not much talked about here in the UK—and with the OECD. Partly this is just what happens in the digital age between networks as they weave together, and partly it is because forward-looking states that want open trade and to be champions of liberalisation, as these four countries do, now seek combined defences against the rather ugly modes of protection which are very much around.
Secondly, when it comes to why we looked at this issue and this region, the word “Pacific” tells the story. The four countries involved face the Pacific and are clearly looking to Pacific trade as a key to their future. Three of the four are already members of the CPTPP I mentioned, and, of course, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are now associates in return, as it were, with the alliance.
This is an area of acute interest to our own future trade policy as we too seek—and, in fact, officially apply for tomorrow—membership of the CPTPP. We will join its existing 11 members, of which six are members of the Commonwealth—a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of Ministers so far. It is located in the region where almost all the growth in trade, consumer markets, world GDP and innovation over the next 10 years and beyond is most likely, and has been predicted, to occur.
The International Trade Secretary used a good phrase the other day in commenting on the UK’s very interesting new comprehensive partnership agreement with Japan. She said we needed a “Pacific mindset” in developing our global trade policy, to which I would add that we need a Commonwealth mindset, since we have the good fortune to be a member of that vast worldwide network and since all these networks are increasingly interconnected with and reinforcing each other. This is the new emerging pattern in which our intense engagement is essential for our future prosperity, as well as our security.
The government response to our short report was broadly positive and helpful but a little prickly about our urgings that the UK needed to do a lot more and have a clearer overall approach to the region and generally to engage more strongly. But I am sure that the august minds in the now FCDO are fully used to this sort of parliamentary nudging, which may have its critical elements, I concede, but which I hope reinforces the efforts of those in Whitehall who are beavering away at these sometimes unfashionable but potentially—and in due course—crucial areas of trade, investment and broader politics.
These countries are far from being the lowest-income states but some of them undoubtedly have severe problems of poverty and need to develop much faster. Like almost every other region, the pandemic has, of course, set them back very grievously indeed.
The UK provides ODA funds of about £180 million in all for Latin America and £600 million in bilateral programmes. But by far the best way nowadays to build lasting links, which we discussed in our inquiry, is through providing well-focused, technology-based solutions to specific areas and concentrating on the mechanisms—which are different in each country—which unlock faster and fairer growth. Old and facile ideas about development funds, with the measure being simply the amount of cash being handed out, are, in my view, now hopelessly out of date and misleading.
The nations of Latin America are experiencing varying fortunes, with once-rich Venezuela the outstanding problem area, obviously in the grip of a very regrettable pattern of tyrannical government, and bogged down in an outdated economic doctrine that is causing huge suffering and the exile of large numbers of the population. For most other parts of the Latin American continent, despite the political ructions and the comings and goings and changes at the top, there is plenty of promise in the new era ahead. These nations see themselves no longer as America’s backyard or in the so-called American pond. The pond—if one can call it that—to which British attention, commercial thrust and our substantial soft-power influence should be turned, and where major issues affecting our security and prosperity now lie, is the Pacific Ocean. That means having a Pacific mindset and engaging energetically with all groupings heading in the same direction, as the Pacific Alliance is clearly now doing. The hope must be that this short report gives a small further push towards that important goal. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his characteristically well-informed and expert introduction. I welcome that way that this report has highlighted the potential to the UK of the Pacific Alliance, established in 2011. That importance is underlined, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said, by the fact that the leaders of China and another 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region signed in November 2020—just two months ago—one of the biggest free trade deals in history, covering 2.2 billion people and 30% of the world’s economic output. Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea signed the deal, alongside members of the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.
Can the Minister comment on the weekend news that the UK is applying to join a free trade area made up of 11 Asia-Pacific nations, under its post-Brexit plans? The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—includes Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, covering a market of around half a billion people and generating more than 13% of the world’s income. As the Minister will be aware, there are 11 countries in the CPTPP, some overlapping with the Pacific Alliance. Formed in 2018, it comprises Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Can the Minister say when negotiations will begin and what human rights, employment protection and sustainable growth clauses Britain will seek to place within it?
The committee reports:
“The Government appears to lack a coherent, well thought-through approach to Latin America as a whole, and to its regional and subregional organisations.”
Yet many of the countries in the region, including members of the Pacific Alliance, are ones with which the UK shares considerable common ground on policy issues, such as on the global economy, trade, sustaining the rules-based international order, upholding human rights and addressing climate change. I agree with the committee that the Government should raise and promote the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, particularly in the context of UK companies’ activities in the region, and that they should promote only sustainable, inclusive growth in a continent where nature has been devastated by human commercialism—Brazil’s Amazon rainforest is still being plundered—and which engages with the concerns of indigenous peoples.
Given that this month the UK will take up the presidency of the UN Security Council, and that Mexico is currently serving as a non-permanent member of the council, what effort are the Government making to co-operate with Mexico as one of the most influential nations in the Pacific Alliance? As part of the COP 26 presidency, what steps will the Government take to tackle the climate crisis, specifically in the Pacific Alliance countries, Peru in particular? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Colombian Government uphold their commitment to end violence against human rights defenders and trade unionists? Because UK citizens can be safe during the Covid-19 pandemic only if everyone in the world is safe, what steps have the Government taken to support vaccine access for central America, when Pacific Alliance countries such as Colombia and Chile are yet to even begin their full vaccination programmes? After the Government’s pernicious cut in aid, what proportion of the multibillion aid cuts will fall on the programmes in the Pacific Alliance?
As the committee argued, together these four Pacific Alliance countries constitute the world’s seventh-largest economy, with “great” potential for increases in the current miserly levels of UK trade. I applaud its recommendations for: around 400 Chevening scholarships to students from Pacific Alliance countries; support for green finance; support for girls’ education, especially in science, engineering, technology and mathematics; and help to strengthen the countries’ competition authorities. I also urge more support for the British Council, which has also suffered big cuts in its vital training, arts and engagement exercises. Like aid cuts, this is a pathetically self-defeating policy for a Government who trumpet “global Britain” yet undermine the British Council, which, as I have seen as a Minister abroad, has been so brilliant at promoting Britain.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this report, with reservations. The UK has neglected relations with Latin American countries since the last war. There have been periodic attempts to increase our commitment, and to reverse the decline in trading and investment links, but we have continued to lag far behind Germany and others in the intensity of our relations with most countries in the region.
I have often acted as a guide in singing tours of Westminster Abbey, where I walk over the tomb of Admiral Lord Cochrane, who at one point commanded the Chilean navy and helped found the Peruvian fleet. Britain has strong historical ties with Latin America that we have let decline. As a policy analyst working on transatlantic relations, I have attended conferences in Chile and Mexico, and have also visited Peru. The members of the Pacific Alliance are significant states. On any definition of global Britain, we should be paying more attention to relations with Latin American states and markets, but we should not fall into the trap of assuming that trade with Latin America can somehow replace trade with the European continent; nor fall into the illusion that economic integration among South American countries is an easier process to commit the UK to than any European one. I recall when I was a young academic, 50 years ago, the optimism of Mexican economists about the prospects for the Latin American Free Trade Association and other regional schemes. These failed or stagnated as regimes changed in different South American states.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is correct to argue that the UK needs to pay more attention to the Pacific as a region—with the rapidly growing economies of east and south-east Asia now acting as the dynamo of global growth, and with the rise of China creating new economic and security challenges—but we need to beware of overemphasising the prospect of Britain becoming a major commercial or military player in the Pacific; nor should we see commitment to Pacific co-operation as an alternative to continued engagement with European states and markets and across the wider European neighbourhood to the Mediterranean and Africa. The enthusiasm with which the Secretary of State for International Trade has just announced the UK’s application to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership contrasts sharply with her antagonism towards the European Union. The CPTPP, if it develops into a serious economic grouping, which is not yet clear, will compromise UK sovereignty on issues such as animal welfare, regulation of chemicals, and investor protection. It is not clear to me why such limits on sovereignty should be more acceptable to our Government in the Pacific than across the North Sea.
The Pacific Alliance is only a small player on the fringes of the Pacific region. One of its four members is not yet a member of the CPTPP. China and the USA are its dominant external partners. The EU as a whole is less important to it. Britain, as the report notes, sends less than 1% of its exports to it. A determined export drive might raise this to 2% or even 3%.
Some of the comments in the report seem questionable. We are told about the
“importance of defence co-operation between the UK and Chile”.
Is that really important compared with our defence co-operation with France and the Netherlands, which our Government attempt to hide from their own people? It is suggested that these countries should be encouraged to have closer relations with the Commonwealth, but we are not told why or how the UK will explain the value of that to the Commonwealth’s African neighbours.
Yes, we should work harder to develop trade and investment with these and other Latin American countries. No, this is not a major element in the new global Britain that the Prime Minister has promised to recreate—to make Britain great again, in his Trumpian phraseology. We await the overdue integrated review of foreign and security strategy to learn about the Government’s vision of Britain’s global role after Brexit, in which closer relations with these four states should have a significant but small part.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I served on the International Relations Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I was the president of the Peru Support Group at the time. Our clerk and her team enabled us to deal with a great deal of evidence, including a valuable session with the ambassadors of the four Pacific Alliance countries.
Since the report’s publication, the UK has withdrawn from the EU, promoted its global Britain strategy and signed continuity agreements with all four Pacific Alliance member states, so it is time now to implement the report’s core recommendation:
“The UK should deepen its engagement with the Pacific Alliance as an active observer state”.
In their response, the Government said that they agreed with that, so I will give a few examples of what being an active observer state should look like and what is in it for the UK.
One of our witnesses, Professor Gardini, pointed out that one of the alliance’s strategic objectives is to build relationships within the Asia-Pacific region, also offering an opportunity for
“UK insertion into regional and global value chains aiming at the Asian market.”
Professor Gardini also said that the alliance could be
“a significant political partner in global forums and issues.”
This could be helpful in reconfiguring our international influence outside the EU and building alliances on global issues such as climate change, on which the UK aspires to be a global leader and which the alliance identifies as a key concern.
The UK has also shown leadership in respect of the UN’s principles on business and human rights. Greater engagement with the Pacific Alliance provides a unique opportunity to put this commitment into practice by influencing sustainable growth within the region without trampling on the rights of indigenous communities.
Since we reported, there have been significant events in the Pacific Alliance countries as well as in our own—most notably, and in common with the rest of the world, the Covid pandemic, resulting in deep recession in all four countries. Chile has experienced widespread social and political disruption, and Colombia continues to struggle in many ways to implement the peace accord. In all four member states, the fallout from Venezuela is making heavy demands across society.
However, the main proposition of the report holds good. At their summit only last month, the four member states showed confidence and resilience in the role and remit of the alliance, announcing an action plan to address the pandemic’s economic and commercial impact, a digital transformation plan and a declaration on gender equality. Singapore is poised to upgrade from observer status to being an associate member. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are expected to do likewise in 2021. South Korea and Ecuador are also candidates for associate membership. Associate status is based on free trade agreements. When our continuity agreements expire, will the Government look at converting them into an FTA with the alliance as a whole, possibly even seeking associate status alongside other Commonwealth partners?
The report sets out the clear potential for UK export growth in the region. I emphasise the recommendation that the DIT restore “direct language support” to business. Will the Minister take this up with the department?
However, the Pacific Alliance is not just about trade. It is also about the well-being of citizens, addressing inequalities and social inclusion, cultural and educational mobility, and co-operation on scientific research. The role of the British Council is highly valued. Yet we continue to undermine our own interests and those of the Pacific Alliance in these areas, as well as in business, by persisting with an outdated and unjustifiable visa regime that still restricts, delays and deters visitors to the UK from Peru and Colombia for tourism, study or business. Mexico and Chile are not subject to via restrictions; it really is time that the Government accept the case for a level playing field across all four alliance countries. We get the same stonewalling answers every time a question is asked about this, but there can be no clearer case for removing the short-term visa requirements for Peru and Colombia. Will the Minister take this up urgently with Home Office colleagues?
I have not been able to do this report justice in five minutes but I hope that I have at least illustrated, with a few examples, how and why it is very much in the UK’s enlightened self-interest to strengthen our relationship with the Pacific Alliance with serious focus and energy.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on his perseverance, which has finally secured time for a debate on our International Relations and Defence Committee’s report, The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance. It was a pleasure to serve as a member of the committee under my noble friend’s chairmanship and, indeed, as a colleague on the Front Bench for many years before that. It was therefore an honour to follow him as chair of the committee 18 months ago.
Post Brexit, the UK now has the opportunity to reconsider its strategy in delivering on its global Britain agenda. We await the publication of the long-delayed integrated review of foreign policy, defence, security and development. On 18 January, my noble friend Lord Ahmad confirmed in the House that it will now include a soft power strategy—also long delayed.
Today, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, begins his work in a new post in Downing Street as the Prime Minister’s representative on Brexit and international policy. It is reported that he will liaise with the Foreign Secretary. One has to wonder, however, what impact that will have on the decision-making process in the FCDO. I welcome the noble Lord’s appointment. He is to be congratulated on his work in negotiating our trade agreement with the EU. I also hope that I will have the opportunity this year to welcome him to our committee to give evidence.
It is a pleasure to see my noble friend Lord Godson take his seat today. He is the director of Policy Exchange. I agree with the position expounded in its recent report, A Very British Tilt:
“As it contemplates its global interests post-Brexit, the UK could and should play a significantly larger role in the Indo-Pacific Region. Specifically, it should aim to foster a community of free and independent nations committed to upholding peace, stability, prosperity, and access in the region. By offering a vision of a common strategic future built around shared principles and focused on shared challenges … Britain can add to existing defence, trade, and political relationships and inspire new approaches.”
Last month, the International Trade Secretary said in another place that our accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership is “a priority”. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in asking my noble friend the Minister to confirm whether the Trade Secretary has now formally confirmed the media reports from this weekend that today is the day when we will make an application to join that agreement. In doing so, of course, we would be the first non-founder member to do so.
As my noble friend has said, three members of that partnership are also members of the Pacific Alliance: Chile, Mexico and Peru. The fourth, Colombia, has given formal notice of its interest in joining the agreement. That should be a reminder that, when we talk about an Asia-Pacific tilt, there are two sides to that great ocean and there are important opportunities to engage with like-minded countries in both regions.
The UK has observer status in the Pacific Alliance. How have we engaged with it since the publication of our committee’s report so long ago, for example in areas such as consumer protection, infrastructure and development, culture, education and trade facilitation? What steps have the FCDO and DIT taken to raise and promote the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, commonly known as the Ruggie principles? I note that DIT launched the UK’s first ever Latin America and Caribbean investor club in April 2019. What assessment have the Government made of its progress so far?
In conclusion, I add my thanks to the ambassadors to the UK from Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, who gave evidence to our Select Committee, and for the enduring friendship that they have shown to this Parliament. Indeed, we have also benefited in recent months from their briefing meetings, hosted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union British group. Continued and deepening engagement with members of the Pacific Alliance can clearly be of benefit to them but also to us.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join and engage in this debate, and to have the opportunity to learn from the considerable experience and expertise that your Lordships bring to it.
I have relatively little experience of the region. I have, however, had the opportunity to visit Mexico on a number of occasions, most recently when I was part of an election observation delegation that saw Andrés Manuel López Obrador elected. I was therefore interested in the phrase in the report that said that countries in the region remain
“vulnerable to political swings at future elections”.
I merely observe that either the maintenance in power of a party or a change to a different party in power, as has just happened in the US, is what we tend to think of as democracy, so “vulnerable” seems a slightly odd word to me.
I will make a couple of observations about Colombia, which I have had visited a number of times with British and other parliamentarians and trade unionists. The reason for those visits was to engage with human rights defenders who have come under considerable attack and to meet trade unionists, many of whom have been imprisoned under the catch-all legislation of rebellion. When the report talks of the UK having
“a set of shared values, whether on democracy, or the way we want to see the international system working, based on rules”,
I am pleased that the recommendations and conclusions contain the following:
“The UK should also continue in its bilateral engagement to support and help to strengthen the rule of law in these countries.”
Specifically, I was recently pleased that the Minister was able to engage with some of these issues in response to a Question. I will add to the large number of questions already put to him today. As the penholder for Colombia at the UN, the UK has a particular responsibility to play an active role in ensuring that the Colombian Government uphold their commitment to end violence against human rights defenders and trade unionists. When the Minister spoke of these matters in response to the Question, the answers were very fulsome, but I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to ask the Minister for an update on the UK’s recent work as the penholder for Colombia and to say what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made of recent levels of violence there.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, both for the important report that he and his committee have written and for obtaining this substantial debate. It gives us an opportunity to discuss the relationship with the four countries of the Pacific Alliance and advise Her Majesty’s Government on how they should prioritise and promote this set of relationships.
I have a long-standing interest in this area, particularly in Colombia and Peru. I declare my registered interest as the president of the Peru Support Group. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, played an important role in the origins of the report and spoke with such passion and insight this afternoon.
My relationship with those countries and my visits to them began many years ago when Northern Ireland, my own part of the United Kingdom, was emerging from a long and painful experience of terrorism. Both Peru and Colombia were seeking to do the same. Of course, the underlying issues that find tragic expression in terrorist campaigns do not easily or quickly go away—even when, as in Colombia in particular, there has been a substantial effort at peacebuilding. My connection with both countries still includes regular contact with colleagues there who continue to work to build peace, stability and reconciliation, as is also the case in Northern Ireland.
However, like the Select Committee report does, I will focus on some other important elements of our relationships and how they can be developed to our mutual benefit, especially in this post-Brexit period. One of my frustrations over the years has been the way in which our Governments have consciously turned away from long-standing relationships with Latin America. I well recall protesting in your Lordships’ House against the decision of the Blair Administration to withdraw resources from Latin America in favour of a focus on China. The closure of the British Council office in Lima in 2006 is just one example of this serious strategic error of judgment, which was clear to me at the time—and I said so. Abandoning long-standing relationships of that kind in favour of hoped-for economic benefits from countries that do not share our values is almost always foolish and misguided, as those decisions have proved to be.
I hope that the announcement just made by the Government of their intention to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is a genuine resetting of our orientation. We have a long-standing relationship with these countries. I was reminded—your Lordships may be amused to hear this—of the length of that relationship when I saw that the main highway in Santiago was named after Bernardo O’Higgins: a clear demonstration of the long-standing relationship and one with which the noble Lord, Lord West, would be particularly pleased since O’Higgins was an admiral.
I also hope that the relations with the Pacific Alliance countries that are currently members of the CPTPP will expand—and include all of them, of course—and will be real priorities and not secondary to those with some of the other members that are also long-standing and valued friends.
In our negotiations and in the deepening of the relationship with the Pacific Alliance countries, particularly Peru and Colombia, I have four requests of Her Majesty’s Government. The first is that, to facilitate business, tourist and citizen contacts, the UK needs to change its visa regulations for Peru and Colombia. I have mentioned this before and I am delighted to see that the report is very clear about its importance. I suspect that the unspoken reason for the stonewalling by the Government is to do with security. I am familiar with those issues but I do not think that they should be regarded as a problem. The potential benefits of mutual contact between our countries cannot be overestimated, but even as we all suffer from the profound restrictions on travel very properly in place because of Covid, there is much that can be done online in language, culture and the future opportunities of digital developments.
Secondly, we have long-standing substantial investments in the region, for example in the extractive industries of Peru. I want to see that develop but I also want to see it taking place with due regard to the welfare of the environment, with which the Pacific Alliance is so richly and variously endowed, and—thirdly—the interests of the indigenous peoples of the region, many of whom live in deep poverty and are suffering grievously from the pandemic.
The problems for indigenous peoples go back a long way, as does the concern of Her Majesty’s Government for their welfare. I remind your Lordships of the report on the Anglo-Peruvian Amazon Rubber Co. by Sir Roger Casement in the early 1900s, when he was a diplomat for the United Kingdom. Will Her Majesty’s Government undertake that in all relationships and agreements the interests of the indigenous people, and the people as a whole, will get due attention?
Fourthly and lastly, we want to see economic co-operation. We may well wish to be able to give health co-operation in this time when vaccines are needed. In all these and many other areas, there is much to be gained from our co-operation with the Pacific Alliance countries. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and his colleagues, for this excellent report.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford for introducing this debate. I must admit that when I signed up to speak, I had mistakenly thought that we would be debating our imminent accession to the CPTPP, which should form an important pillar of the profile of global Britain as we renew and deepen our relationships around the world after leaving the EU. I must also admit that I was not aware of the existence of the Pacific Alliance and briefly contemplated withdrawing from the debate because, although I have spent many years living and working on the eastern shore of the Pacific and have visited California, British Columbia and Hawaii several times, I do not know the Latin American countries of that alliance at all. It is probably true that we hear much more about the Mercosur alliance than the Pacific Alliance, as the former’s total GDP is about 30% greater and, at $2.5 trillion annually, is approaching that of the UK.
However, having read the interesting report of the Select Committee I decided not to withdraw, not least because three of the four member countries of the Pacific Alliance are also members of the CPTPP. It is worth noting that of the other eight members of that organisation, only Japan and Vietnam are not members of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the fourth country of the Pacific Alliance, Colombia, has given notification of its interest in joining the CPTPP. Of the six Commonwealth members that are already members of the CPTPP, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore are already associate members of the Pacific Alliance and therefore committed to enter into free trade agreements with it. Therefore, to maximise our influence in and the benefits we can gain from membership of the CPTPP, it seems logical that we should also seek associate membership of the Pacific Alliance and closer relationships with its members on a bilateral basis.
Two of the early continuity trade agreements to be negotiated were those with Chile, in January 2019, and with the Andean countries, which include Colombia and Peru, in August 2019. As your Lordships are well aware, we concluded a continuity trade agreement with Mexico just in time. However, in general, the Pacific Alliance members are not among those countries with which we have as many historical and trade links as others. Guyana is the only South American country which is a member of the Commonwealth.
The committee’s report noted that China is now the largest trade partner of Chile and Peru and is “extending its cultural diplomacy” throughout the region. It is very much in our interest that the UK, together with other democratic partners which practise rules-based free trade, should seek to balance that trend.
Lastly, the recent research paper by Robin Niblett of Chatham House underestimates global Britain’s capabilities. He does not say very much about Latin America but I do not think he is right to suggest that
“Britain will have to fight its way to the table on many of the most important transatlantic issues”.
His supposition that, even outside the EU, the UK Government
“will be better networked institutionally than almost any other country’s”
implies that the EU has added to our soft power around the world. During the years when I lived in Japan, I often attended meetings at the British embassy and at what was then called the Delegation of the European Communities in Tokyo. I am in no doubt that as the European legation grew in numbers and role, it became a competitor to the member states’ embassies. My experience has informed my view that the expansion of the EEAS has diminished slightly even the UK’s diplomatic influence overseas.
I welcome and support the Select Committee’s report’s conclusions, especially that the strengthening of the UK’s relationships with the Pacific Alliance countries, and with the organisation itself, will be invaluable as we negotiate the terms of our accession to the CPTPP.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this debate. I regret having to begin my contribution to it with a procedural issue, which is the lengthening gap between the publication of Select Committee reports and the holding of debates on them. In the case of this report, it is well over a year. I do so free of any accusation of self-serving, because I am no longer on the committee, as I was when the noble Lord, Lord Howell, so brilliantly chaired our committee and produced this report.
I challenge anyone who is aware of the speed with which international affairs develop to defend gaps of this sort between publication and debate, or indeed the failure so far to schedule a debate on the committee’s report on sub-Saharan Africa, which was published more than seven months ago. I really plead with the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate, not to take cover behind talking about this committee or that group being responsible for such delays, and rather to agree to go and consider with his colleagues how we could do better. If we can set a two-month limit for the Government to respond to the conclusions and recommendations of these reports, as we do, why on earth can the House not set itself a time limit of, let us say, four or five months after publication to have a debate?
This debate is a timely reminder of just how thin our relationships are with the countries of Latin America and their regional and subregional organisations, such as the Pacific Alliance. Months, if not years, go by when neither the Government nor Parliament pay much attention to those countries, yet they comprise a substantial portion of the world’s population and economy. In the 19th century we played an important and often beneficial role in their development, and I am not referring just to football. Since then, our role has dwindled through neglect, yet these countries are natural partners and allies in trade, in promoting human rights, in protecting democratic institutions and in dealing with climate change. This makes all the more lamentable the Government’s decision to renege on our commitment to the UN target of giving 0.7% of our gross national income to aid. Can the Minister say what effect that decision is likely to have in the next financial year on our aid to Latin America in general and to the countries of the Pacific Alliance and their programmes in particular?
One key area in which we could strengthen our links with Latin America is that of trade policy. It has been stated time and again by the Government that leaving the EU would enable us to negotiate free trade agreements worldwide, but what sign is there of that in Latin America? So far, there is nothing more than rolling over agreements which simply replicate what already existed when we were an EU member state. That is just running to stand still, however much hyperbole the Secretary of State for International Trade may lavish on their signature. One might ask, quite literally: where is the beef? Are we, for example, going to move ahead with Mercosur while its agreement with the EU is not yet ratified, and can we improve on it? What work has the DIT done to identify products—ethanol, for example—from the countries of Latin America on which we could offer better access than the EU? I hope the answers to these last questions will be given by the Minister and will not be similar to that given in the context of our report on sub-Saharan Africa, which was, “We have done absolutely nothing to identify improved access.”
The Government speak often about the objective of pursuing a “global Britain” foreign policy. So far, that remains a slogan without much content—more a branding exercise than a policy. But if it is to become more than that in reality, it will need to have a Latin American dimension and to encompass the countries of the Pacific Alliance. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about that when he replies to the debate.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his introductory speech, and the committee he then chaired and its staff and advisers for the report we are debating. As noble Lords have commented, because the formal request to join the CPTPP is—apparently—imminent, this debate, although delayed, is timely.
The report implies what a 2019 Foreign Affairs Committee report says specifically:
“South America is a source of … untapped potential”
for the UK, offering an opportunity to develop UK influence and promote mutual prosperity, security and stability. My interest is in security and stability. One important example of the success of UK diplomacy is the UK’s consistent support of the Colombian peace process. However, human rights continue to be a concern in Colombia and across the region, with an increasing number of attacks against human rights defenders, as my noble friend Lady Blower said. This and the report’s recommendations that emphasise upholding human rights will be, with specific reference to the Colombian peace process, the sole focus of my contribution to the debate.
Despite Colombia signing a peace accord in 2016, the human rights situation there is worsening. Violence against human rights defenders, former combatants and trade unionists has escalated. In fact, in December, the UN reported that 120 human rights defenders and 249 former combatants had been killed, and that there had been a generalised increase in violence in 2020, with 66 massacres in the country. According to its ministry of defence, in 2020 the number of victims of massacres quadrupled compared with the last year of the peace negotiations. Military intelligence was also found to be spying on human rights defenders, journalists, high court magistrates and members of the opposition, and to be selling information to neo-paramilitaries. It might well have used equipment we sold to it to do this.
Neo-paramilitary and other illegal groups continue to take advantage of the pandemic to strengthen their social and territorial control. Violence is perpetrated in Colombia by all armed actors, but the groups most responsible are the neo-paramilitary and criminal organisations. Not only do they take the lives of most human rights defenders and former combatants, but their activities in rural areas are exacerbating humanitarian crises, enforcing confinement, and driving forced displacement and other human rights abuses, as well as the expansion of illicit economies. They are the key players in the violence against communities and a major obstacle to the implementation of the peace accord.
The UN verification mission, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, civil society and others have all highlighted the importance of the National Commission on Security Guarantees for sustainable peace in Colombia. The commission is a body charged under the peace agreement with developing a public policy for dismantling neo-paramilitary and criminal organisations and their support networks. It is essential that the verification mission is supported to carry out its work effectively. If we are to see one of the major obstacles to peace in Colombia removed that is a necessity.
Upholding human rights and ensuring sustainable peace are essential before deepening trading relationships with Colombia, as some of the worst human rights abuses involving business occur—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lord Browne, we seem to have lost your sound.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
I apologise. In this difficult context, businesses wittingly and unwittingly contribute to human rights harm.
The UK must always be confident—[Inaudible]—and that includes defending human rights. I have only one question for the Minister, and it is an addendum to my noble friend Lady Blower’s question. Once the assessment of recent violence is made and shared with us, what influence will that have on decisions we make on trade with Colombia?
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and his committee for this report. I am pleased that the Government drew our attention to the Canning agenda in their response, which was launched in 2010 by the then Foreign Secretary—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague. That was, of course, a statement of the coalition Government’s policy, and I am reassured that it remains the basis of the present Government’s approach.
Latin America always has difficulty in getting high up the list of British government priorities. We had only one colony on continental South America: Guyana. Spanish and Portuguese are the dominant languages. Customs and laws reflect their colonial past. Political and economic instability has too often been the norm, and external influences have often contributed to it. Little wonder it takes a little courage and fortitude to do business there. No one pretends that making a reality of building better, stronger and longer-lasting links with the Pacific Alliance will be easy, but global Britain should try.
In the brief time available, I will raise three points that would benefit from the Minister’s response. The first is the brush-off given in the Government’s reply to trade envoys. This is an error. This is not a job application, by the way, but I think it is a concept worth developing rather than sidelining. I have no direct experience of being a trade envoy, but I share an office with my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter, who was for five years the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico. I can testify to the time, enthusiasm and hard work she devoted to that role, and how appreciated that work was by the Mexicans. The concept of Prime Minister’s trade envoys enables HMG to show a little tender loving care to countries and regions that may not qualify for a full ministerial visit. To inspire confidence, however, they should be clearly separated from any idea of personal patronage by the Prime Minister, although I see merit in associating the Prime Minister’s name with their mission.
Secondly, I mentioned that our only mainland South American colony was Guyana, but there are many Commonwealth members in the nearby Caribbean. Is there scope, in developing closer links with the Pacific Alliance, to encourage closer links between the Pacific Alliance and the Caribbean Commonwealth?
My third point concerns a more difficult part of our relationship. Mexico and Colombia are major sources of drug trafficking. Can our closer co-operation with the Pacific Alliance—and, if we foster them, its closer working relations with the Caribbean Commonwealth—help in the war on drugs?
It would be interesting to know whether the Foreign Secretary plans another Canning lecture any time soon, and whether it will contain any of the vision and sense of urgency contained in the 2010 speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hague. Will we, as he said in 2010, be keen to broker
“a strategic alliance between Latin America and Europe on climate change”,
or seek to make the UK
“the partner of choice in education and culture, offering new English language skills to a wider audience and fostering knowledge sharing and creativity in arts and science”?
The Canning House paper published in 2020 to mark the 10th anniversary of that speech noted some fear in the region that it would once again slip down our priority list. I know the Minister will be reassuring in his reply because he is the Minister for reassuring replies, but action, not words, will determine how far we have moved from the vision presented by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, on behalf of the coalition 11 years ago and the reality of our future relations with the Pacific Alliance.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, replicating and building on the 40 trade deals with over 70 countries that the UK enjoyed as a member of the EU was never going to be easy. But, to be fair to my right honourable friend Liz Truss and her team, as of the end of 2020 they had arranged the continuation of many of those deals through the mutatis mutandis principle, which in effect carried over the same terms and conditions we had previously enjoyed.
We have also entered into memoranda of understanding with a number of other countries that will, in due course, result in trade deals. The United States remains an important target, but, as someone who has studied the workings and political mechanisms of Congress and the Senate, I hope there is a realisation that this might be much more difficult to achieve in the short term than some would hope. The new Administration in the United States may well have other priorities.
Seeking out new partners above and beyond those we have retained from our EU membership is obviously a good and necessary thing, but the announcement that the Government want the UK to join the CPTPP is of significance, especially if it builds on the connections with the Pacific Alliance advocated by the excellent report on which today’s debate is based. The possibility of the United States also joining the CPTPP is exciting, but again, I suggest, may well be unlikely in the short term.
The work of the committee in producing the report, which explored the possibility of relationships with the alliance, was of course thorough and its conclusions wise. I shall concentrate on one or two of those conclusions. First, the committee pointed out that our involvement with the four countries in the alliance has often been at too low a level to make a difference. Where Ministers should have been deployed, we have instead sent officials, albeit senior ones, to meetings. There seems to be valid criticism that our view of Latin America as a future zone of growth in trade and influence has lacked coherence. I might add that if we consider the multitude of organisations and regional alliances already in Latin America—at least 10 at present—we have a big job on our hands to keep up with each one.
The Government have recently appointed trade envoys and a trade commissioner for Latin America. I wonder whether the resources approved for those roles are sufficient. As the committee pointed out, the work allotted must also be clearly defined. Being part of a large trading organisation can be good for business, but in a post-Brexit world we need also to seek as much bilateral trade as possible with individual countries in the Pacific Alliance, but also in the wider marketplace.
The UK’s influence, when deployed through membership or association with large international organisations, is, of course, always a good thing. We bring many positive features with us, including our advocacy of a rules-based international order and of human rights, and our concern for the environment. In this context, I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, the chair of the committee that produced this report, whose support for, involvement in and stressing of the importance of the Commonwealth over many years should not be understated. The Commonwealth can also increase its links with this part of the world to all our advantages.
It is of course true that the Pacific Alliance countries currently account for only 0.7% of UK exports and 0.6% of UK imports, but that offers a real challenge, and the evidence is that, given strong support from government, those figures could and should be dramatically improved in fast-moving trade opportunities. Chile, Peru and Mexico are now members of the CPTPP; Colombia wishes to join. If the UK is successful in its ambitions to join, that should provide a further stimulus to trade.
The committee’s report is a valuable contribution, and its recommendations must be seriously considered and acted on. The announcement of the CPTPP application is welcome, but like many more of our trade ambitions, it counts for little unless government also put more resources behind it. The Department for International Trade needs to be more proactive at home as well as abroad. Encouraging our exporters to look at Latin America more would be very worth while and pay massive dividends for the UK. We have rightly to look to the future in our pursuit of trading partnerships, but without losing those that have been so much to our advantage in the past and still provide the bulk of our trade.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome this excellent and, ultimately, timely report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the International Relations Committee for securing the debate, although I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that it has been unduly delayed. We have neglected this part of the world for too long, as many noble Lords have said, and in the post-Brexit world cannot afford to do so any longer.
The committee is right to call for increased UK engagement with the countries of the Pacific Alliance. As its report points out, these countries broadly share our democratic values and aspirations for a rules-based international order and to tackle climate change, although I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, regarding Colombia. As the report points out, the alliance has bucked the trade of the increasing populism and protectionist policies seen elsewhere, the latest example being the vaccine nationalism and export controls so disgracefully promoted by the European Commission.
As we have already heard, this is a growing market, representing together the seventh-largest economy in the world. The four Pacific Alliance countries account for 38% of the total GDP of the Caribbean and Latin America, 45% of the region’s foreign direct investment and 50% of the region’s trade. The UK has for too long largely ignored the region politically and economically, with French, Spanish, German and Italian businesses doing much better than British ones, as has been noted. As a body, the EU has committed to deepening its partnership with the alliance, but UK bilateral relations with Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Peru remain weak. Since last October, when the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, stood down, the UK has not even had a trade envoy to Mexico, as was mentioned earlier.
In their response to the committee’s report, Her Majesty’s Government disputed the lack of a coherent strategy for Latin America. The committee called for a coherent, well thought out approach to Latin America as a whole, and its regional and subregional organisations. If there is one, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is keeping it a closely guarded secret that it did not share with the committee. It remains a mystery how the FCDO, the Department for International Trade, ambassadors, the trade commissioner and trade envoys define and co-ordinate their regional roles. I strongly suspect that, currently, they do not.
Nor is it clear how any strategy towards the Pacific Alliance fits in with the UK’s strategy in working with Mercosur, our opening of negotiations with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership or a broader Indo-Pacific strategy reflecting our commitment to a revived role east of Suez for our soft and hard power. Post Brexit, global Britain remains a vague aspiration rather than a fleshed-out strategy. I hope the long-delayed integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy will answer some, if not all, of those questions.
Finally, I have one question for the Minister. There have been reports that Latin American countries are severely short of Covid-19 vaccines. As a sign of good will and humanity, will Her Majesty’s Government pledge to make some of our future surplus vaccine supplies available to the countries of the Pacific Alliance and other countries in the region?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has withdrawn, so I call Lord Grocott.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is 18 months since our committee published its report. That is before the coronavirus pandemic was even thought of and before our country’s departure from the European Union. So much has changed, but the rationale for the report has not. That is best expressed in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, who, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that the UK had
“a track record of underestimating Latin America and neglecting its opportunities”.
Our report focuses on this important challenge, and does so primarily through the prism of the Pacific Alliance. I have time to touch on just two issues: the changes relating to our leaving the European Union and the role of our trade envoys.
First, on our departure from the EU and our capacity to make independent trading arrangements, Ian Perrin, policy forum manager at Canning House, told our committee that leaving the EU
“could act as a spur for the UK to increase engagement with the Pacific Alliance.”
He also said that our trading relations with the region would depend on continuity regarding existing trading arrangements when we exit the EU. Professor Gardini, professor of international relations at Friedrich-Alexander University, told us that if the UK was looking into a
“new trade strategy in a post-Brexit scenario”,
Latin America provided an opportunity
“not only in itself but in terms of UK insertion into regional and global value chains aiming at the Asian market.”
Those are pretty forward-thinking observations in the light of the weekend’s news about the CPTPP.
We now know that Britain has signed continuity trade agreements with all the countries of the Pacific Alliance, which is to be welcomed. Can the Minister update us on any similar arrangements with other countries in the region and tell us what further steps are being taken to maximise the advantages of us being able to make our own independent trading arrangements outside the EU?
I turn to the issue of the Government’s trade envoy programme and the lack of definition about the role of envoys in relation to other parts of the government machinery, which we identified in our report. The International Relations Committee has had a number of unsatisfactory exchanges with the Government about the envoys, including their method of recruitment and appointment, their accountability to the Prime Minister and Parliament, their terms of reference and how their impact is measured and assessed. Those questions were all triggered by the Government’s refusal to allow any of the envoys to appear as witnesses to our committee—an odd refusal since we were inquiring into international trade. The Government clearly attach importance to the trade envoy programme because, on 5 October last year, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of 15 new envoys, doubling the size of the programme, which now covers 69 countries.
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for Trade wrote to our committee, telling us that this is a “cross-party” programme. There are now 30 envoys, only one of whom is allocated to South America, covering three countries: Chile, Colombia and Peru. As for the cross-party aspect, I make it that, of the 30 envoys, 24 are Conservatives. Can the Minister tell us why some countries in Latin America have envoys but most do not? What is the rationale for selecting Chile, Colombia and Peru ahead of all the others? Does he think that 24 out of 30 envoys being Conservatives can fairly be described as “cross-party”? In addition to the questions that I have asked, will he provide us with an up-to-date list of all the envoys, the countries to which they are attached and their party affiliation?
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for securing this debate. He was an excellent chairman of the committee in the first three years of its operation. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, like others, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Howell for securing this debate. He will find that his committee is not the only one in similar circumstances. Eighteen months ago, I served on the committee dealing with bribery and investigating the Bribery Act; our report is going to come up for debate later this week. While it is a long time delayed, it is nevertheless significant.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, to the TTIP and relations with North America. I served on the all-party group. We went on a trip to the United States to meet representatives of various trading organisations representing farmers—pig people, cattle people and grain people—and see how things work in Washington. The noble Lord is right: for anybody who thinks that it is going to be easy, irrespective of the political colour of the President, we must remember that Congress is one of the key decision-makers, and it will decide on the interests of its members. I recall one representative saying that they had X number—I think it was something like 40 Congress people—in their pocket, and there would be no agreement unless they said so. That might have been bombast, but it illustrates that if we put too much hope and emphasis on trying to reach an agreement with the United States to the exclusion of other areas of the world, we will be making a mistake.
I warmly welcome the interest in the Pacific region. We already had contacts there through the Commonwealth; I think that we grossly underplay the importance of that body, given its spread around the world. One thing that we need to look at closely is the attitude of government and Whitehall generally to doing trade around the world. As members of the European Union, I suppose that we became lazy in that we left a lot of this to the European Union to do on our behalf. It is only natural that, with our geographical location, we are always going to have a very significant part to play with our European colleagues; that is quite right. However, Europe as a whole and the EU in particular has been diminishing as a slice of international trade, and growth is very much in the Pacific region. It is important that we pursue that; I congratulate the committee members on their work.
I want to drill down to small business. As the Trade Minister for Northern Ireland, I had the opportunity to lead a number around the world, including in the Asian region. We depended extremely heavily on the local embassies and consulates giving support. I do not believe in giving freebies to companies because we found that if we did that, they did not value them as much, but you can give help, not only financial but also in good back-up in the local embassy or consulate. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure us that that is being rolled out right across our diplomatic footprint. It is important to look at all areas, particularly areas of potential growth that are going to be found in this region.
I also believe that the trade envoy movement, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, is a very welcome development and needs to be expanded. We have lots of people who have connections with a professional career, or political or even academic connections, which should also be pursued, because academia can be a parallel area of promotion and building relationships between this and other countries. I have seen that at first hand in Kuala Lumpur and other places where our local university has opened links with those universities—and businesses will follow. In those circumstances, an entirely more outward-looking attitude is required from Whitehall and government generally. It is improving but we must accelerate it.
Baroness Hooper (Con) [V]
My Lords, as has already been said, this debate has been a long time coming, but it has been worth the wait and has already allowed changing circumstances and developments to be recognised and taken into account—no doubt we shall hear more about updates when my noble friend comes to wind up. Not the least of these changes has been Brexit. While many of the opportunities highlighted in the report could have been taken up by the United Kingdom as a member of the EU, there is no doubt that people are now looking around more actively for new markets. All the hard work of the DIT, UK Export Finance, the regional trade commissioners—the new one for Latin America is about to take up their post—and trade envoys will, I feel sure, pay off. I declare an interest as a newly appointed trade envoy to Panama—an observer country to the Pacific Alliance—Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. I have over the years visited all the countries of Latin America.
I was not a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee, but I was invited to the round table in May 2019 when the ambassadors of the four Pacific Alliance countries and the director of Canning House were expert witnesses. I remember that they emphasised at the time that the Alianza del Pacífico—or Pacific Alliance—stands for free trade, as opposed to the more protectionist Mercosur, to which Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay belong, and with which we have been negotiating a free trade agreement as part of the European Union team and now, of course, unilaterally. They also stated financial integration as a long-term goal, with integrated stock markets, fintech regulation and private sector and government co-operation being necessary to achieve this—so there are plenty of opportunities for us there.
Another area underlined was the role of education, and I would like to pick up there on the importance not only of teaching English and institutional links but of all the trade possibilities of the edtech sector, which the current Covid pandemic has really highlighted. The committee’s recommendation of the need to maintain and increase the number of Chevening scholarships to Latin America is well made. Returning scholars have been seen to become, and have the potential to become, business and political leaders throughout the region. On a personal level, I add my own good fortune to be awarded a postgraduate fellowship in Ecuador, way back in the 1960s, to make a comparative law study of inter-American with inter-European organisations, which has given me a lifelong commitment to champion more and better links with Latin America.
It is at moments like this that I miss very much my noble friends Lord Montgomery of Alamein and Lord Garel-Jones, both of whom sadly died last year. They were both champions of the need to build on the good will of our historic links with Latin America and to foster more trade. They were also, as I am, former presidents of Canning House.
Time does not allow me to cover all the issues, such as adherence to the democratic process in Latin America, visas, language skills, adequate air connections and even the CPTPP, which are all relevant and have been aired by others. I agree with much of what has been said and, in particular, with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I welcome the report and its recommendations. Let us move on, therefore, to contemplate a trade treaty with the Pacific Alliance as a whole.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, whose good name is synonymous with Latin America. I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in underlining the need to have a quicker turnaround on these reports and parliamentary ratifications. I remind the House of my declarations in the register.
My question until yesterday morning would have been what plans—and over what period—the Government’s has for a strategy beyond the EU, on the UK’s relationship with regional trade blocs, or whether we can now take it that the CPTPP is a trend and a template for the future. While I congratulate the Government for a job well done, there is a concern being expressed by some that our entry will be largely on CPTPP terms.
Some time back, I penned an article on the Pacific Alliance for a business magazine, Capital Finance International, with the strapline, “Going from strength to strength, but can it keep it up?”. My conclusion was that the future is bright, illustrated by core commitments to free trade, integration and democracy as a driving ambition. Investors have recognised multiple growth areas, in addition to the plans for stronger international relations in a 2030 vision. A driving dynamic with four strategic objectives for 2021, with Colombia in the chair, are to create a more integrated, global, connected, entrepreneurial and citizen-orientated alliance, with recognition by the four heads of government that a response to the current situation must focus on economic reactivation by promoting SME linkage, not just within their respective countries but beyond.
I urge UK SMEs to factor in and embrace the concept of local content and source partnership opportunities with like-minded organisations within the bloc, not least as regulatory alignment and procedures are to be simplified to facilitate product flows between Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, and as e-commerce and public procurement opportunities are to be promoted so that companies within the bloc can participate in public tenders. Additionally, the region provides diverse local demand, with diversity as a strength that encourages the establishment of new businesses, especially those that cater to goods and services for neighbouring markets.
While evidence of success is positive, challenges do remain. However, protests in Chile and Colombia, corruption allegations against certain heads and influential Mexican narcotic cartels have not diminished investor confidence. Indeed, Mexico will become a prime beneficiary of further regional integration as Mexican companies will become more competitive in global markets, which in turn would further synchronise standards across Latin America’s largest economies, bringing better-harmonised supply and value chains with them. I would encourage Mexico to assign an ambassador to the UK and would certainly welcome that. It has been a long time in coming.
Individual economies blend well together, combining commodity dependency with Mexico’s huge manufacturing base, core industries of mining, agriculture, manufacturing and tourism, and emerging industries such as financial services. Chile is gradually replacing fossil fuels with solar energy. Peru is investing in new pipelines to pump water into its coastal desert regions, transforming arid land into fertile agricultural areas, and is to be accompanied by ambitious energy projects, major road networks and railway infrastructure. The alliance is also taking full advantage of global trends, not least by exporting a drive in alternative agricultural crops. Finally, looking beyond the Pacific, the alliance is deepening a partnership with the EU through a joint declaration signed in New York.
Time does not permit detailed comment on any future China relationship with the CPTPP, other than to hope that current impasses will not hamper this most welcome association of the UK to a fascinating part of the world, full of opportunity. However, a moment in time might arise when the United Kingdom needs to determine policy to not be in a disruptive fashion, when or if future partners wish to build closer relationships with China. But that is a discussion for another day.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the UK has a similar outlook to that professed by the four Pacific Alliance countries in South and central America, and in the four key areas of rules-based international law, the rule of law, democracy and climate change. There is no time for complacency in any of those areas. These countries have not always upheld human rights. They are victims of climate change. International co-operation is vital between these countries and between the bloc and the rest of the world. A highly topical example of this is in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic and, in particular, to vaccination and testing. The cuts in the UK aid budget could not have come at a worse time for the UK’s role in ending world poverty during the present decade.
The report of the Select Committee on International Relations and Defence in June 2019 had much good sense on the UK’s relationship with regional organisations in Latin America and the Pacific Alliance, and the significance to the UK of the alliance and its members. This is a region with which the UK must engage and trade freely in its interests. The report began with a quote from the then Foreign Secretary—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague—in 2010. He said that the UK had
“a track record of underestimating Latin America and neglecting its opportunities”.
I have had great opportunities to work with women in Colombia and Mexico and other industries there, and it is really time now for us to work with them. I agree with my colleague that it is time we had an ambassador from Mexico. How true the call is for the UK to think afresh about the Latin alliance. That is what we must do and put into practice. We must adopt a more active and entrepreneurial approach, combined with support for human rights at the same time. I agree with my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on the question of Colombia.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the report The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance. It is so timely—it is serendipity—that it has been announced that we are about to join the CPTPP just when this debate is taking place. I would like to focus on that.
As president of the CBI, I can say that our members are very supportive of the UK’s intention to join the CPTPP, to improve access to the fast-growth Asia Pacific region and also the ASEAN trading bloc. UK trade with CPTPP members accounts for £110 billion, which is more than our trade with China. As we have left the European Union, many UK companies are looking to expand their trade focus beyond Europe, to capitalise on emerging opportunities and to diversify risk exposure. Of course, that does not take away from the fact that as things stand, the European Union is our largest trading partner, making up around 45% of our trade. In that sense, while trade with the Asia-Pacific region cannot replace current trade with the UK’s biggest trading partner, the European Union, it does represent a clear and stable focal point for business development across many sectors.
UK accession to the CPTPP would be a clear display of intent that the UK will continue to back the international rules-based trading order. Geopolitically, the CPTPP bloc represents the coming together of countries aligned on the merits of free trade and, while this does not seem to be a commercial issue, many businesses agree that joining the CPTPP could be an important step for the UK to signal that, after leaving the European Union, it remains and intends to continue to remain an open and outward-looking economy.
Of course, we also have the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership—RCEP—which has also been announced. This is another positive development towards free and open global trade, but it also marks a wake-up call. As we spent four and a half years negotiating Brexit with the EU, Asia was continuing on the path to economic integration. Now we have secured a tariff-free, duty-free and quota-free deal with the European Union, we must make sure we are not left behind. In that context, the RCEP was signed on 15 November between 10 ASEAN countries and South Korea, China, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. It is the world’s largest trading bloc, making up a whopping 24% of global GDP.
India dropped out of the negotiations. We must not ignore India, because if you talk to Indian diplomats, they will not talk about Asia-Pacific, they will talk about Indo-Pacific, and it is the Indo-Pacific region that we need to focus on. I congratulate Policy Exchange, which has just produced a report on working towards a new UK strategy in the Indo-Pacific region. It is serendipity, again, that my friend Dean Godson—now the noble Lord, Lord Godson—was introduced today in the House of Lords and I congratulate him.
The CPTPP is an agreement between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam—making up 13% of global GDP. It means greater market access, promoting private investment, regulatory reform—this is all fantastic news—common standards and very good duty reduction as well. The Policy Exchange report talks about the Indo-Pacific region being resilient and adaptable. It makes some fantastic recommendations: an Indo-Pacific charter; an Indo-Pacific sub-committee; a special envoy for the Indo-Pacific, to promulgate a standalone Indo-Pacific strategy; a prosperity agenda; a security agenda; a strategic reliance initiative; a financial technology platform; a free and open internet initiative; space technology—India is now an emerging space power; and last, but not least, defence and security. It is very important that we move forward, for example, with greater exercises between the UK and Indian armed forces, and greater co-operation. This is a partnership of the future, and I have a huge amount of optimism looking ahead.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, through my many years as UK chairman of Plan International in the 1990s. This charity worked in these countries to build water facilities, buildings for local communities, and homes to live in. It was funded by people sponsoring and supporting a child financially. As chairman, I was able to visit many of these projects and see first-hand the benefit they brought to villagers and communities. I felt very humbled by the generosity and kindness shown to me on those visits. It was evident, even then, that these countries had much to offer the UK in terms of trade.
When I first visited Latin American countries, I had wonderful advice from the late David Montgomery—Viscount Montgomery—who had long-standing business and personal connections in these countries. He was greatly valued by all and he gave me very good advice and connections. I visited one community where those in need of homes had settled in a swamp. All the houses were built with great difficulty, with raised walkways between the houses and steps up to the dwellings to keep them out of the water. This construction was done by the people themselves and it amazed me. With limited road vehicle access, it must have been a huge job for them. They were welcoming, and I was told that many settlements began that way and, only when they had established themselves to a certain level, were they accepted and supported by the national authority. I am pleased to say that that eventually happened to the development to which I refer. They ran a baby clinic each Monday in the front room of one of these houses, and provided efficient standards of medical care for their children. They had plenty of medical supplies but needed trained staff to explain how to use them and what treatment to provide. Some years later, that group of houses had been developed to the point where the national Government had adopted them. They were able to benefit from deliveries on the new dry roadways and full-help status. The authorities told me that that was a typical community development situation.
On another occasion, I went as a member of an IPU delegation to Peru, with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. We stayed some extra days to enjoy a visit to Machu Picchu, where there are wonders and world-famous unique historic sites to be seen.
My thanks go to the International Relations Committee for its work in its detailed review and Pacific Alliance report. I confess to being stunned to see the report suggest that in 2017 these countries made up only 0.7% of UK exports and 0.6% of UK imports. The phrase in the report that this is “extremely modest” is an understatement, and it would be more accurately described as extremely disappointing. I too look forward to us expanding our trade with the Pacific Alliance, as I think it will be highly beneficial to all countries.
Let us not overlook the future of the travel industry. When we pass the present coronavirus epidemic, there will be a great revival in international travel, and the sites of wonder that exist in the Pacific Alliance countries will be enjoyed again, as they have always been in the past.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, said in 2010 that they UK had
“a track record of underestimating Latin America and neglecting its opportunities.”
He called for the UK
“to think afresh about Latin America and the opportunities it presents for political cooperation and trade and investment that will benefit all our citizens.”
A number of countries in Latin America share the UK’s approach to free markets, democracy and the rule of law. The UK was party, as an EU member, to free trade agreements with Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Brazil; an agreement with Argentina is in an advanced stage of negotiations.
Enhanced engagement with Latin America will be a necessary part of the Government’s global Britain strategy. It will act as an invisible chain linking the world’s democracies. Through the Pacific Alliance, established in 2011 by Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru, the UK could strengthen its existing relationship with these four countries in the region.
The four countries of the Pacific Alliance account for $1.1 trillion in trade—a figure that has increased by an average of 6.7% annually for the past decade. David Gallagher, the ambassador of Chile to the UK, said that the Pacific Alliance was therefore “a very big market” for external partners. As the report states, Ambassador Gamarra said that
“the members of the Pacific Alliance shared a ‘strong projection to the Asia-Pacific region’”.
The UK Government has expressed an interest in joining this alliance after Brexit. Now that we are out of the EU, the strategy of expanding our relationship with Pacific partners, including in Latin America, must be the right thing to do.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the committee for this excellent report, which shines a spotlight on the relationship between the UK and the Pacific Alliance. If I may, I want to look at that relationship in the context of the current global pandemic, which has made the whole agenda of water, sanitation and hygiene—an issue of considerable concern to the countries of the Pacific Alliance—that much more important. It presents a real opportunity to strengthen and deepen the relationship between the UK and the Pacific Alliance.
My questions for the Minister arise, therefore, from the SDGs, including our commitments in that regard and the extent to which we are working with the Pacific Alliance to promote them—particularly SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, which is linked to SDG 5 on gender equality, which was a focus of the International Relations Committee’s report. Access to clean water and safe sanitation contributes to gender equality through its impact on women’s dignity, health and access to education and opportunities for economic empowerment.
SDG 6 will be met only if there is concerted investment in and, importantly, real focus on the part of finance Ministers and health, water and sanitation Ministers on this issue. The UK has been doing some excellent work in this regard through Sanitation and Water for All, an international alliance of those concerned to promote SDG 6. My first question is this: can the Minister assure us that SDG 6 and the FCDO’s focus on it will not be weakened as a result of the cuts that have occurred in government spending on ODA?
Secondly, can he tell us what assessment the Government have made of recent progress toward the SDGs, particularly SDG 6, in terms of the Pacific Alliance countries? What more can we do with them to take forward our work in this area? I ask that not least because, in December last year, Asian and Pacific finance Ministers met to address this very issue, which is, for understandable reasons, of particular concern to the countries of the Pacific Alliance. They have seen a rapid increase in urban populations and the need for sustainable city responses to the water, sanitation and hygiene agenda in that context, and face very real problems in relation to the pandemic. Here, I ask the Minister to give us a sense of how we are working with Mexico—a fellow G20 member—to address and take forward the commitment made in the 2020 communiqué by G20 finance Ministers to redouble efforts and support for low-income countries. Mexico stands as one of the few Latin American members of the G20. How will it work with other members of the Pacific Alliance and with us to take the SDGs forward?
I say something in support of the committee’s recommendations on achieving scholarships. My experience as a Minister and, more significantly, as Head of Mission when I was High Commissioner to South Africa, taught me that, over the years, few UK Government programmes have been more beneficial—in terms of deepening and strengthening the personal relationships that underpin national relationships—than the Chevening scholarships. Chevening alumni can always be relied on as good friends of the United Kingdom, so we ought in fact to be investing more in such scholarships. I hope that the Minister can tell us that we intend to do so in taking forward our relationship as a country with the Pacific Alliance.
Also, I would argue that we ought to focus to a greater degree on using the Chevening scholarships as a way of promoting the SDGs. Water, sanitation and hygiene rely, if you are going to have sustainable responses to the challenge that they present, on research and development. The cause relies on a relationship between the private sector, academia, governments and regulators if we are to advance it. We can use Chevening scholarships in that regard. Importantly, hopefully the Minister will be able to tell us not only that we are going to invest more in those scholarships but that his new department will utilise higher education more in terms of UK foreign and development policy. Many members of your Lordships’ House are, like me, chancellors of universities. We know what the university sector can offer in this regard. If only we had a little more support from central government and the departments—that is, a cross-departmental initiative from central government, not least utilising ODA.
Finally, can the Minister tell us how he intends to spread the word about the value of UK higher education across the Pacific Alliance, whose member states are looking to develop their higher education capacity and advance their knowledge economies? We can assist in that regard.
There is much to do. This important report makes a real contribution to strengthening and deepening the relationship. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to the questions that he has been asked in the course of this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Lord Boateng, I did not interrupt but I think I should point out that you were two minutes over the time limit.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the committee for the report. Let me say how pleased I am to see that the committee has turned its attention to these countries in Latin America. I broadly agree with its recommendations, notably that the UK
“should deepen its engagement with the Pacific Alliance”.
Turning to the Commonwealth, which I know is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the reports notes that Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Singapore have applied for associate status to the alliance. What conversations have Her Majesty’s Government had with these like-minded states and fellow Commonwealth members as to their aims in seeking this status? Will the UK consider joining them in the longer term?
I will also refer to the UK export strategy. My concern is less to do with languages, which the report emphasises, as the US and Canada are more geographically proximate to that continent. I suspect that their institutions, as well as language centres, will be the more natural home for learning English than the United Kingdom. However, taking paragraph 65, I agree that our share of trade is extremely modest. I notice that the committee took evidence from the City of London Corporation, but that body, important though it is, does not speak to the regulatory and supervisory aspects of the UK’s skills and know-how in these areas. I emphasise this as a really important aspect of our influence in emerging markets.
The report emphasises innovation and research, and in this context I am informed by two pieces of work. I, along with a few other noble Lords, have been serving on the Economic Diplomacy Commission of the London School of Economics, the report of which is due out shortly. That report, and the evidence we took, say that services should be front and centre of the UK’s export strategy. Professional services are a hugely significant part of that, given that it is a global industry where regulations work upstream at global level and that most advanced and emerging market economies apply rules negotiated through the Financial Stability Board, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and so on. We in the United Kingdom are not only significant players at those levels—after all, the City of London is ranked number two globally among financial centres—but leaders in fintech and other innovative products. We thus have capacity and knowledge in the regulation of new innovations, where we might usefully share our expertise. I hope that the Department for International Trade will be able to promote that aspect of our professional services.
Another omission in the committee’s report, for me, stems from another piece of work that I have done recently and which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and other Members have mentioned. I served on Policy Exchange’s commission on a strategy for the Indo-Pacific region, chaired by the right honourable Stephen Harper, the former Prime Minister of Canada. As an aside, I am delighted to join other noble Lords in congratulating the director of Policy Exchange on his introduction to the House today as the noble Lord, Lord Godson. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the years. The emphasis of that report, A Very British Tilt, is the role of the UK in reinforcing a sustainable rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region. For us, this should take a twin-track engagement approach.
First, we advocate a prosperity agenda focused on trade economics and technology issues, the latter including intellectual property, digital standards, science co-operation, sustainable development and environmental protection. Secondly, our report advocates a security agenda, seeking to reinforce regional security and the resilience of domestic socioeconomic political institutions in the Indo-Pacific countries, which may be open to our expertise. The report we are discussing today notes that Pacific Alliance countries, along with the UK, seek to pursue membership of the CPTPP. Apart from the obvious geographical difference—whereas the committee looked at the countries of the eastern Pacific, we looked at the western Pacific—there is much commonality, which I hope the FCDO can usefully incorporate from both. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Victorian commentator on the constitution, Walter Bagehot, said in 1867 that the committees of the House of Lords, as is well known, do a great deal of work and do it very well. I think we would all agree that this is still true, over 150 years later. However, I wondered whether it was true that there might have been a quicker response in Bagehot’s day from the Government, and the House authorities as a whole, to acting on the reports of committees. I share very much the frustrations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Not having been a member of the International Relations Committee, I was most surprised to see that its report had come out in June 2019. I was also amazed that the Government’s response took over a year. Why was this? The report is not long. It covers policy areas where the Government already had a stated policy approach. I cannot understand at all why, even in challenging circumstances, such a huge delay came about. We have to think about much tighter time limits for responses from the Government and the House authorities in finding time to debate committees’ reports.
Serendipitously, however, the report has coincided with the Government’s approach to the CPTPP, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out. There is therefore a timeliness to this debate, but by accident rather than design. I very much welcome that approach by the Government and wish them success in that venture, although some of the coverage in the newspapers yesterday struck me as ridiculously overhyped or jingoistic. It was the Express which said
“Boris Toasts Another Big Brexit Bonus … As the EU tears itself apart, Global Britain powers on”.
In fact, as we know, in most cases we are talking about continuity arrangements with these countries. The coverage also somehow perpetuated the myth that we were unable to trade with these countries while in the EU. Yet if we look at the export figures from Germany to the countries concerned, for example, we can see that they are very considerable. Germany has at least 10 times the surplus of trade that we have with them. We need to have a sense of reality when we look at these issues.
The report was very good, but I would like to follow up on one question, which I think my noble friend Lord Hain asked earlier, about the consequences of recent government cuts to aid and changes in aid policy. Have the Government assessed what the effect of recent changes will be on the countries that this report covers? I also endorse strongly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whose work in this area has been really interesting and impressive, while I will be interested in the response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott on trade envoys.
Finally, I will refer briefly to Colombia. A few years ago I went to Colombia for the first time. I was rather wary of going, because of its reputation for drugs and criminality, but was bowled over by the country’s potential and particularly by its wonderful flora and fauna. I therefore ask the Government: what is happening with their partnership for sustainable growth, which they signed with Colombia last year? Will they follow up with the City of London Corporation on the evidence that it gave to the committee about the importance of green finance? Also, what progress has been made on the mutual recognition of degrees and on co-operation with Colombia in tackling crime and supporting the rule of law and judicial independence?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has withdrawn, so we come to the Front-Bench speakers. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to serve on the committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. When introducing the debate this afternoon, which has been so well attended, he gave an indication of the work of other members of the committee. It was a pleasure serving alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Grocott. I too pay tribute, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, just did, to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. In many respects, it was because of her persistence and insistence that we took on looking at an area which a parliamentary committee report had not considered: our relationship with the Pacific Alliance. Her eloquent contribution to this debate, which I will touch on in a moment, is also testimony to her work on the committee.
There has rightly been reference to the delay in our debating this report; indeed, there is somewhat of a backlog on the reports of what is now our International Relations and Defence Committee. Now that I am no longer on the committee, after serving on it for three years, I look forward to our debating—soon, I hope—sub-Saharan Africa and some of our other reports. I know that the Minister will want us to debate them because the Government respond substantially to our recommendations.
Next year will be the 10th year of the Pacific Alliance, which we viewed in three ways. One was our long historical relationship and whether we are utilising that well—as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, indicated to us, and as other noble Lords referred to. The second was the potential of a closer relationship to build on trading and cultural relations, and the third how the UK can interact with a consensus and co-operation alliance, such as the Pacific Alliance. In this last regard, we noted that while we had observer status Canada, and now others—Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, which are, interestingly, Commonwealth countries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said—are seeking and will develop closer ties still with associate membership. What does the UK intend regarding our ambition for associate membership?
Returning first to our historical depth, this is an area little recognised across the UK but important in global relations. I had the pleasure of visiting Peru as part of an IPU delegation in 2017. As proof of the UK’s historical links, the very British Airways plane on which we landed was being prepared and turned around to return the Princess Royal from her third visit to Peru. As part of that, she visited the International Potato Center, which has close connections with Scotland’s significant seed potato industry—so harmed recently by the TCA with the EU. We cannot compete with the more than 3,000 types of potato that Peru has; it is one area where, unfortunately, Peru may have a competitive advantage in trade with the European Union over what we now have as a result of the TCA.
Also during her visit, the Princess Royal unveiled a statue of Martin Guise, born in Gloucestershire, a veteran of the Battle of Trafalgar and then commander of the Peruvian fleet. My noble friend Lord Wallace referred to Lord Cochrane, a remarkable and equally colourful character, from Lanarkshire, who was significant in the Peruvian and the Chilean navies. In 2018, the Princess Royal visited Chile during the bicentennial of its navy to unveil a statue of him, too. It is worth telling the Committee what the chief admiral of its navy said at the unveiling of the statue. Significantly, Admiral Leiva said:
“when we are celebrating the Bicentennial of the Navy, we render a deserved and necessary recognition to the figure of Admiral Cochrane. It is not enough that one of our most important ships bears his name. Today it becomes necessary for all citizens to know and appreciate the scope they had in the process of consolidating our republic and the formation of our naval power, which is so relevant today for our country”
and its development. I hope the Minister will respond to my noble friend Lord Wallace’s question on the strategic links in today’s defence environment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, we have current areas of interest and opportunity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we had a round table with all the ambassadors—the first time, I think, that they came together as a group for a Lords committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, also referred to that and I pay tribute, as have others, to her work within the region. She was on the IPU visit that I attended. We did not have royalty on our visit, but by having her join us in the region we had the next best thing.
Because the Pacific Alliance is a consensus and co-operation alliance, as I said, our discussions with the ambassadors looked at ways of joint working to address the deep-seated challenges of the region: on the economy, transport links, cross-border crime and astonishingly high levels of displaced people—increasingly so, with the Venezuelan crisis—and peacebuilding, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Alderdice and others today. The scope for the UK to offer technical assistance through UK business, as well as government relations, is significant. Although the total sum of trade is limited compared to our near neighbours in the European trading environment, I support moves towards an economic partnership agreement with the wider alliance, building on the bilateral relationship that we have with the rollover agreements, on the EU-Mercosur agreement and on the CPTPP.
However, we have barriers to trading with the region, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others said—she mentioned her work on visas, in particular. The UK has an insulting position on visas for Colombia and, in particular, Peru. She and I welcomed a senior Peruvian MP to Westminster, who told us of the great difficulties he had had in securing a visa for the United Kingdom to visit its Parliament. If we are to have deepening and further trading relationships, visa-free access for business travel should be obvious. I hope the Minister can finally indicate how the Government will move on this area. I should be grateful if he can also say how our transport links might improve. The only direct air link from the UK to Peru flew between April and October. on a dedicated Boeing 747 from Gatwick. As the planes have been decommissioned and BA closes flights from Gatwick, how will our national flag carrier represent us on that route? As all noble Lords have said in the debate, if we are to benefit from this relationship when out of the Covid crisis, we need these global air links to be significant. At the moment, there are significant question marks over them.
Our report recommended trade facilitation and language skills. I regret, as others have indicated, the declines in those areas. In going forward on trade, which has remained broadly stable over the past decade—with the exception of growth in exports to Mexico—we may have the rolled-over agreements, but the EU recently modernised its Mexico agreement and the Chile agreement is being renegotiated. We need to move fast, as our trading arrangements are already out of date, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said the press promotion of the application for CPTPP seems to be of greater importance to the Government. It is of greater importance that we make sure that the agreements we have are updated and facilitated, rather than applying for new and, in many ways, weaker agreements.
Finally, I return to the extraordinarily long time it has taken to debate this report, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. It is perhaps somewhat telling that the central theme we sought to address in it—that the Pacific Alliance should move to the front of our minds—has taken 18 months to be debated within the House. This may give us an opportunity, however, to do some post-scrutiny review. Have the Government met the indications they gave us in their response to our report? We bemoaned the fact that there had been few ministerial visits and that, as has been referred to, officials attended PA summits. How many ministerial visits have there been, is there a growth trend in them and will the Government commit to Ministers attending Pacific Alliance summits, rather than officials? Given that next year is the 10th anniversary, a good way to mark it would be for the UK to seek associate membership. If the Minister for reassuring replies can reassure me on this point, I will be most obliged.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his introduction to the debate and report. I also thank him for his excellent past service as chair of the committee. As he said, there is great potential for the Government to strengthen our engagement with the bloc, but there are also many challenges, as many of the challenges that they face, we face. These are shared particularly by Colombia, Chile and Peru.
Our foreign policy must always be shaped by our values and human rights must be central to our relationship with the region. The report rightly observes the potential for deepening trade ties with Latin America, specifically with the Pacific Alliance bloc. The UK’s role in international trade has obviously changed enormously since the committee published its report in June 2019—not least, as we have heard, with the announcement at the weekend that the Government are formally applying to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. As with other trade agreements, the advantages of joining the CPTPP will have to be assessed once we see the terms on offer. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said about linking with like-minded countries in that alliance, particularly those in the Commonwealth. That is positive but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, there is the issue of China and its proposed accession to the partnership. I have not heard anything from the Trade Secretary about whether we will have the right to veto China’s proposed accession if we join the bloc first.
Many of the report’s observations are as true today as they were when the UK was still negotiating the withdrawal agreement with the EU, specifically on the
“paucity of commercial activity with a vibrant part of the globe, where the potential is so great.”
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, and other noble Lords referred to the report’s itemisation of the level of UK exports and imports with that region. I hope the Minister can tell us the up-to-date figures, and whether the trend is going in the right direction.
As noble Lords have said, the UK has ratified rollover trade agreements with Chile, Colombia and Peru. We were partner to agreements with each of those countries while a member of the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, reminded us. However, the UK is no longer part of an agreement with the largest economy of the Pacific Alliance, Mexico. The Government have previously stated that an agreement with Mexico would enter into effect early in 2021. Can the Minister update us on its current status and exactly when it will apply?
Of course, the UK’s relationship with Latin America extends far beyond trade. We share close cultural and historical ties with the region. My noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the benefits of the Chevening scholarships. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Government’s future plans for the operation of that scheme with each of the four nations of the alliance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and other noble Lords also asked about the UK’s future plans as an official observer of the alliance. I hope the Minister will elaborate more on exactly what those are.
Above all, I stress that we must recognise that the same issues that pose the greatest challenge to the UK in the years ahead are linked to the alliance: the climate crisis; Covid, its aftermath and how we build back; and misinformation, cybersecurity and the future of data. These are all issues for the Pacific Alliance as much as they are for the United Kingdom. I very much welcome my noble friend Lord Boateng’s emphasis on the SDGs and the 2030 agenda. The UK has great opportunities to build alliances and bridges in each of these areas, including as president of COP 26 and the UN Security Council.
Our relationship with the Pacific Alliance must be strengthened beyond 2021 and become a permanent fixture of British foreign policy, built on a set of values. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, quite rightly referred to the long-awaited results of the integrated review. Our relationship is very much co-ordinated and linked with the three Ds: diplomacy, defence and development. Many noble Lords raised the impact of the cuts to ODA, which will clearly greatly impact on our ability to have that integrated approach, particularly to South America.
One specific human rights issue that my noble friend Lady Blower raised was about Colombia. As penholder for Colombia at the UN, the UK has a very specific responsibility to ensure that the Colombian Government uphold the 2016 peace agreement. Regrettably, there has been clear evidence of surveillance and targeting of trade unionists, environmental activists and rights activists by paramilitaries in the country—a violation of the peace agreement, which must be directly tackled by the Colombian Government. Of course, 2020 was the most violent year since the peace agreement was signed in 2016, with the police and the armed forces being linked to indiscriminate violence against rights activists, as confirmed by Colombia’s Supreme Court.
As my noble friend Lady Blower said, we had a debate on this issue on 7 December. The Minister responded on the contact we had with the Colombian Government with our support for and training of security forces in Colombia. I hope he will take the opportunity to update us on where we are on ensuring that our concerns are properly recognised by the Colombian Government.
On Chile, the Minister will be aware of concerns by Human Rights Watch relating to the treatment of protestors and other activists. In early 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights visited Chile to observe the situation and recommended measures to end the excessive use of force and promote access to justice.
The UN Secretary-General was right to raise attacks on journalists in Mexico, in particular the recent killing of Julio Valdivia Rodríguez, who reported on violent crime. We must unequivocally stand for the free press. In recent years, many resolutions have passed through the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council on the safety of journalists. The Minister’s department has raised the question of the global response to freedom of the press. Can the Minister confirm what recent steps the Government have taken to promote the rights of journalists working in Mexico, including through our work at the UN?
On Peru, the investigation by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into recent events in Lima found that unnecessary and excessive force was used during protests. I hope the Minister can tell us what the department has been able to do since President Vizcarra left office in late 2020.
I very much look forward to hearing how the Government intend to strengthen relationships with the Pacific Alliance. The debate on this report, although delayed, is timely because of the response we have had since Brexit to build new agreements. I hope the Minister will agree—we will have the opportunity to address this tomorrow—that whatever our future relationship will be, it must be built on the firm foundation of human rights.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend, Lord Howell, for tabling this important debate on the Pacific Alliance, and the International Relations Committee on its excellent report on this subject. I join others in paying tribute to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, raised the delay between the publication of the report and the debate today. I followed up on this specifically, in preparation. The government response was not delayed; it was issued on 2 September 2019. Where the challenge has been is in the tabling of the debate, and I shall take that point back to see how we can make a much more effective response in terms of the timing of a debate on a report that has been produced. I think we all accept that last year was an incredibly different one for all of us, not least for the parliamentary authorities. Nevertheless, there is always the point that we can do better—and certainly I take the point on other debates. I shall reflect on that and ensure that we can do this in a more efficient manner. Of course, I look forward to discussions through the usual channels on tabling these debates in a timely fashion.
As the Minister for reassurance—it can be added to my portfolio after today’s debate—I reassure noble Lords that, as I go through my comments, I shall be able to provide some detail behind some of the strengthening of our relationships with these important countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others have said—my noble friend Lord Kirkhope also alluded to this—this is part of our broader global Britain strategy. Indeed, as we look towards the Pacific, one major area of my focus as the Minister responsible for south Asia has been on our Indo-Pacific strategy across all areas, many of which noble Lords have touched on. Those include issues of security, including maritime security, which was an area that was focused on, to ensure that we regard the Pacific as an important partner as we build global Britain’s strength. We will continue to work with partners across the Pacific in strengthening this. Indeed, our wider alliances include our application for dialogue status in ASEAN, the fact that we now have a post in Jakarta and an ambassador specifically to ASEAN underlining the important broader focus that the United Kingdom Government attach to our relationships in that region.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I think we have all recognised the challenge but also the opportunity presented with the new trade agreement with our partners within the European Union. We will continue to work closely with our friends and partners in the European region, with a broad set of priorities, in the context of some of the areas of trade that we have talked about as well as broader issues of security and human rights. That will continue, and it should not be perceived as a detriment in any way that there is an opportunity to strengthen relationships elsewhere.
When the committee wrote this report 18 months ago, as many noble Lords have reflected, nobody had an idea of how our world would be turned upside-down by the pandemic. It is shocking to think that it is almost a year since we went into that first lockdown, and how the world has changed. Thanks to the incredible efforts of our scientific community, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel—but for now we continue to suffer devastating loss of life and severe economic impacts, both here in the UK and, indeed, across Latin America.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in his excellent summing up, talked about the importance of the security narrative, strengthening our partnerships with countries across Latin American and the Pacific. I stand by that; when we look at the issues of the pandemic, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we went into this together—and the way to come out of it is by working collaboratively together. In that regard, the ravages of the pandemic have only strengthened the need for co-operation with our friends and partners. The only way in which to defeat this virus and be ready for future pandemics is by working together with transparency and good will.
In this regard, my noble friend Lady Anelay talked about the Prime Minister and the new appointment of my noble friend Lord Frost. She asked an obvious question about strengthened co-operation, and I think it bodes well for the strengthened focus on international relationships and trade partnerships in post-Brexit Britain that the Prime Minister has appointed my noble friend to this role. As the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, said, it is about the importance of each tenet of diplomacy, defence and development in our approach to global Britain.
So what are we doing? In recent months, just on the Covid pandemic—to reassure the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie—my honourable friend Minister Morton has co-hosted a series of seminars on equitable access to the vaccine with countries including Mexico and Chile, both members of the Pacific Alliance, as well as Argentina. Notwithstanding challenges domestically, the United Kingdom has committed £548 million to the COVAX facility. We continue to stress the importance of all countries signing up to that important instrument. These events brought together country experts and Ministers with a multilateral health system, as well as development banks. That illustrates how we are working to tackle the sheer threat as partners.
I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, that the important issues that he raised, particularly on SDG 5, continue to be a primary focus for the FCDO. I shall talk about Colombia in a moment, and he will see the important work that we have done in that respect. In the Government’s response to the committee’s report, we agreed that Latin America is an increasingly important partner for the UK’s global ambitions. It is one of the most naturally aligned regions in terms of UK values. As my noble friend Lord Howell said, we continue to work, and should strengthen our work, within those regions and should leverage the opportunity presented by our current role as Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth. I shall explore how we can do that further, as the current Minister of State for the Commonwealth.
I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, as well as other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who talked about high-level contact: they may recall that the first visit that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made after his appointment on 8 August 2019 was to Mexico. There were challenges for Foreign Ministers during 2020; we have perhaps not been travelling in the way we did. However, I am sure that normal service will be restored in good time, and we will have further debates in this regard. Our commitment to the region has not changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly raised the important issue of climate change. Nowhere do we see that commitment more than in our shared efforts to combat climate change. Latin America is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world, and many countries in Latin America are among those most determined to do what they can to make a difference. Our Pacific Alliance friends are the most ambitious in that regard. Specifically, we are presidents of COP 26, but it was Chile that had the presidency of COP 25, and we are working closely with Chile on co-operation and international discussions.
I turn to our relationship with the Pacific Alliance. As several noble Lords said, our status within the alliance is as an observer state, and we are in good company; 59 countries in total have that status. As noble Lords would expect, as such close partners we are one of the most active and share a joint programme of work across many priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, asked about associate membership. What I can share is that our primary focus on our international arrangements in that part of the world will be initially on the CPTPP. By the way, I was rehearsing that with my nine year-old to see who could say it faster five times over without tripping over it, and I fear that he beat me by a few seconds. However, we will get used to it.
The important thing is that the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary underlines our commitment to the region. In spite of the pandemic and the obvious constraints that it has caused, we had a fruitful relationship with the Chilean presidency, which handed over to Colombia in December. Since the committee published its report, our co-operation with the Pacific Alliance as a group has focused on both finance and education—points well made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, in their summing up.
I will give a few other examples. Noble Lords mentioned the importance of fintech. We have worked together in that respect on the development of the environment and regulatory best practices across the alliance, which is crucial for financial inclusion. In the area of education, we launched the English network of the Pacific Alliance with the British Council. I hope that that reassures the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Hain and Lord Purvis—in my capacity as Minister for reassurance—about our continued commitment to the importance of the English language and soft power as we work with countries in the Pacific Alliance on improving English language skills and creating more opportunities. Indeed, I believe that in Peru the British Council reopened in 2015.
Trade was, rightly, a key area of focus. Trade has also continued to flourish. It is an area of huge potential for British business. As we have already heard, Latin America and the Caribbean have a combined GDP of over $5 trillion and their population is 650 million people. Of course, this growth comes with the 21st-century challenges of climate change, delivering inclusive and sustainable development, and building back better from the pandemic. We are supporting British businesses to become partners of choice in the region.
We were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, of the importance of fintech and the broader service sector. Between 2010 and 2019, total trade in goods and services between the UK and Latin America and the Caribbean increased by 17%. In the year to quarter 2 of 2020, it was worth nearly £30 billion. While Covid-19 has undoubtedly affected recent performance, total trade in goods and services between the UK and the Pacific Alliance countries was worth just shy of £10 billion in 2019. In under two years, the UK has secured trade continuity deals with Mexico, Chile, and the Andean countries Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru worth more than £10 billion of trade in 2019. Agreements have also been signed with other countries in the wider region, including South Korea. Currently, we are in discussion on FTAs with New Zealand and Australia.
In addition, the UK is working with Pacific Alliance partners to implement these agreements and has committed to start negotiating a new and ambitious free trade agreement with Mexico later this year. I will again address the point raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes: we are ensuring that all sectors are included in this and we recognise the value of the tourism sector, which her contribution demonstrated.
In addition to these continuity agreements, and to further support our bilateral relationships, we have established a series of dialogues with regional partners to boost the trade environment. The inaugural UK-Colombia trade dialogue took place in July 2020, where Ministers agreed to ensure that free and fair trade supports a green and resilient recovery. At the inaugural Anglo-Chilean trade dialogue in October 2020, Ministers also reaffirmed their ambition to increase trade in important sectors such as infrastructure, financial services and life sciences. Other vital work is being done, for example on the issue of double taxation agreements between the UK and Colombia. I am sure my noble friend Lady Hooper, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Quin, will be reassured by the importance we continue to attach to fintech. We also believe that the double taxation agreement provides a good basis to allow for greater legal certainty for the UK’s brilliant financial services sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and my noble friend Lord Empey, among others, raised the important issue of trade envoys. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, also talked of co-ordination in this sector. In the interests of time, I will respond later to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, with a full list of trade commissioners currently working across the world. As we have already heard, we have appointed trade envoys to some of the countries in this particular region. My noble friend Lady Hooper is doing a sterling job with her responsibilities.
On co-ordination, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, that Her Majesty’s trade commissioners co-operate very closely with Her Majesty’s ambassadors and high commissioners in each country. Indeed, we work very closely across government, at Westminster and in post, to ensure that level of co-ordination and strategic approach. Many will know about Jonathan Knott, who is the new trade commissioner for Latin America, and the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, including my honourable friend Mark Menzies, who covers certain countries in that region. Although it is the Prime Minister’s call, we are looking towards Mexico in the near future in this respect as well.
Mexico, Peru and Chile also form part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I say to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who said that he was going to withdraw from this debate, that when I first heard the acronym CPTPP it was during a Question a couple of years back, I believe, on this very issue. I was very grateful for him for introducing that, and in time I am sure we will all get used to the acronym and be as efficient as my nine year-old in pronouncing it.
Nevertheless, the UK’s accession to the CPTPP is a priority for the Government this year. I feel the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, stole my thunder somewhat, but I am pleased to say that today we are submitting our notification of intent to begin the accession process. I hope this also provides the focus requested by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the importance of cementing our relationship with the region, which has an increasingly influential trade network of 11 dynamic economies in the Indo-Pacific and Americas region that already account for 13% of global GDP and will rise to 16% with our accession.
I would like to spend the few moments that I have left outlining the importance of our broader relationships with the four countries within the Pacific Alliance. First of all, to assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others, we are working very closely with the Pacific Alliance countries on issues of climate and COP 26. I would argue that our continuity trade agreements are not a standstill moment but rather add the basis of continuing our strong trade agreements to look to see how we can strengthen our relationships further. It was our work on climate which has, for example, allowed various countries to make quite ambitious commitments on NDCs, and that is something to be celebrated.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Goudie, and the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Collins, among others, talked of Colombia. We have collaborated closely with Colombia for more than 30 years on issues of security and anti-narcotics work. In recent years, our relationship has broadened significantly. The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, will be pleased to know that we work very closely on issues of women’s empowerment. As with other Pacific Alliance countries, Colombia shares the UK’s ambition when it comes to tackling climate change and deforestation and is a close regional partner. Ahead of COP 26, Colombia has already announced a very ambitious NDC of 51%.
We have also worked very closely with the Colombian Government to help implement the 2016 peace agreement and to improve and protect human rights, as the lead country on the subject at the UN Security Council. Challenges remain, but no one can doubt the vast progress that has been made. I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her continued work with Colombia, and for her valuable insights in helping me plan for my virtual visit to Colombia. It was a positive and collegiate experience, and I was able to appreciate the depth of our relationship.
Chile is another remarkable country: a consolidated democracy which champions free trade. Chile was the first country to conclude a trading agreement with the UK as we prepared to leave the EU. As with Chile, we have also worked closely with Mexico on access to vaccines and across various areas, including various SDGs. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will take note of the important role we attach to Mexico. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned our relationship specifically on issues of press freedom. Indeed, I have already reached out on that very issue, when it was announced that Mexico would become a member of the UN Security Council.
Finally, Peru is another likeminded partner working across the full range of UK trade, climate and values priorities. The breadth of our relationship sees the UK providing equipment and mobile hospitals to help the Peruvian healthcare sector. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about the importance of transport links in this respect. I have a sister-in-law who is originally Peruvian, grew up in Peru and works in the airline sector, so I assure the noble Lord that the lobbying in that respect is very clear within the Ahmad household. I assure him in my final few moments that human rights remain high up my focus as Human Rights Minister, and I say to the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Browne and Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that these will remain a focus. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that the point he made on indigenous people is well read, and I will certainly reflect on that. I assure my noble friend Lady Anelay that the Ruggie principles remain focused in our mind.
As a final point, on the issue of visas, I ought to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others, that I have of course noted the points which have been made. The Government are engaging with a wide group to hear the priorities, concerns and ideas about how future border and immigration systems can work.
I am really grateful to all noble Lords for the debate that has taken place but particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for tabling the Motion. Important issues looking to the future, including the issue of Chevening scholars, are well made. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, and others that we remain very much committed to the next generation and continue to invest in Chevening scholarships, which I believe have tripled from that part of the world in recent years.
Looking to the future, we will continue to work with countries across the Pacific Alliance in areas of shared interest. Much will depend on what we want to achieve and where our priorities lie, but what is certain is that the four countries of the Pacific Alliance both around and beyond the Pacific Alliance will remain important friends, and we look forward to strengthening partnerships with all those countries as part of global Britain.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for his comments and reassurances, as well as for all the kind words about the work of the International Relations Committee. I always feel that these debates are a bit like opening the door to a treasure trove of vast experience and wisdom about all parts of the world, including the one that we are discussing. In a way, your Lordships’ House has become the last bastion of collective memory about how things have developed and what has gone on in the past—one of the threads binding our society together, which we break at our peril.
Here we have been talking about “partnerships for the future”, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I hope that with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, my brilliant successor in the committee, these messages get through to the integrated review, which I gather is brewing up for publication in March. I shall recognise it when I see it, but I hope that those messages get through.
The main focus has been on the application to join the CPTPP. That is obviously the excitement of the moment, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, wisely reminded us, all trade agreements place restrictions and restraints on how we proceed and what we can do domestically and internationally. No responsible great trading nation like ours can do exactly what it wants; the world is not like that in an interdependent age.
Having put those remarks at the end of our excellent debate, it remains for me simply to move the Motion on the Order Paper.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Godson
Introduction: Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
British Armed Forces: Iraqi Interpreters
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that Iraqi interpreters are being targeted by militia groups because of their work with foreign militaries; and what steps they are taking to protect such interpreters who have worked for the British Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, although the Ministry of Defence does not employ interpreters directly in Iraq, its contractors are held to the highest standards. The MoD takes any breach of personal security extremely seriously, and we are currently investigating the allegations.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, last year’s breach of security data revealed interpreters’ IDs and car number plates, increasing their exposure to death threats, including at Covid-19 checkpoints. Can the Minister confirm that the private contractors who should be responsible for the interpreters’ safety are included within the scope of the investigation? Also, will she persuade her Home Office colleagues to upgrade their assessment of the risk to interpreters, currently rated as low, so that those who want a UK visa stand a chance of getting one?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the investigation will involve speaking to the contractor. Steps have already been taken to interview personnel concerned with Operation Shader who were in the camp between January and March 2020. The position is a little complicated in that the contractor changed, and therefore it is necessary to speak to the former contractor as well. We hope to be able to give an update by the end of February, and I undertake to report to the noble Baroness at that time. We constantly assess the risk that our interpreters are exposed to, and we have protections in place with our contractor to ensure that the best possible safeguards are afforded to them.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, life for Iraqi British Army interpreters has always been terrifyingly hazardous. At least 40 have been brutally murdered by militia groups. They are targets only because they work side by side with British soldiers. We know that and we should have the evidence to prove it. The resettlement scheme that they might have used closed in 2010, and now they have no accessible visa or asylum route to safety. They deserve real and prompt action, not just words. I invite the Minister to contrast the treatment of Iraqi interpreters with that of those who have British national overseas status in Hong Kong. Why can they not be offered equal treatment?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I confirm to the noble Lord that when the MoD uses a third-party contractor to source interpreting services, strict conditions of contract apply, and these are incorporated into the contract. These are standards set down by the MoD for contracting requirements and deployed operations. Very particularly, they require that the operational circumstances within which the contractor capabilities are delivered to the MoD must be as safe, secure and reasonable as possible for the workforce. They set out obligations both for the MoD and the contractor to ensure that that happens, and we take those obligations very seriously.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, these brave people have already put themselves in harm’s way. Can the noble Baroness say how many Iraqi interpreters and their families are at risk of retribution in Iraq? Can she confirm to your Lordships’ House that the British Government owe a duty of care to those who have provided such a valuable service to British forces in times of conflict?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I cannot give the historic number of interpreters employed in Iraq, but I understand that at the time of this incident, which is currently being investigated, there were eight UK national interpreters in Iraq and eight locally recruited interpreters.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, may I first welcome the Minister to answering this Question? Given that she had a jab only a few hours ago, she looks remarkably well.
Perhaps I may follow the previous question in relation to the families of the interpreters. Surely the Government have an obligation not only to the interpreters, many of whom have been killed, as has been identified, but to their families, to provide some form of assistance to them as well.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.]—and I recommend that everyone should get it done the moment they get the invitation.
We take these obligations very seriously. In Iraq, as has been referred to, a scheme to cover the tranche of interpreters who were employed directly by the Government closed in 2016. Schemes in Afghanistan, where we also relied heavily on interpreters, have continued with the Afghanistan ex gratia scheme, which has enabled relocation of, so far, more than 1,300 Afghans to the UK with their dependants. We are currently about to launch the Afghan relocation assistance policy in April, which will have regard to the wider interests of the interpreters and their families.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, in raising this issue, I am very conscious of the dedication that our late noble friend Lord Ashdown showed over many years to ensure that the UK did right by Iraqi interpreters. This is a reminder of how long this issue has gone on for. Will the Minister tell us what contact has there been with the 16 people whom she referenced, who have been providing interpretation to our forces? Have the Government assessed their security protection, and will they look at granting them immediate visas to the UK?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I cannot pre-empt or prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that is currently taking place. I have already offered to update the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and I can update the Chamber as well, by the end of February, I hope, on the progress of the investigation.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I start by recognising what great champions the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have been for the rights of interpreters for many years, as I experienced myself during my time as a Defence Minister. While I understand why the Government have delegated the responsibility of contracting interpreters to private companies, such as thebigword, will my noble friend reassure me that the Government have not also delegated their duty of care?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
Yes, I will I certainly offer that reassurance to my noble friend. Part of the reason that we are currently carrying out this investigation is that we want to know what happened and, if unacceptable breaches took place, why they happened and how they came about. We share a duty to our interpreters who are employed by a contractor, and the measures in place ensure that if contractors assess that the measures are not sufficient, they are entitled to highlight these immediately to the MoD. Ultimately, if these concerns are not addressed, they can withdraw their workforce without penalty. However, we hope that that situation would never arise. We take our responsibilities very seriously.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has said that the Government hold the contractors to the highest standards. What mechanisms and processes are in place to ensure that this is sustained over the long term? Threats to interpreters can arise some years after their employment; meanwhile, the contracting company may well have changed. Who then is responsible for their safety and support? I have some difficulty in seeing how this will work in practice.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
Mindful of the vital job that interpreters do when they assist our Armed Forces on overseas operations, we would be very vigilant in trying to ensure that they were not placed at a disadvantage. The noble and gallant Lord focuses on an important point, which is part of what we consider to be our wider responsibilities. We would expect interpreters to express their concerns to us, even if they were no longer working for the contractor within the country. We still have a diplomatic presence and we would expect interpreters who were concerned to communicate either with the MoD or with the diplomatic presence.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government accept that they owe a duty of care to the Iraqi interpreters we are talking about. But does she believe that the US air strikes against a top Iranian military commander and Iraqi militia leader last year have made it more dangerous not only for Iraqi interpreters but for UK personnel in Iraq?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.]—give rise to concern. But, as the noble Lord will know, we are part of a concerted endeavour against Daesh and we are there at the invitation of the Government of Iraq, who wish the coalition presence to continue.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
As a previous Member has highlighted, 40 Iraqi interpreters who worked with the British Army have been killed since the fall of Saddam Hussein. What support, if any, has been provided for their families in Iraq? If private contractors that are now employing interpreters have been found to breach the data in any way, no matter how unwillingly, how will Her Majesty’s Government hold them accountable?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
We will certainly await the outcome of the investigation. If unacceptable conduct is exposed, we shall then determine how best to deal with that. We would take any such breaches extremely seriously.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
International Year of Health and Care Workers
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the World Health Organization’s International Year of Health and Care Workers in 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, to celebrate the work of health and care workers, there are symbolic interventions, such as the social care workforce CARE brand for shared identity and our powerful recruitment advertising, which highlights the remarkable contribution of health and care workers. However, the most important celebrations are tangible: the investment in new recruitment, the £30 million fund for those seeking mental and occupational health support, and the people plan, which is addressing the practical and cultural challenges that workers face in the workplace.
Lord Crisp (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for that very positive response and I agree with him about concrete measures. The World Health Organization has adopted the slogan “protect, invest, together”, which is very powerful and sets out the priorities very well for this year. The Minister will no doubt be aware that there is discussion at the World Health Organization and elsewhere about the need for a new societal compact with health and care workers to whom we owe so much, perhaps similar to the military covenant. Would Her Majesty’s Government support the creation of a compact or covenant setting out our responsibilities to health and care workers, which mirror and match their professional responsibilities and duties towards us? If they have not considered this, will they do so?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I applaud the WHO’s values of “protect, invest, together”. One of the commendable things during this awful pandemic has been the way in which British society has reconnected with the values of the healthcare community. It has rediscovered the contribution of nurses, doctors, healthcare workers and those in social care. A new relationship has been forged between civic society and healthcare; this is commendable and we should build on it. On the idea for a compact, it is not something that we are working on at the moment as far as I am aware, but I would be glad to take his idea away and find out whether we can develop it any further.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, HMG have supposedly funded 85 schemes with EYN UK to develop a vaccine passport, yet they say they have no plans for one. Will they rethink their no plan-policy and collaborate with the World Health Organization in its International Year of Health and Care Workers by producing a worldwide WHO vaccine passport, perhaps even as an app?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Minister for Vaccines has been clear on this: the Government are not currently undertaking work on vaccine certification. However, the noble Baroness makes the case well. Certainly, those who have had the vaccine are very anxious to ensure that they have the correct documentation, and we will ensure that that is in place.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my roles at Cardiff University. Will the Government create a range of funding streams as overseas aid to ensure that UK universities’ successful distance learning programmes in practical health and care specialities and generalist care are affordable and supported in those countries? Will they work with me and others to invest in better provision of public health, infectious disease control, maternity services, dermatology, palliative care and other services around the globe?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness in this important area. Her implied insight is exactly correct. We cannot be healthy and safe here in Britain if there are diseases raging around the world. It is both in our pragmatic self-interest and aligned with our values of partnership with other countries that we should indeed invest in the kind of training and support to which the noble Baroness alluded. I will definitely look into how we could do this better.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the WHO puts health and care workers in the same category. Does the Minister agree that we in the UK do not see them as the same, since workers in the care sector are habitually worse paid, less recognised and more poorly trained and supported than those who work in the NHS? Would not the best way to celebrate care workers be to remedy these discrepancies in the proposals for the reform of social care, which the Minister has assured the House will be brought forward this year?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a completely fair point. Her observation is entirely right and her recommendation is one that the Prime Minister has made clear is part of his thinking. Social care workers have done a phenomenal job during this pandemic. Their role in supporting the elderly and infirm is extremely valuable to the whole country. It is only right that they should be treated fairly; a review of their pay and circumstances will be part of the social care package when that is announced.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the WHO notes with concern the increase in international health worker migration; there are also concerns about their workplace treatment in their host countries. The 14% of brilliant non-British NHS staff are essential in holding up our healthcare systems, as has been especially evident during this pandemic. Last week, there were worrying press reports that hospital trusts were telling non-UK NHS staff without NHS numbers that they were not eligible for the Covid vaccine. Please, can the Minister say whether all NHS staff are eligible for the vaccine—and if he cannot, will he explain why not?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I take this opportunity to confirm to the noble Baroness that all NHS staff qualify for the vaccine. I would be very grateful if she could communicate to me any incidents where an NHS trust has said otherwise. We are enormously grateful in this country to all those who migrate to support our social care services. We are profoundly grateful for those efforts, and I want to ensure that everyone is treated well in their workplace. Generally, those in the social care workplace are treated well; there are exceptions, and we crack down on those exceptions extremely hard.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I express our strong support for the WHO statement in recognition of the selfless dedication of health and social care staff to providing care during and despite Covid-19. Following on from the comments of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, the WHO statement draws attention to the importance of workforce readiness, education and learning to manage the pandemic and its consequences. Will the Minister explain how the Government are ensuring that both health and social care staff on the front line of social care—particularly care staff, providing vital domiciliary care in the home and in the community—are being given this key support?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. Those involved in domiciliary care, particularly part-time, make an extremely important contribution. We are naturally concerned about how they are contracted and their educational needs supported. We would like to think more about how part-time domiciliary care staff in particular, who make such a valuable contribution, can be further supported.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that nurses remain at the heart of the world’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic? As key to the restoration of health systems that have been neglected during the crisis, will the Government support calls by the International Council of Nurses fundamentally to reset preparedness and response systems and work towards the global requirement for an additional 10 million nurses by 2030?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we massively value the contribution of nurses from all areas. In fact, that recognition has manifested itself in practical terms; we are growing the nursing workforce and are committed to delivering 50,000 more nurses, putting the NHS on a trajectory for sustainable long-term supply in the future. That journey includes giving eligible nursing students an additional £5,000 of funding per academic year. I cannot say more clearly or loudly how much the contribution of nurses to our healthcare system is appreciated. We will do everything we can to ensure that it is recognised.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury [V]
My Lords, in Salisbury we have had good reason to recognise the dedication and sacrifice of health and care workers, both at the time of the Novichok poisonings and in this present pandemic. The use of Salisbury and other cathedrals and churches as vaccination centres indicates a partnership between spirituality and health care, so will the Minister join me in thanking chaplains, among all the dedicated healthcare workers at this time? What we see in this country is in marked contrast with the poorest parts of the world, as in Sudan and South Sudan, with which this diocese is linked. Given that this is a global pandemic, when might the Government recognise the self-interest involved in overseas aid and move to restore the 0.7% of GDP commitment? No one will be safe until everyone is safe.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the image of the vaccination work in Salisbury cathedral must surely be one of the most powerful images of our times. I found it an extremely touching picture to see those seeking solace in the cathedral and also their vaccination at the same time. I give praise to all those involved. Britain has been utterly emphatic in its contribution to global vaccination. We have given £574 million to developing countries to support those vaccinations. We do that for two reasons. One is self-interest, and the other is to ensure a fair distribution of the vaccines.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. Apologies to the three speakers I was unable to call.
Dunlop Review
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they (1) have taken, and (2) plan to take, as a result of the Dunlop Review into UK Government Union capability.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we have made progress in many of the areas covered by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and we will set out the Government’s response in full when we publish the review, shortly.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister recall that it was way back on 4 July 2019 that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was asked to produce a report on measures to strengthen and sustain the union? He delivered his report within six months, and the very Minister who is answering this Question told me, in answer to my Question on 19 November last year, that the report and the Government’s response would be published by the end of that year. So how can we have any confidence in his answer today, that it will be published soon? Why are the Government afraid, or unwilling, to publish this report and their response?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is no question of fear—although I always rise to answer the noble Lord with some trepidation. I give the House the best advice I can at the time, and the hope then was to publish by the end of the year. We want to ensure that we provide as full a response to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, as possible. As I have told the House before, the key component of that is related to the review of inter-governmental relations, and we are hoping to carry both those strands forward at the same time.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, the problems concerning vaccinations that have arisen in recent days clearly demonstrate that it has never been more important to strengthen the bonds that unite the four nations of our United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that when taking steps to implement the Dunlop review, the Government should seek to remove the serious impediments to trading goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland resulting from the application of Article 5 of the protocol? Does he accept that if agreement is not reached on these matters at the EU-UK joint committee, it may be necessary to invoke Article 16?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we attach the profoundest importance to all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland, to which he refers. I do not wish to go into what 1066 and All That would have called the unfortunate events of the weekend, but I assure the noble Lord that we believe that all action in relation to the protocol must be proportionate, and that discussions on this matter will continue.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if we do not make an effort, Scotland will become a republic separated from the United Kingdom, not because the majority—the moderate majority—want that, but because, to misquote Daniel O’Connell, England’s difficulty is Scotland’s opportunity? Are not the unionists from every part of the United Kingdom letting Ms Sturgeon—Glasgow’s de Valera—hold the floor because they fear confusing English nationalism with patriotic unionism, and are thus failing to make the powerful emotional and obvious economic case for the union?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in answer to my noble and learned friend’s opening remark about a republic, I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to remove Her Majesty the Queen as our Head of State. As for the other part of his question, everybody should advocate the United Kingdom and our union, and should have no fear in doing so. That goes from the lowest to the highest in the land, and in every corner of our kingdom.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Dunlop review is about meeting the challenge of strengthening and maintaining the union. As each day passes, that task, as seen from Scotland, becomes more and more difficult, and constitutional changes will take time to deliver. Do the Government appreciate that they need to do much more now—from within Scotland, not just from Westminster—to make their voice heard there and their message understood?
Lord True (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a very strong point. I agree with him—and, indeed, with the preceding question—that that voice for the union of the United Kingdom should be heard. We recognise that political differences exist between the Administration in Scotland and our Government, but our ambition remains to conclude jointly the inter-governmental relations review. That is one of the important strands behind this Question.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Dunlop review was completed before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, so it may already be out of date. The chairs of the Scottish Affairs, Welsh Affairs and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees are as much in the dark as the rest of us. Can the Minister explain how Michael Gove can already be implementing the Dunlop recommendations when he has not even shared the report with the devolved Administrations?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is second to none in his commitment to reinforce the United Kingdom and to carry that work forward. So, almost by definition, he is acting constantly every day in line with the aspirations of the Dunlop report.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, sadly, the Prime Minister shows scant understanding of or respect for devolution. At the same time, the First Minister is obsessed with an independence referendum ahead of pandemic recovery but has no coherent or credible plan for how to achieve it. Is not this the moment to publish the Dunlop report and set out how the UK can move forward as four nations working together? How can we have confidence that the Government are implementing the report if they do not publish it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have asked for a little patience from your Lordships’ House, but it will have been noted that you are asking for an early publication. What I would underline is what I said before: that we are working positively with the devolved Administrations in many of the areas covered by Dunlop, particularly to establish new intergovernmental structures. The Prime Minister has established the union policy implementation committee—a Cabinet committee to ensure that the Government’s priorities in relation to the United Kingdom are delivered—and work is going on.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, the Dunlop review also includes Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding the findings of some recent internet polls that use a self-selecting online sample, does it remain the Government’s view that a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland continue to support the union, and that the requirements for a border poll are not satisfied? In the event of such a poll, would it be the policy of this Conservative and Unionist Government to use their union capability to campaign actively to keep Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to the Belfast agreement, which sets out the circumstances that would require a border poll. Those are that, if at any time it appears likely that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the UK, they are obliged to call a referendum. The Government continue to monitor the evidence in this regard, but I can tell my noble friend that there is no clear evidence to support the idea that that is the case at this time. I can assure him that, were that ever to happen, this Government would campaign on the basis that the United Kingdom is a family of nations that works for everyone.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, those of us who so strongly support the union and its continuation know that it depends on trust, good will and understanding. Does the Minister think that those are helped by what appears to be a suppression of a report on the working of the union?
Lord True (Con)
If it were characterised in that way, I do not think it would help. There is certainly no intention to suppress the report; it will be published, as I have told the House. The Government have been involved in constructive discussions with the devolved Administrations on how we secure continuing intergovernmental relations and good institutions to provide for that. I hope to be able to advise the House further on this shortly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
The BBC, funded by the United Kingdom taxpayer, has reduced the exposure of UK Ministers to television and radio audiences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but has greatly increased the exposure of Ministers of the devolved Administrations. This strengthens the perception of separateness and has contributed to a diminution of a feeling of Britishness and an increase in support for independence. Does the Minister not agree that in all parts of the UK much more airtime should be given to UK Ministers, and will he ensure that the incoming chairman and director-general of the BBC will correct the current harmful balance?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to issue directions to anyone in terms of the BBC but I will say that some people have certainly found aspects of the coverage confusing and, indeed, perhaps not as optimistic as it might be in certain circumstances. I believe that the nation needs optimism and hope; there should be more emphasis on the joint efforts of the National Health Service, the British Army and other armed services and volunteers right across this country, which deserve the fullest exposure, publicity and support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
UK Logistics Industry
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the end of the transition period of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union on the logistics industry in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been working closely with the logistics industry over a number of years to understand and minimise the potential impacts of transition, updating assumptions and refining the Government’s policy and support as new information has become available. In response, we have rolled out a multimillion-pound haulier communications campaign and opened 46 information and advice sites around the UK.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government refuse to properly fund the essential new border infrastructure at our ports to minimise delays caused by the new Brexit red tape. Does the Minister accept the massive impact this is having on the haulage industry and on import and export businesses generally? Can she explain why the Government are not fully funding the border changes needed to reduce delays?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am struggling to understand the evidence behind the noble Baroness’s question. On the funding side, the Government have made available up to £200 million from the Port Infrastructure Fund, which was set aside and given to ports specifically for the things that she has outlined. On the customs side, the Government have made available up to £80 million of support for IT training and recruitment. She talks about delays for hauliers but there are very few such delays at the moment, as the empty car parks in Kent will attest.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has just said that there are very few traffic delays at the moment going to Dover, so when did the Government decide to build a third inland border facility—called White Cliffs, although of course it is nowhere near the white cliffs—on a 100-acre greenfield site on the A20? Why were residents only told about this by a ministerial letter on 31 December? Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government will commission a full environmental impact assessment before submitting a planning application—to themselves, in this case? Why is it necessary to have a third one when there are two already apparently empty ones on the M20?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the site to which the noble Lord refers is indeed called White Cliffs. It is not a traffic management site and is not intended to be so. It will have capacity for up to 1,200 HGVs for maybe up to five years and will serve two functions: first, for customs checks, and, secondly, for sanitary and phytosanitary checks, which are undertaken by Defra. At the moment there is a statutory engagement period for the site: it started on 13 January and closes on 10 February, and I encourage all members of the local community to respond to it so that they can have their say.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, what is the daily flow of HGVs on to ferries and the shuttle compared with last year? Is there evidence that HGVs are diverting to other ports—for example, on the east coast—or direct to Ireland?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Freight flows are returning to normal, having suffered a significant reduction over the Christmas period when Covid testing was introduced. I can assure the noble Lord that on the outbound we are basically at around 85% of flows from last year, while on the inbound we are at 95% of flows from last year. There has been some change with hauliers seeking other routes because they may be more convenient, but nothing that we would not have expected.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have the solution and we have the technology—distributed ledger, AI, internet of things, all elements of the fourth industrial revolution, many of which Great Britain is at the leading edge of? I was involved with the reducing friction in international trade project, whose proof of concept was cited in the new border strategy—on page 40, just for interest. Will my noble friend tell the House that the Government are doing everything to ensure that we are looking at all elements of technology in order to have the best border in the world—if you will, the “white cliffs of technology”?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that of course we look at all possible technological interventions. Three end-to-end systems have been put in place to assist industry with all the new requirements. They are working well and are helping traders. We look at all possible technologies in order to develop friction-free trade as much as possible.
-Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Road Haulage Association says that before Brexit around 18% of lorries delivering from the EU to the UK returned empty. They say that figure has now risen to around 50%. Apart from the difficulties that that implies for UK exporters, it is clearly at odds with ambitions to mitigate climate change. How will the Minister reduce the number of journeys by empty lorries?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is the case that some lorries return empty. The noble Baroness quoted a figure of 50% but the Government’s figures are actually 30%. That is a bit higher than it has been in the past but over the coming weeks and months the haulage system in general will readjust, particularly in terms of the requirements of the trade and co-operation agreement regarding cabotage and cross-trade. I would expect to see fewer empty lorries going back.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there are repeated reports of UK companies switching and looking to switch at least part of their operations to countries inside the EU in order to overcome additional regulations, customs checks and costs of transporting goods to the EU following our departure from it. Is this a development that the Government are encouraging and supporting, despite the potential adverse impact on jobs, economic activity—including the logistics industry—and tax revenue in the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I think the noble Lord is referring to some individual anecdotes. We are not aware that this is part of a systematic picture of a substantial shift. The vast majority of traders within Great Britain and Northern Ireland are ready to meet the new requirements at the border and are trading successfully.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, the British Ports Association is reporting that its members are telling it that the current rules are constantly changing and highly complex. They are also saying that guidance is not forthcoming for exporters and that they are unable to get answers from government officials. When might they expect this situation to improve?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
All information related to trading with the EU is published on the GOV.UK website. In the first three weeks of January there were 3.35 million visits to transition content and 470,000 visits to business pages specifically. The Government have published a haulier handbook in 14 languages specifically for hauliers. I am sure that noble Lords will have seen that a haulier handbook focusing specifically on Northern Ireland was published today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Lord Taylor of Warwick? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that the reason there are no queues at ports in relation to farm goods and fish products is because many of them are stuck on the continental port side? We have 100,000 pigs still stuck on farms, poultry is down by 20%, and the fish scenario will be familiar to her. What efforts can the Government make to ensure that these products can reach the ports, whether they are northern, east coast or southern coast ports, so that they can access the European market as quickly as possible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We recognise the need to continue working closely with businesses and certifiers as they adapt to the new requirements. It is vital that traders ensure that UK hauliers have the correct paperwork for new animal and animal product checks when they cross the EU border. There is extensive advice and support available. There has been relatively little disruption at the border so far, but we are seeing regulations interpreted in different ways by member states. The Government are working incredibly hard to address these differentials with those member states.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is more economical for companies in Northern Ireland to ship goods via sea from Rosslare in the Republic of Ireland to Zeebrugge, a journey of 38.5 hours, than via the UK land bridge to Calais, a journey taking 10 hours? This has a knock-on impact on investment and jobs in Liverpool and Folkestone and compounds the pressure on Eurotunnel. What can be done to remedy this situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not entirely sure why a journey of 10 hours would be worse than a journey of 38 hours. Some hauliers will decide to go by other routes, certainly; however, we are not seeing a large-scale shift. Given that there are no delays at the border at the moment, we expect many of those hauliers to return.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Vaccines
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is delivered to patients within 12 weeks of receiving the first dose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the second dose completes the course and is vital for long-term protection. That is why all patients will be offered a second dose between 77 and 84 days after receiving their first. We have already vaccinated almost 9 million people, with the ambition to reach the 15 million people in the most vulnerable groups 1 to 4 by the middle of February.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his partial reassurance; however, the question is actually whether there will be a supply available in the timeframe. Given that any unvaccinated area provides a potential pool for new strains of Covid to develop and re-infect the world, extending immunisation to the whole world is not
“only a matter of altruistic engagement,”
but “of enlightened self-interest,” to quote Tony Blair. Does the noble Lord agree that countries must come together to reject vaccine nationalism in favour of co-operation? At what point in terms of vaccination of priority groups will the UK be able to make vaccinations available to other countries that are in need?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree with both the noble Baroness and the former Prime Minister Tony Blair on this matter. Not only must we vaccinate our own country, but we are not safe until the whole world is vaccinated. That is a basic public health and epidemiological observation. It is why we are very committed to international efforts—to CEPI, Gavi, COVAX and ACT. They are all working hard to get fair distribution of vaccines. We have also put £571 million into the funds at COVAX to support vaccines for the developing world. However, we have to start at home and it is not possible to make a commitment on the schedule for when we will be in a position to think about exporting vaccines until that is completed. When it is completed, I will update the House accordingly.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome the efficiency with which the UK is providing vaccines, but vaccines affect only part of the problem. As my noble friend Lady Thornton and the Minister said, this is indeed a global issue. Prompt diagnosis and early treatment with antivirals will become vital. Time is limited. Can the Minister inform the House what measures the Government are taking to stimulate investment and make urgent research into effective antiviral drugs specifically designed against SARS-CoV-2, which are likely to be easier to distribute in many countries?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right: the vaccines are a hugely important development, but so is investment in all therapeutic drugs. We are extremely blessed to have had a contribution towards dexamethasone, tocilizumab and other therapeutic drugs which have greatly improved outcomes for patients in hospitals. He is right that antivirals also present an opportunity. The reason we have supported research into antivirals through the urgent regime in our clinical trials is to ensure that there is sufficient commitment in hospitals and primary care on antivirals. We are tasking the Therapeutics Taskforce with a specific mandate to look at antivirals and whether we should give greater resources to this avenue of therapeutic development.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, having the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in the right quantities in the right place at the right time is vital. Will the Minister guarantee that people will be able to get their second dose of it at the local GP hub where they had their first dose administered without being directed to a mass vaccination centre to receive it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
In response to the noble Baroness, I said that we were confident that we had the supplies of the vaccines to do the second dose. It is not our policy that anyone has the second dose of anything other than the vaccine they had the first dose of. We will work with people to give them the most convenient place to have the vaccine, but I cannot offer the guarantee that the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, while it is important to extend vaccination programmes at home and abroad, the recent reports of emerging mutations of the virus—the South African, Brazilian and the recent Californian mutations—risk significantly increasing transmissibility and serious illness, particularly in younger people. It is extremely worrying, and it may lead to the virus getting around the vaccine-related immunity. We need to be ahead of the curve if we are to avoid serious illness and deaths in the young. What plans do the Government have to mitigate against this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right; the threat of a vaccine-escaping mutation is very present on our minds. I pay tribute to the word of Sir Patrick Vallance, Clive Dix and all those who are working on this issue in the expert advisory group on vaccines. The noble Lord mentioned the threat of transmissibility among the young. We have already made the commitment of offering a vaccine to all ages. He is entirely right that we may reach a point where it is particularly important to ensure that young people have the vaccine so that they are not responsible for transmitting the disease to those who are more vulnerable.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their very impressive vaccine rollout. Bringing in retired doctors, nurses and non-healthcare professionals to be part of the national vaccination effort will be vital to being able to continue to deliver all doses of the vaccine at scale—and, of course, it will help to relieve the pressure on our hard-working NHS workers. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on the progress of these applications?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have tens of thousands—38,000, I think—currently employed by the NHS delivering the vaccine: a remarkable army of people. We have had further offers from hundreds of thousands of people—300,000, I believe—to support the vaccination effort. Those offers are being processed by voluntary groups; I pay particular tribute to the St John Ambulance, which runs an extremely good training programme and has enabled tens of thousands of people to join the vaccination effort. We continue to engage with those offering to help to ensure that they get the training and opportunities to help wherever they can.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]
How can the Government ensure that the second dose of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine is delivered to patients within 12 weeks? I do not think the Minister answered that part of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Question. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this is done, and are there any circumstances in which vaccines would be mixed at the second dose?
Lord Bethell (Con)
When you go to have your vaccine, as several noble Lords have done, you are given a card like the one I am holding, on the back of which the date of your second dose is printed. That is how we ensure that people know where and when to go for their second dose. We are working extremely hard to ensure that there are supplies of the second dose, and I am confident that we have the arrangements in place. It is not our policy to give anyone a second dose of an alternative vaccine to their first dose.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, how can the Minister overcome the reported suspicion of the Covid vaccines among ethnic minorities and, of course, the anti-vaxxers, no doubt fuelled by President Macron’s unfounded attack on the effectiveness of the AstraZeneca vaccine?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right to be concerned, but I can report from the front line that concerns about the impact of anti-vaxxers have not materialised in a huge impact on confidence. I pay enormous tribute to all those in civic society and religious groups in all parts of Britain who have done a tremendous job of ensuring that groups and communities who might once have been suspicious of a vaccine supplied by the British Government have instead turned up in droves. I am extremely confident that the message has got across: this is a safe vaccine, everyone who qualifies should take it, and you should trust the Government and the NHS to supply it.
Lord Mancroft (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Sugg in congratulating the Government on their outstanding work in rolling out this vaccine programme. As I am a bear of very little brain, can I ask my noble friend to explain: if we are to maintain the current level of first vaccinations and at the same time start giving second doses to those who have had their first, will we not have to double our capacity to give vaccinations over the next month or six weeks? Are the Government confident that they can achieve that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right: from March, we will have considerably more work both to deploy the second dosage and to supply it. We have those plans absolutely in place: the supply of the vaccine has been put in place to ensure that we have a sufficient number of doses, and the workforce and locations are in place to ensure that we can deliver them.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, among Northern Ireland Health Minister Robin Swann’s many achievements since the start of the pandemic, he has overseen the establishment of seven regional centres across the Province where the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine is now administered. I understand that a further significant consignment of the AstraZeneca vaccine is due in Northern Ireland this week for distribution to general practitioners. Can the Minister assure me that the Province’s stocks of the Pfizer vaccine are also being replenished to allow the regional centres to continue their excellent work at the fastest possible pace, including the delivery of a second dose?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the good work of the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Robin Swann, whom I commend for his collaborative approach during this entire pandemic. I reassure the noble Lord that we are allocating doses on the business-as-usual, Barnett formula split, with 2.85% going to Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the NHS there, where 214,601 people have had their first dose. A further 24,323 have had their second dose, and I reassure the noble Lord that we will maintain that velocity of delivery in the weeks to come.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when I received the Pfizer vaccine, I was given a leaflet that stated
“you should receive a second dose of the same vaccine … 21 days later to complete the vaccination series. Protection against COVID-19 disease may not be … effective until at least 7 days after the second dose.”
Now that 21 days has been extended to 77 to 84 days, what is the efficacy of the vaccine after a gap of six weeks and three months?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on having his vaccine so early, and I share his concern on this matter because those who had their first dose early received a leaflet of exactly the kind he described, and, since then, the CMO’s advice has changed. I reassure him that, using data for those cases observed between days 15 and 21, efficacy against symptomatic Covid-19 for the Pfizer vaccine was estimated at 89%. Those kinds of statistics reassured the CMO to change the date to three months, and I reassure the noble Lord that he is in safe hands.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am perfectly happy with waiting for the three months, but I am concerned about people over the age of 80 who are living in their own homes, rather than retirement homes, who I understand are not yet receiving the vaccine. I can understand that it would be difficult to go to individual homes, but can my noble friend tell me what the position is?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that we have put in place a systematic arrangement to visit care homes and those living at home with domiciliary care in order to bring the vaccine to their homes. That system includes GPs, community pharmacists and, where necessary, mobile vaccination units. It is proving to be extremely effective. The big numbers will be delivered by the mass vaccination centres, but we will not overlook those who cannot move from their home.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, what information does the Minister have about individuals who may have tested positive for Covid-19 after their first vaccination, either because they are a carrier but healthy or because the first vaccination—which statistically is not 100% successful—did not work?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord touches on a number of connected issues. The first vaccination does take a little bit of time; depending on which vaccination is administered, it takes between one and three weeks before it is truly in the system and protects the patient most effectively. It is, of course, possible to subsequently catch the disease without showing symptoms. One of the most emphatic results of having a vaccination is not necessarily that you do not catch the disease but that it saves you from serious disease and hospitalisation. That is where the vaccines are making a massive difference. We are expecting a dramatic fall in the number of hospitalisations and deaths as a result, but it is possible that people will still carry the disease. That is why the advice to all people, including noble Lords, is that just because you have had the vaccine, it does not mean that you can travel around the community as you did previously.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. I will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it is not possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice, either in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 1st February 2021
(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (1 Feb 2021)
Baroness Hamwee
“(aa) the disclosure of any immigration information (see subsection (5A));”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the other amendment in the name of Baroness Hamwee to Clause 17, would ensure that the bill did not authorise the disclosure of any immigration information.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendments 55 and 56 in this group, and my name is also to Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
From the moment the Data Protection Bill, as it was, arrived in this House, we opposed paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, which exempts data processed for purposes relating to “effective immigration control” from the protection provisions. Our reasons range from the ethical, for instance, solicitors being unable to obtain what the Home Office knows or thinks it knows about a client; to the humanitarian, for instance, deterring asylum seekers from seeking assistance to which they are entitled; to the practical, for instance, there are obvious implications for public health if people seek to stay under the radar.
The vulnerability of migrants subjected to domestic abuse is recognised by the commissioner-designate, and we have more amendments to come on different issues. It is recognised by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, who has recently said:
“Victims should have every confidence in approaching the police for protection. They should expect and receive protection at times when they are vulnerable and so desperately need the assistance of the agents of the state. Victims should never be in a position where they fear the actions of the police could unintentionally but severely intensify their vulnerability and thereby strengthen the hands of organised criminals and others whose motives and objectives are to inspire fear and do them harm.”
There is an obvious read-across from that. The vulnerability and fragility I mentioned are also recognised by the Government, but by way of a pilot.
As well as the stand-alone proposed new clause, which is Amendment 154, it seems to us necessary to address the issue in the specific clause regarding disclosure of information both by and to the commissioner. Patient information is dealt with; nothing requires or authorises its disclosure, and that is right. Nothing requires or authorises disclosure that would contravene data protection legislation. That does not preclude processing—the term used—of personal data for
“the investigation or detection of activities that would undermine the maintenance of effective immigration control.”
We very much support Amendment 154, whose authors have thought through many aspects of this. They urge that we do not put the commissioner in a position where information may not, out of fear, be confided in her, or where she is required to disclose immigration information. As so often happens when one returns to an amendment, I can see Amendments 55 and 56 might be more nuanced and detailed, but it is important, at this point, to get the matter on to the table. I beg to move Amendment 55.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 154 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for supporting it.
The key point is that victims of domestic abuse and their witnesses must be able to divulge personal data in the context of seeking or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse without the risk that such data may be used for immigration control purposes. Proposed new subsections (1) and (2) require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to honour this key principle and proposed new subsection (4) requires them to issue guidance to relevant officials and others affected by the new clause.
Migrant women with insecure immigration status are, in my view very understandably, reluctant to report domestic abuse to the statutory services. Would you, one might ask, particularly to the police? This reluctance is due to the current data-sharing agreements between statutory services, including the police and the Home Office, for immigration control purposes. This means that women affected cannot seek support or a safe place to go, with the most appalling consequences, as one can very easily imagine. Perpetrators are not being brought to justice.
In 2019, the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that half of migrant women with insecure immigration status do not report abuse to the police for fear of detention and deportation. The use of insecure immigration status by perpetrators as a tool of coercive control has been highlighted for many years. CEDAW highlights this problem and calls on states to repeal restrictive immigration laws that leave migrant domestic workers vulnerable in this way. Imkaan’s vital statistics report shows that no less than 92% of migrant women have reported deportation threats from their perpetrator.
The Government’s draft statutory guidance framework for the Bill recognises the situation; indeed, it recognises the need for more support if these women are to seek help, but this support is not available in this Bill. The Government’s response has been to announce a pilot scheme to assess the needs of migrant women and provide those with no recourse to public funds with emergency accommodation. This is really concerning. As I have said, we know very well what the issues are and their consequences for migrant women. We know perfectly well what their needs are—the same as those of other women or men subject to domestic abuse—so I do not believe that we need this pilot. We need legislative protection for the women involved. If the Bill is passed without a solution to this problem, it could be years before the next appropriate piece of legislation. I really hope the Minister will agree that the proposed pilot is redundant and therefore not appropriate at this point.
The briefing sent to us by Step Up Migrant Women and others includes a number of heart-rending cases—I am very happy to pass them on to the Minister, but I have a feeling she already has them. She might want to make that clear.
In view of the serious crimes that go unpunished because of the fears of women with insecure migrant status, it is not surprising that the Equality and Human Rights Commission supports this and related amendments. The EHRC refers to a joint report of several policing bodies, including the HMICFRS, which found that victims of crime with insecure or uncertain immigration status are fearful that, if they report crimes to the police, their information will be shared with the Home Office. It concluded that the current system of information sharing between the police and the Home Office was causing significant harm to the public interest. I hope the Minister will respond to this particular concern in her response.
I put on record that, in 2019, the draft Bill committee made a clear recommendation to the Government to establish
“a firewall at the levels of policy and practice to separate reporting of crime and access to support services from immigration control”.
That is exactly what this amendment seeks to do.
Finally, as the Minister knows, without this amendment, and no doubt others, the measures in this Bill will not be compliant with Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention, which states that
“provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as … national or social origin … migrant or refugee status”.
The Minister will know that, in December 2019, the Government stood on a manifesto pledging to support all victims of domestic abuse. Can we discuss how to deal with this before Report? I am tremendously aware that she is responsible for, I think, three Bills—overwhelming, I must say—and is clearly extremely busy, but I would very much welcome even 10 or 15 minutes to try to clarify where we might go on Report. I realise that these are complex issues but very much hope that the Minister will work with her colleagues to achieve government support for this amendment or something like it.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who has such knowledge and experience of these issues as a former social worker, and to speak in support of her Amendment 154, calling on the Government to ensure that the personal data of a victim of domestic abuse in the UK is processed only for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to domestic abuse and not for immigration control. We need to separate these distinct areas of immigration enforcement and the necessary protection of victims of domestic abuse. We cannot continue to ignore this perilous area where migrant women are put at continuing risk from their perpetrators while fearing deportation.
During the research for this amendment, I read moving testimony from many women, some of whom have been helped by Safety4Sisters in the north-west—a small, committed group of Manchester-based feminist and anti-racist activists. They speak to many migrant women who continue to receive piecemeal, inconsistent and, on occasion, downright dangerous responses from state and non-state agencies. I was particularly moved by the response of one of their clients, who summed up her experience so succinctly yet so movingly:
“We just have humiliations, a lack of dignity, we are powerless next to the man abusing you.”
The Lord Bishop of London [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to those of noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill. I thank the Minister for all her work in this area. As other noble Lords have already said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address the crime of domestic abuse, which affects more than 2 million people a year in the United Kingdom. However, the Bill continues to overlook one of the most vulnerable groups affected by this form of violence against women and girls—migrant women. I too will address Amendment 154, which calls for the Secretary of State to ensure that the personal data of victims of domestic abuse in the UK is processed only for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance relating to domestic abuse, not for immigration control.
Government policy is clear that victims of crime should be treated without discrimination. Therefore, the separation of immigration enforcement and protection of domestic abuse victims who are migrant women must be delineated. Failure to do this puts migrant women at risk of a double jeopardy of danger from their abuser and fear of deportation. As has already been highlighted, the Istanbul convention, the landmark international treaty on violence against women and girls, which the Government have signed and are committed to ratifying, requires in Articles 5 and 59 that victims are protected regardless of their immigration status.
However, freedom of information requests reveal that 60% of police forces in England and Wales share victims’ details with the Home Office, prioritising immigration control over the victims’ safety and access to justice. While some services may need to share data to ascertain an individual’s immigration status and right to access services—some NHS services for example—there is no legal requirement for any data sharing with the Home Office relating to domestic abuse victims. As we have already heard, without any national policy guidance on this practice the police approach to safeguarding migrant victims of crime will remain inconsistent.
The blind spots in this Bill are resolved by this amendment. Organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service have been in touch with me to highlight evidence from people whose stories demonstrate the benefits of this amendment. One Ecuadorian woman who came to the UK in 2014 met her partner at work and later came to know how controlling he was and that he continually lied to her about her immigration status. In 2019, violence escalated when she became pregnant. During this time, isolation, emotional abuse and manipulation were exerted in addition to threats of deportation and separation from her child if she reported the abuse to the police. Although she has since received some support from specialist organisations such as the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, she has not yet reported the abuse to the police since she is too fearful of deportation and possible separation from her child.
I fear that this blind spot enables offenders and abusers to use police involvement as a threat to their victims, rather than the source of protection that it should be. Various countries around the world have demonstrated that firewalls can be and are being implemented in different ways to create separation between public services and immigration enforcement. It is entirely possible that the training and cross-sector relationships that we are calling for through this Bill can establish safe reporting pathways that include access to specialist support and legal advice to address a victim’s immigration status as necessary.
One of the other consequences of putting immigration control above the safety of victims is that perpetrators can commit these crimes with impunity. This is a risk not only for survivors but the wider community. Better trust in the police to protect victims of abuse and investigate crime against migrant women will improve responses for all survivors and the public. Like my co-sponsors, I call on the Government to establish safe reporting pathways by incorporating a clear statutory obligation that prevents public authorities and other support services sharing data with the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control. Will the Minister ensure that safe reporting will be established for all women, regardless of their immigration status?
The direction of the Bill is hopeful, and I look forward to the Minister’s response and to discussions with the Government before Report regarding the specific action taken on this amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendment 154. I do not want to appear negative, but I had a year at the Home Office dealing with immigration, nationality and citizenship, and while I well understand the pressures on civil servants, I do not think that the Home Office is as trusted as it used to be. We can go back to the hostile environment started by Theresa May which led to Windrush. The Home Office has a long way to go before it builds up trust again. The key thrust of this amendment provides a chance for the Home Office to send a signal to other public bodies that the Home Office is not going to abuse or misuse information on domestic abuse for immigration control purposes. It is bad enough that the staff of the commissioner will be Home Office civil servants, and that the accounting officer for the whole function is still going to be the Home Secretary. The Home Office has some way to go in distancing itself from the misuse of information on domestic abuse for immigration purposes.
I know that civil servants will want to make the system work, but there is a lack of trust and some big moves need to be made to rebuild it. Accepting an amendment such as this would go some way to sending a signal to the police, the immigration authorities, social services and others dealing with domestic abuse and immigration issues to realise that a massive wall has been built between the two. The Bill will fail unless an amendment such as this is accepted.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (V)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to offer the strong support of the Green group for, and to speak in favour of, the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher. I associate myself with powerful contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, particularly her focus on the Istanbul convention, the importance of which was also highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. All the speakers before me have covered the issue in depth and with clarity and power, so I will be brief.
I begin by noting the widespread support for this Bill from all sides of the House and the Government’s stated commitment to protecting victims of domestic abuse and ensuring that the law does not act as a facilitator of abuse. If ensuring that domestic abuse victims have a route to safety and perpetrators are brought to justice is the highest government priority, they need to ensure that not just those who might be subjected to immigration control but those who might fear being subjected to it, whether rightly or not, are not prevented from accessing the protections. Immigration status is a complex area and we know from the tragedy of Windrush that even citizenship is not always an adequate protection from detention and deportation.
It is not just those who might face immigration controls who need the reassurance of these amendments, but those who fear becoming entangled in the horrors of the Home Office’s hostile environment as a result of reporting abuse or seeking help. They might have no real reason to fear that, but history will tell them that there is cause for concern. We need not only to protect them and make sure they are safe but to ensure, by stating it loudly and clearly in the Bill, that reporting abuse and seeking safety and justice will not entangle them in that hostile environment. This needs to be set out in government publicity so that there is a clear understanding across the community.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I wish to support in particular Amendment 154 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I also welcome the important contributions that have been made on this group of amendments.
Recently, Gill, an abused Brazilian woman of insecure immigration status, spent three days in the middle of winter sleeping on our streets with one of her children. How she got there is a heartbreaking tale of police misunderstanding of the guidance, Home Office incompetence and, indeed, laws that are not fit for purpose. Gill’s is one of several case studies presented to us by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, which is constantly seeing migrant victims of domestic abuse, as the right reverend Prelate has said. It sees the lack of trust and confidence that these victims have in our institutions, which are meant to protect them but often end up only harming them further. It knows, as does anyone who originates from a diaspora, that trust is a rare commodity and has to be built up step by step and law by law, as my noble friend Lord Rooker suggested in his reflections on the Home Office and the hostile environment.
Migrant women face many additional barriers to safety because, as has been said, abusers commonly use women’s fears of immigration enforcement and separation from their children to control them. The End Violence Against Women Coalition has pointed to the particular vulnerabilities experienced by migrant women: no recourse to public funds, homelessness, the financial impact of the inability to work due to their immigration status, forced marriage, so-called honour-based violence and much more. Add to that the harm that this amendment seeks to address, which is the fear that their information will be passed on by the police and other organisations to Immigration Enforcement, and it is no wonder that many, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London do not believe that the Bill in its present form—however much we welcome it, and I certainly do—is compliant with the requirements of Article 4, paragraph 3 of the Istanbul convention.
During the passage of the Bill in the Commons, MPs, including the Minister, stated that all victims of domestic abuse are treated first and foremost as victims, regardless of their immigration status. However, for that to happen certain things have to change. Accepting this amendment would be a good place to start, backed up by the conclusions of the super-complaint investigation by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters on policing and insecure immigration status. The report on this was published in December 2020 in collaboration with the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The super-complaint has been taken seriously by the police because it underlines, among other things, the ongoing danger to public safety of migrant victims’ perpetrators, who are sometimes part of criminal gangs, going free and undetected outside the law because their victims fear reporting them to the police. The super-complaint concludes that for victims of domestic abuse, a complete separation or firewall must be in place between the police response to a victim who is reporting domestic abuse and the handling of their immigration status, as is provided for in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
While the amendment obviously goes further than interaction with the police, the focus of the super-complaint and its call for all chief constables to stop immediately the sharing of information on domestic abuse victims with Immigration Enforcement provides welcome ballast for this important amendment. I hope that the Minister sees the need to accept the amendment and will not wait for the findings of the support for migrant victims scheme.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests on the register. I support Amendments 55, 56 and 154. My main concerns relate to victims of modern slavery and of forced marriage who are from overseas. Some victims of modern slavery suffer from domestic abuse and may not go through the NRM. If they do not, their immigrant status will be not just uncertain but probably not acceptable. It may not be safe for them to be returned to their own country.
I refer particularly to a group of foreign wives who marry men in this country but whose marriages are not registered. An example, but not the only example, is a nikah in a Muslim marriage. If that marriage is not registered, as everyone knows, it is not legal in English law. Consequently, wives will not receive the spousal visa or have the protection of being a wife—although they believe of course that they are wives. This is very serious, and I ask the Minister to look at this group of women, some of whom may be in a forced marriage, while others may be in a perfectly good arranged marriage where the husband has walked out on them or turfed them out and they are completely lost, because they do not have the appropriate immigration status as a wife.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, our Amendments 55 and 56 in this group are designed to prevent information about victims of domestic abuse that could be used for immigration control being disclosed by the domestic abuse commissioner. These amendments go further than Amendment 154, as they talk about information provided to the domestic abuse commissioner whether a request for support has been made or not.
The danger is that the information, supplied by either the domestic abuse commissioner or somebody seeking support, is shared with the police. There have been numerous reported examples where the police have passed the details of victims and witnesses of crime to immigration officials, including a case in 2017 of a woman who alleged she was raped and kidnapped. She was first taken to a haven, a centre for victims of sexual assault, but was subsequently arrested and questioned about her immigration status.
In 2015, the last year for which I can find figures, police tip-offs to the immigration service of the details of crime victims and witnesses occurred on over 3,000 occasions—in one year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, such sharing of information makes genuine victims of domestic abuse less likely to come forward to receive the help and support that they so desperately need. These victims are likely to be even more vulnerable to coercive control than those with regular immigration status.
Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, similarly requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of domestic abuse that is processed for the purpose of requesting or receiving support is not used for immigration control purposes, along with domestic abuse witness and victim data. We support these attempts to prevent the disclosure of this information for immigration control purposes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, for setting out the case for these amendments, which seek to prevent personal information about victims of domestic abuse being shared for the purposes of immigration control. I recognise that the effect of Amendments 55 and 56 is more narrowly focused on the sharing of information under Part 2 but, in responding to these amendments and Amendment 154, I will focus my remarks on the broader issue.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, will understand that I will leave the debate on migrant women, who feature in Amendment 148, until we get to it, because this group is about data sharing. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I point out that “hostile environment” was of course coined by the Labour Government back in 2007, not under my right honourable friend Theresa May.
The main purpose of these amendments is to make sure that migrant victims of domestic abuse are not deterred from reporting that abuse or seeking support for fear that immigration enforcement action will be taken against them. I want to be absolutely clear: our main priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status.
A number of noble Lords mentioned guidance on this. In our response to the Joint Committee in July 2019, the Government were clear that all victims of domestic abuse should be treated as victims first and foremost. This is set out in relevant guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.
In addition, assistant commissioner Louisa Rolfe, the national policing lead on domestic abuse, in giving oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, was clear that there will be circumstances where information sharing between the police and immigration authorities is in the interests of safeguarding a victim of abuse. There can be many benefits to sharing information, as it can help to resolve a victim’s uncertainty about their immigration status—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—but, most importantly, it can remove the desperate situation in which the perpetrator’s controlling and manipulative behaviour continues because of their status: this too was referred to by the noble Baroness. When victims come forward for support, sharing information can help prevent them facing enforcement action, if they are identified by immigration enforcement in an unrelated setting.
To ensure that victims’ needs are put first, the National Police Chiefs’ Council strengthened its guidance in 2020, setting out a clear position on exchanging information about victims of crime with immigration enforcement to encourage a consistent approach across the country. This gives us confidence that data sharing will operate in the interests of the victim.
Alongside our duties to protect victims of crime, the Government are equally duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system, not only to protect our public services but to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status. The public rightly expect that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that, when individuals with an irregular immigration status are identified, they should be supported to come forward under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. This data exchange is processed on the basis of public interest, as laid out in Articles 6 and 9 of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, also referred to the outcome of the super-complaint relating to police data that is shared for immigration purposes. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published its report into the super-complaint in December last year and made a number of recommendations, which we are carefully considering and to which we will respond in due course. It is right that we properly take account of the recommendations in this report. In response to the report, we have committed to review the current arrangements and to publishing the outcome of the review within the six months set by the inspectorate, which is by June. I expect the outcome of this review to be implemented through further updates to the NPCC guidance or other administrative means, and that primary legislation will not be required. To enable us to complete this review in line with the inspectorate’s recommendations, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not think this is going to be the end of our discussion regarding victims whose immigration status is insecure, or they believe to be insecure. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about a “tool of coercive control” and someone else—I am afraid I did not make a note who, but it might have been the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—talked about the power of an abuser. We should not be contributing to the power of the abuser, nor contributing a tool to the abuser.
The Minister has confirmed, and I am glad to hear it, that the Home Office’s approach is to treat an abused person as a victim first, but this needs to be followed through. Providing data to police or other authorities does not answer the issue to which noble Lords have been speaking. What if the victim knows that she or he is unlikely to be able to regularise their status? The Minister referred to the HMI report following the super-complaint. As stated in its press release, the investigation’s recommendations included:
“the Home Office should review the relevant legal framework and policy to establish sound and fair priorities regarding migrant victims of crime and migrant witnesses to crime, with insecure or uncertain immigration status”.
The Home Office is reviewing that. But this is the opportunity to deal with the matter in legislation and surely, given our data protection legislation, it needs primary legislation and not just guidance. I believe we will come back to this amendment on Report, but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 57. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 57 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 58.
Clause 21: Provision that may be made by notices
Amendment 57
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable a notice to apply in respect of non-residential premises.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendment 57 in this group—or clutch—of amendments, pushing what I hope is an open door: the need for protection of abused or allegedly abused people not only at home. The Government have an amendment extending prohibition to other places, and another amendment relating to the workplace or educational establishment, and those are welcome. Other noble Lords will speak to their amendments using terminology about where the abuser or alleged abuser lives or works. Amendment 79 would allow for discretion when both parties worked in the same place.
Our Amendment 57 is similar to the Government’s amendment, but it applies to domestic abuse protection notices, whereas the Government’s amendment is about domestic abuse protection orders. I regard notices as preventative—not leading inevitably to an order. It is far better, to state the obvious, if one can head off abuse by a notice. Perhaps I am naive in hoping so, but I note that the Minister’s letter or the draft guidance recently circulated—I cannot remember which one—makes the same point. In any event, reasons for including the workplace and other premises as prohibited, apart from the home, can surely apply when a notice is given as well as subsequently. As a matter of drafting, I wondered why Clause 21(2) was necessary, since it seems to be covered by Clause 21(1), but that is not the issue and it certainly makes the point as to what is covered. I suspect that others are going to make very similar points, but I beg to move Amendment 57.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 58, 59, 60, 74, 76, 77 and 79 are tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to speak in support of them, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Newlove.
These workplace amendments were discussed in the other place and it is right that we make it absolutely clear in the Bill that domestic abuse protection orders and the notices that precede them can cover a victim’s workplace as well as their home. Presently, the Bill says only that a perpetrator can be prevented from coming within a certain distance of where a victim lives. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has tabled Amendment 75, which uses the term “specified premises”, but I would prefer the word “workplace” in the Bill, as that is stronger. The amendments I am proposing would ensure that those making domestic abuse protection notices and orders had the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
The Government have said that they would expect a domestic abuse protection order to include restrictions on a perpetrator’s access to where the victim works if the court considered it necessary. However, expectation is not strong enough; the workplace should be referred to explicitly. Work is an important part of people’s lives; other than their home, it is the one place where they are present during fixed hours, normally in a fixed place. That makes a person vulnerable and victims need the added protection that my group of amendments would bring.
There is also the issue of the perpetrator seeking to drive a victim out of work to wreck their economic circumstances, as well as the other horrors they are seeking to inflict on a victim. Women have been murdered at work and the Government have a responsibility to ensure that victims are protected in all aspects of their lives. In 2005, Clare Bernal was killed by her ex-boyfriend—who worked on the same premises as she did—while she was at work. In 2010, Jane Clough was murdered by her ex-boyfriend as she walked into work. In 2014, Hollie Gazzard was murdered by her partner at her place of work. In 2016, four women were murdered in their workplaces by men. All these women would have benefited from stronger workplace protections.
The TUC undertook a survey and found that 47.3% of respondents said that their abusive partner turned up at their workplace and 43.6% said that they stalked them outside their workplace. Without the scope to extend domestic abuse protection orders to the workplace, victims will continue to be harassed, threatened and assaulted at work by abusive partners. Their job prospects and safety will continue to be threatened, and, tragically, as we have heard, in some cases they will be murdered.
Government Amendment 78 states that domestic abuse protection orders should avoid interfering with the perpetrator’s work, rather than, more specifically, their usual times of work. This should mean that in cases where a perpetrator and victim share a place of work, the perpetrator’s work patterns can be adapted to ensure the victim remains in work safely. It will be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, can confirm that that is the intention when he responds at the end of this debate, and that that will be made clear in any guidance issued by the Government.
This is a really important issue; victims need certainty and clarity to provide them with the protection they need. I hope that at the end of this debate we can get a positive statement that we need to look at this further and come back to it on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to my noble friend’s amendments on the workplace. I am grateful to Unison, of which I am a member, for its briefing on this.
Like my noble friend, I am convinced of the need to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are protected at work and that their employers do everything that they can to support them. Domestic abuse is a trade union and workplace issue, as much as any other form of abuse that affects workers’ conditions and income. Home and work issues cannot always be neatly separated. Abusive and violent behaviour does not take place only in the home, but frequently crosses over into the workplace, where victims can experience stalking, threats, harassment and worse. Equally, work can be a lifeline to independent survival for victims of domestic abuse, as they ought to be able to leave their home and maintain a level of income independent from the perpetrator.
All victims should feel safe in the knowledge that they can take action to put their lives back on track with their employment secure, and to be protected while they are at work. This is an important area on which the Government must focus more. I would like to see the remit of domestic abuse protection orders explicitly extended to cover the workplace. They are, after all, intended to secure the immediate protection of a victim from a suspected perpetrator and set out the prohibitions and requirements necessary to do so. Under the current wording of the Bill, an order may prohibit a perpetrator from coming within a certain distance of the premises lived in by the victim. However, as we heard from my noble friend, there is no mention of the victim’s workplace. Originally, the Government said that they would expect a DAPO to include restrictions on a perpetrator’s access to where the victim worked only if the court considered it necessary, which is not explicit.
My noble friend has referred already to a TUC survey from 2015 which found that one in 10 of those who experienced domestic violence reported that the violence continued in the workplace. We surely must do more to ensure that victims will not be harassed at work by abusive partners threatening their job prospects—the importance of which I have referred to—and their safety.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the announcement last June that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was undertaking a review of support in the workplace for victims of domestic abuse. Very recently, the key findings from that review were published, alongside the areas of work that the Government will take forward as a result. The report identifies that an effective employer response is founded on being able to spot the signs of domestic abuse and know how to signpost to specialist services. It also sets out the steps which the Government will take to work with employers to raise awareness of domestic abuse as a workplace issue. This is obviously very important. The outcome of the review also focuses on what best practice looks like and the positive role that employers can play. It also discusses the role that employment rights can play in giving employers and employees the certainty that they need.
The Government have promised to consider through a consultation the steps which can be taken for victims of domestic abuse, as well as to consult on taking forward their manifesto commitment to
“encourage flexible working and consult on making it the default unless employers have good reasons not to.”
This is clearly progress. I welcome it, and the amendment from the Government in this group that enables a court making a domestic abuse protection order to prohibit the person against whom it is made from coming within a specified distance of other premises, in addition to those where the person to be protected by the order lives. This is in parallel to the other amendment from the Government, which makes it clear that the requirements imposed on a person by a domestic abuse protection order, so far as practicable, must not interfere with the person’s work or their attendance at an educational establishment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with the points made by my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. In some ways I applaud the Government’s amendments, and want to elaborate on one aspect—that of not being restrictive of the location, giving an example regarding education establishments.
Going back a long time to around the early 1990s, I had a couple of constituency cases which might in modern times amount to sheer stalking. The two unconnected complaints from constituents were that the perpetrator—we will use that term—was loitering outside the college where they had gone to do a course. One of them said that she was not really that interested in the course, but it gave her a regular place outside the house, which was good. The perpetrator would loiter on the public highway, particularly at break times, and she said, “He was trying to see if I spoke to anyone, because I am not supposed to speak to anybody other than him.” Now we know more about coercive control and widespread domestic abuse. While the definitions of “educational establishments” or “work” might be a bit tricky, this cannot just be confined to the home, because, as both my noble friends have said, people can leave their home to go to work for financial independence, but my example was of someone who decided to do a course because it was regular and got them out of the home. Because it was a regular place the perpetrator knew where they were going, and therefore that ought to be included when the Minister thinks about this and comes back on Report.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, particularly on this subject. I believe that there is an open door here when talking about the protection of abused people. At Second Reading, I stated that the Domestic Abuse Bill has the potential to deliver a step change in the national response to domestic abuse but that the legislation requires significant change to tackle gaps in the system and ensure equal protection and support for all survivors. I believe that this suite of amendments offers in a small way the opportunity to protect those who have been abused.
I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt, as well as those from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, as they are trying to strengthen the powers for dealing with domestic abuse.
Many people are abused not only at their place of residence but also at their place of work. In many instances, prior to the pandemic, people spent longer at work or an educational institution each day than at home. Strict provisions need to be put in statute to ensure that the person who is abused feels safe and is protected. If they have children at home, they should also be protected and should not be exposed to the type of abuse levelled at their mother, or be caught up in the tension that the abuse engenders. In particular, I refer to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which seek to ensure that those who make domestic abuse protection orders have discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
In many cases, the perpetrator will also seek out the person they wish to abuse, whether a former partner or an existing partner, in their place of work. I have some direct experience, involving an employee, of where the legislation was too weak. A lady who was a cleaner for us was deeply frightened and obviously did not wish to talk about it. The person carrying out the abuse stalked her place of work, waiting for her to go into and come out of work, and was quite intrusive when we were dealing with constituents who came into the office. Noble Lords can imagine that that type of abuse was levelled not only at his partner but at other people. The nature of the cleaner’s work meant that she worked in other places, and he followed her there and waited outside those houses until she came out. She was therefore continuously abused at her places of work. People in these circumstances deserve full protection under the provisions that may be made by the notices, and careful attention must be given to further provisions in the requirements that may be imposed by orders.
The Minister’s amendment, Amendment 75, while important and a welcome development, should include the workplace. I have no doubt that my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt will return to this issue on Report, when I shall be very happy to support them. Perhaps in winding up, the Minister can open the door further and accept these amendments as a means of trying to protect the abused person in the workplace and in educational establishments and to stamp out that level of heinous abuse.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who spoke with such passion on this group. I shall speak specifically to Amendments 75 and 78, and I congratulate the Government on tabling them as they will strengthen the actions against a perpetrator.
On a strict reading of Amendment 75, it would appear that its wording would cover work premises—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Hunt. I think that is the Government’s intention in including the words
“may not come within a specified distance of … other specified premises”.
It would be helpful to know that to put noble Lords’ minds at rest.
I particularly want to raise issues that are in the briefing from Refuge, for which I am extremely grateful. As the implementation of the new DAPO is likely to be complex, Refuge supports it being piloted. It will be interesting to hear how it will be piloted. Does the Minister share my view that in Amendments 75 and 78, which I welcome, we recognise that more DAPOs will be issued? Refuge has suggested that this is an area where we should look at adequate training and investment in police forces to ensure that they are using DAPOs wherever appropriate, that perpetrators are arrested and charged when these are breached, that the guidance is sufficiently clear and that the police are sufficiently familiar with how DAPOs are meant to work, which would be the case if there was a pilot in which any teething problems could be ironed out.
I commend Amendments 75 and 78 and thank the Government and my noble friends for tabling them. I will be interested to hear whether the Government look warmly on the suggestions I have made.
Baroness Featherstone (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 57, 58, 59 and 60, that seek to enable the consideration of the inclusion of workplaces in domestic abuse protection orders. It is a truly important and obvious step, which the Government have acknowledged, at least in principle, in Amendment 75.
The introduction of domestic violence protection notices and then domestic abuse protection orders heralded a real shift, or an intended shift, to the perpetrator being excluded and barred from entering the home and the breaking of such an order becoming a criminal offence. But as we have become more aware of the nature of domestic abuse, beyond just the physical—be it psychological and financial abuse, or coercion—we have addressed such issues as stalking and have, thankfully, moved to become more victim-centred, so that the victim can live their life and stay at home, rather than always having to go to a refuge, and the perpetrator is prohibited.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to move this agenda further forward and to protect the victim in their place of work. In a situation of domestic abuse, the workplace can be a refuge and a place of safety for the victim, but, sadly, that is often not the case. It is not uncommon for a victim to find that the abuse follows them to work—sometimes literally, by being physically followed, but often by abusive emails or phone calls, or the fear of the abuser turning up at the workplace, knowing what time the victim finishes. It is even more difficult if the abusing partner works at the same place. It does not stop at the victim; colleagues can find that they are bombarded with questions about the victim, have to cover for a victim’s absences or are threatened with harm. While all organisations and firms should have a domestic abuse policy in place, an order that would prohibit a perpetrator contacting the victim at their place of work or going to their place of work specifically, as noble Lords have mentioned, is a logical step to deepen the protection around the victim.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on a powerful speech in which she made some extremely important points, as have all the speakers.
I referred to this in the past as a landmark Bill, and it will be judged by the success, effectiveness and degree of protection it affords victims. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was, I think, the first person to make the point that most waking hours are spent at a workplace, and that place should be a place of safety. As for the perpetrator, he or she should have no hiding place and should not be able to pursue the victim when the victim is at work or going to work.
It is clear from the amendment tabled by my noble friend the Minister that the Government recognise much of this. However, I believe the Bill will be improved by referring specifically to “place of work” on its face. It will help to make sure that there is indeed no hiding place for the perpetrator and no place that is not a place of safety for the victim. I want the Bill to bring that message to all people in a completely unambiguous and all-embracing way. I am glad to give my support to these amendments.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of the group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I will keep my speech very short, as other noble Lords have made excellent speeches as to why it is essential that the word “workplace” be specified and stipulated when DAPOs are made. As the former Victims’ Commissioner I also met the families of Jane Clough and Hollie Gazzard. Their pain and sorrow have never left me. I have also received many emails about victims being threatened within the estate of their workplace and perpetrators stalking their victims on a daily basis. Their fear and the persecution which means that they have to look over their shoulders are shameful and saddening, as their vulnerabilities are shredded even more to pieces.
I therefore ask the Minister, even though the Government are making strides to recognise this, to look again and maybe accept these amendments. I ask that those who make the DAPOs use their discretion and common sense to specify that the victim’s workplace is protected as well as their home, so that no more lives are brutally taken from loved families. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said, many of these cases do not make the headlines. Our workplace is somewhere we go to do our job, and lives are very stressful as they are. For these victims, who constantly have to watch over their shoulder, please can the Government look at specifying the word “workplace” to give them the safety that they should have in their workplace?
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, Clause 21 sets out what provisions can be made in a domestic abuse protection notice. Clause 21(1)(b) allows that a person may not come within a specified distance of where the victim lives. However, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained, this means that the perpetrator could abuse the victim at work, at the school where their child is a pupil or at a place of worship, to give but a few examples. Our Amendment 57 allows for the prevention of coming within a specified distance to apply to any specified premises in England and Wales. As such, I believe that our amendment also covers the circumstances covered by Amendments 58, 59 and 60, which refer to the victim’s place of work. I will return to that in a moment.
The Government’s Amendment 75 makes similar provision to our amendment for domestic abuse protection orders in that our Amendment 21 applies to domestic abuse protection notices and the Government’s amendment applies to domestic abuse protection orders. As such, I believe that the Government’s amendment covers the circumstances addressed by Amendments 74, 76 and 77.
Contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I am not convinced that specifying “workplace” is stronger than Amendments 75 or 57. It is certainly more restricted than “any specified premises”. I understand trade unions focusing on workplace protections but the issue is wider than workplaces. In future groups we will come to duties being placed on employers. We have to broaden our outlook here. What about unemployed victims, victims in full-time education or victims whose main support comes from a religious community in a church, mosque, synagogue or temple? Protection in the workplace is important but it is not the only place that should be a place of safety for victims of domestic abuse.
Government Amendment 78 means that the requirements imposed by a domestic abuse protection order must, as far as practicable, be such as to avoid interfering with the perpetrator’s work or the person’s attendance at an educational establishment. It will be a fine judgment in some cases whether to make the person covered by the order unemployed or unable to continue a course of education, as well as potentially homeless, but the safety of the victim of domestic abuse must be paramount.
Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to ensure that this is the case by removing the requirement contained in government Amendment 78 to avoid interference with the perpetrator’s work or education if the victim works at the same place as the perpetrator, or, potentially, works at a place where the perpetrator is studying.
The seriousness of domestic abuse, the impact it can have on the victim, and the very serious consequences for the perpetrator if it is reported, beyond any criminal sanction, need to be made clear to perpetrators. It could result in you losing your job or your place in education, as well as your home.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the provisions in Clause 33 provide that a domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—may impose any requirements that the court considers necessary to protect the victim from domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse, including requirements that prohibit the perpetrator coming within a specified distance of any premises in which the victim lives.
However, as noble Lords have, rightly, pointed out again today, we recognise that perpetrators of domestic abuse commonly target victims outside the home intentionally to cause distress, exercise coercive control and, in some cases, even to harm their victim physically. As has been noted, during the Bill’s passage in another place, the honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley tabled amendments seeking to strengthen the protection afforded by a DAPO against workplace abuse, and my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding undertook to consider those amendments. She has done so, and government Amendment 75, which comes from that, would make it explicit that a DAPO can include a requirement prohibiting the perpetrator coming within a specified distance of any other specified premises, or premises of a specified description, such as the victim’s place of work.
Much of the debate today has revolved around whether it is right to put the workplace, and the definition that we have chosen, specifically on the face of the Bill. The government amendment is deliberately broad so that it covers not only the victim’s place of work—in response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I want to be very clear that the amendment does include a person’s place of work—but other places where the victim might regularly be found, such as their place of worship or their children’s school. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the importance of training colleges in enabling victims to re-establish some independence, to get out of the house and to find support, whether that involves going back to work, going into training or finding support through religious institutions. Those are all hugely important to people as they rebuild their lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right that we need to look more broadly and not just at places of work. Of course, people’s patterns of work are very variable. Some people have one static work location but many are peripatetic—perhaps supply teachers, cleaners or carers visiting people in their own home. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, gave an example of someone who works in multiple locations. My noble friend Lord Cormack said that he wants the Bill to be unambiguous, and that is what we are trying to achieve in the breadth of the government amendment—to give the power to specify whatever that location might be. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, we will also make it clear in the guidance that places of work should certainly be considered.
As a consequence of the amendment to Clause 33, Amendment 78 to Clause 34 makes it clear that any requirements imposed on a person which prohibit the person from coming within a specified distance of any specific premises should not, as far as practicable, interfere with the person’s work or their attendance at an educational establishment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, agrees that these government amendments achieve the same outcome that he seeks with his Amendments 74, 76, 77 and 79.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asked about the duties of employers. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, we will debate that more fully when we come to Amendment 174. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about the pilot of the DAPO scheme. We are developing plans for a pilot of the DAPO, which will start as soon as practicable. We will address the training and guidance points before it begins, and of course the pilot scheme will inform the wider implementation of the policy.
With regard to the domestic abuse protection notice—the subject of Amendments 57 to 60—Clause 20 sets out that a notice automatically prohibits the perpetrator from being abusive towards the person to be protected by the notice. Additionally, Clause 21 provides that a notice may prevent the perpetrator contacting the victim. Both those provisions can include the victim’s workplace, or any other non-residential property or location. We believe that these provisions in the Bill are sufficient to protect victims at their place of work and are appropriate for a police-issued notice, pending the making of a substantive court order.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue today. I trust that the two government amendments, along with my explanation of them and of domestic abuse protection notices, will provide the clarity they are seeking and that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I make it clear, if it was not already, that of course we welcome Amendment 75. I thought that naming victims who have been murdered at work or on their way to work makes the point very vividly. Rightly, it has been said that work can be a place of refuge when one’s home is not, but it is not the only place that should be specified, as noble Lords—particularly my noble friend Lord Paddick—have made very clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to attendance at college, but a child’s school, when it is known that the other parent will be there at the start or end of a day, is also an issue. We have already talked during the passage of the Bill about a child being a witness and therefore also a victim, being drawn into the abuse. It strikes me, too, that in some circumstances it might well be helpful to a school to know that there is a prohibition on approaching the school premises.
If I may say so, the Minister’s explanation does not seem to answer the point. Clause 21 contains the words “may not contact the person”, but contact is different from coming within a given distance of a premises. Certainly the Government’s drafting for the order is better than the one that we put forward for notices, because it refers to premises of a specified description rather than requiring a particular address. That, as I say, is better, but having that in that part of the Bill must surely throw into doubt whether notices which are not just silent on the point but refer to premises in which the abused person lives can extend as far as my noble friend and I would wish, and, by implication, from what other noble Lords have said, as far as what they, too, regard as not just desirable but essential, given the detail into which the Bill goes. We welcome that but we would welcome more the bit in our amendment being added to it.
However, for the moment, I of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 61. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in debate.
Clause 22: Matters to be considered before giving a notice
Amendment 61
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes whether representations may be made about particular provisions of a notice.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendments 61, 65, 66, 67 and 70 in this group and support Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, requiring a risk assessment, which I would have thought should be an automatic item on a check list.
Clause 22 deals with matters to be considered before giving a notice. We support a police officer being required, under the clause, to consider any representations about the giving of the notice—to use the words in the Bill—by the person to whom it is to be given. Amendment 61 is to establish that representations must be considered regarding the provisions of the notice. If that is not so, an officer could simply ignore representations about specific provisions, for instance—harking back to the previous debate—“But I work in the same building” as him or her.
Amendments 65, 66 and 67 are amendments to Clause 24, which deals with breach of a notice. Regarding Amendment 65, is it appropriate that, if it is believed that there is a breach of a notice and a person is arrested, he or she is automatically held in custody, albeit for a very short period—possibly overnight, sometimes over a weekend? I have not discussed this with my noble friend Lord Paddick, but is there a risk of the use of custody as a punishment in itself—“Let’s put him in a cell to cool down”, that sort of thing? Should this not, however, be at the discretion of the officer?
Clause 24(7) allows the court to impose requirements when remanding on bail. Amendment 66 probes whether a domestic abuse protection notice continues in any event, with its requirements, or are these transferred to become conditions of bail if the court so decides?
Amendment 67 addresses “interference” with witnesses. I guess that this term has a history in legislation, but the amendment probes whether it means or covers direct or indirect contact with witnesses, for instance via a third party or social media. The same point would apply, in the last of our amendments, to Clause 38. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63 which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, would ensure that a risk assessment is carried out. That would consider any risk to the victim which was likely to occur due to the perpetrator being given notice that a DAPO is likely to be given to the perpetrator.
I presume that the amendments in this group are probing amendments—mine certainly is—going into the detail of how the DAPOs and notices are to be administered. It is right that these are only probing amendments because each case is different and, while there should be comprehensive guidelines on the way that the police operate these procedures, they need to be sufficiently flexible for police officers to make reasoned judgments. There is a very real point about risk assessments: it could be that the victim is put at greater risk through the perpetrator receiving a notice. Counter to that, it could also help the victim if an order is put on without her consent—but that is a matter for a separate amendment in a later group.
I support all the probing amendments in this group, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, for reasons of brevity and clarity, I will refer to person to whom a domestic abuse protection notice is given as the “perpetrator”, rather than the “alleged perpetrator” or “defendant”, and the person the notice seeks to protect as the “victim”, rather than the “complainant”, the “alleged victim” or “plaintiff”. Clearly it will be for the court to decide, ultimately, whether they are in fact perpetrator and victim.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined, Amendment 61 proposes the common-sense change to ensure that the victim is consulted not only about whether a domestic abuse prevention notice should be given but about what restrictions it should contain. The person to be protected is likely to be in the best position to advise the senior police officer as to the circumstances in which she may be vulnerable.
Amendment 65 questions whether someone arrested for breach of a domestic abuse protection notice, which is discretionary, in that a constable “may” arrest the person, must be held in custody until they are brought before a court, which would be mandatory. My noble friend is right: we did not collude on what we were going to say on this, but we come to the same conclusion. Surely there may be circumstances where the arrest of the individual has a sufficiently salutary effect as to make further breach unlikely and, therefore, remand in custody unnecessary. I will return to that in a moment.
If the person breaches the domestic abuse prevention notice, if they are arrested and taken before a court, the court may impose conditions to ensure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. But Amendment 66 asks whether these conditions are in addition to, or replace, those set out in the DAPN. I am assuming that they are additional, in that the DAPN is designed to protect the victim, not just protect the course of justice. In that case, does the court need to ensure that the conditions it imposes are compatible with those of the DAPN, and does that need to be stated on the face of the Bill? As my noble friend explained, for completeness, our Amendments 67 and 70 suggest that the perpetrator should not contact witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
Amendment 63 is also in this group. I recall research in the United States some time ago, which found that the involvement of the police in cases of domestic abuse generally had a salutary effect on professional classes, who felt shame at their actions being made public, but an unwelcome effect on lower socio-economic groups, who were enraged that the police had become involved in their private business. I am not sure whether the class divide aspects are useful, but the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has a point, and this should be taken into account by the police. My noble friend and I did not collude, I promise. I would hope that most senior police officers would automatically take this into account, particularly as they need to seek the opinion of the victim as to whether a notice should be served—a conversation that should draw out such risk factors. I am not sure that it needs to be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, these probing amendments relate to the operation of domestic abuse protection notices. Clause 22 sets out the matters which the police must consider before issuing a notice. Among other things, the police must consider any representations made by the person on whom the notice is to be served. Amendment 61 seeks to probe whether any such representations can extend to the provisions included in the notice.
I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the police should give full consideration to any representations on all parts of the notice, including any of the restrictions, as listed in Clause 21, that they consider imposing.
The draft statutory guidance, published in advance of the Committee stage, covers the considerations that the police must make before a notice is authorised. Although the current draft makes no specific reference to the consideration of representations in respect of individual provisions to be included in a notice, I would be happy to ensure that this point is addressed in the final form of the guidance.
Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks to ensure that a risk assessment is carried out before a notice is given by the police to an alleged perpetrator. I fully support the intention of this amendment, which is to ensure that full consideration is given to the risks to victims when deciding whether to issue a notice. I think that probably brings into relief the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Sadly, police enforcement action against a domestic abuse perpetrator can lead to the perpetrator blaming the victim and seeking to retaliate. That is why it so important that these notices and orders do not require the victim’s consent and that victims can therefore distance themselves from police action against the perpetrator. It is why it is extremely important that the notice can be used to provide immediate protection to the victim. In the aftermath of an incident, police can use a notice to evict the perpetrator from the victim’s home and prohibit the perpetrator from contacting the victim for up to 48 hours. Last Wednesday, I inadvertently referred to 24 hours, for which I apologise. This provides the victim with breathing space to consider their options and for police and specialist services to support the victim with safety planning.
The notice is followed by an application for a DAPO which is designed to provide longer-term protection and can be tailored to respond to the level of risk to the victim. Therefore, if police involvement in the case and the giving of a notice to the perpetrator have led to an escalation of risk to the victim, the DAPO can include provisions to address this risk.
Robust risk assessment is central to the police response to domestic abuse. The College of Policing guidance on domestic abuse stipulates that a risk assessment must be carried out in all domestic abuse cases. The importance of risk assessment when using a DAPN or order is also set out in the draft statutory guidance for police which has been published ahead of Committee. This guidance makes it clear that it is essential that police use appropriate specialist domestic abuse risk assessment or screening tools in consultation with partner agencies to safeguard the victim and reduce the risk of further harm by the perpetrator. The guidance also includes information on safety planning action that police should undertake alongside the notice and order.
Amendments 65, 66 and 67 deal with breach of a notice. Clause 24 provides that, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is in breach of a notice, they can be arrested without warrant, held in custody and brought before a magistrate’s court within 24 hours, or in time to attend the scheduled hearing of the application for a domestic abuse protection order—whichever is sooner.
Amendment 65 would make the process of holding the perpetrator in custody following arrest for breach of a DAPN an optional matter for the police. Although I understand noble Lords’ concerns regarding the blanket nature of this provision, this amendment could put a victim at increased risk of harm, coercion or retribution once an alleged perpetrator is released. The amendment could lead to further breaches occurring while the court hearing is pending and increase the need for protective measures for victims during that period.
Clause 24 also provides that if the court decides to remand the person on bail, it can attach any conditions that are necessary to prevent the person obstructing the course of justice, for example interfering with witnesses. These are standard provisions, which largely replicate the approach taken for remand following breaches of protective orders, such as non-molestation orders, occupation orders and anti-social behaviour injunctions.
Amendment 66 seeks to test whether a notice would continue in force following the court imposing bail conditions under Clause 24. I can advise the noble Lord that if a court were to remand a person on bail under Clause 24, the notice would continue in effect until the application for a domestic abuse protection order had been determined or withdrawn.
Amendments 67 and 70 seek to probe what constitutes interference with a witness. The term “interference”, which is used in other legislation relating to bail requirements, would capture direct or indirect contact with the witness and is intended to protect against someone influencing a witness’s evidence, or dissuading a witness from giving evidence, for example.
I hope that those two explanations satisfy noble Lords and that consequently the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, these are indeed probing amendments. With our amendment to Clause 24, by using the term “may” rather than “must” about custody, we were proposing discretion, not precluding custody.
I am grateful to the Minister for her confirmation of various points and for her suggestion that the guidance is adjusted to cover the point made at the start of the debate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 61.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 64. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 64
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Paddick to Clause 26(3).
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendments 64, 68 and 69. Clause 26 takes us fully into the area of protection orders. Of course, we have been referring to them this afternoon. We are particularly concerned about how the Bill is constructed to mean—as I read it—that there is an inevitability about a protection order following a protection notice. I appreciate that there are stand-alone protection orders: those are not the ones I am referring to here.
Under Clause 26(3), the police must apply for an order if they have given a notice. Our Amendment 68 would change that “must” to “may”. Clause 27(1), to which we have tabled Amendment 69, makes a similar point. The wording in the Bill is “required … to apply”. Amendment 64 anticipates those two amendments. Of course, we are not arguing that there should never be protection orders, but does the Bill have the right balance? It seems to me that the Minister’s descriptions, in response to the last group of amendments, of situations in which a protection order could be used, make that point very well. I find it quite depressing to see that notices would always be regarded as precursors to an order. Do notices not have their own place in prevention? In other words, this group of amendments asks: is the balance in the Bill right? I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 68. This is really a very short point; it is a question of flexibility. There may be circumstances where a protection order has been issued, but by the time it comes to a senior officer, circumstances have changed and it would be far better not to have it go forward. It would be wise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—I realise that this is a probing amendment—to have the flexibility in the Bill so that it is not the case that, if an order is issued by someone of junior rank, it is automatically supported by someone more senior.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, Clause 26(3) states that if a domestic abuse protection notice is given by the police under Clause 20, the chief police officer must apply for a domestic abuse protection order. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said, what if it transpires that the circumstances have changed or that the police officer who gave the notice, for example, made a mistake? What if further evidence becomes apparent that means a domestic abuse protection order should not have been given or is no longer required? Can the Minister explain why the issuing of a domestic abuse protection notice is discretionary, but the application for a domestic abuse protection order, once a notice has been served, is mandatory? Hence our Amendment 68. As my noble friend explained, Amendments 64 and 69 are consequential.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explained, these probing amendments explore whether an application for a domestic abuse protection order should be an automatic consequence of the police issuing a domestic abuse protection notice. Although I fully understand the motivation behind this—namely, to build further flexibility into these provisions—these amendments would remove a key strength of the process as we envisage it. The domestic abuse protection notice is designed to give victims immediate protection and breathing space from the perpetrator following a crisis incident. If it has been judged necessary to issue a notice, it will be evident from the situation that the victim needs longer-term protection. Consequently, it is right that, once a notice has been issued, an application for an order should follow automatically within 48 hours.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendment has been described as probing, which it was in the sense of my wanting to understand the thinking behind the phraseology in the Bill. A probing amendment can, in the course of a Bill’s various stages, become substantive. The Minister says that the strength of the process is to provide a breathing space. We are not suggesting, in these amendments, that that should not be possible; we are suggesting that it should be a matter of discretion. It occurs to me that not making it discretionary could itself be a deterrent to a notice being issued. The provisions for protection of the victim and for taking the burden away from the victim are not affected by these amendments. I heard what the Minister had to say and we are not going to progress the matter with this toing and froing, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 64.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 71. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 32: Making of orders without notice
Amendment 71
Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure there is a maximum time (within 5 working days) in which a contested DAPO which was made without notice is brought back to court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 71, 72 and 73. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for putting his name to Amendment 71; I thank both him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for putting their names to Amendments 72 and 73.
These amendments as a group look at time limits and prohibitive requirements. Amendment 71 would ensure a maximum timeframe—five working days—within which a contested DAPO made without notice was brought back to court. There may be cases where a particular programme has to be assessed but the police may not know whether it is readily available, and it may take a certain amount of time to get an assessment for a programme. The purpose of this amendment is to put a time limit on that rather than it dragging on for a longer period.
Amendments 72 and 73 address the same issue but from a different perspective: that is, if there is a positive requirement as part of a DAPO, either to go on a course or to go to drug rehabilitation, the person who is to be submitted to the DAPO should agree to go on that course. While I understand that putting negative requirements on alleged perpetrators is something one can do without their permission, positive requirements will have a far greater likelihood of success if, first, they have been assessed and, secondly, the person agrees to go on whatever course it may be. There could be a number of different elements to this. I have mentioned drug and alcohol and domestic abuse courses, but there are also mental health issues with a number of the alleged perpetrators. All this needs to be taken into account, and that is the purpose of this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of DAPOs but believe that, in certain respects, clearer rules are required to ensure that they are used in a practical and proportionate manner. It is in this constructive—I hope—spirit that I have put my name to the amendments in this group.
The potential scope of a DAPO is extraordinarily wide. Under Clause 33, it may include any prohibition or restriction considered necessary to protect a person from the risk of domestic abuse, expressly not limited to what are referred to as the “examples” of non-contact, residence and tagging provisions in subsections (4) to (6). I remind the Committee that even the types of measure that can be imposed on suspected terrorists under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—TPIMs—are exhaustively spelled out in the Schedule to that Act. They include some measures that one assumes would never be imposed in the context of domestic abuse, but the contrast in approach is striking none the less. With such a powerful and open-ended instrument as the DAPO, it is important that we get the safeguards right.
Of course, it will sometimes be necessary to impose the DAPO without notice. Amendment 71 would ensure that those cases did not fall between the cracks and were brought back to court as soon as practical, and in any event within five days. That matters for the reasons given just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and more broadly because DAPOs are highly personalised and highly intrusive. Without the presence of the person against whom the order is made, no one can be sure that the most effective and appropriate DAPO will have been arrived at first time around. Indeed, Clauses 31 and 34 acknowledge the principle that, if DAPOs are to be effective, they must be suitable and enforceable having regard to such matters as the work and educational commitments of their subjects, any other court orders or injunctions which may apply to them, and the interests of other persons including children.
As to Amendments 72 and 73, I comment only that in my days as a Crown Court recorder, it was axiomatic that one did not impose a positive requirement, such as a drug or alcohol rehabilitation order, or a mental health programme, in the absence of the intended subject of that requirement. These interventions are costly and, if they are to be effective, they require not just the presence but the consent and indeed the commitment of the subject. I have strayed there into Amendment 81, which we will come to shortly.
Self-evident as these matters may be to some, there is an advantage to putting them clearly in statute so that magistrates and their clerks are in no doubt as to the position. The amendments in this group are particularly compelling to me because they are supported by the Magistrates Association and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in his capacity as a magistrate with current front-line experience. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on them.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group; I put my name to the ones that I thought were more appropriate for me but I agree with them all. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has said, it is of course true that these amendments are supported by the Magistrates Association. My reason for supporting them, apart from the fact that I am convinced that they are right, is that they come from the Magistrates Association, of which I had the honour to be president for almost 10 years. However, that experience is rather elderly and I am therefore very happy that these amendments are supported by an active, front-line, authoritative magistrate today.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are doing very well this afternoon so I will try not to delay your Lordships’ House very long. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, one of the great advantages of being on the front line as a magistrate at the moment, as in the case of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, is that you literally have current hands-on experience. One of the burdens you carry as a former Home Secretary—including one who had what is now the justice ministry under that umbrella—is that you ask yourself, “What would I do if I were the Home Secretary today?”
My response would be something like this. The amendments are logical, rational, humane and very difficult to argue with, but the one relating to a five-day timeframe is in the present circumstances unrealistic. We currently have a backlog of 64,000 outstanding cases, including many people on remand. We have a justice system that has been described in this House over recent days as being “justice delayed, justice denied”. I do not think it is realistic to specify five days, although there should be a timeframe within which the response is required in court with the person present.
That leads me to the second element. I want to come back and speak on Amendment 81 but, for now, I will just reflect. When I had responsibility for drugs policy, I was very clear that you needed the consent and commitment of the individual if they were to be offered treatment as opposed to punishment. However, when you offer people a positive road forward and require their genuine commitment to taking that up, you also need a fallback position when they do not do so. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will be able to reflect on how we might meet the genuine rights of individuals in this case, with the imperative not to be taken for a ride.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support the approach of the amendments. As has been said, they are to be taken seriously; of course, all amendments are, but these not only incorporate theory but reflect practice. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about positive responses reminded me of how, in this situation as in many others unrelated to domestic abuse, there may be what I understand is called a “teachable moment”, when the person who can or should benefit from some sort of support or assistance is most receptive to it.
As we have made clear, and as I hope is implicit in all our amendments, we believe that the judicial process must be seen to be fair to both parties, otherwise confidence is rapidly lost. Giving a defendant an opportunity to make representations is part of that. I read that as part of the thrust of these amendments to what I think we all regard as very wide provisions. We are pleased that they have been brought forward and supported by such eminent signatories.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part briefly in a debate led by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Anderson, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I would sum up this debate by saying that we have heard some very wise words. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that these amendments were logical, rational and humane. He also entered the Covid caveat, and obviously we need a degree of flexibility over timing, bearing in mind the extraordinary overburdening of the justice system at the moment. I cannot help but refer your Lordships to the Times today, which lists the extremely large number of people being drafted in to be judges without any previous experience. We have to bear that in mind—but I endorse the spirit behind the amendments, and I will say no more.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, would make the very sensible change from the vague requirement to allow the alleged perpetrator to make representations about the issue of a domestic abuse protection order from
“as soon as just and convenient”
in Clause 32(4)(a) to the more usual and precise “as soon as practicable”—or perhaps it should be “as soon as reasonably practicable”—to which Amendment 71 would add, “within five working days.” In addition to the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I would say that such orders can have profound, and not immediately obvious, unacceptable consequences for the perpetrator, alleged or otherwise—as my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned when she said that the process needed to be fair to both sides.
Amendments 72 and 73 limit conditions imposed by a domestic violence protection order granted without notice to only negative or prohibitive requirements, not positive ones. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, drew the comparison with TPIMs; I shall draw a different comparison. This legislation appears to be similar to that governing knife crime prevention orders made under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. In the absence of the defendant, when an order is made without notice, only an interim knife crime prevention order can be granted, under Section 16(3)(a) of the 2019 Act, with proceedings on the knife crime prevention order itself being adjourned. The interim order can impose prohibitions that may be imposed under a full order, but none of the positive requirements. Why not here?
I ask the Minister, in support of this amendment, why such a distinction between, say, an interim domestic violence protection order and a full order is not part of this Bill. Consistency in legislation, particularly in the criminal law, where people must be able to understand clearly what is expected of them—an important part of the rule of law, to which this Government appear to be paying scant regard, judging by recent form—is important. It is not inconceivable that someone who is or has been subject to a knife crime prevention order may, at some stage, be subject to a domestic violence prevention order. Inconsistency such as that between this Bill and such recent legislation as the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 is unhelpful and unwelcome.
As the amendments have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, of an active magistrate, of a former Crown Court recorder and of a former Home Secretary, it would, at least in normal times, be difficult for the Minister to disagree. But I am sure he will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, in response to that last comment, it is almost impossible for me not to rise to the occasion. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for setting out his case for the amendments. Of course I have listened carefully to everything in the debate, particularly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, the points have been put in a constructive spirit. I take on board, of course, the point made by a number of speakers, including in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the amendments have the support of the Magistrates Association.
Clause 32 sets out when the court can make a domestic abuse protection order without prior notice of the proceedings having been given to the alleged perpetrator. Typically, as is also the case with existing protective orders, the courts will provide the alleged perpetrator with prior notice of an application for a domestic abuse protection order and of the hearing. However, like existing protective orders, a DAPO can be made without prior notification if there is an urgent need. Clause 32 sets out that a court may make such an order without prior notification
“where it is just and convenient to do so”.
That is in subsection (1).
Clause 32 also specifies, in subsection (3), that before making an order without prior notice,
“the court must have regard to all the circumstances”
of the case. Without limiting the breadth of that requirement, the clause then goes on to list a number of specific factors, three of which I will draw attention to. The first is
“any risk that, if the order is not made immediately,”
the alleged perpetrator will cause significant harm to the victim. The second is whether the victim is likely to be
“deterred or prevented from pursuing the application if an order is not made immediately”.
The third is
“whether there is reason to believe that”
the alleged perpetrator
“is aware of the proceedings but is deliberately evading service”.
Those provisions are crucial for ensuring that the victim can obtain the protection they need in all circumstances.
However, we agree, of course, that the alleged perpetrator should be able to exercise their right to make a representation to the court after such an order—an order without notice—has been made. That is a basic principle of justice: courts normally operate on what has traditionally been called audi alteram partem—it is a pleasure that one can still use Latin in the court of Parliament, even if you cannot use it in the courts of justice any more—which obviously means “both sides must be heard”. Where that has not been the case, for reasons of urgency or otherwise, a hearing where both or all parties are present is then convened. Therefore, Clause 32 already specifies that, when the court makes an order without prior notice, a return hearing must be scheduled
“as soon as just and convenient”.
I recognise that the noble Lord’s Amendment 71 sets a time limit of five working days; I understand his reasons for doing this, but there are a number of problems with this approach, and I shall set out three. First, the amendment would make our approach inconsistent with other protective orders, which require return hearings to take place as soon as is just and convenient. We do not see reason to take a different approach on that point for DAPOs.
Having said that, each sort of protective order must be looked at in its own circumstances, along with the mischief and harm that the order is seeking to address. Therefore, on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—that there should be a direct read-across from knife crime prevention orders as to positive and negative factors or the phrase “as soon as practicable”—the problem with such analogies is that they are different. One must look at each sort of order on its own terms.
Secondly, the period of five days is somewhat arbitrary. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, in the current circumstances five days might or might not be realistic. I will resist the opportunity to respond to his points about backlogs in the justice system in this short debate; I have done so elsewhere. I will also resist responding to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s point about the article in the Times, which I have only skimmed and have not had a chance to read in detail. I suggest that it is better to have a just and convenient timescale.
This leads me to my third point: we would not want a court to be, or to feel, forced to hold a hearing within the five-day period if a slightly longer period might be more suitable—for example, if the respondent’s preferred counsel were available on the sixth day but not the fifth. Another example might be the judge who granted the initial order being available on the sixth day but not the fifth, when it might well be in the interests of the parties and the justice system for the same judge to hear the matter on an all-parties basis. Therefore, for those reasons, while recognising the reasons behind the amendment, we are not persuaded that it is required.
I now turn to Amendments 72 and 73 to Clause 33. The existing provisions in Clause 33 enable the court to impose “any requirements … necessary” for the protection of the victim from domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse. This includes both prohibitions and positive requirements. Any order the court makes must be necessary and proportionate to protect the victim. Although I, of course, respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, while sitting as a recorder, that one would not normally make a positive order in the absence of a perpetrator, it may be important to do so in certain circumstances, and the courts should have the flexibility so to act.
I agree with the noble Lord’s view that, while it is important that the court can impose the necessary requirements by making a DAPO, we must ensure that the alleged perpetrator is not punished for breaching any requirements they were not aware of. This is especially the case as a breach of positive or restrictive requirements may be a criminal offence. In this context, it is important to take on board the point of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that we must not, if I may adapt his phrase, be taken for a ride in this important area.
For this reason, Clause 37 sets out that, where an order is made in the alleged perpetrator’s absence, the person does not commit an offence as regards breach of any of the requirements imposed by the order, whether restrictive or positive, until that person is aware of the existence of the order. This approach is consistent with other orders in this area. I assure all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who made this point, that these are serious amendments, as has been said. We have considered them extremely carefully.
In the light of the explanations I have given this afternoon, I hope that the noble Lord is now content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his application, but I have to confess to being slightly confused or, at least, lacking some detail from his arguments. At one point, he said that the wording in the Bill is similar to other protective orders and that is why the Government do not support the amendments; yet, at others, he said that the reason why it is not consistent with other protective orders is that they are different.
I do not expect the noble Lord to be able to give me chapter and verse here and now as to why knife crime protection orders are different from domestic abuse protection orders, but I would be very grateful if he could write to me to explain why, on the one hand, the Government argue that the wording needs to be the same as other protective orders, while on the other, they argue that the amendments are faulty because they are different from other protective orders.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there will be correlations and differences between various orders in this context. I can certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord on this point, but I hope I can go one better: if, in addition to a letter, a conversation would be helpful, I am very happy to offer that as well.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will start with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just made about the read-across between knife crime prevention orders and DAPOs. I would certainly be very interested in attending the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has just offered because the earlier point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made was strong: that it is reasonably likely that perpetrators might be subject to both of those orders, so there is merit in having a similar approach, whether it is a knife crime prevention order or a DAPO. I would be very happy to join the meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has offered.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. I was interested in the comparison made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, between these orders and TPIMs. He said that these are much more widely drawn, which was an important point. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, sought to contrast treatment and punishment, which, I suppose, is a theme here—although we are not dealing with convicted criminals but prevention orders. The point I invariably make when I am sentencing in court or making an order like this is that, even if it is a punishment, it is for the benefit of the people who have positive requirements made of them in whatever that sentence might be. When I make that point, I invariably get a nod from the person I am sentencing, so people understand that point, in my experience.
I listened carefully to the explanation and summary given by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, but I think I have quite a strong pack of cards, if I can put it like that, and although I will withdraw my amendment I may consider coming back at a later stage.
“(c) may not come within a specified distance of any other specified premises, or any other premises of a specified description, in England or Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables a court making a domestic abuse protection order to prohibit the person against whom it is made from coming within a specified distance of other premises, in addition to those where the person to be protected by the order lives.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that requirements imposed on a person by a domestic abuse protection order (such as, for example, requirements prohibiting the person from coming within a specified distance of particular premises) must, so far as practicable, not interfere with the person’s work or with the person’s attendance at an educational establishment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 80. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 80
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that evidence provided to courts includes evidence from probation or youth offending teams.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 80, 81 and 82. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who have also put their names to them. Amendment 80 would ensure that evidence which is provided to the courts before imposing a DAPO includes evidence from probation or youth offending teams where appropriate. Amendment 81 would provide that drug, alcohol and mental health treatment should be imposed as a requirement only where the recipient has agreed to attend, as referred to in an earlier group. I believe that that would maximise the effectiveness of any such programmes.
Amendments 83 and 84 would prevent an indefinite DAPO being imposed and place a limit of two years on them, which could provide for extensions to be made on application. This would also, if they so wished, allow courts to put in place a review of hearings if appropriate. In the court system we have restraining orders and non-molestation orders which can be, and usually are, imposed for a limited period, but they can be imposed for an unlimited period. It is certainly my experience that practices vary across different courts. There may be reasons for that: for example, when sitting in a domestic abuse court, a more arduous restraining order might be put in place than in a court that does not specialise in domestic abuse. Either way, we are not talking about people who are convicted of offences—it may be somebody who is of good character.
To put a maximum of two years in place would be a safeguard, particularly since a further application can always be made and so that these orders do not just run on and on. I had an individual come to court with a restraining order on him that he wanted taken off. His problem was that he did not know the address of his former partner, so he had no way of contacting her to apply to get the restraining order removed, and we could do nothing to help him. Given that we are not dealing with convicted offenders, a two-year limit would be appropriate for the DAPO. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
I support these amendments, which are supported by the Magistrates’ Association, because it is very clear that they will have taken the view of a number of experienced magistrates in what they have formulated. It is in the nature of this order that it is an interim order, because it is made on the basis that it will be reconsidered after the representations, if any, that the respondent makes. It is essential that in due course an opportunity is given for that as part of the order. In due course, as we suggested in a previous group of amendments, it will be modified to five days and that is going to happen. Therefore, it is an interim order in its nature, even if it is not called that in these proposals.
It is important to note that this application continuation will take place in a hearing which will normally be extremely short. It will not be in the same set of court cases involving any kind of substantial and long hearing and is not likely to be very much affected by the present situation with regard to criminal cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned being taken for a ride. It is also possible, at least with some of these orders, that a person may be very willing to take it on. I had experience, a long time ago now, of a case in which a young mother in Glasgow undertook to attend a very good programme for dealing with addiction. I am certain that she was determined to go through with it, because it was much better than having a sentence which might involve separation from her child. However, I learned some time after I had made the arrangements with her and got her fervent consent, that she had left the programme. That can happen, not as a deliberate act, but as a consequence of the power of addiction to alter a person’s will at a particular time.
I support these amendments and I am glad that they are supported by an active and leading magistrate who has current experience of these matters.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 81, 83 and 84. I addressed Amendment 81 when speaking to Amendments 72 and 73 in the last group. The Minister suggested in response that there were certain circumstances in which it might be appropriate to impose a drugs or alcohol rehabilitation order, or a mental health disposal, without the commitment, consent or even knowledge of the intended subject—at least, I think that is what he said. I should be interested to hear him elaborate on the sort of circumstances he has in mind.
As to the proposal of a statutory time limit in Amendments 83 and 84, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said from experience about the practice in comparable contexts, and what the Magistrates’ Association has said about the desirability of allowing the court to put in place review hearings if appropriate. I will add one or two further points.
Clause 36(5) recognises that an electronic monitoring requirement should be authorised for no more than 12 months, yet there is no time limit on the other provisions of a DAPO despite their unlimited range. I expect the Minister will refer to the right of a person to apply for the variation or discharge of a DAPO under Clause 42, but that is a haphazard safeguard and one that the Bill itself acknowledges is not sufficient where tagging is concerned. Something more is required, and I suggest that the amendments provide it.
Finally, there also seems to be force in the other amendments in this group. The case for Amendment 86 in particular seems unanswerable. I know from our time together at the Bar that the Minister is more than capable of rising to any occasion, but I hope that in relation to this group he will find at least some of the amendments to be uncontentious.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are happy again to be working alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We have Amendments 82 and 85 to 88 in this group.
Amendment 82 is about choreography. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just referred to Clause 42, which provides for the variation of orders as well as their discharge, and Clause 36, as has been discussed, provides for their duration. This amendment would establish—I am seeking to avoid the word “probe”—whether the new order under Clause 36(2) could have different provisions from the original. I assume that it could and that there could be variations. Could there be overlapping orders? Again, I assume that is possible, though it would be confusing. Could there be a lacuna—a gap? Obviously an order could end and new abuse give rise to a new order, so could that be an unintended gap? That is unlikely, I guess, because the Bill seems to have been meticulously drafted, but I do want to be sure.
Amendment 85 is one of our most significant amendments. A protection notice may be given by a police officer who
“has reasonable grounds for believing that P has been abusive”
within the meaning of the Bill, and that the notice is necessary. An officer who
“has reasonable grounds for believing”—
the same terminology—that P is in breach of a notice may arrest him, and that leads on to a hearing before the magistrates. The court may make a civil order if it is satisfied, this time “on the balance of probabilities”—that is, the civil standard—that an order is necessary and appropriate.
It is what follows from that which is the subject of Amendment 85. Under Clause 37, P commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, P fails to comply with the requirement of an order. The penalties are up to five years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both. Our amendment would require the court to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt”—the criminal standard—that P has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the requirement of an order. I am aware that the Stalking Protection Act 2019 is not dissimilar from this Bill in its approach; indeed, there is a good deal of other legislation in the same sort of area and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Paddick will refer to it, but that does not allay our concerns.
I hope it will be understood that we are looking at the issue neutrally. The Minister can advise me whether the term “audi alteram partem” is appropriate here. We do not take the side of the perpetrator, but we want to explore what the appropriate burden of proof is when one gets to an order and its breach—and indeed, I have to say, to explore what the standard of proof is, because the law should be both fair and clear. The legislation is silent; no doubt that means that we should understand it. I am sure there is a Latin tag for that as well.
I have assumed that there is no requirement for the criminal standard since nothing is spelled out. When my noble friend and I discussed this with the Minister, it was on the basis of a civil standard, which I think he was also working to, although it was a very rushed discussion. Whatever I am pointed to, I am very uneasy about the application of significant penalties on the basis of the civil standard—or is it the civil standard? The letter dated 26 January that noble Lords received from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:
“Criminal sanctions will only be imposed following a conviction for the breach offence in the criminal court, which would need to be proved to the criminal standard in the usual way.”
That was in correspondence. I do not think it is referred to in the draft guidance that we have seen but, whether it is in correspondence or in guidance, I believe that the legislation should be completely clear.
Amendment 87 is in the same area. It would import “reasonably believes” into an application for a warrant for arrest for a breach under Clause 38, as for a breach of notice under Clause 24, rather than simply the term “considers”.
I turn to Amendment 86. Under Clause 37, for there to be an offence of breach the person must be aware of the existence of an order. The amendment would add that P must be aware of the requirements of the order if he is liable to be convicted of breaching a requirement—for instance, approaching particular premises—because he may be unaware of the requirements. The Minister may tell us that this is implied and that no court would convict if the defendant, or whatever I should be calling him in this situation, were not aware—in which case, of course, why not say so? Or would he say that this would call into question equivalent provisions elsewhere?
Finally, I turn to Amendment 88. Clause 42, to which we have referred, deals with the variation and discharge of orders. The court must hear from a person for whose protection the order was made. That was referred to earlier today as potentially being a burden on that person. We suggest that this should depend on whether the person wishes to be heard; that is the formula that applies to the police here. Are the Government not confident that the court would be able to decide for itself that it was not necessary? Are they not confident that the person may be able to determine this for herself or himself? We accept that a person may be vulnerable and require support or special measures, but it seems a little patronising to deal with the matter in this way. We would like to think that the person’s agency was respected. In fact, the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which I have just mentioned, and the Bill recognise this by referring to contempt of court as “an alternative”. Can the Minister tell the Committee what the impact would be of proceeding on the basis of contempt of court? Is this a model used elsewhere, and what is the experience of it?
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the second time today. She talked about being fair and clear. I say to her that fairness and clarity are two of the hallmarks that I associate with her. She is certainly one of the most industrious Members of your Lordships’ House, and she has made some extremely telling points.
I want briefly to address some remarks to the Minister. Although he is extremely eloquent, I thought he was a little dismissive of the force and candour of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, when he introduced the last amendment, and did not pay sufficient regard to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, with their amazingly comprehensive experience. He was also a little dismissive of the fact that these amendments, like the last ones, come with the endorsement of the Magistrates Association—and of course the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is himself an active magistrate. Those who are doing these things on the front line bring a real experience that should not be lightly dismissed.
I suggest to the Minister that the amendments are eminently fair, reasonable and sensible and that, although he may not wish to accept them all, their spirit should be incorporated in the Bill; I think that would make it a better one. I speak as a non-lawyer and as someone who has never been a magistrate but who, as a constituency Member of Parliament for 40 years, saw quite a number of people who would have fallen within the scope of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I will make a rare comment for Committee: I think the clauses are very well written and could go unamended. They do what needs to be done and do it well, so I congratulate the Minister and officials on them. I hope they will make it easier and more straightforward for people to get legal protections against an abusive partner or ex-partner.
The one area I am a bit concerned about—which might be because I do not understand its import—is Amendment 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I feel it is inappropriate to put any sort of coercive requirement on people to attend drug, alcohol and mental health programmes. These are things that people should enter into willingly; it would be dangerous to start imposing criminal penalties on people for not taking them up. I do not understand this amendment, because they are made to go to them only if they agree to them. I would like a bit of explanation on this.
Although drugs and mental health can be causative factors in domestic abuse, it is better to place the restrictions on the abusive behaviours themselves rather than to try to force people to obtain help. This is especially true as the success of these programmes can be quite variable. Merely attending a programme is not a magic cure for addictions or mental illness; it is much better to focus on outcomes and effects rather than simply forcing someone to follow a set process. This is not to say that these programmes should not be well supported and strongly encouraged—they absolutely should—but criminalising addiction and mental illness is a dangerous and, I think, unhappy policy to pursue. I look forward to the Minister providing assurances on this issue.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, particularly when she is in full approval mode—I have no problem agreeing with her. I also have no problem agreeing with her concerns around Amendment 81. I am in two minds on this; like her, I wish to hear my noble friend give examples of where these courses might be necessary for those who do not volunteer for them. I can understand that the effectiveness of a course is not always guaranteed and that, if someone goes on it unwillingly, that does not necessarily mean that they will benefit from it, although they might. I would like to probe that; I heard what was said in the previous group on this, but I ask for a little further clarification.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for the length of my speech; there are too many issues to reasonably consider in one group.
Amendments 80 and 81 add to the requirement to receive evidence about the suitability and enforceability of a requirement for the perpetrator to do something under the domestic abuse protection order from the person responsible for supervising compliance with that requirement. Amendment 80 suggests that probation or youth offending teams should give evidence as appropriate and Amendment 81 suggests, if the requirement is to attend substance misuse or mental health programmes, that these can be imposed only with the consent of the perpetrator.
On Amendment 80, it is a requirement under Sections 15(5) and 20(2) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 that the youth offending team—established under Section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—in whose area it appears to the prosecution that the defendant lives is consulted before making an application for a knife crime prevention order. Why not have that in this Bill and why not, as Amendment 80 suggests, consult the probation service in relation to adult offenders? Can the Minister yet again explain the inconsistency in approach between this Bill and the Offensive Weapons Act 2019? I hear what he says about protective orders being different, but both DAPOs and offensive weapon prevention orders are violence prevention orders, potentially aimed at similar offenders and more alike than perhaps he would want to admit.
On Amendment 81, I agree that enforced substance misuse programmes are less likely to be successful, although I am not sure about compulsory mental health programmes. In either case, surely any suitable person designated as being responsible for supervising compliance will have knowledge and expertise in these areas and will be able to advise the court as to whether they are likely to be suitable if the perpetrator does not agree to comply with them. As such, I am not sure it is necessary to include these amendments in the Bill.
Clause 42 allows for a domestic abuse protection order to be varied or discharged. If a magistrates’ court made the order, the change can made by a magistrates’ court in the same local justice area; otherwise, generally speaking, it must be made by the court that imposed it. Clause 36(1) and (2) state that a domestic abuse protection order takes effect on the day it is made unless there is already one in force, in which case it can take effect when the existing order ends. So, it can come into effect on a future date if required.
Amendment 82, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained, is probing to ask whether a DAPO with the same conditions would be dealt with under Clause 42—the variation—rather than Clause 36, to which the answer is presumably that it depends on whether it is being imposed by the same court or a different one. If it is the same court, it can be dealt with under Clause 42, but if it is a different court—for example, a family court or the High Court—which believes the order should continue after the date an order imposed by a magistrates’ court ends, it can do so under Clause 36. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s view.
Amendments 83 and 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, place a limit of two years on a domestic abuse protection order, instead of one that can be in place indefinitely, and the order may be reviewed at review hearings which the recipient can be required to attend. Times and circumstances change. For example, the victim may move away and any restriction preventing the perpetrator visiting her home may become redundant. It also allows for rehabilitation of the perpetrator who moves on with their life and no longer presents a danger to the victim. I accept that it is open to the court to discharge the order on application from an interested party, but this safeguard would ensure that domestic violence protection orders are not allowed to continue through neglect rather than because they are necessary.
The Offensive Weapons Act 2019, Section 23(3), states:
“A knife crime prevention order must specify the period for which it has effect, which must be a fixed period of at least 6 months, and not more than 2 years”.
Why do we not have the same for domestic abuse protection orders? We support these amendments.
Clause 37(2) rightly states that the perpetrator does not commit an offence of engaging in behaviour contrary to the requirements imposed by a domestic violence protection order unless he
“was aware of the existence of the order”.
The perpetrator may be aware that a DAPO is in existence but may not know the requirements in that order. Our Amendment 86 just as rightly suggests that the perpetrator needs to be aware of the restrictions before he can be found guilty of breaching them, not simply that an order is in existence, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained.
The crucial question for the Minister is this. An offence is committed by a person who is subject to a domestic abuse protection order if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with any requirement imposed by the order; so if our Amendment 86 is not necessary, because it would be a reasonable excuse if the perpetrator did not know what the requirements were, why is Clause 37(2) necessary? Surely, not knowing that a DAPO exists is also a reasonable excuse for not complying with it. The Minister might say that if the perpetrator knows that an order is in place but does not know the requirements, he is under an obligation to find out, but he may have heard of the existence of the order from someone who does not know the details.
In short, should it not simply be left to a court to decide whether a perpetrator has a reasonable excuse for breaching a DAPO, where not knowing of the order’s existence or not knowing its requirements are simply examples of what amounts to a reasonable excuse? Our Amendment 85 clarifies that the criminal offence of a breach of a DAPO needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
When we debated knife crime prevention orders, we discussed whether the breach of what is effectively a civil order, granted on the balance of probabilities, should result in a criminal offence rather than a fine or term of imprisonment for contempt of court, but without a criminal conviction being recorded against the perpetrator. As we discussed then, Parliament changed a similar regime introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, whereby breach of civil orders resulted in the criminalisation of many young people with no previous convictions. Parliament replaced ASBOs with anti-social behaviour injunctions and community protection notices, by means of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Only breach of a criminal behaviour order, which can be made only after a person has been convicted of an offence, is in itself a criminal offence.
No doubt the Minister will quote from a High Court case in which the right to convict someone of a criminal offence for breach of a civil order, potentially based on hearsay evidence, was challenged but was not successful, on the basis that the validity of that hearsay evidence can be challenged when the criminal case is considered. But Parliament ignored that case and prohibited the criminal conviction of someone for breaching a civil order, in 2014, in relation to anti-social behaviour. The Minister might further say that contempt of court can have sanctions similar to those imposed following a criminal conviction, in that a fine or imprisonment could follow, but the difference is that there is no criminal record created as a result of breaching a civil order.
Based on hearsay evidence and potentially a malicious allegation, someone could be given a domestic abuse protection order, breach of which may result in a criminal conviction, an unlimited fine and a substantial prison sentence, as my noble friend pointed out. When the same point was debated in relation to knife crime prevention orders, the Government claimed that the police said that a criminal sanction was necessary, rather than a civil penalty. Again, the Government acted on the uncorroborated assertion of an operational partner, as we have recently seen in the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. Can the Minister explain why it is necessary for a criminal record to be created when there is a breach of the civil domestic abuse protection order, when it is not necessary in relation to anti-social behaviour injunctions and community protection notices?
Our Amendment 87 is on the separate issue of the degree of certainty that a person must have that the perpetrator has breached a domestic violence protection order before they can apply to the relevant judge for a warrant to arrest the perpetrator for failing to comply with the order, or is otherwise in contempt of court in relation to the order. Clause 38(3) states that the applicant “considers” that the perpetrator has breached the order, whereas we suggest an objective test of “reasonably believes” is more appropriate. The issue of the warrant is a matter for the relevant judge on the basis of “reasonable grounds for believing”.
I question whether arrest by warrant is necessary or desirable. It could take some time, and money if the victim is to be represented in court and is not in receipt of legal aid, and could be daunting if the victim is to represent herself. The purpose of a domestic violence protection order is to impose any requirement necessary to protect the victim from domestic abuse or the risk of abuse. Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that a constable who
“has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed … may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of”
that offence if, among other things, it is necessary
“to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question”.
The subject of a DAPO is already considered by a court to be vulnerable—vulnerable to domestic abuse.
Another reason to arrest without warrant might be that it is necessary to allow the prompt investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question. Surely, if the victim under the protection of a DAPO, or anyone else with relevant information, believes that the perpetrator has breached the order, they should inform the police, who have ample powers to take immediate steps to arrest the perpetrator. Any delay, such as would occur if a warrant has to be applied for, could place the victim in danger. The very existence of this application for a warrant route could endanger victims. Can the Minister explain why this provision is included in the Bill?
Where a variation or discharge of an order is sought, Clause 42(4)(b) states that, where the victim protected by a DAPO
“is seeking to discharge the order, or to remove or make less onerous any requirement imposed by the order”,
the court must hear from her. Our Amendment 88 makes two points. First, can the Minister reassure the Committee that a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse is not going to be forced to appear in court? The clause says the court must hear from her. I understand that it is important that the court receive a reassurance that the victim is happy for the order to be weakened or removed, but surely her views can be represented by way of a statement read out in court.
Secondly, if the victim wishes to make representations, she must be heard whatever the variations are, including those that impose further restrictions or make them more onerous. Her testimony could make the difference between the stricter measures being agreed to or not. Conversely, it could be within her knowledge alone that the proposed stricter measures might tip the perpetrator over the edge in terms of non-compliance and, therefore, increase the danger she is in.
I apologise for the time I have taken, but as I said at the beginning, there are too many issues in this group to be debated together. I would welcome the Minister’s response in writing, as I think it may be unreasonable to expect him to respond now to every point on which I seek answers from the Government.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. Perhaps I may be forgiven for taking up the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to write to him. He is, with respect, entirely correct that there are a number of issues here. He asked specific questions to which he is entitled to receive specific answers. While I will do my best to answer some of his questions in my remarks, I will need to go through Hansard to pick up others and write to him.
These amendments relate to different aspects of how the domestic abuse protection order will be made. To be clear, and in response to a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, these amendments relate to how DAPOs will operate when they are made normally, not only in the exceptional case when they are made on a “without notice” basis. I hope the Committee will permit me to go through the amendments in turn.
I hope that nobody understood my comments in the last debate to be dismissive, to use the word of my noble friend Lord Cormack. I referred to the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as a recorder, the vast experience of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the fact that the amendments are supported by the Magistrates’ Association to underline that we have given these amendments the most careful consideration. I am sure that all noble Lords who have had significant engagement with my noble friend Lady Williams and me will accept we have gone out of our way to hear their concerns and engage with them.
On Amendments 80 and 81, Clause 34 sets out that a responsible person must be specified for each positive requirement imposed by a DAPO. The responsible person will have a duty to make the necessary arrangements to deliver the requirement, promote compliance and inform the police of any breaches.
Clause 34 also sets out that the courts must receive evidence about the suitability and enforceability of positive requirements from the responsible person before making an order. The responsible person will typically be a representative from the organisation delivering the particular programme that the person subject to the DAPO is required to complete, such as an organisation that delivers a perpetrator behaviour change programme or a drugs or alcohol treatment programme.
Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, would require the court also to consider evidence from probation or youth offending teams as appropriate, alongside evidence provided by the responsible person. While I agree with the noble Lord that the court should consider all the evidence necessary prior to making an order, I consider that the evidence provided by the responsible person will be sufficient to establish the suitability and enforceability of positive requirements without the specific requirement for further evidence from probation or youth offending teams. We do not consider it appropriate to require evidence from youth offending teams, as a DAPO cannot be made against a person below the age of 18.
I agree with the general aim of Amendment 81, which is to maximise the effectiveness of the requirement to attend drug, alcohol or mental health programmes. However, as I have just mentioned, Clause 34 already specifies that the court must consider the evidence provided by the responsible person in relation to the suitability and enforceability of the requirements prior to making a DAPO that imposes positive requirements. I understood that to be a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The court will also be able to take into consideration any representations made by the person against whom the order is to be made, which I hope that responds to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Given these provisions, I do not believe that the specific agreement of the alleged perpetrator is also required to maximise the effectiveness of such programmes. I hope that that responds to one of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Amendment 82 relates to Clause 36, subsection (1) of which provides:
“A domestic abuse protection order takes effect on the day on which it is made.”
Clause 36(2) provides that where a DAPO already exists, the courts may make the new DAPO take effect when the existing DAPO ceases to have effect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there should be no gap in the protection provided where there is a transition from an old to a new DAPO. However, as Clause 36 already provides for this, we do not see reason to make the change proposed in Amendment 82.
As for the explanatory statement to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on whether the same provisions could be imposed under both orders, that is a matter for the court, which would look at all the circumstances of the case. One must remember in this context that the two orders might be sought and obtained by different applicants. I hope that that also answers the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but if, on a reading of the debate, it does not, I will, if I may, write to her with any additional points.
On Amendments 83 and 84, Clause 36 also provides that the DAPO can be flexible in duration, so that longer-term protection can be provided to victims if needed. I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and other noble Lords about DAPOs being applied indefinitely, but the flexibility of the DAPO, including its duration, is central to its effectiveness, particularly when compared to existing orders. By contrast, the two-year limit proposed by the noble Lord is both hard-edged and somewhat arbitrary.
It is vital that victims can be provided with longer-term protection when needed. Clause 36 gives the court several options so that it may determine the duration of each DAPO based on the facts of the case before it. The order can therefore be in place for a specified period until the occurrence of a specified event or further order of the court. To give noble Lords a simple example: the victim is attending a course of study, which has two years and three months to go. Is she to be required to obtain a two-year order, which might prevent the perpetrator going near that place of study, then have to come back to obtain a further order for three months? If that were to be the case, one would ask, rhetorically, why it should be so.
As set out in Clause 36, the court may specify within the DAPO itself different durations for different requirements imposed by the order. The courts may also vary or remove certain requirements or discharge the order entirely where it is satisfied that the order is no longer necessary for the protection of the victim. It is important to note that the Bill already contains various mechanisms to protect the right of the person subject to the DAPO. Under Clause 33, the court can only impose requirements that it considers necessary to protect the victim from domestic abuse or the risk of domestic abuse. Clause 34 requires the court to avoid, so far as is practicable, imposing any requirements that conflict with the person’s religious beliefs or interfere with their work or attendance at an educational establishment. Clause 36, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, noted, provide a maximum duration for any electronic monitoring requirements of 12 months.
I move on to Amendments 85 and 87 to Clause 37. The clause provides that failure to comply with any requirement imposed by a DAPO without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. That sends a strong message to perpetrators that non-compliance will not be tolerated. As specified in Clause 37, where a DAPO has been made without notice, the behaviour of the perpetrator can be considered a breach only if, at the time of the behaviour, the alleged perpetrator was aware of the existence of the DAPO.
I agree with the general aims of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord to Clause 37, which are to ensure procedural fairness so that criminal liability and punishment for breach of a DAPO will occur only where the breach is proved to the criminal standard of proof and where the perpetrator knows of the order’s existence. However, I do not believe that the amendments proposed are necessary. The criminal standard of proof—I am afraid that I do not have a Latin tag here for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—will apply automatically in any criminal prosecution for breach of a DAPO. As already mentioned, Clause 37 already specifies that the behaviour of the perpetrator can be considered a breach of the DAPO only if the perpetrator is aware of the order at the time of the relevant behaviour.
Let me say an extra word about each of those points. First, we believe that the civil standard of proof is appropriate for making what is a civil order. This is the position taken with a number of existing protection orders of this kind. I recognise that those on the now somewhat virtual Liberal Democrat Benches do not support this approach as a matter of principle and I understand their reasoning, but I do not agree with it. The principle that I have set out that a civil standard of proof is appropriate for such orders is now firmly established as part of our legal framework.
It is worth noting in this context that to the extent that the Joint Committee considered this question when examining the draft Bill, it is evident from its report that it had no issue with applying the civil standard of proof. For example, at paragraph 84 of the report, the Joint Committee said:
“The standard of proof required for a DAPO is the civil standard (balance of probabilities) which means a DAPO may be made in criminal proceedings even if the perpetrator has been acquitted.”
A similar point was made at paragraph 107. I have no doubt that if the Joint Committee had any concerns about applying the civil standard it would have made that clear.
One of the strongest elements of a DAPO is that it is a civil order, made on the civil standard of proof. That means that if a victim is not able to, or chooses not to, seek remedy through the criminal justice system, they can still access protection from the court. At the same time, we want to send a clear message to perpetrators that breach of an order will be acted on, which is why we have provided that breach of an order will be a criminal offence. As noble Lords will know, that is already the case with many existing civil orders, including restraining orders, non-molestation orders, knife crime prevention orders and serious crime prevention orders.
Breach of a DAPO does not lead automatically to criminal sanctions. The breach would need to be reported to the police, who would then investigate and refer to prosecutors for a decision on whether to pursue a prosecution. Criminal sanctions would be imposed only following a conviction for the breach offence in the criminal court, which would need to be proved to the criminal standard in the usual way.
The second point is the requirement proposed by the amendment that a perpetrator must be aware of “the requirements” of a DAPO and not only of its existence. I hesitate to disagree with a point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said was unanswerable. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will not take it amiss if I do, and I will explain why. Adding “the requirements” of the DAPO is likely to lead to a lot of uncertainty, much litigation, and less protection for victims. What are the “requirements” of a DAPO? What would that mean? Is it the terms of the DAPO or what the terms require you to do in practice? They are different things. What does it mean to be aware of the requirements of a DAPO? Is it to have read them, to have understood them, to have understood their legal effect or to have understood their practical effect? They are all different things. Therefore, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and to a similar point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that we generally require people to obey orders of the court once they are aware that an order has been made, and that a DAPO should be no different.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) (V)
The Minister’s reply will obviously take some reading, which we will do. As regards the point on contempt, my question was about the experience of the model. I quoted a ministerial letter—not a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson—about the why, or at least partly why. In any event, I thank him for responding to that.
My question is about the criminal standard for breach of an order. The Minister said that it applied automatically; he then used the phrase, “in the usual way”. When he writes his letter, perhaps he could add a paragraph explaining how it is automatic and where that comes from, so that we can understand its application. He referred to other civil orders and he might want to refer to whether those are silent in legislation as to the standard of proof when breached or whether they deal with the standard explicitly.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for explaining the contempt of court point in more detail and for setting out the question of the standard of proof. I will be happy to include a paragraph on that in my letter as well.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) (V)
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate with a lot of legal detail. I will respond to the fellow laymen who have taken part in the debate. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I should say that I have found the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to be very helpful and I certainly have not found him to be dismissive in any way. In fact, before this debate he went out of his way to help me and other colleagues.
I turn to my Amendment 81, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Although it is my amendment and it does say that there should be agreement to any drug, alcohol or mental health treatment, perhaps I may say a word against it. I believe that this should be a judicial decision. It is a difficult one and obviously it is better if the participants in the courses agree and sign up to them. Nevertheless, there are occasions where it is helpful to make this part of a court order. If there is some ambivalence, it can be made very clear that they should go on the courses. So, even though I moved the amendment, I believe that the decision on whether to make it compulsory should be a judicial one.
As I have said, this has been a wide-ranging debate and I too will read the response of the Minister and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, very carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 89. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone who wishes to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate. I should also inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 90, 91 or 92.
Clause 55: Support provided by local authorities to victims of domestic abuse
Amendment 89
Lord Rosser
“(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for domestic abuse support in its area by all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status, duly taking into account the special situation of women and children, with reference to a national needs assessment,(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the commissioning and provision of sufficient support to meet the needs identified in its area by the assessment referred to in paragraph (a), including sufficient specialist support for all persons affected by domestic abuse regardless of status, and(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy and publish such evaluation in accordance with regulations issued under subsection (8).(1A) In preparing and adopting any strategy under subsection (1)(b), each relevant local authority must take account of any strategy to end violence against women and girls adopted by a Minister or Ministers.(1B) The assessment and strategy referred to in subsection (1)(a) and (b) must include, but is not limited to, the following—(a) the prevalence of and trends in domestic abuse and other forms of violence including that against women and girls, and the demographic of all persons in the area affected by domestic abuse and other forms of violence including violence against women and girls;(b) the needs for support, protection and safety of those who are affected by domestic abuse in the local population;(c) the nature and extent of the need for and provision of specialist support in respect of those persons affected by domestic abuse with presenting characteristics including sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, state of health, disability, or such other relevant status;(d) the nature and extent of the need for and provision of specialist support to women who are affected by domestic abuse and their children;(e) the need for and provision of refuge services in sufficient numbers to provide safe accommodation for victims, especially women and their children, regardless of status;(f) how refuge services work in collaboration with a whole housing approach in the area that responds to the specific housing needs of victims of domestic abuse and provides a range of housing options for people experiencing domestic abuse that enables them or, where preferred by the victim, the person causing the abuse, to relocate.(1C) The relevant local authority shall allocate appropriate financial and human resources for the implementation of the strategy under subsection (1)(b), including the arrangement of such specialist support as is set out in the strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
Part of a group of amendments aiming to strengthen the Government’s existing statutory duty on local authorities to fund support in accommodation-based services. These would clarify what factors authorities must consider when assessing need and preparing a strategy, define refuge services and ensure wide consultation.
Lord Rosser (Lab) (V)
We strongly welcome the duty placed on local authorities in the Bill to support victims of domestic abuse and their children through providing support in accommodation-based services. This group of 12 amendments aims to strengthen and add necessary detail to this duty. The amendments would clarify what factors authorities must consider when assessing need and preparing a strategy, define refuge services, ensure wide consultation and put a national oversight mechanism on the face of the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Woolley of Woodford, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, whose names also appear on all or one or two of the amendments in the group. I would also like to thank Women’s Aid and Imkaan for the briefings they have provided.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 89, 93, 102, 106, 107 and 108. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I hope that I will not duplicate much of what he has said, but, clearly, we are on the same page.
The amendments would strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities to fund support and safe accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse. The desperate need to improve the funding system for life-saving measures for women refugees cannot be overstated. Every fortnight in England and Wales, three women are killed by a partner or ex-partner, yet in England there is currently a 30% shortfall in relation to the number of refugee bed spaces required by the Istanbul convention.
Fifty-seven per cent of referrals to refugee services were rejected between 2009 and 2020. Nearly one in five of all referrals received were rejected because the refugee centres had no space or capacity to support the women and their children. One-third of specialist refugee services for black, Asian and minority-ethnic women have been decommissioned since 2010, resulting in a 50% reduction in bed space capacity.
Secure funding for refugee services remains a critical priority, and this legal duty could be an important step forward in delivering that, but will it change the funding and commissioning crisis that these refugees currently face? There are serious concerns from the Women’s Aid Federation of England and Imkaan that it will not. Those organisations represent providers of refugee services who deliver far more than a roof over a survivor’s head; they provide holistic, specialist support, including that relating to physical and mental health, immigration status, children’s welfare, education, financial needs, and criminal and family justice, to meet the needs of survivors in a safe and secure environment.
The Istanbul convention makes it clear that such specialist services are best delivered by women’s organisations—by expert staff who have in-depth knowledge of violence against women and girls. They are specialist refugee centres, led by and for black, Asian and minority-ethnic women, and represented by Imkaan. These centres of excellence provide support and safety not only from violence and abuse but from racism, immigration control and other forms of oppression which remain structural and systemic in society.
However, as has been mentioned, those services face systemic inequalities in the current funding landscape. Competitive tendering is now commonplace for accessing local authority funds for refugee services. I know that it has been referred to but it is worth mentioning again that these competitive processes are toxic for specialist refugee services, as they favour large organisations over small. Specialist women’s services for refugees are expert in meeting survivors’ needs but are forced to compete against generic housing providers and housing associations, which do not have the expertise to support survivors but can deliver services at a lower cost. Indeed, they might have entire bid-writing teams who can easily undercut specialist women’s services for refugee contracts.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 89 to indicate broad, cross-party support for this group, which seeks to ensure that the Government’s statutory duty works effectively for this invaluable network of refuge services.
I welcome Part 4, which we have now moved on to, which is only four pages but a key part of this progressive piece of legislation that is going to drive up standards of provision for this vital service. Can I add a brief footnote to the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Woolley? Like them, I am grateful to Women’s Aid for its input into this group.
The key criticism we have heard so far has been that the Bill does not define either relevant accommodation or domestic abuse support. Looking at the Bill, “relevant accommodation” is going to be
“specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.”
For domestic abuse support, the definition is rather circular:
“‘domestic abuse support’ means support, in relation to domestic abuse”.
The thrust of these amendments is to try and focus on exactly what sort of accommodation and services should be provided under Part 4. Without this clarity, there is a risk that councils will fund generic, and sometimes inappropriate, accommodation-based services. As we have just heard, these do not have the expertise necessary to provide the comprehensive range of services needed for families escaping domestic abuse. That is why proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f) in Amendment 89 refer to “refuge services” rather than just refuges.
There is concern that, as currently drafted—in addition to the risks mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser —the Bill could lead to unsafe forms of accommodation that are not designed to meet survivors’ needs being funded under the duty. The Women’s Aid movement has seen landlords using the exempt provisions of housing benefit to access higher rent levels, and providing accommodation which is frankly unsafe. The amendments seek to provide a tighter definition of relevant accommodation to reduce the risk of abuse.
The definition should clarify that a refuge address should never be publicly available or disclosed. That would resolve the challenges that one of the Women’s Aid members is currently facing, with High Court orders threatening to disclose the address of a refuge. Perhaps my noble friend could respond to that point.
Refuge services are developing into a national network of services, supporting survivors who often need to flee from their local area to be safe from an abuser. The data shows that over two-thirds of women resident in refuges are from a different local authority area. That leads to the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, about national oversight. Without changes to the statutory duty to improve national oversight, we may be putting too much emphasis on local authorities to provide what should be an effective national service.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments in this group and specifically Amendment 89 to Clause 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Woolley of Woodford, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. The clause and amendment relate to the important situation regarding the assessment, preparation and publication of the strategy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of arrangements for domestic abuse support by local authorities.
I too welcome this excellent piece of legislation. I also welcome the briefings that we received from so many effective bodies in this area, particularly Women’s Aid and Imkaan. I thank them very much indeed. I would support the amended Clause 55. While recognising, as we do, that most abuse—and its most extreme examples—is perpetrated by males, we must spell out in the Bill the many protected characteristics which are important for our national provision. As my noble friend Lord Young has just referred to, there is a great danger that some local authorities will provide services just for their areas. There are two obvious dangers with that. One is that many people will want, and indeed need, to move away from their home area. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Williams will be in the same position as I was as a Minister; I encountered many people receiving refuge services who were out of their area—and very happy to be out of their area.
The second key important matter is the specialist nature of some of the services, as required by the Istanbul convention. We should be providing, on the face of the legislation, for such matters as race, national origin, language, colour, religion, social origin, coming from a national minority, age, health, disability or such other relevant matters as set out in the amendment; I know that my noble friend will want to do that. The two key factors—specialisms and the out-of-district service—are essential and we need to provide for them. This is landmark legislation and is broadly welcomed across the House. I cannot see that anybody could realistically disagree with the list of characteristics in the amendment to Clause 55. These are specialisms which need particular attention and are flagged up in the amendment to require local authorities to make provision and develop a strategy in relation to them. I hope that we are able to do that.
As indicated by successive noble Lords speaking on this area, financial provision is also clearly important; it is key, vital and urgent. Without financial support, this will just not work. I hope that that will be taken care of too. I realise that there is provision within the department for an MHCLG Minister to establish, monitor and evaluate delivery of the duty, but this is insufficient. I do not think it would necessarily be sufficient for the Istanbul convention, but it should not be sufficient for your Lordships’ House. We need it on the face of the Bill.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for long but I want to touch on one other topic, which is quite separate and distinct. It relates—I hope noble Lords will forgive me—to provision for Wales. Obviously, the situation in Wales is somewhat, although not totally, different; devolution arrangements and separate laws have meant that it is different. I wonder how that situation is being provided for. What arrangements are in place for discussions on a continuing basis with the Welsh Government and, indeed, the Welsh Parliament, to ensure that it is provided for as smoothly as possible? I would welcome anything that my noble friend the Minister is able to say in that regard.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome these amendments and support very much what has been said by other noble Lords before me. My particular interest is in data, and I am delighted to see in Amendment 89—in proposed new subsection (1B)(c), for instance—a really detailed enumeration of the sort of level of data that we should be collecting. The basis on which this data is collected should be specified nationally, so that it is coherent and comparable and we can really start to understand what is happening and, from that understanding, move continuously to improve matters.
A very good example of what happens when you do not do this has been provided by the recent statistics on sexual abuse. The figures for the UK show that in 2019 there were 2,300 reported cases of children being abused by women in England and Wales, which is about twice what it was four years before. The first question we should ask when faced with a statistic like that is: what is going on? Unfortunately, we have no clue, because the police have stopped collecting data on sex as a characteristic when recording reports of abuse. They now record only self-reported gender. So we do not know whether this is something happening to women that we really ought to be paying attention to—an extraordinary rate of increase to which we ought to be preparing a policy response—or whether it is just a fiction due to the way the police have changed their reporting; in other words, whether this reflects the number of male offenders who are now declaring themselves to be women. Either way, we want to know; we absolutely should know. Apart from anything else, when it comes to the subject of the Bill, there will be trans women in relationships with men who are being abused and need looking after. We need to know how to provide for them properly. We may perhaps need specialist arrangements; we need to know the right level of any such arrangements that we should be providing.
If we do not have detailed statistics on sex and gender—and, in other circumstances, on a whole range of other characteristics—we will not be providing what is needed. So, I really support that part of these amendments, and these amendments in general.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, as well as other amendments in this group in their names. I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I congratulate my noble friend on the comprehensive way in which he set out the large number of issues at stake if these amendments are not included in the Bill. I found it a very effective and moving speech.
Housing associations are in a unique position to help survivors of domestic abuse and have been at the forefront of innovative responses during the pandemic, when it has been so difficult to deliver normal services. They have prioritised domestic abuse survivors in new lettings and transfers and worked with refuges to support move-on as well working to keep survivors in their homes safely. It is a further tragedy of the pandemic that we have seen such a surge in instances of domestic abuse.
One of the most important things that the Bill can do is to ensure that all its provisions are underpinned by secure funding, so that no survivor is turned away from the specialist support that they need and there is fair, national distribution of resources. There must be an acknowledgement of the specific challenges faced by BME survivors and migrant women—this has come up so many times in our debates on the Bill. For example, many housing associations provide English classes and support for skills and employment as well as mental health and well-being support. I particularly thank Women’s Aid and Imkaan, together with Stonewater and other housing association providers of specialist support, for their invaluable briefing on these amendments.
I do not want to repeat the details and statistics already given by many noble Lords about the increasing level of need and the reality of the cuts in funding and the inevitable reduction in services and support that results. These amendments reflect what needs to be done to make the Bill the step change in provision that I know the Minister and, I believe, the Government want to see.
In that spirit, I hope the Minister will heed the call for a number of additions. I highlight the need for a tighter definition of “relevant accommodation”, the need to ensure that the support provided is specialist and sufficient to meet demand and the need to make arrangements for the provision of accommodation for all victims, regardless of their immigration status. I also highlight the need to ensure that local specialist services are adequately represented on partnership boards and that a national oversight group, involving all relevant interests, is recognised in the Bill to ensure robust evaluation of the delivery of these life-saving services.
My organisation, the NHF, wants to work together with government to build models that are cost-effective for local authorities to enable the safe removal of perpetrators of domestic abuse from the home, prevent the homelessness of survivors and enable them to live independent lives. In May 2020, the NHF asked the Government to implement a targeted approach to accommodation provision for rough sleepers and homeless people fleeing domestic abuse. Housing associations stand ready to help local authorities fulfil the new duty to provide support and accommodation for survivors.
Amendment 89 and others in this group seek to ensure that there is provision of a variety of housing options for people experiencing domestic abuse, based on choice. Some will certainly need and want a refuge space, and it is vital that these are funded and come with adequate support services to help survivors achieve better health, well-being, employment and housing options.
I echo my noble friend’s concluding remarks on funding: we need to ensure, together with other provision of supported housing for rough sleepers and older people, an annual £1.6 billion of ring-fenced funding, which is needed to allow local authorities to provide these life- saving services. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that there have been discussions with Treasury colleagues about a specific ring-fenced investment in supported housing in the upcoming Budget.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Young, my noble friend Lord Woolley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for their thorough detailing of this set of amendments and for explaining in detail—I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for this—the need to get these amendments accepted by our Government. I will speak generally first, and then I will make specific comments about Amendment 108.
I begin with the general point that the statutory definition of domestic violence and abuse must not neglect the reality of this crime, which is that women are the overwhelming majority of victims and survivors and men are the greater number of perpetrators. It really does not matter whether information is being collected right now; the information exists to substantiate this point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I offer the full support of the Green group for this group of amendments collectively. We have already heard very powerful and important testimonies from all who have spoken, but particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in introducing them and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, in making some powerful points about how BAME communities and other minority communities are affected. I have three or four points to make in general terms. It must be repeated, as all speakers up to now have stressed the importance of specialist support, that simple provision of accommodation will not meet the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
I make a point particularly about funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, competitive tendering for these services has often been—and he used an appropriate word—toxic. I do not think there is anything on this in this amendment, and it may be a matter of policy more than law, but the Government should consider moving away from the idea of regular competition as an appropriate way of seeing that these services are funded. We should move closer towards a system of having a good, ideally local, service that meets the needs of a community, with an appropriate check to see that that continues. The assumption should be that that funding continues, rather than seeing the huge waste of resources that are put in again and again into bidding to keep contracts. The risk is that you can lose a local service completely, if it loses just one round of contract bidding.
Another point worth making in this context is on the place of refuges in feminist history. From the early 1970s onwards, they were places where we saw the growth and coalescence of a movement. They continue to be a centre for advocacy and campaigning support for the essential services that domestic abuse victims need. If we lose those specialist services, we also lose a lot of that advocacy and campaigning, as well as a depth of knowledge.
I have a final reflection on how we are talking about increasing statutory provision. The Green Party very much believes in localism and decisions made locally, and referred upwards only when absolutely necessary. But we also need a foundation of rights and standards, which is appropriately provided at the national level. Those standards and that statutory provision is not enough; we now that, increasingly, local government is left with barely enough funds to meet its statutory requirements, let alone to provide the extra services and needs that each local community has. When talking about this, it is crucial that we also focus on ensuring that local communities and local government have the funding that they need to meet these statutory requirements—and not just that but to meet the extra, individual local community needs that each local government area has, to ensure that that we truly deliver what the local community asks for.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not want to go over ground that has already been expressed by so many noble Lords in this important debate, but I emphasise a concern that noble Lords have. In welcoming the Bill and applauding the Government’s attempts to drive this forward in as consensual a way as possible, it could all fail if the funding is not available to enable local authorities in particular, but other services too, to provide the support that has been identified, in all the work leading up to the Bill and in noble Lords’ debates.
That is what makes the amendment of my noble friend so important: it tries to define the provision that local authorities are responsible for much more closely. I hope that the Government recognise that giving greater assurance to noble Lords that local authorities have the ability to deliver the kinds of services we want will be crucial to their response. This is not just about funding—we know that—but we cannot ignore funding. The evidence that has been put forward by noble Lords about issues with refuge bed spaces is convincing.
As I understand it, 64% of total refuge referrals in England were declined last year. We know from the outstanding work of Women’s Aid in its annual survey of support providers that, for most organisations that provide these essential services, the local authority commission did not cover all or most of the cost of running the service. We should think about this: over the last year, as they have had to cope with real issues in raising funds, increased demands on their services and the uncertainty of local government finance, those lifesaving services have been under huge strain. We took the experience of Refuge as an example. Since 2011, it has experienced cuts to 80% of its services. Funding for refuges has been cut by an average of 50% and, as Refuge says, it is far from alone in that experience. The Covid-19 emergency has put further strain on the specialist sector: obviously many providers have had to transform the way in which they deliver services while meeting additional demand.
We all sign up to the idea of a national network of refuges to grow and meet demand but, without much greater clarity over the commissioning and strategic responsibilities of local government and the funding made available by central government, we must be very concerned about whether the Bill, when enacted, will be implemented properly.
I have one other point to make. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had to say about the importance of data collection. As he said, it seems that the police no longer collect data regarding the sex of victims. I think that is a mistake. It also emphasises the importance of new subsection (1B)(a) in Amendment 89 in relation to the information that a local authority is required to obtain. Obtaining the prevalence of trends in domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls is vital to ensure that the full scale of the problem is known and the proper strategies can be adopted.
Overall, we want to hear tonight the Government recognise that in order to make sure that the Bill— a Bill that we really support—will actually work in practice, they are going to have to tackle the issue of local government responsibilities, direction and funding.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is a very good Bill, as I said earlier, and it is excellent to include the references to local authorities. However, good Bills require to be improved, and consequently I support Amendments 93, 95, 100, 102 and 106.
I remind the Government how important it is to include victims of forced marriage and modern slavery in specialist services strategy guidance for local authorities, for the proposed boards and for other organisations. The particular group that needs special support is young people who are being coerced into a forced marriage. Some of these girls are under 18. They are in a particularly difficult group and may need suitable refuges if local authorities do not take them over sufficiently quickly.
In this group of amendments we have of course been concentrating on women and girls, but we ought to remember that 20% of those who suffer domestic abuse are men. Forced marriage does not only affect girls; it affects young men, some of whom may be gay or transgender, and we should not forget that men have need for refuges and for specialist services.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We do not seem to have the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with us. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a thorough and wide-ranging debate. I support all the amendments under consideration in this group. Part of the downside of speaking last is that most of the arguments I was going to make have been made so I will not detain the Committee by repeating him—at least, not wittingly.
This is a welcome set of redefining measures aimed at beefing up the statutory duty the Bill imposes on local authorities to provide accommodation support and to widen the definition of what information should be considered in identifying trends and which groups of individuals should be included. They make the Bill more specific and spell out in an inclusive way who local authorities should be aiming to help. Nobody can accuse the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, of overlooking anyone. However, if we are not careful, we can make assumptions about who our typical victim is. Had my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece been well enough to speak tonight, she would have spelled out the plight of women from BAME communities, 70% of whom are unable to access accommodation-based services and rely specifically on specialist community-based services. I particularly support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in this respect. The little phrase “regardless of status” means that no one should be left out and that all victims are helped and treated according to need, not immigration status or anything else.
The amendments spell out the parameters of the assessment, not just what the local area considers they should be. Amendment 108 refers to a national needs assessment and a national strategy. For the first time, we could get a national picture of provision to see where is performing well and where is not in relation to a national yardstick of needs.
However, accommodation is expensive, so Amendment 89 makes clear that the relevant local authority must make sufficient resources available. The Government need to rethink the financial provision for these services. It is woefully inadequate, as many noble Lords have already pointed out. The quality and variety of accommodation is also important, as is who it is for. The injustice of the victim having to move out is also tackled, depending on the wishes of the victim.
Amendment 89 also requires authorities to publish the outcome of their monitoring and evaluation of the strategy of support provision. Data is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. Otherwise, how are we going to know how individual authorities are doing or whether the service they are providing is meeting the need? We do not know how far the provision of services varies by area and, as things stand, we do not know how they are fulfilling local needs. This amendment would help greatly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out the purpose of these amendments, which, as he said, seek to strengthen the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill. I welcome the strong support for the provisions in this part, which will place a duty on tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children within safe accommodation. We all want these provisions to work as effectively as they can in delivering much-needed support. The issue before us is whether the framework provided for in Part 4, which would include the accompanying regulations and statutory guidance, is up to the task. I think it is and I will endeavour to persuade the Committee of that.
I will start with Amendments 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99 and 100 to Clause 55. This clause places a duty on each relevant local authority in England to assess the need for domestic abuse support for all victims and their children in relevant accommodation. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, this will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. If I were standing here before your Lordships tonight saying that national Government would assess the needs of local areas, there would have been a bit of an uproar. Local authorities are best placed to assess the particular needs of victims and their children in their local area, and in assessing needs, relevant local authorities will consider the differing requirements of all victims, including those with protected characteristics as well as victims who may come in from outside the local authority area. That last point is an interesting one because, as was pointed out by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, many victims of domestic abuse will come from outside the local authority area because they will be fleeing their abusers.
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham also talked about—I do not know in relation to what—the question of refuge addresses never being disclosed. If he has any evidence in that regard, I would really like to know. I have been to see many refuges and, while I have been told their general area, I have never been told the address. This is quite a concerning point, if indeed it turns out to be the case. He and other noble Lords also talked about funding. I agree that funding has to be sustainable and has to be enough. Regarding the £125 million that has gone towards this, MHCLG considered two areas: first, the cost of and need for support in safe accommodation; and, secondly, the administrative cost of delivering new functions. MHCLG engaged with local authorities and service providers to reach this new burden estimate.
Local authorities will then need to prepare and publish a strategy for provision of the support, as identified by an assessment of the needs within their area; give effect to the strategy; and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy. The statutory guidance issued under Clause 58, which we have now published in draft, will set out the Government’s clear expectations and requirements regarding the delivery of the duties. Local authorities should ensure that the strategy clearly sets out a holistic approach to delivering the tailored support required by all victims in safe accommodation in their area. This guidance will be clear that local authorities should give effect to their strategies by meeting the support needs of all victims of domestic abuse and their children, based on a robust local needs assessment.
I share the concern of the noble Lord that some particularly vulnerable victims of domestic abuse face barriers to accessing support. As set out in the Equality Act 2010, local authorities are already subject to a public sector equality duty and must already have due regard to how to reduce disadvantages faced by people with protected characteristics and how to meet their particular needs in all the services they provide. However, to further underline the importance of supporting vulnerable victims, we intend to make it clear through guidance that local authorities should consider all the additional barriers that may prevent victims with relevant protected characteristics accessing support in refuges and other safe accommodation when they need it.Local authorities should set out in their strategy an agreed approach to address those barriers, and will need to take the advice of their local partnership board as they do that, working with partners including tier 2 local authorities in their area, specialist domestic abuse providers, PCCs and health bodies.
The guidance will also make it clear that local authorities should set out the different support needs identified through the local needs assessment, and the current provision of support for victims in the local authority area, highlighting any gaps identified. This includes setting out the identified support needs of children within safe accommodation and how they will be adequately met.
We will recommend in the guidance that local authorities have a clear approach to monitoring and evaluating local delivery against their local strategies, and they will need to undertake full evaluations at least on an annual basis to comply with the reporting requirements in Clause 57. We will also recommend that local authorities should publish their evaluation and monitoring approaches and outcomes. My noble friend Lord Bourne asked about Wales. Part 4 deals with devolved matters, so it is up to the Welsh Government to make the appropriate provisions for Wales.
Amendment 96 relates to consultation. This is already required by Clause 55(4), and the duty to consult applies not only to the initial strategy issued under that clause but to all subsequent iterations of the strategy. We will also make clear in the guidance that local authorities must consult the local partnership board, tier 2 authorities within the area, and such other persons as they consider appropriate, before publishing their strategy and any subsequent revised versions of the strategy.
The draft guidance recommends that local authorities should provide a clear consultation mechanism providing an up-to-date version of the strategy, as well as adequate time and a clear timeframe for organisations to review and feed back. In addition, the guidance is clear that local authorities should set out a clear process that organisations and individuals can use to raise concerns about the local strategy and authorities’ approach in addressing the needs identified.
I recognise that there is a balance to strike between providing local authorities with flexibility to meet particular local needs while ensuring a consistent approach to the provision of support within safe accommodation across the country. I believe the clauses as drafted, supported by regulations and comprehensive statutory guidance for local authorities, will provide that balance.
As I have said, we have recently published the guidance in draft, and in doing so consulted Women’s Aid, Imkaan and Refuge. I appreciate that noble Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, local authorities and others will not yet have had an opportunity to examine it in detail. We would welcome feedback and will consider any suggestions for improving the guidance. Once the Bill is enacted, we will then formally consult on the final form of the guidance, as Clause 58 requires, before promulgating it alongside the coming into force of the provisions in Part 4.
I appreciate the intention behind Amendment 102, but I have concerns that we risk building in far too much rigidity and bureaucracy into the composition of the local partnership board and unduly constraining the flexibility that local authorities have to appoint and run their local boards in a way that meets their particular needs.
Clause 56(2) sets out the minimum required members of the board. In addition to a representative from the relevant local authority, the board membership must include at least one person representing the interests of each of the following: tier 2 local authorities in the relevant local authority area; victims of domestic abuse; children of domestic abuse victims; charities and other voluntary organisations that work with victims of domestic abuse in the area; persons who provide or have functions relating to healthcare services in the area; and policing and criminal justice agencies in the area. That list is the minimum requirement, but local authorities will have the freedom to invite on to the board additional members, such as those the noble Lord has suggested in his amendment—accepting that there is considerable common ground between the list in Clause 56(2) and that in Amendment 102.
We think that Clause 56 as drafted adopts the right approach, specifying the minimum required members of the board to ensure the right expertise, but providing local authorities with flexibility to best meet local circumstances, including if appropriate by setting up reference groups to support the board. Relevant local authorities must have flexibility to decide whether an existing board, expanded or reconstituted, can fulfil these requirements, or whether to create a new dedicated board in order to fulfil this duty.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I should be very grateful if the Minister would provide details of the information that the Government anticipate will be collected by local authorities, as illustrated in some of the provisions proposed in Amendment 89. I would be very happy for her to do that by letter but I should very much appreciate having that before Report.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am happy to provide my noble friend with that information.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, I thank the Minister for her very full reply. I also thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate.
I suppose that, in summary, the issues we have been talking about have related to definitions—for example, of “relevant accommodation” and “specialist domestic abuse support”—and to non-discrimination against, for example, specialist refuge services and the need to support all victims, not least those with protected characteristics. There is then the issue of refuges being a national network of services and not just being about local needs and what local authorities are doing. There is also the issue of resource, including funding. The point was made very powerfully by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that we will not achieve very much with the Bill if the necessary money is not provided to make sure that the Bill’s intentions can be delivered properly and in full.
I rather got the impression from the Government’s reply that, basically, none of the amendments have any merit with regard to being put into the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister said that the Government agree with the thrust of a number of them, but what slightly concerned me was that one or two of the points made in the debate, and I think that I was among those who made them, indicated that there is a feeling that the guidance that has been issued so far—for example, on definitions—does not exactly deliver. The reasons why we felt that were set out in some detail, but I do not think that we have had a response to that point this evening.
If I did not misunderstand the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, I think she said that there would be consultation on the statutory guidance once the Bill got Royal Assent. Many people would like to see some discussion on the guidance at a point when some changes can be made, before the Bill gets Royal Assent. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to have some discussions about this group of amendments before Report, perhaps indicating what the Government’s intentions are in respect of the statutory guidance that has been issued—whether they see any areas for further change and amplification of what is in there, in line with some of the comments made in this evening’s debate.
I will obviously leave things at that. I have a feeling that we will return to these amendments on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 90. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 90
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, in begging leave to move Amendment 90—which I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for trailing and which might, with advantage, have been included in the group containing the other amendments on speech, language and communication needs that we considered in Committee last Wednesday—I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties.
Since our considerations in Committee last Wednesday, I have studied in great detail the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on some of which I shall now comment. The Minister said, inter alia:
“Those facing communication barriers are, arguably, some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse … there is an important balance to strike between providing local authorities with the flexibility to meet particular local needs and … a consistent approach to the provision of support.”
He sought to reassure the Committee that
“the Bill already provides a framework to ensure that the speech, language and communication needs of victims are addressed.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; cols. 1635-37.]
The provision of information in an accessible and inclusive format is one item that would benefit from a consistent approach to the provision of support. Because I am not reassured that the Bill covers this, I beg to move Amendment 90.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the helpful debate on the associated amendments last Wednesday, it is quite useful that we now have this debate on Amendment 90, specifically on how to support people with disabilities, particularly speech and language difficulties, with practical support for communication at the point at which they are seeking help.
With the best will in the world, there is little point in the agencies that are there to support them—whether they are specialist charities or local authorities—if those who are at greatest risk do not know, cannot follow or act on, cannot understand, cannot access and cannot make use of who can help them and how. The amendments debated last week had the powerful support of the UK Says No More campaign. This amendment is no exception, because it holds the key to getting help when it is most needed.
I am afraid the predictable response from government may be to say that information is available in different languages and sign language, but I say what the specialist groups in the field say: this simply does not go far enough. A leaflet, no matter how plain the language, would never be a substitute for the sort of help that can be provided only by a sympathetic advocate who takes the person by the hand along the pathway to safety. That is why we have given such priority to the service itself employing speech and language specialists.
We want to see any kind of communication in an easy-read format, obviously, but also made accessible on augmentation and alternative communication devices. But the idea that all problems can be solved by the written word, however plain the language—that is, of course, the first and most basic requirement—or even sign language, is simplistic and out of date.
Many people with speech and language difficulties are capable of—and even more dependent than the rest of us on—using technology, but emails, advice and all communications need to be jargon free. Where possible, signs and symbols can be used. It requires knowledge and empathy to get this right, but they are not in short supply and the Bill can benefit from them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friends Lord Ramsbotham and Lady Andrews. In a response to a Written Question in June last year from Geraint Davies, the Member of Parliament for Swansea West, the Minister drew attention to the government website provisions and referenced different languages and British Sign Language. These are all welcome and laudable initiatives, but they require a person to be able to read, have reasonable IT literacy and be able to communicate to others. As chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, my specific concern here is for those with learning difficulties.
I have become very aware of the startlingly high incidence of abuse of people with any type of disability, as we debated last week. For many, even easy-read format is not enough. I draw attention to Books Beyond Words, which explore topics in pictorial format. One example is Telling About Abuse: a Leaflet for Deaf Adults. These books can be used irrespective of any language. The Ask for ANI initiative is excellent and the easy-read information on the government website is easy to follow. It lays out the number 55 to use on dialling 999 in a way that is indeed easy to follow.
This amendment does not imply any criticism of all the Government have done so far. However, I suggest that they can build on it by including the spirit of this amendment in statutory guidance. The important 2015 report from Public Health England, Disability and Domestic Abuse: Risk, Impacts and Response, states:
“Effective domestic abuse services for disabled people should be accessible and barrier-free.”
Those with severe sensory, cognitive or communication impairments or mental health issues may be particularly at risk and unable to access support through any standard routes. Even having a severe stammer can make using the phone difficult, let alone if a person is aphasic or dysarthric. Some people may need augmentative and alternative communication devices or urgent speech and language and other specialist support.
People with an intellectual disability are at least 1.6 times more likely to experience violence. They may be less able to defend themselves or even to recognise, report and escape abuse. Impairment, such as traumatic brain injury or intellectual, learning or cognitive impairments, may limit a disabled person’s ability to understand and recognise the potential signs of danger and abuse. All this is compounded if people with sensory impairments miss visual or auditory warning signs of abuse.
NICE guidance on domestic abuse recommends that support is tailored to meet disabled people’s needs. In responding to this amendment, I hope the Government will be able to provide assurance that the guidance will require all domestic abuse services to stay up to date with advances in communication and information resources, including new technology.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a small amendment but nevertheless it is definitely a point worth making. I was not privy to the debate last week, but my reading of the amendment was that it piggybacked on Clause 55(1)(b), on the requirement to prepare and publish a strategy for providing support. I read it as requiring the local authority to communicate the support available, as opposed to the strategy itself—so I was right there.
“Accessible and inclusive” is important too for people with communication difficulties. It is obvious that to have support available, you have to have potential recipients actually know about it. That means putting notices in accessible, everyday places where potential victims will see them. I have seen them on the back of toilet doors, and I would like to see them on workplace notice boards, buses, Tubes and billboards, and in shops and myriad other places. They must be accessible for everyone: in Urdu, Romanian, Greek, African—you name it. In order to be able to read or see a notice, people need it to be there in front of them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, as well as ease of reading, it is important that we consider all kinds of disability and use more innovative, technical methods of communication. The message must be clear. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also mentioned books without words, which is a very useful idea. That message, “you are not alone”, “help is at hand”, “dial this number”, “go to your pharmacist and ask for ANI”, and so on, could literally be a life saver.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, this short but important debate follows on from the similar issues we debated earlier in Committee on Wednesday. As I said then, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse and their children get the right support to meet their individual needs. People facing communication barriers are, arguably, some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse given the added difficulties and barriers they face in asking for help and accessing the support available, so it is welcome to have this opportunity to explore that further through this amendment.
I share the concerns of all noble Lords who have spoken and can, I hope, reassure them by saying that local authorities’ strategies will be published in line with the regulations on accessibility or, to give them their full title, the Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No. 2) Accessibility Regulations 2018. These regulations provide guidance and accessibility requirements for public sector websites and apps for mobile telephones. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said, it is important that public sector bodies keep pace with changing technologies and the variety of ways in which people can seek assistance.
Local authorities will also want to ensure that the information they provide is accessible in other formats for people unable to use websites or mobile devices, including providing information in languages other than English to reflect their local population, as noble Lords mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, made a valuable point: it is all very well providing support for victims of domestic abuse with safe accommodation and all the rest of it, but some victims may not fully benefit from that support if they face communication barriers in accessing it. It is incumbent on tier 1 local authorities in exercising their functions under Part 4 to ensure that information about the support available is accessible to everyone who needs it. I am very happy to say that we will consider how the issues raised in this debate and earlier in Committee can be properly addressed in the guidance issued.
Having said that and given those reassurances, I hope the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and all noble Lords who spoke to this amendment. We shall carefully consider all that Ministers have said during the passage of the Bill and decide before Report whether it strikes a balance between providing local authorities with the flexibility to meet local needs and ensuring a consistent approach to the provision of support. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 91. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 91
“(d) ensure all Child Contact Centres and organisations that offer facilities or services for child contact are accredited, to ensure domestic abuse and safeguarding protections for children and families.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment concerns the protection of children and the importance of child contact centres being accredited to ensure that. As we have heard in previous debates, the UK has one of the highest rates of family breakdown. This should be a cause of great concern in our society. With nearly 25% of children living with only one of their parents and more than a million who never see the other parent after separation, child contact centres are more important than ever.
The mission of the National Association of Child Contact Centres is to ensure that:
“Parenting shouldn’t end when relationships do”.
All the research on family breakdown has shown that children in general do better when they have contact with both parents. Many children still view a non-resident parent as an important figure and value their effort and commitment to maintain contact. However, we have heard of the damaging impact on children of experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse and the ways in which children can be used to manipulate or abuse a parent. This means that careful consideration must be given to each case when discerning appropriate contact arrangements while ensuring that the voice of the child is at the centre of everything that is done.
The National Association of Child Contact Centres has 350 accredited centres so far across England and Wales. They have been evaluated through an independent standards panel which assesses compliance to the agreed national standards, which can lead to accreditation. However, there is currently no specific provision in law to ensure the same high standards across all child contact centres and services, or across all postcodes. There is no requirement for oversight of centres and services for self-referred cases outside the court system.
Contact centres provide a safe, neutral environment where children can meet and play with family members they do not live with. Many families are referred by the courts to supported contact centres, run by volunteers who keep an eye on the children at the centre, or supervised contact centres run by qualified social workers. In cases where a parent has a history of domestic abuse or other harmful behaviour, supervised contact centres provide a neutral drop-off point so that a victim parent does not have to meet their abuser and interactions between parents and children can be closely monitored.
It is essential that all contact centres are accredited, with high standards of services and safeguarding, to ensure the safety and well-being of children who have already been through so much. Without high standards of training and staff supervision, it is all too easy to miss the early warning signs of re-emerging or escalating problems. I hope that the Government will recognise the importance of child contact centres for families and children who have experienced domestic abuse, and that they will seek to ensure that all families have access to an accredited centre which can meet their increasingly complex needs. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) (V)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Her introduction covered all the points that were made in the various briefings sent to me. I am also conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is a long-standing expert in this area who has been pursuing the issue for many years. I thought that I would make a different point from that which is set out in the briefings.
I sit as a family magistrate in London. I am also the chairman of the Greater London Family Panel, which means that I have a pastoral responsibility for 300 family magistrates. About six weeks to two months ago, I sent all my colleagues the email address of the NACCC because I thought all that information would be a useful resource for them to use in their work in court. I specifically did this recently, while we have been moving in and out of lockdowns, because one issue that has been coming up in court a lot is the reasons for contact breaking down. We were told many times that the contact centres were not open. The truth of the matter is that it is a mixed picture and some forms of contact have been facilitated by different centres. Using the NACCC website, we have been able to check with the relevant contact centres to see whether what we had been told by the participants in court proceedings was indeed true. In some cases it was not true; the parents had not been facilitating contact when it was available.
I have given a practical example of how useful the information provided by the NACCC can be. I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to regularise and put it on a similar footing to other children-based services. I also understand that there is a long history of trying to regularise the status, if you like, of the NACCC. I am happy to have added my name to this amendment and hope very much that the Minister will give it a favourable response, so that people can be confident that only appropriately regulated services will be available for parents.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) (V)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and pay tribute to his wealth of experience as a family magistrate. I too am delighted to lend my support to the amendment and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on introducing it so eloquently. It follows on from a Private Member’s Bill which I sponsored soon after I was introduced into the House. It called for the equalisation of standards for child contact centres; that is, centres offering public and/or private provision.
I am sure my noble friend Lord Wolfson will recall, from his early days in private practice, some of the heartrending cases we have all had to deal with of trying to allow and permit family relationships to continue. That is why I pay tribute to the National Association of Child Contact Centres and declare my interest as a vice-president. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in paying fulsome tribute to the work it does. I am also an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Contact Centres and Services, where we try and bring these issues to the fore in both Houses of Parliament.
This amendment is particularly appropriate to this clause in Part 4 of the Bill, which looks at local authority support. Children are often caught up as innocent victims of domestic abuse but it is essential they maintain contact, in so far as is safe and possible, with both parents in any family situation. What is clear at the moment is that public and private provision in child contact is not equal; it is important to ensure safeguarding is recognised and extended to both. The child contact system, as I understand it, is the only child service that is not nationally accredited or regulated, and addressing this is the purpose of Amendment 91. I accept this clause is looking at the “Support provided by local authorities”, but it is in these difficult situations that a child may have suffered through no fault of their own from the abuse of a parent—most likely, the non-resident parent.
I hope my noble friend Lord Wolfson, other noble friends and the Government will look favourably on this amendment. It seeks to rectify a situation to ensure all child contact centres will work to the highest standards and that those children who are separated from one or other parent, in these particularly sensitive situations, will continue to have access and contact with both parents. It seems entirely appropriate that we consider Amendment 91 against the background of Part 4. In these circumstances, I am delighted to lend my support to Amendment 91 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others who have lent their support.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too was delighted to add my name to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has already made an excellent case for why all child contact centres should be accredited, and I will not detain the House by repeating those arguments.
I have some difficulty understanding why the Government are reluctant to accept the case for all child contact centres to be accredited. It is not a cost to them, after all, and even if there were a cost attached, I would argue it would be worth it. This is the only example of a child service that does not require universal accreditation or regulation. But it places the child in a potentially dangerous and damaging situation because they may not be supervised by trained staff in an appropriate and consistent environment.
The Government, in a letter to the National Association of Child Contact Centres, confess to not knowing about the nature and extent of unaccredited child contact centres. So, they do not know the size of the problem or the standards that these centres are operating at. Of course, accreditation does not guarantee a child’s or a parent’s safety, but it would ensure safeguarding risks are accounted for. There would be quality and consistency in all child contact centres. We know that children, as well as mothers, get killed. Why on earth would we take the risk of having untrained staff manning unaccredited child contact centres?
The courts and Cafcass should refer children to accredited centres. We have the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to thank for that. If an accredited centre is good enough for these children, why should it not be good enough for every child? Would the Minister reflect, before he responds, on whether he is willing to take the risk?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for introducing this amendment and I recognise, of course, the reasons why she has tabled it. This has been a short but extremely valuable debate on a crucial part of the architecture of the law in this area. I am afraid that I cannot confirm to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that I came across cases like this in my practice but I can confirm that, when he sat as a judge, my father always told me that family law cases, which raised issues such as we have been debating this evening, were the most important and often the most difficult that he came across.
I suspect that there is a broad measure of agreement across the Committee. We all agree that the provision of child contact centres is extremely important in supporting families and enabling parents to have contact with their children, while providing a safe environment that protects children and adults from potential harm. When moving her amendment, the noble Baroness made three points of principle from which I do not demur at all: first, the courts must always give careful consideration to the circumstances of each case; secondly, the child must be at the centre of the debate and the focus of what is going on; and, thirdly, we must have high standards. There is nothing between us on any of those points. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, set out from his personal experience—magistrates are not professional but, given the amount of time that the noble Lord puts into it, I ought perhaps to have said his professional experience—and, as we accept and know, the National Association of Child Contact Centres, the NACCC, as the sole accreditor of such services in the private law sector, provides an invaluable service, and the same high standards are required in the provision of services in the public law sector.
That said, I question whether statutory accreditation of all child contact centres is, in fact, the best mechanism to achieve the objective of the amendment: namely, to ensure domestic abuse protections as well as the maintenance of safeguarding for children and families. The family court cannot refer families to a non-accredited child contact centre as part of a child arrangements order. In private law cases, a traditional protocol has been in place for nearly two decades, guiding courts to refer families to child contact centres and services which are members of the NACCC and therefore subject to agreed national standards and an accreditation process.
Since 2018, Cafcass and the NACCC have established a memorandum of understanding under which Cafcass will refer to and commission only NACCC-accredited centres and services. Cafcass will therefore not advise any parent to attend a non-accredited centre or use non-accredited services. As set out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Government are keen to work with the NACCC to improve information and signposting to accredited child contact centres as part of an improved range of information and support for both separating and separated parents. In so far as local authorities are concerned, in discharging their statutory obligation under Section 34 of the Children Act 1989—to promote contact between children and their parents and other family members, including siblings and grandparents—local authorities are already subject to legal, inspection and accountability frameworks to protect and safeguard children in their care.
I recognise that local authorities increasingly outsource to external providers to deliver the service on their behalf. This is particularly the case when a local authority child contact centre might be in one location while the child has a foster care placement some distance away. Rather than requiring the child to travel a significant distance to undertake contact, the local authority may consider it to be in the child’s best interest to remain at a location closer to their home. This means that the local authority may outsource a provision to an external provider to deliver the contact on the local authority’s behalf. I hope that provides one answer to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, as to why the Government do not accept the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak to this amendment because this is not something I know much about; I was waiting for the next group. However, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, say that some of these child contact centres are not accredited left me astonished. I listened to the Minister’s explanation very carefully; I thought it was utterly specious from start to finish. I take his point that he does not want to put more cost and bureaucracy on local authorities. Obviously, this Government have stripped local authorities to the bare bones, so I understand if they have no scope for doing any more work. Perhaps this is something that the Government would like to finance. Accreditation is absolutely necessary; it is a safeguarding issue. I just wonder what will convince the Minister. If a safeguarding issue happens and a child and family suffer, will that change the Government’s mind? I find it absolutely incredible. The thought that there is no central body that monitors or collects data is staggering. I urge the Minister to discuss this further with the proposer of this amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It was not my intention to be specious. I was trying to be accurate and constructive. I have already said that I will engage with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, if she provides evidence that there is a systemic problem with the current arrangements that cannot be resolved by the existing mechanisms. That was a genuine offer. I am sure that the noble Baroness will take me up on it. I will be very happy if she does.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has invited comments about potential systemic problems. I draw his attention to one group of cases which he did not refer to: people who self-refer to contact centres. They are not sent there by social workers or by the courts, but are self-referring for their own reasons—trying to sort out the issues themselves. They could easily end up at unregulated contact centres, which may well be cheaper, so if the noble Lord is looking for systemic problems, I suggest that this may well be one.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that point. As I said in my response to the main debate, even unaccredited centres are still subject to the various requirements that I set out, but I am very conscious of the noble Lord’s expertise in this area. In a previous answer, I committed to writing a long letter to him. I do not want to add to it now, but perhaps he and I can have discussions, with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which include the point he raises. I hope that is helpful.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I am most grateful to the Minister for his response, and for saying that he will meet me and, I hope, the other noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment and whose experience is extremely important. I find it difficult to understand why the Government do not want to close this loophole. It seems terribly important to ensure that there is adequate safeguarding of children. I have a real worry that the commissioning process is more likely to fail now that there are increasing pressures on local authorities, and that the need to ensure accreditation has become even greater. Sadly, in some areas, the local authority does not have a great deal of choice as to the services that are there, so I would question the flexibility to pick and choose implied in the Minister’s response. I will certainly make every effort, with those who have co-sponsored the amendment, to get as much data as we can for him.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who certainly knows more about this than any of the rest of us, highlighted, this is the only service which is not nationally accredited. This seems remarkably dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly pointed out that it is self-referrers who may use centres that are not accredited, and they will quite often have alcohol, drug or other problems they are trying to sort out. How they behave towards the children there must be observed carefully by people who know what they are looking for and have been properly trained, and where the whole service has been assessed against some standard criteria. In terms of the commissioning process, I would have thought that it would help local authorities to have those standards against which to check the services that they have on their patch and that they may be putting money into.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, pointed out, in a way it is completely at variance with the whole principle of the Bill if we do not include an amendment, with either this wording or something similar, in the Bill. The whole Bill is aimed at decreasing domestic abuse and protecting people from further abuse. It is not meant to be a straitjacket; it is meant to be a really supportive framework. However, if we do not have high standards in that framework, I fear that some of the most vulnerable—that is, the children—will drop through the gaps and we will see more children getting killed.
While for the moment I will withdraw the amendment —I am grateful for the support of everyone, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—I think we will need to come back to this at a later stage. I look forward to meeting the Minister. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 101. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 101
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Local Welfare Provision schemes
(1) Every local authority in England must deliver a Local Welfare Provision scheme which provides financial assistance to victims of domestic abuse.(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the nature and scope of Local Welfare Provision schemes and review this twice each year in consultation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other such individuals and agencies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide local authorities with additional funding designated for Local Welfare Provision, to increase per year with inflation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow victims of domestic abuse to access a local welfare assistance scheme in any locality across England.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 101 is the first in a group of amendments concerned with ensuring that local authorities can help local victims of domestic abuse and their children, and other victims who flee into the area. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for supporting this amendment.
Amendment 101 talks specifically about emergency financial support to victims while Amendments 106 and 107, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Rosser and Lord Russell, and Amendment 176, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, deal with a wider range of provision and co-operation between service providers. I support those amendments, but in the interests of brevity I will leave it to those noble Lords to introduce them.
The point of Amendment 101 is to deal with the issue of women and children particularly who may live or arrive in a local authority area, perhaps just in the clothes that they stand up in. In the Bill the Government recognise the concept of economic abuse, which is a very welcome step. The amendment looks at how to tackle economic abuse when it is used by the perpetrator as an instrument of coercive control—for example, when a woman is deprived of funds so she cannot flee with her children. Local welfare schemes can offer welfare assistance in such emergencies but they vary in extent and quality, from holistic wraparound support systems to underfunded, underused schemes that often get forgotten. Women’s Aid research found that one-third of survivors leaving an abusive partner had to take out credit to do so. Smallwood Trust estimates that 70% of its applications for funds are received from women who are fleeing, or have fled, domestic abuse.
Emergency funding used to be provided by the Department for Work and Pensions in the form of the discretionary social fund, with community care grants often used to help survivors to set up and start again. However, since the responsibility for paying these grants has shifted to hard-pressed local authorities, whose income has been slashed by 60% over the last eight years, and any statutory obligation has ended, the existence of any funding help at all has become a postcode lottery. Since central government devolved the responsibility for payment to local authorities in 2013, the number of people receiving crisis support has plunged by 75%.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to have put my name to this amendment. I support entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has just said, so I will not weary the House at this time by repeating any of it.
Local welfare provision schemes are vital to the ability of the Domestic Abuse Bill to offer what is needed in local authority areas, particularly in emergency situations, but also more broadly. It is very important that local authorities have sufficient funding. Again and again during debates on the Bill we have listened to those who have said, quite rightly, that the Bill is a good Bill but, unless it has the money, it will not work. Again and again we get very good legislation, but it does not get implemented. The main reason for the failure to implement good legislation is the lack of funding. We absolutely must not find ourselves doing that with this very good Bill. I would only add to it to please, please include welfare provision for victims of domestic abuse and those who suffer from forced marriage or modern slavery.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 101, which in some ways follows on from my group of amendments on social security, debated last Wednesday.
If we had a decent social security system that provided genuine security to survivors of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, and still had a national emergency scheme like the Social Fund, we might not need local welfare assistance schemes. As it is, such schemes, which constitute the final safety net—leaving aside charitable support—are in a parlous state, despite the welcome injection of cash to help cope with the pandemic.
When local welfare assistance schemes were introduced to replace the national Social Fund, the Government refused to make them compulsory or to ring-fence the money allocated, despite your Lordships’ best efforts. It is no surprise, therefore, that when local authorities are strapped for cash because of years of cuts, research by the Children’s Society last year found that one in seven local authorities does not even run a scheme any more. It found that, of 121 authorities that provided spending data, about three-quarters spent less than half their allocated budget on local welfare assistance schemes. That budget has itself been cut, so that overall, it stands at less than half the money that was allocated to the Social Fund it replaced.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has pointed out, the lack of any regulation has given rise to our old friend the postcode lottery, which is particularly damaging to domestic abuse survivors who might find themselves excluded by local connection criteria if they have moved local authorities to escape their abuser. A woman might find herself excluded because she is subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule. It is essential that any guidance issued under this amendment, should it eventually pass, ensures that these groups are covered.
More generally, domestic abuse survivors need the security of knowing that they can get appropriate help from local authorities and not just help in kind which may well not be appropriate. It is not good enough that we have to rely on a charity to provide basic information on state local welfare assistance schemes because central government have taken the Pontius Pilate approach and washed their hands of all responsibility for the schemes, ignoring the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee in a previous Parliament.
Paul Maynard MP on the Government Back Benches is leading a cross-party call tomorrow in the Commons for a review of local welfare assistance schemes, supported by among others former Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith. Mr Maynard stated:
“We need to ensure we learn the lessons of the pandemic to embed a better provision of emergency support for some of the most vulnerable in our society.”
This amendment would at least require central government to exercise some responsibility towards this particularly vulnerable group of people and it therefore deserves support.
I also want to speak briefly in support of Amendment 176, leaving it to the sponsors of the amendment to make the case more fully. I am sure no one would dispute the importance of specialised domestic abuse provision for a range of minority groups, including particular provision by and for domestic abuse victims and survivors. It is just such provision which has been particularly vulnerable to funding cuts and changes in commissioning practises in recent years, as was discussed earlier. That is sufficient reason for supporting this amendment, but it would also go some way to redress the balance, following the welcome introduction in the Bill of a duty on local authorities to assess the need for accommodation-based services by ensuring the duty in this new clause covers community-based services. As important as accommodation-based services are—they are very important—the Justice Secretary noted at Second Reading debate in the House of Commons that 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in a refuge. Many of them will seek support from community-based services.
The Government say they need more evidence about the need for community-based services and that nothing can be done until the domestic abuse commissioner designate has completed her investigation. However, the domestic abuse commissioner herself and organisations on the ground insist there is ample evidence to make legislative provision now. What further evidence do the Government need?
In Committee in the Commons, the Minister assured MPs that
“the Government are committed to addressing”
Whatever the domestic abuse commissioner’s findings are,
“that the commissioner will publish her report under clause 8”,
and the Government are
“required to respond to it within 56 days.” ”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 11/6/20; col. 249.]
That is all well and good, but this Bill will be on the statue book by then. The chances of another Domestic Abuse Bill coming along in the near future must be slim—just look at how long it has taken us to get to this point on this Bill. I hope the Government will listen to the experts, the domestic abuse commissioner designate and organisations on the ground and extend the duty on local authorities to assess the need for community-based services and accept this amendment as a way of doing so.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 176 and 177, in my name, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, for their support. Amendment 176 is broad, and, to try to help the House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby will speak to non-discrimination and the need for specialist services; the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will speak on community-based services and how they support victims and provide perpetrator programmes; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will speak to the unintended consequences that the Bill risks having.
As I said last week, I am delighted that it is my Government who are putting forward this Bill, which has my strong support. I thank Barnardo’s and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others, for their help and advice.
At the outset, I welcome the announcement today of £40 million funding for community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse services. The Government have acknowledged the effect that the pandemic has had. This welcome government support only strengthens my argument that community-based services need long-term and sustainable funding. I hope the Government can solidify their good intentions by announcing that they will place community-based services on the same statutory footing as accommodation-based services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was right just now. On 16 June last year, the domestic abuse commissioner designate wrote to the Domestic Abuse Bill Public Bill Committee in the other place to follow up on her oral evidence to it. I am happy to quote from her letter:
“As I said in my oral evidence, I strongly welcome the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s proposal to require Local Authorities to provide accommodation-based services, but it must go further. In order to address the breadth of domestic abuse services, the statutory duty must encompass those community-based services that are accessed by the majority of victims, survivors and their children, and must also include quality provision for perpetrators. I have very real concerns about Local Authorities redistributing their funding simply to meet the statutory duty, and therefore deprioritising those critical community-based services that can intervene earlier and prevent a survivor from being forced to flee to a refuge. There is already ample evidence to support this, and while my mapping work may well add to this evidence base, it is wholly unnecessary for Parliament to wait for it to complete before considering this issue.”
This is very clear. The commissioner designate acknowledges that the exercise will provide useful analysis of spending by local authorities on community-based services, but, crucially, she says that Parliament does not need to wait in legislating. She said this in June, and she has not changed her mind. This governmental concern about waiting is not shared by the commissioner and so many others, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at this again.
The other main concern has been the need to consult other public authorities. The new clause in Amendment 176 is structured so that it would improve service provision with immediate effect, with public bodies able to take into account relevant circumstances in deciding what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency. Taking new information into account, the nature of what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency will change accordingly as and when the outcome of any consultation or mapping exercise becomes available.
Many agencies are needed to tackle domestic abuse: among them are the police, housing, children’s services and the NHS. A multiagency approach is critical to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are able to live and rebuild their lives free of abuse. The amendment brings these agencies together in a holistic approach.
The path to tackling domestic abuse is ensuring that all victims, adults or children, are able to access the support they require to recover from the trauma that they have experienced. For some victims, fleeing their home and seeking refuge in safe accommodation —a truly traumatic event in itself—may be their only option. Of course, this is no easy decision to arrive at: they may move miles away from their support networks and abandon their possessions and, sometimes, livelihoods, and their children may be taken out of their school—all for the pursuit of safety, while the perpetrator remains in the comfort of their own home.
For many victims, leaving home is just not an option: 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in safe accommodation, and it is clear that victims who are disabled, elderly, BAME or LGBTQ all face additional barriers to accessing safe accommodation—not to mention the vast number of child victims who are trapped. This is why I urge the Government to be bold and ensure that the Bill will help as many people in need as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Derby [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to those who have already welcomed this Bill and thank the Minister for the Government’s responses so far. I support all the amendments in this group but address my comments to Amendment 176, to which I was pleased to add my name. I am privileged to follow the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and commend his clear and passionate introduction to this amendment.
Although this Bill is welcome and long overdue, its success as legislation must ultimately be measured in how far it improves on current outcomes in supporting survivors of abuse. To that end, Amendment 176 seeks to strengthen the Bill to ensure that all survivors of domestic abuse can equally access the protection and support measures they require.
I too support the Government’s good intentions in including a statutory duty to provide accommodation-based support and appreciated the earlier debate on that provision. However, I fear an unintended consequence: in placing the focus on that support, we risk undermining the funding and provision of specialist community-based services, notably including for many children who are victims of domestic abuse.
Community-based specialist services allow people to remain in their homes and retain the local, family and faith support networks that are often essential to recovery and resilience. Where we can provide essential support without survivors being forced to leave their homes unnecessarily, surely it is highly desirable to do so. There are already too few of these community-based services, often poorly and precariously funded, and it would be a bitter irony if this Bill were to further undermine this situation, to the detriment of a great many of the most vulnerable survivors. I highlight in particular those issues around children and migrant families as examples.
I restrict my comments to English provision, as I have received no request to speak on this amendment from my colleagues in the Church in Wales. It is a great privilege for me to serve as vice-chair of the Church of England Children’s Society and to know of the crucial work done by specialist children’s services, which has been referred to already in the debate.
Keeping children in their homes and schools is so important, so I echo the appreciation of work done already in this Bill, recognising that children can be victims of domestic violence in their own right. We cannot allow that work to be undermined by the services on which those children rely becoming in any way deprioritised by local authorities redistributing limited funding to meet a statutory duty on accommodation-based services.
This situation becomes particularly acute when it comes to migrant women and their families. Migrant women are unable to stay in much refuge accommodation due to its no recourse to public funds restriction. Only 5% of refuge spaces listed last year were available to migrant women, in specialised black and minority-ethnic refuges. Moreover, such specialist refuge provision for black and minority-ethnic women is very limited across England. It is mainly concentrated in England and is oversubscribed and precariously funded.
Of course, there are other amendments that focus on safe reporting, NRPF and leave to remain for migrant women—I appreciate listening to those debates—but this amendment is separate from those issues, for it focuses on a duty on local authorities, police and crime commissioners and clinical commissioning groups to take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient provision for all survivors through community and specialist services, as well as accommodation-based ones.
I started by saying that the success of this legislation must ultimately be measured by how far it improves current outcomes in supporting survivors of abuse. It would be a tragedy if we were to pass this legislation, only for community-based services thereafter to be further restricted in their provision of this necessary support. I therefore hope that the Minister can provide us with assurances that these services can be supported as this amendment proposes. If the Minister is unable to give such assurances now, I hope that ahead of Report there will be engagement and conversation with us on these important details concerning community- based provision.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 176, to which my name is attached, inserts a new clause that requires local authorities, police and crime commissioners and clinical commissioning groups to take reasonable steps to ensure sufficient provision of specialist domestic abuse support services in their local areas in both the community and refuges. This must include sufficient provision of services for children and young people, survivors with protected characteristics and migrant survivors as well as perpetrator programmes. The duty on local authorities under this amendment would improve service provision with immediate effect. Relevant public bodies would take relevant circumstances into account in deciding what constituted reasonable steps and sufficiency. As and when the outcome of any consultation, mapping exercise or guidance from the Secretary of State becomes available, the nature of what constitutes reasonable steps and sufficiency can change accordingly. As has been said, the domestic abuse commissioner-designate is undertaking a mapping exercise, but as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, has pointed out, she supports the new clause. She has said that she does not think that the mapping exercise needs to take place before the duty in the new clause, if added to the Bill, comes into force.
In speaking to Amendment 176, I want to talk in particular about adult victims and perpetrators in the context of the provision of community-based services. As we know, the majority of survivors of domestic abuse—some 70%—access support in community settings. The duty on local authorities in the Bill in respect of accommodation-based services will be of little statutory benefit to them, hence this amendment. In the last year, 65,000 adult victims, and I think about 85,000 child victims, at the highest risk of serious harm or murder received support through such community-based services. Community-based services are crucial because no one, if they can avoid it, wants to leave their home and their possessions and uproot their children from school—to effectively go into hiding—as a result of domestic abuse. Many would think it should be the perpetrator who should be uprooted. There is a danger that without the emphasis in this Bill being on the provision of community-based services as well as accommodation-based services, the latter will become the default option for adult and child victims, because the statutory provision—the duty on local authorities in respect of accommodation-based services—risks encouraging local authorities with limited resources to divert vital funds away from services provided in the community, such as advocacy, independent domestic violence advisers, outreach services and dedicated children’s services, to those services for which there is a statutory duty.
Currently, community service provision for even those victims at the highest level of risk of serious harm or murder is lacking, with 300 more domestic violence advisers still required as a minimum to help current victims to be safe. The availability of outreach workers for victims at lower risk levels is patchy across the country.
Support in accommodation is also much more expensive per service user than community-based support. Estimates suggest that each use of an accommodation-based service costs around £3,500, whereas community-based services cost an estimated maximum of just under £800 per user.
Estimates by the organisation SafeLives highlight the significant gap between what the Government have committed to combatting violence against women—a spend of some £100 million over four years—and their own calculation that £1 billion in total is required to fund the necessary provision just for adult victims of abuse.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 176 and 177, to which I was pleased to add my name. My three fellow sponsors have made such a good job of the case for the prosecution that I will try not to sound like a worn record. I am also very conscious, listening to proceedings on this Bill, that the neverending stream of amendments could be viewed as an unwitting discourtesy to what are clearly the Government’s good intentions. It sounds like the digestive rumblings of an incontinent House, which always seems to find something to complain about. However, we are not just complaining; we are trying to articulate the case for something we think is important.
These amendments share an important characteristic with Amendments 51 and 54, which I spoke to last week: they have the express support of Nicole Jacobs herself. These amendments, like those, are designed to enable her to hit the ground running, and to use the once-in-a-generation opportunity afforded by getting this Bill on to the statute book to put critical pieces of infrastructure and support in place as early as possible.
We all recognise that delivering accommodation-based services is not enough by itself, welcome though it is. They are essential and important, but they support, and will only ever support, a minority of domestic abuse victims and their families. It is community-based services that can interact with and support victims, with a complex interlocking range of specialist interventions. As I have discovered, it is an area rich with impenetrable—for an outsider—acronyms, such as: IDVAs—independent domestic violence advisers; YPVAs—young people violence advisers; ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers, and IRIS workers. That is nothing to do with eyesight, but stands for identification and referral to improve safety. Behind these acronyms exist a wealth of specialist knowledge and sensitive and targeted support, which, as other noble Lords have mentioned, look after the needs of 70% of domestic abuse survivors, supporting them in the community, while only the remaining 30% are looked after in refuges.
Nicole Jacobs’s plea is for the Bill to be balanced in placing equal emphasis on the provision and financing of accommodation-based and community-based services in England and Wales. Without this, she is concerned that there will be unintended consequences, as the right reverend Prelate said, and that focusing more on one area than on both will create a form of unhelpful tension or competition, or will force local authorities into making difficult and unpleasant choices. That will do nothing to help the majority of domestic abuse survivors.
The commissioner is also saying that the urgency in remedying this potential imbalance is sufficient to justify acting now, rather than waiting for the mapping exercise to be completed. Nicole Jacobs is an expert. She was appointed because she is an expert. She knows this field inside-out, and if she is saying that we are in danger of getting the balance wrong, she deserves to be listened to, and listened to seriously. Given the strains that the last 10 months have imposed on all of us but, above all, on so many families and relationships already close to breaking point, it is imperative that we act sooner rather than later.
The 70% of domestic abuse survivors and their families who are supported in the community are foremost in the commissioner’s mind. We speak for her but, most of all, we speak for them. I hope that the Minister can work with us before Report to look at this and, above all, to listen to the expert herself— Nicole Jacobs.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I speak to Amendment 176 and congratulate my noble friend Lord Polak on introducing this amendment and gathering such cross-party support for its proposal. It clearly goes further than the original amendment tabled in this area, requiring not only local authorities, but police and crime commissioners and clinical commissioning groups to ensure sufficient provision of specialist domestic abuse support services in their local areas.
At Second Reading, I spoke about the importance of our obligations under CEDAW and the Istanbul convention, and how both make clear that violence against women and girls, especially domestic abuse, is a form of discrimination against women. It is even more so if the survivors are from an ethnic minority, migrant, disabled, or identify as LGBT. As such, the Government have international obligations to work to prevent domestic violence and provide sufficient specialist services to protect survivors and prevent it happening.
As we have already heard, there is a concern that, if the most welcome duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services in the Bill is not matched by an equal statutory duty to make provision for specialist community-based services, many women, especially those who manage to stay in their home, will not receive the help that they need. It is important that as many survivors as possible are safely able to stay in their own home.
Many of the organisations working in this sector argue that the majority—around 70%—of people experiencing domestic abuse and receiving support do so via community-based services. They provide a vital lifeline, including specialist services, such as independent domestic violence advisers, who advocate on behalf of survivors, drop-in services for children, helplines and so much more. The work of such services helps combat domestic-violence-driven homelessness. They enable victims to stay near support networks, schools and jobs, wherever possible. I welcome and support the proposals in this amendment and hope that the Minister considers them favourably.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) (V)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this group of amendments, in particular Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and other noble Lords. It seeks to ensure the provision of community services for as many victims of domestic abuse as possible. Noble Lords have spoken eloquently about access to community services for children and other groups, but I want to speak briefly about the issue of access to community services for older people.
I believe that this amendment will help to ensure that services for the elderly, who have not been looked after as well as they should have been, will not face any further disadvantages in the commissioning process. I am grateful for the briefing I have received from Hourglass, a charity devoted to safer ageing and the prevention of the abuse of the elderly. The charity makes clear what we all know, which is that there has been a very low level of uptake of services by older people who are suffering domestic abuse. Sadly, we know that such abuse does not apply just to younger people and those in adult life; it is all too prevalent in older life as well, so people need access to services that are appropriate to their needs, regardless of their age.
The Bill currently sets out a duty to be placed on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services but not, as we have been discussing, community-based services. As has also been said, this can lead to a situation where the former services will be prioritised to the detriment of community-based services. This amendment will ensure a balance between them.
The fact is that older people are much more likely to access community-based services rather than refuge services. Women’s Aid has said that, from 2010 to 2017, only 2.7% of service users were over the age of 65, with 2% using community-based services and 0.7% refuge-based ones. The lower number of older people, especially men, who are accessing services mean that they need to be protected. That means ensuring proper access to community-based services. I also support the amendment seeking to extend the statutory duty beyond local authorities to police and crime commissioners and clinical commissioning groups.
I want to highlight the low level of service uptake by older people, so we must not do anything that might reduce those services or put barriers in the way of increasing access. The reasons for the low level of uptake more generally should be closely examined and more should be done to ensure that everyone can come forward and get the help and resources that are appropriate to their circumstances. The provision of properly funded community-based services is vital if all victims of domestic abuse are to be properly looked after. I believe that the amendment will go some way towards addressing that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) (V)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and to endorse what he has said about the risks of abuse in relation to older people. We have two later groups of amendments where we will be able to debate these issues, so it is important to ensure that we do not miss out or fail to take seriously enough the very real risk of older people who can be the victims of many forms of abuse. However, little attention has been paid to them in past years.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, it may be late in the evening but the passion and energy in the speeches we have heard have not dipped at all. I will speak in support of Amendment 176 and join others in sending a very strong message to the Government that decoupling accommodation-based services and community-based services by law could have a severely detrimental effect on the very people this Bill is trying to help and serve to undermine the spirit of this legislation. Others have made such eloquent speeches; I do not want to repeat them given the time of evening, but I support them wholeheartedly.
Introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide refuge services is welcome, much needed and based on the right intentions, but refuge is essential for only a small number of domestic abuse victims; far more deserve to stay in their home, as we have heard. Instead, we should remove the perpetrator who has caused the harm. Expecting adult and child victims to leave their possessions, friends, community and family to move to a hidden house with other traumatised victims cannot be the extent of our ambition in this era.
To reiterate a point that many have made in this debate and others, long-term, strategic funding must be put in place for these services. The surge we have seen in this pandemic has placed huge financial pressure on many of these organisations; we must be realistic about that. It is for this reason that many of us this evening, as well as the designate domestic abuse commissioner, are asking for reasonable measures to be put in the Bill to ensure that local authorities take steps to guarantee sufficient provision of specialist domestic abuse support services, not just in refuges but in the community.
Other noble Lords and I have had long and detailed conversations with my noble friend the Minister. I am genuinely grateful for her time and commitment. There is no sense of “the computer says no” or having a tin ear; I know she is listening and cares deeply about this issue.
I know this issue is not straightforward. If it were, the Minister would have fixed it. I back this amendment but a compromise could be made by extending the remit of local partnership boards so they could assess the need for community-based services. This remit could also be extended to reporting back to government on multi-agency working at a local level to help provide greater oversight in ensuring that local partners comply with the statutory guidance accompanying the Bill.
The very essence of this Government’s approach to domestic abuse serves to underline how much value they place on services in the community that seek to prevent and stop the cycle of abuse. The Home Secretary herself spoke about changing the narrative from “Why doesn’t she leave?” to “Why doesn’t he stop?” Community-based services are the answer to this and, if anything, they should be elevated and not downgraded. Therefore, I urge the Government to think again.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 176 and 177 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, to give my support. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the children’s charity Barnardo’s. Barnardo’s and many other charities supporting child and adult victims of domestic abuse support the changes proposed in these amendments.
Following the debate in the other place, the Government rightly amended the Bill so that it recognises that children are victims of domestic abuse and not just witnesses or bystanders. Like many others, I am grateful to see this, as it shows common sense and joined-up policy. I congratulate the Government because the impact of domestic abuse on children must not be underestimated. It is the most common reason for children to be referred to local authority children’s services and it often creates trauma—and childhood lasts a lifetime. However, we know that, with the right support, children can recover from experiences of domestic abuse and can break the cycle and go on to live positive adult lives.
The danger with the Bill as drafted is that it offers this support only to some children, notably those who are in refuges or other safe accommodation. It does not secure support for the majority of victims, including children, who remain in the family home or elsewhere in the community. This can have some very damaging consequences, so we need joined-up thinking here too.
In the current financial situation, where funds are extremely tight and will remain so for some time, resources will inevitably go to services underpinned by a statutory duty. Under the Bill as drafted, the available resources would be concentrated in refuges and safe accommodation; very little would be left for the majority of victims in the community and those who continue to live at home. This could send out the message that in order to access support, you have to flee your home along with your children. This is surely not the message we want to send to victims.
There is a further question of how domestic abuse affects different communities. Evidence from Safelives suggests that victims from black, Asian and other minority communities typically suffer domestic abuse for almost twice as long before getting help, compared with those who identify as white. Disabled victims are often less able to leave their homes, so the impact is especially significant for them too. We also know that in some communities, there is a stigma attached to leaving your home and that services are not always culturally sensitive to this or able to engage effectively with those who need support.
The other problem here is one of missed opportunity. Victims, including children, will not reach the point of support until they are beyond crisis point, which is what often happens at the moment. This means that we miss the chance to support them early, to help families stay together and live in their homes safely, and to prevent the need for costly services.
We need to remember that time is much slower for children. Every day, every week that goes by in a dangerous home without support is eating away at their childhood, causing stress, anxiety and mental problems, and the longer they suffer trauma, the longer it will take to recover. Barnardo’s knows this. This has been the harsh reality for many families during the current lockdown. For all these reasons, it is vital that we use this once-in-a-generation Bill to secure support for all victims, adults, and children especially, from all backgrounds, wherever they live. This is why I support these amendments. They will help to make sure that support is available in the community, where it is desperately needed. I have much respect for the Minister and I hope that she and the Government will show compassion, consideration and empathy in the Bill for these vulnerable, forgotten victims who suffer domestic abuse while living in their own homes or in community-based services.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Bertin. I have been a practitioner at the front-line of statutory and voluntary social work for more than 40 years. I have worked with victims and survivors of domestic violence and abuse. It is a privilege to see the Bill progressing. I am truly grateful to all noble Lords who support Amendments 101, 176 and 177.
Amendment 101 looks at the impact of economic abuse. This group of amendments is concerned with local welfare provision, including emergency financial services for victims, survivors and their children and would assist some of the most vulnerable women and children who are often left with nowhere else to go. Amendment 176 would extend the duty on local authorities to mandate specialist provision to work alongside organisations which have been working despite suffering drastic cuts. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, spoke of the 120 organisations that have written to Members in the other place. This amendment would put a statutory duty on local authorities to assess the need for community-based services on an equal footing. In my previous contribution, I highlighted, like other noble Lords, the staggering number of women who never seek refuge-based services, so I too welcome the £40 million announced by the Government. Will the Minister add £17 million so that it will be easy for these organisations to provide the relevant services?
Placing a duty on local authorities to work in partnership with long-respected organisations with specialist knowledge and skilled staff to deliver local welfare provision will be a critical component in safeguarding care and support for victims and survivors. We know that many local authorities have decimated the specialist services that for decades provided essential support and counselling for all women, including those of minority heritage who may require additional specialist services and expertise to deliver a more focused intervention arising out of their cultural, faith and linguistic requirements.
Some 8.7 million people experience economic abuse. The five-week delay in the payment of universal credit may preclude many survivors deciding to seek support. Economic sanctions and restraint by perpetrators have been powerful tools. The likely consequence is women victims and survivors holding back from seeking the help they need, so recognition of economic abuse in the Bill is welcome.
Amendment 101 would enable women to have their rightful dignity and care and would provide a necessary, immediate lifeline and relief by ensuring that all survivors can access local welfare assistance, including women victims and survivors with no recourse to public funds, who must not be excluded from safeguarding because of their immigration status. It is a great honour to support this group of amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I will speak in support of Amendments 101, 176 and 177 to this absolutely excellent Bill, which is so clearly and urgently needed.
My experience has taught me for some time that the best method of dealing with domestic abuse is to ensure that there are properly co-ordinated approaches, particularly among the specialist services, at a local or community level, underpinned by clear national powers and funds properly targeted at the right priorities. To this end, it is important not only that funds are directed at providing financial assistance to the services that protect and deal with victims in every local authority but that the local authorities and the various justice agencies work closely together to provide integrated specialist services to try to prevent domestic abuse and to deal with the consequences, particularly for the victims, including child victims. I therefore strongly support Amendments 101 and 176.
I will add a word about Amendment 177. Unfortunately, because of the way in which devolution has proceeded in Wales, there is a very complex distribution of powers. It gives rise to what is aptly described as a “jagged edge” at the interface between those services for which the Welsh Government and Senedd are responsible, such as local authorities, health boards, social care and Cafcass, and other services, such as the police, for which the Home Secretary is responsible. As set out in the report of the commission I chaired, which was published last October, a long-term solution may be to devolve justice to Wales, but that is not a subject on which I wish to say anything this evening. What is important to address in the meantime is the working together of the relevant bodies; in particular, the co-ordination of the different legislation in Wales and the different structures of government.
In the report of the Commission on Justice in Wales, we drew attention to the leadership that the Welsh Government could show in deciding to tackle this, and to the success of the subsequent legislation—the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015—and the various other initiatives taken in Wales. The Act imposed on local authorities in Wales duties to prepare and implement strategies to tackle domestic abuse and to pursue other initiatives. The commission drew attention to the collaboration between the police and the Welsh Government in addressing these and similar issues, and to the structures that existed at local government level for this. Despite that, I think that this amendment is necessary to ensure that there can be no doubt about the statutory underpinning of the current structure of devolution of these distinct services.
This Bill—here and in other places—needs to ensure that until the jagged edge is eliminated, provision is made to strengthen the interface while acknowledging distinct governmental responsibilities. Amendment 177 is therefore particularly to be welcomed. Getting the legislation right so that it addresses the jagged edge is one thing. What is important, as Welsh Women’s Aid has so eloquently stressed, is ensuring that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, and the Welsh Act are implemented in a co-ordinated manner, that the services work together and that, above all, as so many noble Lords have said, there is proper funding, for without that none of this will work. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept all these amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support all these amendments, which are very sensible and practical. I will take them in reverse order.
Getting the PCCs involved is a great idea—I am just astonished that it is not happening already. The earlier grouping considered the provision of refuges for people fleeing domestic abuse. I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle on that, but I stress the importance of seeing refuges as part of an ecosystem of services available for survivors. I have visited refuges; they do their best and, obviously, they are safe and protected. At the same time, however, it is much better for survivors to stay in their own homes if they want to. The perpetrators—the abusers—ought to be the people who get ostracised from their communities and thrown out of the family house. I do hope that this will be possible. It would need adequate provision by specialist domestic abuse services, as would be required by Amendment 176, which I strongly support.
In those situations where a person does have to leave their local area, Amendment 101, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, would ensure that they do not fall into destitution while they start piecing things back together. I was very struck by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polak. I liked his urging the Government to be bold. Quite honestly, this is a great Bill and if they were to make it really wonderful, it would look so good for the Government; let us face it, they need some good optics these days. To be bold on this and actually do something for children—to mop up the school meals mess—would look great. So, I urge the Minister—all the Ministers—to think very hard about accepting almost all the amendments, which are being put in what I would call a very helpful way, to make this very good Bill a great Bill.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 176. I am sorry, but I would also like to make a couple of points regarding the mapping exercise by the designate domestic abuse commissioner.
My noble friend the Minister said that the Government need to see the final results before they can work out how to develop proper options to support victims. While I have tremendous respect for Nicole Jacobs, this is to my mind a reasonable argument. The Government need to see the in-depth data. They cannot just rely on projections before providing the necessary provisions. However, they do not need the results of this exercise to understand the commissioner’s very real concerns that local authorities will redistribute their funding to meet the statutory duty at the expense of community-based services.
As I said at Second Reading, the duty on accommodation-based services was made with the very best of intentions, but if it sends a signal to local authorities that refuge is the easy option—we are funding it; it is easier to provide; there is a duty—we really could be creating a two-tier system. So, while I accept the need to await the final data, I would like to ask my noble friend whether the Government are looking at other options to avoid this outcome, be that by a future review of the duty now that the main commissioning bodies, including the PCCs, have said they would welcome an extension, or by a requirement for the statutory tier 1 board to include community-based services in its needs assessment and annual strategy.
Even if the statutory duty does not apply, this would recognise the fact that accommodation and community-based services need to be looked at in the round, not least because a lot of referrals to refuges come initially from community-based services. The better-performing local authorities already do this, but all too often that is because they have someone good in post. Extending the responsibilities of the board would take the responsibility away from the individual and provide a better framework around commissioning, particularly for those lesser-performing authorities—the ones which, frankly, are more likely to reach for refuge as the easier option.
Finally, if the duty cannot be extended, will the Government look at different funding options for community-based services? Today’s announcement of £40 million for specialist support services is incredibly welcome but it is still set in the context of Covid. At Second Reading, my noble friend said that the Government were developing a victim funding strategy. I realise that it may be too soon to give further detail but I hope this will look at the problems of too many one-year contracts, which mean ongoing uncertainty and less room for innovation and longer-term strategic thinking, particularly with regard to prevention and perpetrator programmes.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 176 in the name of my noble friend Lord Polak.
Extending the current statutory duty to police and crime commissioners and clinical commissioning groups is a welcome step that the Local Government Association has previously called for. There needs to be a mutual duty on a range of organisations to ensure that there is provision of emergency accommodation and community support service, and not just a duty placed on tier 1 local authorities. However, it remains my view that imposing a statutory duty on local authorities that is overly prescriptive and does not allow for local flexibility is not the best way of improving services. An improvement-led approach is the best way to provide local domestic abuse services.
The £40 million for specialist services has already been referred to, and is most welcome. However, it is not clear whether the funding made available in the government spending review will be adequate to meet the needs of all domestic abuse victims, as the allocation of funding per area is still to be announced. A statutory duty to deliver community-based services and specialist services will not be effective without a clear commitment from government to provide adequate and sufficient funding, as many speakers have said today. There is a need, long called for, for wider investment in prevention and early intervention services, community-based support and perpetrator interventions. Additional investment in these preventive services is vital.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, many important points have been made in this debate. In particular, I hope my remarks on Amendment 177 will supplement the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I was glad to hear from Jane Hutt, Deputy Minister and chief whip in the Senedd, in her letter to me of 29 January that the designate domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Nicole Jacobs, has agreed to hold regular meetings with the Welsh Government to discuss how to further improve the prevention of domestic abuse and support victims in a devolved context. The Welsh Government are a strong advocate in eradicating all forms of domestic abuse.
Sadly, calls to Wales’s national helpline, Live Fear Free, rose by nearly 50% in the first wave of the pandemic, call time trebled and callers often reported more frequent abuse with shorter escalation periods. Visits to the Live Fear Free website increased markedly too. I am glad to know that Her Majesty’s Government are working closely with the Welsh Government, because it is crucial that the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 are complementary and enable all victims of domestic abuse across England and Wales to have access to the specialist services that they need, wherever they live.
We must leave no gaps in the legislation for victims of domestic abuse to fall through. I hope the Minister can assure me that both non-devolved and devolved public sector actors can work together to ensure that our service models are aligned and that equivalent funding is allocated to support domestic abuse services in Wales.
According to Welsh Women’s Aid, even before the pandemic over 500 survivors were unable to access refuges due to lack of space, capacity and resources. Now, when many do not have access to their usual support networks, it is more important than ever that we leave no one behind. Domestic abuse survivors in Wales must be able to easily understand how the devolved and non-devolved competency areas interact and have confidence that they will have access to the services they need, when they need them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, my noble friend Lord Polak, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have spoken to one of the core aims of this Bill, which is the provision of support to victims of domestic abuse and their children and, in particular, the provision of community-based support.
I am going to start with Amendment 176, because it has been the most spoken about and most clearly addresses this objective. If there is one thing on which we are all united—the central tenet of this Bill—it is that domestic abuse victims receive the support they need. This can be seen in the new statutory duty, included in Part 4 of the Bill, to provide support to domestic abuse victims and their children within safe accommodation. However, extending the duty in Part 4 is not without its challenges, as my noble friend Lady Bertin said.
The duty as it stands applies to tier 1 local authorities in England, and as such there is no ambiguity in where responsibility and accountability lie. Amendment 176 proposes something rather wider, applying to local authorities in England, local policing bodies in England and Wales and clinical commissioning groups in England. The drafters of the amendment are to be commended for seeking to navigate the devolution settlement in Wales, and I suspect that Amendment 177 is intended to complement Amendment 176 by addressing the position in Wales.
In placing a duty across three categories of public authority, the amendment could risk creating uncertainty about where the responsibility for discharging the duty actually resides. To that extent it lacks the clarity of the Part 4 duty, although I note the provision in the new clause for conflict resolution. I do not suggest that this is an insurmountable problem with the amendment.
It is important to recognise that there are already significant community-based support services available to victims of domestic abuse and other crime. Since 2014, Ministry of Justice funding has helped police and crime commissioners to support victims of crime within their local areas, addressing the specific local needs identified within their communities. This funding totalled £68 million in 2019-20. The strong knowledge held by police and crime commissioners about demographics and crime in their local areas allows them to allocate funding to those victims in need.
Clearly, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups also have a role to play, as have others. I recognise, however, that the current commissioning landscape is complex. I understand the need to ensure that whatever arrangements are in place, they are delivering comprehensive service provision and that the needs of victims are being met. It is essential too that perpetrators are held to account for their actions and challenged to make long-term, meaningful changes to their behaviour.
However, I put it to noble Lords that Amendment 176 is putting the cart before the horse. We cannot and should not legislate before fully understanding the current landscape of provision, knowing where the gaps are, how best to fill those gaps and what it is going to cost, as my noble friend Lady Sanderson said. This is the methodical process we went through before introducing the provisions in Part 4, backed up by £125 million in new funding. We need to adopt a similar process to community-based support.
For this reason, I welcome the domestic abuse commissioner’s commitment to leading a detailed mapping exercise into the current community-based support landscape, the pilot of which has already commenced in four local authority areas. That work is due to be completed towards the end of this year. The Government are committed to addressing the findings of this review and, should we find that there is a need for legislative changes, it is right and proper that we should consult on those so we can consider the views of the affected public authorities. In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, there will be further opportunities to legislate in this area, including the upcoming victims’ law.
This exercise will do for community-based services what the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government did for accommodation-based services in significant depth before establishing the new duty in Part 4 of the Bill—I was a Minister in MHCLG when the whole process began. It held lengthy consultations with local authorities, the domestic abuse sector and victim support organisations before committing to the best course of action. Only through thorough engagement and investigation was it possible to understand whether legislative change was truly necessary and design a statutory duty that would appropriately address the needs of victims.
I recognise the concerns that the statutory duty in Part 4 may affect the existing provision of community-based services. As I have indicated, we are allocating £125 million to local authorities in 2021-22 to fund the new duty. As my noble friend Lord Polak said, the recent spending review has also secured an additional £40 million to victims of crime, including domestic abuse, in the community. Those details were announced today. This is on top of the additional funding we have provided to meet the immediate needs arising from the pandemic. I hope this provides reassurance that the Government take seriously their commitment to supporting all victims.
Of course, the argument can be made for more investment, but noble Lords will understand that we cannot make the case to the Treasury without the evidence to back it up. The commissioner’s mapping work is central to having that knowledge and understanding to enable us to make the case for more money. I know that Nicole Jacobs takes a different view, and it is an area where we will respectfully just have to agree to differ. It is her role to advise the Government and it is our clear responsibility to back up any new statutory duties with clear evidence of unmet need and a full understanding of the costs involved.
Additionally, the new domestic abuse strategy, complementing the refreshed violence against women and girls strategy, will further focus government attention on the needs of domestic abuse victims and perpetrators. Alongside this, the refresh of the national statement of expectations, due to be published later this year, will set out best practice for commissioning all violence against women and girls services. Finally, we are launching a victim funding strategy, to be published this year, to ensure that funding and commissioning practices for all victims are as effective as possible. I agree with my noble friend Lady Sanderson on the need for sustainable funding.
Amendment 101 seeks to ensure that all survivors of domestic abuse have access to a local welfare assistance scheme in any locality across England. We understand the importance of local welfare and assistance to provide an emergency safety net at times of unexpected need. Local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of the most vulnerable in their communities. That is why changes were introduced in 2013 to give local authorities the maximum flexibility to deliver emergency support as they see fit, according to local needs. The 2014 local welfare provision review found that local authorities were able to effectively target support at those who needed it most, joined up with wider social care.
The Government have provided local authorities with £131.7 million for local welfare assistance through the local government finance settlement in 2020-21. It is for local authorities to decide how best to use that funding, but in doing so they should ensure there is support for those most in need, including domestic abuse survivors.
We are committed to ensuring that people experiencing or fleeing domestic abuse have the local support they need. In particular, economic hardship should not be a barrier to someone leaving an abusive partner. In addition to local welfare support, those escaping domestic abuse can seek financial support through the welfare system.
Finally, on Amendment 177, I recognise the need for effective partnership working across the reserved-devolved demarcation line in Wales. I put it to my noble friend that the mechanisms are already in place to enable PCCs to co-operate with local authorities and health boards in Wales, including through community safety partnerships and the forthcoming new serious violence duty. While PCCs will not be subject to the serious violence duty, as with their existing functions in relation to community safety partnerships, PCCs may choose to collaborate with local partnerships and take a convening role to support the development and implementation of the local strategy.
Given these considerations, the amendments are, I suggest, premature. The Government recognise the importance of community-based services for those affected by domestic abuse. As I have said, we are committed to investigating, in collaboration with the domestic abuse commissioner, what needs to be done to ensure that victims who stay in their own home with their children are receiving the support they need. So that this work can go forward, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response, particularly on Amendment 176, for which I thank her. None the less, does she not accept that favouring accommodation-based services, as set out in Part 4, is bound to impact on local authorities’ spending decisions and make them move funding towards accommodation-based services at the expense of community-based services? How will the Government ensure that a proportion of the additional £125 million goes to community services? Will it not be possible for us to give Ministers regulation-making powers to bring in a duty on community services after the mapping exercise has been completed? That would at least give us some way to ensure that the Government have statutory provision in the light of the mapping exercise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Part 4 duty in the Bill does not preclude the provision of community-based services. I understand what the noble Lord is saying: because local authorities have the duty to provide accommodation-based services, that means they will not provide community-based services. However, I do not think it does. There is a recognition that we need to explore this further, hence we have committed the domestic abuse commissioner to doing this mapping exercise. That work clearly needs to be explored, but it is very hard to make a bid to the Treasury without knowing exactly where the gaps lie. That is not to say there are no gaps—I am sure there are— but we are just not clear on what the actual ask of the Treasury will be.
As to whether we can ensure that some of the money given to local authorities goes to community-based services, local authorities clearly know the needs of their area, and I hope that they would allocate the money accordingly.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister gave the arguments that were given when the Social Fund was replaced by local welfare assistance schemes. Can she explain how the one in seven local authorities that do not have a local welfare assistance scheme will assess and meet the needs of domestic abuse survivors through such schemes when they do not exist in their area?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very pertinent question. If those schemes do not exist, how are they going to be provided for? I will do some digging before Report and perhaps I can get back to the noble Baroness with some of the fine detail.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
I thank all noble Lords for this wide-ranging and well-informed debate. I promise not to detain noble Lords, but I sense a groundswell of support from all sides of the House and from outside the House, including from the commissioner herself, for this issue of community- based services, and concern about the unintended consequences of decoupling community-based services from accommodation-based services.
I know that the Minister is doing her absolute utmost to make this Bill the best that it can possibly be, but I do not recognise her comment that local authorities are utilising local welfare funds effectively—the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, came back on that point after the Minister’s response. The Minister raised the practicalities of implementation and asked for evidence to back this up if she is to go back to the Treasury and ask for some more money. We might well get our heads together and see if we can give it to her. That would be a great solution on all sides.
In the meantime, we will reflect carefully on what the Minister said and, of course, reserve the right to return to the issue at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.