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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am pleased to update the House that, after removing the threshold last month and allowing direct applications for any number of roles, we saw an increase of 3,000 employer applications throughout February, which is a jump of 75%. There will continue to be an important role for gateways as we progress to our ambition of 250,000 kickstart jobs, which we are well on the way to achieving, with almost 150,000 roles approved, more than 4,000 young people having started their roles and another 30,000 vacancies live right now.
Richard Fuller
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Given the large number of small and medium-sized enterprises across the county, jobcentres in Bedfordshire, including the one in Biggleswade in my constituency, are raring to go to enable small businesses to take advantage of this change in Government policy. Can she advise me what she is doing to ensure that those small businesses are aware of the scheme and its benefits?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend should be aware that we have account managers working in all parts of the country to take up this scheme. In particular, we continue to work with a wide range of organisations closely connected to SMEs, including chambers of commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses, to get the message out there and make it straightforward to apply. We should recognise that, due to eligibility criteria, not all direct applications may be successful, and the support of a gateway is likely to be beneficial. We are also enabling applications through the gateway plus model, which will particularly help sole traders, and we will continue to advertise that.
Peter Gibson [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. I welcome the removal of the 30-person threshold, which will help even the smallest firm in my constituency. Since the launch of the kickstart scheme, our phenomenal Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen has been facilitating SMEs to access it, and he has helped 350 young people sign up. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending Ben for the fantastic work he is doing to help young people in Darlington gain experience and employment?
Dr Coffey
I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend that Ben Houchen is doing a fantastic job in his role as Mayor. In case people had not realised, as well as getting Treasury North in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Darlington—a project that I am sure my hon. Friend achieved with the Mayor—Ben Houchen is leading the way on making that difference to young people’s lives, which is really important. I have also seen it work well with Andy Street and, to be fair to other Mayors, I am confident that people like Steve Rotheram and others will continue to do so.
Andrew Jones
In Harrogate and Knaresborough, we have seen great organisations such as St Michael’s Hospice with North Yorkshire Hospice Care offer 30 roles in support services, from retail to catering, care and communications. Not everywhere is fortunate enough to have such a progressive organisation, so the policy change is welcome. I was originally going to ask my right hon. Friend about the increase that she has seen from this policy change, but she has answered that. Will she keep the House informed, so that Members of Parliament can help to promote this fantastic opportunity and see more people get the opportunities that kickstart can provide?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that removing the threshold has enabled a number of institutions to apply directly to kickstart. The example he highlights was already under way, but it just shows some of the fantastic opportunities that this scheme can offer young people. By creating so many of these roles, with the wider variety of roles that we are seeing, we are reducing the risk of long-term unemployment for hundreds of thousands of young people, and we will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) [V]
Kickstart is only for young people claiming universal credit. Many disabled young people claim employment and support allowance instead. Will the Secretary of State consider extending kickstart to include disabled young people who are not eligible for it at the moment?
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that young people with disabilities can move on to universal credit, so there may be an incentive to do that, but this issue is under consideration. My hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has discussed this with me and the Minister for Employment, and we are considering it further.
Mr Speaker
I remind Members to put their masks back on if they can. I am sure that those who have not done so have a certificate, because they would not want to put the rest of us at risk.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We have made a series of improvements to the personal independence payment claimant experience following research and two independent reviews. Building on that, the forthcoming Green Paper on health and disability support is being influenced by the views of disabled people and representatives from disability organisations.
Cat Smith
I wrote to the Minister last week telling him about the work of the Morecambe Bay Poverty Truth Commission, which has empowered people who have experienced the social security system to speak truth to power and try to improve the system. Will he meet the PIP claimants in my constituency who want to tell him about their experiences?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for that question, and I would be delighted to do that. I know that she has been very proactive on a number of issues in my area over the years, and I would be delighted to have a meeting with her and her organisation to listen to their experiences.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Following the coroner’s damning prevention of future deaths report in the case of Philippa Day, who took an overdose and, sadly, passed away because of DWP and Capita failings, have the Government implemented the recommendations, and if not, when will they? As well as responding to the coroner, will the Minister keep this House updated, and do the Government not accept that, when so many people have to go through an inhumane assessment process, the system is flawed and it is time for a radical change?
Justin Tomlinson
While I cannot comment on individual cases, when we tackle any of these serious issues, we put a great amount of thought and care into doing so. That is why the Department set up the serious case panel, personally led by the Secretary of State, to look at the themes and to make sure, if there are any lessons that need to be learned, they are shared with the key decision makers quickly, and that we improve our support and our services for some of the most vulnerable people in society. It is a real priority for our Department.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
As part of our estates expansion and renewal programme, the DWP by summer will have rapidly increased the number of Jobcentre Plus sites, placing them in new locations where they are needed. This will ensure that we bolster our face-to-face support in a covid-safe environment for both our claimants and our additional 13,500 new work coaches. As Members will appreciate, negotiations on some sites are ongoing, and I will update the House further when appropriate to do so. Meanwhile, MPs with a new site opening in their constituency are being notified.
Rob Butler [V]
Sadly, the pandemic has meant that many people in my constituency of Aylesbury have lost their job and, for the first time in decades, find themselves looking for work. How can my hon. Friend ensure that the Jobcentre Plus estate and its staff are equipped to help jobseekers who are in their 50s and 60s, who have paid their taxes and their national insurance for their whole working lives and now need bespoke personal assistance to find a new job and continue to contribute to the economy?
Mims Davies
We are supporting people of all ages back into work in Aylesbury and beyond. The DWP has a network of 50-plus champions throughout our JCPs. These champions work with work coaches and stakeholders to focus help and support for the over-50s, highlighting the benefits of employing them and sharing best practice. Our plan for jobs provides new funding to ensure that everyone, including those 50 and over, get tailored support to build on their skills and move into work.
Selaine Saxby [V]
Many businesses in remote rural communities, as in North Devon, are a long way from a Jobcentre Plus, and therefore would not usually use the jobcentre to advertise vacancies, particularly given poor public transport. What assurances can my hon. Friend give that rural businesses will be actively engaged by Jobcentre Plus, as it is especially important that young people looking for work in such rural communities are able to access local jobs through the kickstart scheme?
Mims Davies
Our JCPs are engaged with local recovery plans, including in rural areas. They are essential to help people of all ages into work and help all communities to thrive. In North Devon, the DWP is funding the youth flow partnership with local businesses and the chambers of commerce to help young people engage with opportunities such as kickstart. I was delighted to join my hon. Friend at her recent event with local businesses in her community to discuss kickstart and how we can tailor those opportunities for every area.
Matt Vickers
In January, the DWP confirmed the lease had been signed on a new Jobcentre Plus in Stockton South. Can the Minister confirm how many work coaches are due to work at the new site and how they will be helping my constituents in Stockton South?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend will now be aware that we have signed a lease on a new jobcentre in Stockton’s Dunedin House. I am pleased to report that work is now under way on opening to support claimants, which is due by the end of this month. A total of 49 new work coaches have been recruited in my hon. Friend’s constituency to help local jobseekers, and 20 will be based in the new site, along with some of our more experienced work coaches and leadership, to ensure the sharing of best practice and helping people in Stockton to progress.
Tim Loughton [V]
May I pay tribute to Worthing jobcentre, which has been very proactive in dealing with new benefit claimants and will have a lot of extra work, alas, with people who find themselves out of a job because of the pandemic.
Work coaches offer important support to a diverse range of claimants, but self-employed claimants can really benefit from the wisdom of someone who has direct experience of setting up their own business, so what specialist support will be available to UC claimants looking to boost their incomes through self-employment in the future?
Mims Davies
DWP work coaches can refer claimants interested in moving into self-employment to our new enterprise allowance programme, and to other sources of local business advice and support as appropriate. The new enterprise allowance offers participants the important opportunity to develop that business, as my hon. Friend points out, to make that business plan and receive more than a year’s support from a business mentor to make a success of it, in Worthing and beyond.
Antony Higginbotham
May I start by thanking all the staff at Burnley jobcentre, who are doing an amazing job in supporting people day and night?
As a result of the pandemic, unemployment is increasing in Burnley, impacting on those who find themselves out of work for the first time as well as young people looking to enter the world of work. What steps is the Department taking to support people in Burnley who find themselves in that situation?
Mims Davies
Alongside our plan for jobs, Burnley JCP recently held a virtual careers event for jobseekers, which I know my hon. Friend was brilliantly a part of. In Cumbria and Lancashire we have recruited almost 400 extra work coaches to assist customers, with a further 90 due to join in the next three months. We have also set up a DWP youth hub in partnership with Burnley Borough Council and Calico, and we are working with local employers to provide local kickstart placements such as with the East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust and Stanley Black and Decker.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We stopped regular assessments for people with severe conditions for work capability assessment and personal independence payment claimants with the highest level of needs which will not improve. We are continuing to remove pensioners on PIP on to ongoing awards at their award review, and the upcoming health and disability Green Paper will consult on further improvements to the assessment process.
Karl MᶜCartney
As we move towards the end of this difficult period, what lessons can be taken forward regarding the simplification of the benefit process for those in my constituency and across the nation with confirmed severe conditions?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend raises an important point. One lesson we can take from these unprecedented times is to look to extend the principle of the severe conditions criteria and, where possible, use clear evidence to remove unnecessary assessments. We will explore that further, working with disabled people and health and disability charities, in the upcoming health and disability Green Paper.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department is committed to delivering an improved benefit system for claimants nearing the end of their lives, and we are working across government to bring forward changes.
Christina Rees [V]
Will the Minister urgently correct the anomaly whereby someone with a severe condition eligible for an ongoing award under the normal rules has a light-touch review after 10 years, but someone with a terminal illness such as motor neurone disease has to reapply after three years under the special rules or risk having their benefits stopped?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point, referring to someone who qualifies under special rules for terminal illness normally having an award for three years. The point was raised during the review of changing the rules around special rules; we are considering it and I welcome its having been raised.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Since the start of the pandemic, our priority as a Government has been to protect lives and people’s livelihoods. That is why we are continuing to give our support, extending the temporary £20 a week increase in universal credit for a further six months, taking it well beyond the end of this national lockdown. I should point out to the House that total welfare spending in Great Britain for 2020-21 now stands at an estimated £238 billion, 11.4% of GDP. Alongside that, the Budget confirmed the ongoing measures that we will be taking as part of our plan for jobs, including the expected starting of the restart programme, particularly focused on long-term unemployed, before the summer recess.
Marion Fellows [V]
The Budget was a kick in the teeth for people claiming legacy benefits, who have been unjustly denied the extra £20 per week in support since last March. The SNP has pressed UK Ministers on this countless times. Will the Secretary of State now answer a simple yes or no question? Yes or no—did she ask the Chancellor to extend the £20 uplift to legacy benefits in the Budget?
Dr Coffey
Discussions between Ministers are normally confidential, but the answer is no, the reason being that we have a process that was put in place as a temporary measure relating to covid. The rationale for that was set out last year. I encourage the hon. Lady to genuinely consider encouraging people who are still on legacy benefits to go to independent benefits calculators to see whether they would automatically be better off under universal credit. Universal credit has been a huge success during the last 12 months—if not the years before that, but it has particularly shown its worth—and I genuinely encourage people to really consider whether they would be financially better off moving benefits now rather than waiting, potentially, to be managed-migrated in the next few years.
Peter Grant [V]
I think the Minister has possibly given the game away there by linking an explanation of her refusal to ask for an uplift to legacy benefits to an attempt to pressurise my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) into pushing her constituents to move from a useless system of legacy benefits to an equally useless system of universal credit.
Does the Secretary of State not accept that the fact that universal credit had to be increased by £20 a week as soon as lockdown was imposed is a clear indication that the underlying rate of payment of universal credit is not adequate for people to live on? I defy anyone on the Conservative Benches to live on universal credit for more than a few weeks, never mind two to three years. Will the Secretary of State now accept that the underlying rate of universal credit is utterly inadequate and that the £20 uplift, as a minimum, should be made permanent with immediate effect?
Dr Coffey
No, I do not accept that, and I want to be clear. It has been explained to the House in multiple ways over the past year why that decision, which the Chancellor announced last year, was taken at the time. Let us be straight about this: universal credit is working and will continue to work. It worries me how many Members of Parliament criticise universal credit when it is clearly working. It has done what it was designed to do. For those people who have had their hours reduced, universal credit has kicked in and the payments have gone up. Frankly, unlike in the last recession, in 2008, when the Labour party did nothing to help with some of the financial instability that people were going through, I am very proud of what we have undertaken by investing over £7 billion extra in the welfare system in this last year.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Pensioners who have worked hard their whole lives have seen their life savings disappear after becoming the victims of some truly dreadful scams, which have happened both online and on the telephone. The Government say they want to protect the interests of savers. However, there is mounting evidence that they are failing to act sufficiently to curb some appalling abuses, and this was not mentioned in the Budget. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House just how these dreadful scams have happened, and will she commit to taking further action? She is taking action against scams on the phone; will she now also commit to taking action against scams online?
Dr Coffey
We have just passed the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and aspects of scams were considered in that legislative process, so the suggestion that somehow we are not doing things to tackle scams is far from the case. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the Budget of the ongoing support that we continue for pensioners in honouring our triple lock.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In extending the £20 uplift of universal credit, albeit for only six months, the British Government are clearly conceding that without the £20 uplift, universal credit is insufficient to meet people’s needs. I want to take the Secretary of State back to a point she made to my hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). She said that claimants should move from the legacy system to universal credit. Will she stand up at the Dispatch Box and make it crystal clear that for some people that will mean being worse off, particularly when the £20 universal credit uplift is taken away? Can she clarify why she thinks that disabled people, for example, have lower bills as a result of the pandemic and why they were not worthy of the £20 uplift?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Member should be clear about what I did say. I encouraged people who were on legacy benefits to get an independent assessment, which is available through a number of organisations and online calculators, rather than wait to be managed across to universal credit. It is really important that MPs encourage their constituents to consider the ways they could be financially better off, rather than waiting for the Government to go through quite an arduous process during the next few years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We do not collect information about individuals’ rent accounts. For universal credit claimants with rent arrears, alternative payment arrangements and support with budgeting are available. In 2020-21, we are projected to spend almost £30 billion on housing benefit and the housing element of universal credit to support people with their housing costs.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The evidence produced by the National Residential Landlords Association and a lot of housing charities demonstrates that rent arrears are growing and growing very fast such that they will probably never be repaid. What action will my hon. Friend take to ensure that rent arrears are eliminated and further assistance is provided to people who genuinely cannot afford to pay their rent?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a strong advocate on these issues. As I say, managed payment to a landlord is available where universal credit claimants are unable to manage monthly payments and are at risk of financial harm. That can be requested by the tenant, landlord or work coach. Our relatively new online tool makes it easier for landlords to request a managed payment to landlords. UC also enables a landlord to request recovery of rent when a UC claimant is in arrears or once a tenancy reaches two months’ rent arrears. I agree to some extent with my hon. Friend. Rent arrears concern me too and we continue to monitor the situation very closely.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
Of the 1.3 million universal credit households who are claiming housing support for their properties in the private rented sector—that is, the people who are most at risk of homelessness as a consequence of rent arrears—in more than 700,000 cases, so more than half, there is a shortfall between the rent being charged and the help available. That number has grown by a quarter of a million since the start of the pandemic. With housing support being cut again in the Budget, will the Minister answer this one question? Will that number have gone up or fallen during the remainder of 2021?
Will Quince
We increased the local housing allowance rates in April 2020. We invested nearly £1 billion in LHA, lifting rates to the 30th percentile, giving an average increase of £600 more housing support per year than would otherwise have been received. For 2021-22, all LHA rates will be maintained at the increased level, ensuring that claimants continue to benefit from the increase. For those who require additional support, £140 million of discretionary housing payments are available next year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The latest official statistics from the Office for National Statistics show the UK employment rate is at 75%. The package of support put in place by this Government, including the furlough scheme, has protected many jobs during the pandemic, but there have been difficult times for many. Meanwhile, in the Budget we announced that the furlough scheme has been extended to the end of September.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
Unemployment has not really been a major issue in Cambridgeshire for some years, but with over 8,000 people furloughed in the city of Cambridge and 300 jobs in Chatteris lost recently, there is now real fear. Cambridge City Council is appointing an economic recovery officer, but overall where is the plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough? Where is the strategy to secure quality jobs in future?
Mims Davies
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that we work with the local recovery plans and that we have a plan for jobs in Cambridge and beyond, so there is positive news in his constituency. We are doing our sector-based work academy programmes in construction, warehousing and care. We are working with our new job finding support service with the Papworth Trust. We are engaging with local companies on kickstart—indeed, we are working with Addenbrooke’s and a bunch of other local companies—and we have recruited 50 new work coaches for the Cambridge jobcentre since March, with 18 more to come, making an extra 68 to help in his constituency with that local recovery plan.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
In June, the Prime Minister promised an opportunity guarantee for every young person. With 800,000 young people now not in education, employment or training, and only 4,000 kickstart placements to date, the Minister recently told the Work and Pensions Committee, “Watch this space”, and that details on the guarantee would land at the Budget. If the Prime Minister announced it and she supports it, did the Chancellor not get the memo or has the Treasury once again blocked support where it is needed? Can the Government not get their act together on a jobs promise such as the one Labour has proposed so that young people out of work or training at six months get the opportunities that they need?
Mims Davies
I know the hon. Lady is committed to opportunities for young people, as am I, and our plan for jobs has multiple interventions: the £2 billion kickstart scheme, job finding support, JETS—job entry targeted support—the 13,500 new work coaches, our £150 million boost to the flexible support fund, and restart coming this summer. I assure her that our focus on youth continues. In her constituency, 17 employers are engaging with kickstart for young people, with 77 vacancies available and 11 starts. Of course, 140,000 opportunities are coming through the system now and I continue to have this focus on youth employment, as she rightly points out that we should, and I will continue to work across Government to highlight that.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We introduced legislation on 16 November so that monthly earnings can be reallocated to another assessment period, meaning that claimants affected by this issue will therefore have one salary payment taken into account in each assessment period. We have also produced guidance to help to ensure that claimants, staff and representatives are aware of different earning patterns and the impact on universal credit payment cycles.
Matt Western
People such as Mr B in my constituency and across the country have been forced to survive with little to no support, all because of an error through the Minister’s Department. Worse still, the pain has been prolonged by pursuing this through the courts. Will the Minister do the right thing and properly recompense those affected, such as Mr B, who suffered as a result of utilities being cut off and consequent costs as a result? And will the Minister meet me to discuss that specific case?
Will Quince
Of course, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that individual case, and I am very sorry to hear of those circumstances. However, the Court of Appeal judgment was very specific and was limited to double earnings for those paid calendar-monthly caused by a non-banking day salary shift. We have chosen to go further and include all the monthly-paid who are affected by double earnings, but the judgment did not require the Department to apply the new arrangements retrospectively.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Northern Ireland Executive will be running the job start scheme to support young people to progress. Similar to the kickstart scheme available in England, Scotland and Wales, it is also focused on helping young people most at risk of long-term unemployment. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the DWP has been in regular contact with colleagues in Northern Ireland to discuss the development of the job start scheme and share progress and insight on the kickstart scheme.
Ian Paisley [V]
The Minister is absolutely right that the kickstart scheme is a wonderful, innovative scheme, which should be applied to Northern Ireland, but it has not yet been rolled out there. I wonder whether the Minister will be honest with us and tell us whether that is the fault of the UK Government or the fault of the local Communities Minister, who has been allocated the money but has not yet applied it to the scheme? Will the hon. Lady encourage her to get on with applying this scheme to Northern Ireland in the next telephone call that she has with the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Northern Ireland received Barnett consequentials to support the job start scheme, and our officials have been talking. The money is not ring-fenced, and I am keen to see all young people access this type of scheme across the United Kingdom so that they can get the support they need to progress. Should anybody need further support to make this happen in Northern Ireland, our officials continue to stand ready to see it start.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
We have injected over £7 billion into our welfare system, including increasing the universal credit standard allowance for a further six months until September, providing claimants with an additional £1,560-worth of support over 18 months. We are extending the minimum income floor relaxation to July 2021 for all self-employed UC claimants affected by the economic impact of covid-19, and we are increasing the number of work coaches by 13,500 this financial year.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Universal credit has helped millions of people during covid, including thousands in Hastings and Rye. It is one of the positive news stories to come out of the pandemic, but it is clear that many universal credit claimants need ongoing support tailored to their specific circumstances. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to deliver a strengthened universal credit support service that meets the needs of claimants and ensures a consistent and streamlined service for claimants, not just in Hastings and Rye, but across the country?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is a strong advocate for her constituents in Hastings and Rye. Since April 2019, and throughout the covid pandemic, we have provided funding to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland to deliver Help to Claim, which gives specific and targeted support for those people needing additional support to successfully make a universal credit claim. I am pleased to say that we will be funding that support for a further 12 months.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government have delivered an unprecedented package of support during the pandemic. Where eligible, financial support for those self-isolating in line with Government guidance includes access to employment and support allowance, universal credit, statutory sick pay and the test and trace support payments scheme, depending on individual circumstances.
Catherine West
The scientists on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies have said that many people are still not self-isolating for financial reasons. What assessment has the Department made of the means-testing involved in the £500 payment? Does the Minister not agree that this should go, and that everybody should be eligible for that £500 payment, because we cannot allow a stop-start recovery as we come out of lockdown? Secondly, does he agree that statutory sick pay is pathetically low for those jobs that are eligible for it, and that there are far too many jobs where people do not even get basic statutory sick pay?
Justin Tomlinson
While the £500 test and trace scheme payment is rightly targeted at those most in need, we have also provided local authorities with £35 million for discretionary payments, and we will continue to provide local authorities with a further £20 million per month while this scheme carries on. The rate of statutory sick pay should not be looked at in isolation because, depending on eligibility, people may also be able to claim universal credit or new-style employment and support allowance, and the majority of employers pay more than the statutory minimum.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Throughout the pandemic we have ensured that disability benefits remain open and we are committed to ensuring that claimants receive a high-quality, consistent and efficient service. We continue to complete paper-based assessments where possible and are now carrying out telephone assessments alongside a trial for video assessments.
Zarah Sultana [V]
The outsourcing of assessments for employment and support allowance and personal independence payments to companies such as Capita has been a travesty. Constituents tell me how they have been signed off work by their GP, only for non-specialist Capita assessors to refuse their claims. When they appeal, they are forced to wait absurd lengths of time for the decision, which causes severe financial hardship. Coventry Law Centre, which deals with the majority of appeals in the city, has found that a staggering 90% of appeals are successful. This pandemic has shown that things can be done differently, so will the Minister take this opportunity to scrap these cruel assessments, kick out outsourcing companies such as Capita and bring in a framework that treats disabled people with dignity and respect.
Justin Tomlinson
We have increased, in real terms, by £3 billion the support provided to those with disabilities and health conditions, through disability benefits. All of our assessors have at least two years’ experience and extensive training. The Department monitors closely the quality—this is carried out independently—and 92% of claimants have found their experience either satisfactory or better.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
In April 2020, legacy benefits were increased by £600 million, and they will increase by a further £100 million as part of the Government’s annual uprating exercise. Support is also available for legacy claimants migrating across to universal credit. Since July 2020, a two-week run-on of housing benefit, income support and income-related employment and support allowance and income-based jobseeker’s allowance is paid to eligible claimants to provide additional support to move to UC.
Kate Osamor [V]
Nearly 2 million sick and disabled people claiming ESA have missed out on £1,000 this year, at a time when they are facing increased costs. The Minister will know that for many of them a transition on to UC would see them significantly worse off. Will he review the Chancellor’s decision to continue to discriminate against those disabled people on legacy benefits? Almost a year into the crisis, what possible justification is there for this two-tier system?
Will Quince
The temporary UC standard allowance uplift was introduced to support those facing the most financial disruption due to the pandemic. Legacy benefits were uprated by CPI—the consumer prices index—last year and will be uprated again by CPI as part of the annual uprating exercise. Claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for UC if they believe they will be better off. I encourage anybody to go on gov.uk and use one of the independent benefit calculators to check carefully their eligibility, because on applying for UC their entitlement to legacy benefit will cease.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Disabled people and their carers have access to the full range of social security benefits according to their circumstances. DWP Ministers and officials regularly discuss support for disabled people and carers with their counterparts across government, and recognise and value the vital contribution made by carers in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer. A recent survey of disabled people conducted by Inclusion London, a disability organisation based in my constituency, found that more than one in three disabled people had experienced a worsening financial situation during the lockdown, and recent research by Citizens Advice found that one in four disabled employees has faced redundancy since the pandemic started. We know that even before this pandemic, disabled people faced an employment gap of nearly 30% when compared with non-disabled workers. Will the Government commit to using the upcoming national disability strategy to bring forward comprehensive proposals to address the chronic employment insecurity that disabled people face in the wake of covid-19?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important point about disability employment. The Government are very proud that we delivered record disability employment—it is up 1.4 million since 2014 alone. Even during these unprecedented challenging times, over the past 12 months 25,000 more disabled people are in work. But we recognise that there will be challenges going forward, which is why we have made changes to Access to Work so that people can get support working at home; we have increased our support through Disability Confident, sharing best practice and providing resources to employers to be able to make changes, often small ones, to take advantage of the huge talent pool available. This is a key area, and in both the forthcoming national strategy for disabled people and the health and disability Green Paper we will continue to look at ways in which we can support employers to offer more opportunities for disabled people of all ages.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government are committed to providing support to help young people move into work and avoid the scarring effects of long-term unemployment as we recover from the pandemic. The £30 billion plan for jobs includes new youth hubs and specific interventions targeted at young people. Our DWP youth offer and the kickstart programme are designed to move young people towards meaningful and sustained employment opportunities.
Rushanara Ali [V]
Happy International Women’s Day, Mr Speaker.
Last year, youth unemployment went up by 420,000, reaching 600,000, and it is set to reach 1 million, yet the Government’s kickstart programme has got only 4,000 young people into work, despite employers providing placements. Will the Minister explain by what date her Department’s own target of 200,000 placements will be met?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: we are converting more than 140,000 job placements into starts and 30,000 jobs are currently being advertised. In her area, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets has approval for more than 500 kickstart opportunities in a variety of sectors across the borough. A virtual youth hub is also operating in Tower Hamlets to support people and we hope it will move to face-to-face contact shortly. There are 119 new work coaches in Hoxton and a new temporary Jobcentre Plus is opening in Leman Street in Tower Hamlets in April. We take youth unemployment incredibly seriously. As we move into recovery, we will make sure that young people take up roles and move into work safely, to get those kickstart opportunities going.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Minister for Pensions updated the House last week through a written ministerial statement on category pensions and the comprehensive correction exercise that we are undertaking. I am concerned by some of the ongoing accusations and assertions being made about how we are addressing the issue. I am very grateful to Sir Steven Webb for bringing his concerns to our attention last year, but it will not be lost on the House that he was Minister for Pensions from 2010 to 2015—indeed, he was a shadow Minister beforehand—when the issue was neither noticed nor tackled, including when the comprehensive reform of the pension system was under way.
I recognise that Ministers should expect the administration of pensions, however complex, to be undertaken accurately. I commend the Minister for Pensions, who is putting his shoulder to the wheel to put right this historical error. The House should be conscious that, when we became aware of the problem, we undertook a comprehensive investigation into its extent, which showed that the issue dated back many years and at a larger scale. We are now undertaking detailed, thorough processes for individual assessments that will take some time, but we will contact people whose payments should have been updated and they will receive any arrears.
James Daly [V]
As covid-19 restrictions are hopefully relaxed over the coming months, will my right hon. Friend support the establishment of a bricks-and-mortar youth hub in Bury, to offer invaluable support to all young people in my local area and build on the current virtual provision?
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The economic forecasts that accompanied last week’s Budget painted a challenging picture for the Department for Work and Pensions over the next few years. Forecasts are not always correct but, if those are, we face a period of low growth and high unemployment. Based on what the Chancellor said about unemployment peaking at 6.5%, what would be the shortfall between the total number of young people out of work for more than six months and the maximum number of places available on the kickstart scheme?
Dr Coffey
I do not have that assessment to hand. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility significantly reduced its forecast in respect of the impact on unemployment, in recognition of the excellent provisions already made by the Government in the past few months and the ongoing measures set out in the Budget. We made a commitment to aim for a quarter of a million kickstart jobs to be in place by the end of this calendar year; we are well on track to doing that. We should recognise that kickstart is designed for those people who are furthest from the labour market. We will continue to use our excellent jobs army of work coaches, of whom we will have nearly 13,500 extra by the end this month, to help young people to get into work.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. I appreciate that that might not be information that she has to hand. Perhaps she could write to me with the specific figure because matching the scale of the challenge is surely what we all want to see.
In the Budget, the Government also chose to align the end of furlough, the end of the self-employment support scheme and the end of the universal credit uplift, so they all now come to an end on 1 October. She knows that we believe that the uplift should stay in place until we can replace universal credit with a better, fairer system, which, by the way, would be one where people are not worse off if they move on to it from the legacy system. Given that we all expect the end of furlough to at least have some impact on unemployment, would it not have made sense even to this Government to keep the uplift in place to at least help absorb the end of the furlough scheme? As it stands, just when people will again really need it, out-of-work support will be reduced to the lowest level in 30 years.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question about why these have all been taken in parallel. I think that it is to give certainty and direction to the country and to employers, particularly when it comes to the operation of the furlough scheme. As I have said before, this is really the time for those employers to get their workers ready again to go back into work, ideally sooner than before the end of September. Thinking about the temporary £20 uplift that was applied to universal credit, I think it is also fair to say that that is not the only way that we have supported people on benefits in the last year. There are also things such as the increase in the local housing allowance rate, which is on a permanent setting in cash terms. Those are the sort of other measures that we have taken, including to help some people on low incomes with the cost of living.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the Child Maintenance Service in what we are trying to do to make sure that children have income coming ideally from both parents during their upbringing and to give them support. My noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scot is actively working on ways to potentially improve aspects of the running of the Child Maintenance Service, which I am sure is something that the whole House will want her to continue to do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Due to continued British Government inaction, more than 126,000 UK pensioners living in Canada have seen their state pension fall in real value year on year, with average payments as low as £46 a week. In November, the Government of Canada wrote to the British Government offering a reciprocal social security agreement. Has the UK responded to that letter and, if not, what message does the Secretary of State think it sends from global Britain of its attitude to UK pensioners who live in poverty overseas?
Dr Coffey
I have not yet responded to that letter—I understand that officials will be responding to the embassy —partly because, and some of the aspects of this have been raised, I wanted to explore some of what our policies—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene and I am trying to give him an answer. [Interruption.] I think I have probably said enough as he does not want to hear the answer.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We welcome the involvement of all employers of all sizes in all sectors in the kickstart scheme. We have made it even easier to bring in small employers and sole traders by developing an important kickstart gateway-plus model to accommodate their specific needs. They can apply through an approved gateway-plus organisation that can provide a suitable pay-as-you-earn scheme process for young people on placements with them. With regard to working on agriculture, I am engaged with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers on this and we are focused on supporting all sectors that need labour. There is a covid economy and growing jobs in some sectors and we are keen to support them.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Member for this question. While there were delays to the review because of covid, we are committed to the three themes that have come out of the review: raising awareness, improving consistency and changing the six-month rule. I thank all the health and disability organisations and charities that have helped to support that review. I am committed to going further to explore extending the principle of the severe conditions criteria to remove unnecessary assessments as well as changing the six-month rule.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We understand how vital this support is to families who have suffered the loss of a loved one. We intend to take forward a remedial order to remove the incompatibilities from the legislation governing widowed parents allowance and bereavement support payment by extending those benefits to unmarried cohabiting couples with children. The order will be laid before the House in due course.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the over 15,000 individuals and organisations who have already responded to the national strategy pre-consultation. However, this is only part of our extensive stakeholder engagement ahead of the forthcoming national strategy for disabled people. I have also written to all MPs of all parties to say that I am keen for them to host events either with me or with senior officials, depending on parliamentary business, to get more real lived experience, whether from individual disabled people, organisations or charities. I would be very happy if the hon. Member would agree to do one of those on behalf of her constituency.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise the work coaches at his Jobcentre Plus, who are exactly the people who will help prepare people to get those opportunities as and when they arise. I was particularly pleased with the initiative of freeports, recognising not only the one that will help people in his constituency but the one—freeport east—that will benefit people in mine.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. If the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) had not tried to intervene on me, perhaps I could have given the fuller answer that I intend to give now.
It is my intention that the Department will respond to the Canadian embassy on this matter. My hon. Friend will know that UK state pensions are payable worldwide and there is often a reciprocal arrangement in place where that is a legal requirement. For the last 70 years, it has not been the policy to initiate new agreements. However, I understand the points that he and other Members have made in their representations and we will continue to consider the matter carefully.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
Yes, I would be happy to host such a meeting. I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing track record of raising very important issues in this area.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Mims Davies
I echo my hon. Friend’s words and those of other Members who have praised the very hard work of all our DWP staff, especially of course in Bolton and Leigh. They include an additional new 41 work coaches recruited for jobcentres that serve my hon. Friend’s constituency. Thanks to their efforts, the kickstart scheme has so far seen the development of more than 300 roles across more than 50 employers in the Bolton and Prestwich area.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issues that constituents face. I encourage him to engage directly with my noble Friend Baroness Stedman-Scott, who runs surgeries for MPs. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I encourage my hon. Friend to recognise that we are looking into this issue and that we will continue to try to make progress to ensure that children get the money to which they are entitled.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman used the word “her”. I do not know if he is trying to suggest that I am corrupt in any way. That is not something that I would normally associate with him. However, just to be clear, I am very pleased to be working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on what we are doing about the initial element of the community fund, following into the UK shared prosperity fund. In that, the DWP will be particularly involved in making assessments for programmes that are targeted at helping those who are furthest from the labour market and not necessarily on benefits today. We want to try to ensure that as many people as possible get the opportunity to work and to take that follow-up to help UK plc’s productivity.
Mr Speaker
I just want to reassure the Secretary of State that that was never the intention of the question.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
Justin Tomlinson
Although the vast majority of people who access their benefits get the outcome they were hoping for, we recognise the need for continuous improvements, which we make working hand in hand with health and disability charities, organisation users and frontline staff. In the forthcoming health and disability Green Paper, we will look at the specific themes of evidence, advocacy, assessment and the appeals system to ensure we continue to deliver those improvements.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
NHS Staff Pay
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the Department of Health and Social Care’s recommendations on NHS staff pay.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
This pandemic has asked so much of our health and care system. The whole country recognises how our NHS workforce have performed with distinction and gone the extra mile throughout this crisis, which has also had a huge impact on our economy. It has been and still is a tough time for businesses and all those who work in them.
As hon. Members will be aware, most of the public sector is having a pay freeze. However, even against that backdrop, we will continue to provide pay rises for NHS workers, as the Chancellor set out at the spending review. This follows a multi-year pay deal, which over a million NHS staff have benefited from and which includes a pay rise of over 12% for newly qualified nurses. We are also ramping up our investment in our NHS, with a £6.2 billion increase for 2021-22, as part of our £34 billion commitment by 2024-25, and £3 billion for supporting recovery and reducing waiting lists. As part of that, we are increasing the number of staff in the NHS, with over 6,500 more doctors, almost 10,600 more nurses, and over 18,700 more health support workers in the NHS now than a year ago. We are also on track to have 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by the end of the Parliament.
Last week, we submitted our evidence to the NHS pay review bodies, which are independent advisory bodies made up of industry experts. Their recommendations are based on an assessment of evidence from a range of stakeholders, including trade unions. They will report their recommendations in late spring, and we will carefully consider their recommendations when we receive them.
I can assure the House that we are committed to the NHS and to the amazing people who work in it. Just as they have been so vital throughout this pandemic, they will continue to be the very essence of our health service, together with all those who work in social care, as we come through this pandemic and build a health and care system for the future.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Minister, but where is the Secretary of State? Why is the Secretary of State not here to defend a Budget that puts up tax for hard-working families and cuts pay for hard-working nurses? The Secretary of State has stood at that Dispatch Box repeatedly, waxing lyrical, describing NHS staff as heroes, saying they are the very best of us, and now he is cutting nurses’ pay.
Last summer, when asked by Andrew Marr if nurses deserved a real-terms pay rise, the Secretary of State replied:
“Well, of course I want to see people properly rewarded, absolutely.”
Yet now he is cutting nurses’ pay.
Last year, the Secretary of State brought to this House legislation to put into law the NHS long-term plan. He said from that Dispatch Box that his legislation represented
“certainty for the NHS about a minimum funding level over the next four years and certainty for the 1.4 million colleagues who work in our health service”.—[Official Report, 27 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 571.]
That long-term plan was based on a 2.1% pay increase for all NHS staff. Every Tory MP voted for it, the Minister voted for it, and now every Tory MP is cutting nurses’ pay.
The Minister talked about the Budget. Where is the Chancellor? Where are his glossy tweets? Where is his video? Why did he not mention in the Budget that he was cutting nurses’ pay? Why did he sneak it out the day before in the small print?
This is happening at a time when our NHS staff are more pressured than ever before. In the midst of the biggest health crisis for a century, when there are 100,000 shortages, what does the Minister think cutting the pay of NHS staff will do the vacancy rates? Perhaps she can tell us.
The Minister talked about the pay review body, but she did not guarantee that the Government will implement any real-terms pay rise that the pay review body recommends. Why is that? It is because Ministers have already made up their minds to cut, in real terms, NHS pay in a pandemic. Our NHS staff deserve so much better. If this Government do not deliver a pay rise, it shows once again that you simply can’t trust the Tories with the NHS.
Helen Whately
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his welcome. As it is International Women’s Day, it is a shame that he does not have a female colleague by his side at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we just need to get back into reality. I do not think we need the personal slights. The shadow Secretary of State is entitled to ask for an urgent question and I have granted it, so you are questioning me, not the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately
My apologies, Mr Speaker.
I do not think that we should play politics with these very serious questions as we come through a pandemic that has hit us and the world so hard, when people have lost their lives, people have lost their jobs, and we as a Government have had to spend so much to support the economy, individuals and, indeed, the NHS. I have been speaking to staff on the frontline of health and social care throughout this pandemic, and I and the Government are grateful to them and thank them from the bottom of our hearts for what they have done and are still doing. While so much of the public sector is having a pay freeze, NHS staff will get a pay rise.
In these difficult times, the Government have submitted their evidence to the pay review bodies and, as I said in my opening statement, they will report back to us. They will look at a wide range of evidence, including, for instance, evidence from trade unions, inflation, and the wider situation with the economy and pay levels, and we will of course look at their recommendations carefully.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the vote that we had on the NHS Funding Act and, yes, we absolutely did vote for it. We are fulfilling our commitment to record investment in the NHS—£34 billion more. He also referred to the long-term plan and, although not something we voted on, the 2.1% increase within it will be invested in the NHS workforce this year. That will include not only these pay rises, but pay progression and further investment in the NHS workforce.
We will continue to invest in more doctors and more nurses for the NHS, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that. We will continue to support the recovery of our economy and restore our public finances, so that we can fund our NHS not just through the pandemic, but into the future.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
The long-term plan budgeted for a 2.1% increase in salaries, which has now gone down to 1%, but an even bigger gap in last week’s Budget was identified by the Office for Budget Responsibility as a lack of funding from next year for annual covid vaccinations, for Test and Trace, for long covid and for millions of catch-up operations delayed by the pandemic. What discussions has the Health Secretary had with the Chancellor about that gap in funding, and where will that money come from?
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He mentions the 2.1% increase within the long-term plan. That figure covers not only this pay rise for the NHS workforce, but the pay deals that have been agreed for staff in other multi-year pay deals, pay progression, and other investment in the workforce. As for his question on funding for the broader extra covid costs, that is not in the main NHS budget. Just as we had £63 billion invested in those costs throughout this year, there is an extra £22 billion set aside for covid costs outside the NHS budget and also £3 billion specifically for recovery and bringing down waiting lists.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The proposal for a mere 1% pay rise suggests this Government do not value the risks taken and sacrifices made by health and care staff throughout the pandemic, nor the challenge that they will face to clear the backlog. Like their initial refusal to extend free school meals, it also shows the Government are out of touch with the public.
With a workforce crisis before the pandemic, does the Minister really believe that such a mean award will help recruit and retain healthcare staff? Senior band 5 nurses in England already earn up to £1,000 less than their Scottish counterparts, while the removal of the nursing bursary and imposition of tuition fees has saddled recently qualified nurses with up to £50,000 of debt. I am sure the Minister knows that shops do not accept claps instead of cash. Will this Government not give health and social care staff a decent pay rise and consider a one-off thank you payment, as in Scotland?
Helen Whately
I am somewhat surprised by the language the hon. Lady used around 1%, because a 1% pay rise for this large number of staff will cost around three quarters of a billion pounds. She should remember that this all has to be paid for in the context of, sadly, around three quarters of a million people losing their jobs through the pandemic, while others are seeing pay cuts or reduced hours. We are in a time of huge economic uncertainty, but while much of the public sector is going to have a pay freeze, the NHS workforce is going to have a pay rise.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
I acknowledge the very difficult decisions that the Government have had to take as a result of the pandemic, with the majority of public sector salaries being frozen this year. Will my hon. Friend confirm that our amazing NHS staff being the exception to that in part acknowledges their hard work, and that we should now await the outcome from the pay review bodies?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The NHS workforce is the exception to the pay freeze for the wider public sector, recognising the huge amount of work done and the lengths they have gone to in looking after us all during covid. He is absolutely right that we will wait for the response from the independent pay review bodies before we announce the pay settlement.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) [V]
The Test and Trace programme, which the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies considers has had only a marginal impact on covid-19 transmission, will have had an almost 150% increase on its original £15 billion price tag following the small print buried in the Chancellor’s Budget last week. Is this Government’s claim that the 1% pay offer to NHS staff is all they can afford actually serious?
Helen Whately
The first thing I would say to the hon. Member is that the Test and Trace programme is doing a truly phenomenal job. The other thing I would say is that in the pandemic what we absolutely need is an effective test and trace programme, so I make no apologies for the fact that we are making sure it is funded.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Although everyone in this Chamber would really like to give nurses a decent pay rise as much as possible, may I ask the Minister how that equates with equivalent grades in the police, the fire service and the armed forces, particularly given that, as she has already mentioned, they are on a pay freeze at the moment?
Helen Whately
As my right hon. Friend says, most of the public sector—and that includes the police—is regrettably under a pay freeze for the coming year because of the challenging times we find ourselves in and in recognition that across the economy there are people who have lost their jobs and that we are having to spend a huge amount of money to support people’s incomes. It is against that backdrop that we are giving NHS staff a pay rise, but indeed these are difficult times that we are living through.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I have received literally hundreds of emails from constituents and from the Royal College of Nursing. The Democratic Unionist party and I support the campaign for a fair wage increase for NHS staff, because they have been at the forefront of the war against covid-19. They put their lives on the line day by day in defence of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since 2010, average weekly pay in the private sector has grown by 22%, compared with only 17% in the public sector, so I ask the Minister, very gently and kindly, whether she will in the name of justice and for moral reasons consider reviewing the decision and deliver for NHS staff.
Helen Whately
The Government have submitted our evidence to the pay review body of what we can afford for NHS pay, but the review bodies will look at a wide range of evidence on what is the right level to set and will make recommendations over the spring.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am proud to play a small role on the NHS frontline, and this last, most recent wave has been particularly brutal on nurses, healthcare assistants and, especially this time round, ambulance crews. May I urge her, during this period while the review body is considering the matter, to open up discussions with the Treasury to look at what more we can do for our NHS staff, be that a one-off additional payment or other support, such as just giving people more rest and recuperation time? We should do everything we can and make every effort to go further than what has so far been recommended.
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend; I know that he does tremendous work on the frontline. He makes a really important point: beyond pay, the question of what other support we are giving to the NHS workforce is really important. Through the pandemic, there has been lots of extra support for the workforce, whether that is with practicalities such as hot food and drink—things that make work and long hours more manageable—or mental health support, which is so crucial for those who have had really traumatic experiences. We are absolutely looking at what continued support we can put in place in the months ahead.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
NHS staff feel betrayed by this Government on pay. In July, the Secretary of State—who really ought to be in the Chamber today answering for his responsibilities—said the following:
“We absolutely want to reward NHS staff for what they have done.”
That is what he said, so can the Minister tell me how on earth delivering a real-terms pay cut meets that very clear promise from the Secretary of State?
Helen Whately
As I say, this discussion is against the backdrop of many people receiving a pay cut in parts of our economy, people losing their jobs and a wider pay freeze in the public sector. Against that backdrop, we recognise the enormous work that the NHS workforce have done, and that is why they are exempt from the pay freeze and will be getting a pay rise.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for the scale of economic intervention that he has provided for businesses and livelihoods in these unprecedented times, and I join others in paying tribute to our incredible NHS staff; the nation owes them a debt of gratitude for what they have done and continue to do. I understand that no decision on NHS pay will be made until May. Will the Minister wait for and heed the advice of the independent pay review body before confirming the scale of the pay rise that NHS staff can expect?
Helen Whately
Absolutely. We submitted our evidence to the pay review body last week, which included the affordable pay envelope from the Government. The Pay Review Body will look at a wide range of evidence, and we will look at its response when it comes back to us.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This pay proposal for NHS staff has managed to be both wrong and unpopular. Over two thirds of those surveyed, including nearly 60% of Conservative voters, think that a 1% pay rise is less than our NHS staff deserve, and I believe that the Secretary of State should be in the Chamber answering this urgent question about it. Does the Minister agree that NHS staff are worth a real-terms pay increase? Does she consider that the billions wasted on ineffective or undelivered personal protective equipment could have been better spent on giving our NHS heroes a pay rise?
Helen Whately
It is absolutely right that we invested in ensuring that we could supply PPE to the NHS and the social care workforce during this extremely challenging time. There was a global shortage of PPE, so it is right that we spent money on that. As we look ahead at the pay deal for the next year, it is right that we exempt NHS staff from the wider pay freeze for the public sector and ensure that they get the recognition they deserve for what they have done and are still doing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for the answers she has given thus far. Clearly we have to await the results of the independent pay review body, but can she explain to the House the basis on which the Government have put forward the proposal of 1% and how that compares with the commitments that were made to dramatically increase salaries, particularly for nurses at the start of their careers?
Helen Whately
We have delivered on the commitments in the multi-year pay deal for “Agenda for Change” staff, including nurses. That includes the 12% pay rise for newly qualified nurses, bringing the starting salary for a new nurse to almost £25,000. We are now going into a new pay settlement for the forthcoming year. As part of the spending review, the Budget will set the envelope to cover pay costs for that pay settlement, but there are extra pay costs for the growing number of staff as we increase our staff in the NHS, particularly nurses—as I said, we are on track to have 50,000 more nurses in the NHS by the end of this Parliament.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I met nurses—members of the Royal College of Nursing—in the west midlands, and Catherine, a young intensive care nurse told, with tears in her eyes, how she had worked for months to save lives. She told how she went off for a week’s holiday because she was exhausted, and when she came back, three of the four people she had been caring for had died and a member of staff had died. Does the Minister not begin to understand the dismay and despair on the part of tens of thousands of nurses like Catherine that, having endured purgatory to save lives, their reward now is effectively a pay cut?
Helen Whately
I disagree with the hon. Member about what he just said—as I said, we are committed to giving NHS staff a pay rise—but he actually made a really important point when he talked about Catherine and other frontline staff, who have been through incredibly difficult times. I speak to nurses and other healthcare workers all the time, and one of the things I have heard many times in recent weeks and months is how badly staff need time off, and many staff have not been able to take holiday because they have been putting in extra hours to help with the pandemic response. It is absolutely vital in the weeks and months ahead that staff get the annual leave they need to rest and recuperate, and I am working with the NHS to make sure that happens.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs during this pandemic and will be looking to the Government to support them so they can start earning again for their families. Millions of people in this country are on furlough and are living with pay cuts of 10% or 20% and will be looking to the Government to continue to support their businesses through extension of the furlough programme. Thousands and thousands of small businesses have seen the value of their businesses evaporate over the last 12 months and will be looking to the Government to support the economy to rebuild their businesses. So will my hon. Friend remind us that it is the Government’s job to balance all of those calls on the taxpayer, and it is the job of the pay review body to come back with a recommendation?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So many businesses have been so hard hit by the pandemic, and it is vital that we support not only the livelihoods of individuals who work in the businesses that have been hit, but those businesses themselves, because they are what will help us come through this and recover from the economic pain of the pandemic. He is right that the Government are having to balance these enormous demands on the public finances, and we also need to take steps ourselves to recover those finances so that we have a strong economy for the future.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Does the Minister realise that there is a sense of the most enormous anger all across the country? Nurses have seen us through this crisis and have saved many lives, yet they are offered a pay cut as a result of it. Some are already having to resort to food banks to survive, and a third are thinking of leaving the profession unless they get a decent pay rise. Surely to goodness, if £37 billion can be found to pay Serco for a failed track and trace system, the money must be available to pay NHS staff properly. You cannot clap for them, and cut their pay at the same time. Surely we should just pay them properly, so that we can have a national health service that we can all be proud of and all rely on for all time in the future.
Helen Whately
Actually, talking of anger, it is probably not very helpful for many of those on the Opposition Benches to be fuelling a level of anger by calling a pay rise a pay cut. We are being absolutely clear that NHS staff are getting a pay rise. I also say to the right hon. Member that we need an NHS Test and Trace system to control the virus and we need NHS staff.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the fact that my wife works in the NHS. NHS staff pay is and always will be a highly contentious issue—it was contentious during the junior doctor contract debate and we do not need the back end of a pandemic for it to be so at the moment—because of the mere existence of national pay contracts, pay awards and review bodies. As part of the implementation of the changes proposed in the future of health and care White Paper, will my hon. Friend view alternative models that allow decisions on individual staff pay to be set by local employers, such as NHS trusts themselves, so that they can be best suited to the employees and the services they work for?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point. The balance between nationally set pay and local pay has been a point of much debate over the years. There are pros and cons to both ways. We do not want to have trusts competing directly all the time for workforce, but on the other hand there are higher costs of living, for instance, in some areas. That is why there is some flexibility in the system for different levels of pay according to different areas, as he will well know, and some extra support in areas where it is hard to retain staff. I always to listen to his expertise, which I really value.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Earlier this year, Baroness Harding defended giving £1,000 per day to private sector consultants on the failing test and trace programme. Now, the Minister says we cannot afford to give our NHS heroes a real-terms pay rise. Given that covid will be with us for years to come, given the outstanding non-covid backlog in treatment, and given the incredible pressure on NHS staff, the existing 100,000 NHS vacancies and the resulting reliance on expensive agency staff, can we really afford not to?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady talks about the NHS workforce. One of the fabulous things we have seen throughout the pandemic—I am really grateful to all those who work in the NHS for this—is a reduction in the leaver rates, so more people are staying and sticking with the NHS, which is truly phenomenal. We have to make sure we look after those people, and I talked earlier about some of the support for the NHS workforce as we recover. It is also fabulous to see such extra interest in careers in the NHS; for instance, over a third more people are applying to become nursing students this year compared with last year. I also want to make this point on the test and trace question: it is not either test and trace or the NHS workforce. We need to have a test and trace system, and, of course, pay our NHS workforce.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I had several bits of correspondence about NHS pay over the weekend. Can my hon. Friend confirm whether any decision has been made specifically about nurses’ pay and what the total allocation for NHS pay rises is in the Budget? Will she ensure that those on lower pay bands are prioritised in any pay awards?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Nurses are just a part of the workforce being considered in the pay review, which involves over 1 million staff. About 300,000 of those are nurses. The cost of a 1% pay rise is about three quarters of a billion pounds, but we will absolutely look at the recommendations from the pay review bodies when they come through later in the spring.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has today said that she is grateful to NHS staff for their hard work during the pandemic, yet the reward the Government have suggested is a real-terms pay cut. Does the Minister feel that that is the right response, both morally and economically?
Helen Whately
In our submission to the pay review bodies we said we have a funding envelope to enable a 1% pay rise for NHS staff. As I have said to other Members, the pay review bodies will look at a wide range of evidence and at factors including inflation. They will also look at what is happening to pay levels across the economy.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
My hon. Friend will be aware of the heroic efforts made by NHS staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and across Harlow during the pandemic; they put their health and lives at risk looking after Harlow residents. While absolutely recognising the economic constraints and the £2 trillion debt that our country owes, will she reconsider and at least propose a larger increase for lower-paid NHS workers?
Helen Whately
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the heroic efforts of NHS staff at hospitals and primary care and community trusts across the country, including the Princess Alexandra Hospital. As I have said, we have submitted to the pay review body our envelope for funding—the 1% that the Government say they can afford—and we will look at its recommendations when they come back. I should also say that there was a commitment in the spending review to ensure that lower-paid staff would get at least a £250 pay rise, and that applies to those in the NHS as well.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
We heard this weekend about nurses in particular wishing to leave the profession, so does the Minister have any figures on departures in recent years? Does she agree that the elephant in the room is not pay across the board but low pay in the NHS? Even a 10% pay rise on not very much is not very much. Do we not really need a grown-up conversation about what we pay those who do some of the least glamorous jobs across health and social care day in, day out, every single year?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should be thinking about the whole workforce. As the Minister with oversight of social care, I have many conversations with that sector about the pay levels for people working in social care. I want to see us appropriately rewarding and recognising staff across our whole health and social care system, not only in pay terms but in the wider package of support that people get, and making sure that each day at work is a good day. That is something that I will continue to work on in this role.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) [V]
It has not taken the Conservatives long to revert to type and forget the contribution that our NHS staff have made to fighting this pandemic over the last year. Since 2010, “Agenda for Change” staff have seen their pay cut in excess of 10% on most of the spine points on the column. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that this pay increase will have on the retention and attraction of high-quality staff into the NHS? Surely, we need to attract those people into the NHS, and this will not do it.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about the retention of staff. I am working to make sure that we have another 50,000 nurses in the NHS by the end of this Parliament. On one hand, that is about making sure that we have more newly qualified nurses graduating with nursing degrees; on the other, it is about making sure that we keep the nurses and the other NHS workforce that we have. We have seen an improvement in retention, but I want that to be maintained. That is why I am working with NHS England on making sure that we have the greatest possible package of support, including mental health support, for staff who have been through a really tough time.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
May I first wish the House a happy Commonwealth Day and International Women’s Day? Will my hon. Friend outline how many pay rises we expect to see through pay progression by raising pay bands?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, in addition to the pay settlement that we will reach through this pay review process, there are many staff who will be eligible for pay progression. About 40% of the staff we are talking about are eligible for pay progression, so many of those will get a pay rise in addition to the figure that we get to through this process.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister was right when she talked about the amazing people who work in the NHS who have, in her words, “gone the extra mile” for the country. Does she understand why they will see this real-terms pay cut as a kick in the teeth? She justified it by reference to the pay freeze for other key workers, but that was a decision of this Government. Should they not recognise that they have got it wrong on both counts, review the pay freeze and give NHS staff the pay rise they deserve?
Helen Whately
I must remind the hon. Gentleman of the difficult times that we are living in: many thousands of people have, sadly, lost their jobs through covid and others have had pay cuts. We are in times of great economic uncertainty, and against that backdrop the Government have to make very difficult decisions. They have made the decision that there will be a pay freeze for much of the public sector, exempting those on the lowest pay and the NHS from that pay freeze—so the NHS workforce will get a pay rise.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) [V]
Every 1% increase will cost the taxpayer £750 million, but I did not hear the shadow Health Secretary say by how much he would increase pay or indeed which taxes he would increase to pay for that. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that one way to increase resources for health and social care and remuneration for our care workers is by means of a German-style social care premium?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am smiling, because it is not the first time that he has mentioned to me a German-style social care system. I absolutely appreciate the work he has done to look into that and say to him, as I have before, that we will bring forward proposals for social care reform. He is absolutely right that we also need to look at the whole health and social care system as we consider these difficult questions.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The efforts of NHS staff during the pandemic have been nothing short of heroic, and, although deserved, recognition and good will are no substitute for proper pay and investment. Given the current level of vacancies and the fact that the use of agency staff in Welsh health boards costs nearly £70 million a year, does the Minister not agree that a substantial pay award would not only be fair but would constitute an investment in the NHS workforce that could help recruitment and retention of staff, thereby reducing reliance on agency staff?
Helen Whately
I am absolutely committed to increasing the NHS workforce. As I mentioned in my statement, we already have 10,000 more nurses than a year ago; and 6,500 more doctors and over 18,000 more health support workers. We saw fantastic growth in the number of students starting nursing degrees last autumn—nearly 30,000—and nearly 50,000 have applied to study nursing this autumn. I am absolutely determined that we will continue to increase the size of our NHS workforce to meet the healthcare needs of the population.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for the answers she has given today, but will she set out in more detail the process of the pay review body?
Helen Whately
The process begins with the Secretary of State sending the pay review body a letter to set up its remit, which was done in December. We then submitted our evidence to the pay review body last week, which covered the point about the pay envelope as well as a whole load of information about, for instance, retention and staff levels and support for the workforce. The pay review body will consider that, along with other evidence from the NHS, trade unions and others, and will report back to us in late spring. We will carefully consider its recommendations and come to a decision.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
By the end of the year, £37 billion of taxpayers’ money will have been spent on the Serco Test and Trace programme, which is not even fit for purpose. That is on top of the Government spending £10 billion more on PPE contracts than they should have spent. Given that waste, how do the Government justify the view that most of the 300,000 NHS nurses are worth only a £250 a year pay rise?
Helen Whately
The pay conversation that we are having at the moment is indeed about nurses—who are a fabulous part of our NHS workforce, and I cannot thank them enough—but it is also about the wider NHS workforce, which includes paramedics and health support workers, and this pay settlement will also include some doctors. More than 1 million staff are being considered in this process, and that is why the cost is closer to £1 billion than the figure the hon. Lady mentioned; it is around £750 million. The Government were absolutely right to invest in PPE to protect staff in health and social care during the pandemic at a time when there was a global shortage of PPE, and we are absolutely right to have invested in a world-beating test and trace service, which is doing a phenomenal job and is essential to our country’s recovery from this pandemic.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that the public sector pay review body can take into account the exceptional service and sacrifice of our nurses and medical staff over the last year, and that if it recommends a higher pay rise than 1%, the Government will look at funding that from new resources and not have to scrimp and save elsewhere in NHS to fund the difference?
Helen Whately
I agree: our NHS workforce—in fact, our whole health and social care workforce—have done a phenomenal job through the pandemic and, we should not forget, continue to do so. I will not pre-empt the recommendations that we will receive from the pay review body, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will absolutely consider them carefully before coming to a decision.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.
Women’s Health Strategy
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health (Ms Nadine Dorries)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the women’s health strategy. Today is International Women’s Day, and on this important day we must acknowledge that for generations women have lived with a healthcare system that is designed by men, for men. As a result, women have been underrepresented in research. Despite women making up 51% of the population, we still know little about some female-specific issues, and there is less evidence and data on how conditions affect women and men differently. Despite living longer than men, women spend a greater proportion of their lives in ill health and disability, and there are growing geographic inequalities in women’s life expectancy. That makes levelling up women’s health an imperative for us all, so we must meet our goal of extending healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035.
There is already a lot of excellent work under way to achieve that. The Government are working on the next strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, and we have announced plans for a new sexual and reproductive health strategy, led by the Minister responsible for prevention, public health and primary care—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—which we plan to publish later this year.
Although this focused work is vital, it is also important that we take an end-to-end look at women’s health from adolescence to older age. I am thrilled to inform the House that today we are embarking on the first Government-led national women’s health strategy for England. It will set an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England. As we know, not all women have the same experience, so we want to hear from as many women as possible, from all ages and backgrounds, about what works well and what we need to change as today we launch our call for evidence.
The call for evidence, running until 30 May, seeks to examine women’s experiences of the whole health and care system, including mental health, disabilities and healthy ageing, as well as female-specific issues such as gynaecological conditions, pregnancy and post-natal support, and the menopause. The call for evidence is based around six core themes, which cut across different areas of women’s health, and I would like to set them out briefly in the House.
The first pillar is placing women’s voices at the centre of their health and care. We know that damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health, which can prevent women from starting conversations about their health or seeking support for healthcare. When women do speak about their health, all too often they are not listened to. As the Minister for patient safety, I regularly hear from and meet people who have been affected by issues of patient safety. As independent reports and inquiries have found, not least the Cumberlege review and the Paterson inquiry, it is often women whom the healthcare system fails to keep safe and fails to listen to, and this has to change.
The second pillar is improving the quality and accessibility of information and education on women’s health. If we are to tackle taboos and ensure that women’s voices are heard, the provision of high-quality information and education is imperative. To give a timely example, March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. Endometriosis is a common condition affecting one in 10 women of reproductive age, yet the average diagnosis time is seven to eight years. It greatly saddens me to hear how so many women think, or worse, are told that the debilitating pain and symptoms that they are experiencing are normal or imagined and that they must live with it. We must ensure that women have access to high-quality information about health concerns. We must also ensure that health and care professionals can access the necessary information to meet the needs of the women they provide care for.
The third pillar is making sure that the health and care system understands and is responsive to women’s health and care needs across their life course. Women have changing health and care needs across their lives, and we know that specific life events, or stages of life, can influence future health. For example, we know that women who have high blood pressure or pre-eclampsia during pregnancy are at greater risk of heart attack and stroke in future. We also know that women can find it difficult to access services that meet their specific needs, or that meet their needs in a convenient place or time, and that there are significant inequalities between different groups of women in terms of access to services, experience of services and health outcomes. For example, women of black ethnicity are four times more likely than white women to die in pregnancy and childbirth. That is why I recently established the maternity inequalities oversight forum to bring together experts to consider and address the inequalities of women and babies from different ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic groups. There is still more to do, so levelling up women’s health must be a priority for us all.
The fourth pillar is maximising women’s health in the workplace. The pandemic has brought home just how important this is. Some 77% of the NHS workforce and 82% of the social care workforce are women, and throughout the pandemic women have been on the frontline, making sure that people receive the health support and care that they need.
There is some evidence that female-specific health conditions—such as heavy menstrual bleeding, endo-metriosis, pregnancy-related issues and the menopause —can affect women’s workforce participation, productivity and outcomes. There is little evidence on other health conditions and disabilities, although we know that common conditions that can lead to sickness absence—for example, mental health conditions and musculoskeletal conditions—are more prevalent in women. Investment in women’s health in the workplace is therefore essential to women’s ability to reach their full potential and contribute to the communities in which they live, so that is a fundamental pillar of our strategy.
The fifth pillar is ensuring that research, evidence and data support improvements in women’s health. We have a world-class research and development system in the UK, but women—particularly women from ethnic minorities, older women, women of childbearing age, those with disabilities, and LGBT women—have been under-represented in research. This has implications for the health support and care that women receive, their options for and awareness of treatments, and the support that they can access afterwards. We must work to ensure that women and women’s health issues are included in research and data collection and so finally end the data gap that sadly exists. The better the evidence, the better we can understand the health and care needs of women and deliver the change that we need to see.
Our sixth and final pillar is understanding and responding to the impacts of covid-19 on women’s health. This pandemic has taught us so much about our society and our health and care system. As we build back better after this pandemic, we must make sure that we fully understand the impact of covid-19 on women’s health issues and what we can do to take that understanding forward.
The call for evidence is about making women’s voices heard. We want to hear from women from all backgrounds and will be inviting all organisations and researchers with expertise in women’s health to provide written evidence, too. We will respond to the call for evidence after the summer and we aim to publish the strategy later this year. I hope that the strategy will be welcomed across the House.
I thank the Members who have been working with us on this vital agenda. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for breaking down taboos around women’s health through her advocacy in the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) for her initial work on the strategy. I also thank the Members who lead the all-party parliamentary groups on women’s health, on endometriosis, on sexual and reproductive health and on women and work, and many more. We will keep working with Members in all parties as we take forward this essential work.
This strategy marks a turning point for women in this country. We are making women’s voices heard and putting them at the very centre of their own care, so that we can make sure that our nation’s health system truly works for the whole nation. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of the statement. I wish every woman in the House and throughout the country a very happy International Women’s Day.
It is welcome that the Government want to understand the plight of women throughout the country, but although the Minister said that this strategy is the first of its kind, in reality it is not. We heard much that was in this announcement when the Government launched the women’s mental health taskforce in 2017. If the Government took this matter seriously, it would be a first. The Minister responsible for mental health at the time, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), said:
“This report is a call to action for all providers, commissioners and practitioners across the health care system to drive forward the ethos of trauma- and gender-informed mental health care.”
That echoes what the Minister just said, so why are the Government asking the exact same questions four years later?
A multitude of health concerns are unique to women and are often overlooked. In hospital, I hold the hands of women in their darkest times: young women and girls presenting with eating disorders; trans women admitted after suicide attempts and substance abuse because they had been made to feel as though they do not belong; and women of colour presenting far too late with conditions that could have been easily treatable if they had found healthcare more accessible. I meet many women victims of domestic violence. They use healthcare services more than non-abused women, so I hope to see the Government’s upcoming violence against women and girls strategy address their needs.
The coronavirus crisis has had a disastrous impact on many women, and I have been honoured to listen to colleagues share their heartbreaking experiences of baby loss. My heart breaks for all those women who have had to go through that alone during the pandemic. What support will be offered to women who experience baby loss without their partners by their side? Within maternity services there are huge inequalities. The Minister is right to highlight the fact that black women are four times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth, and I welcome the launch of the forum, but the Government have known about these inequalities for years, so why has there not been action sooner? The Government are running a separate sexual and reproductive health strategy; would it not have made more sense to bring it, as part of that working, into this? A part of this which is widely stigmatised is the menopause. How will the Government be seeking to engage women who have to go through difficulties throughout the menopause?
The “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health” recommended that by 2020-21, in England, 30,000 more women each year would be able
“to access evidence-based specialist mental health care during the perinatal period”
and said that that was important. Can the Minister tell us whether that target has been met? Today, it is huge news that a woman of colour has spoken about her mental health struggles during pregnancy. Many women face difficulties but stay silent, afraid to seek help. With stigma attached to mental illness, the Government must ensure that evidence is collected from all of our ethnically diverse communities.
Women are still being misdiagnosed in 2021. With male bodies being seen as the default body, there is a huge historical data gap in understanding women’s health needs. It is shocking that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack simply because our symptoms differ from those of men. What research will the Government commission to bridge that divide?
Finally, pay is a gendered issue. Women are 82% of the social care workforce and 90% of the nurses. Can the Minister justify the real-terms pay cut to our frontline NHS staff? Will she end poverty wages in social care? We need healthcare to work for every woman across the UK—young and old, white and women of colour, cisgender and transgender. We cannot wait any longer. Women’s health and wellbeing should not be an annual PR exercise. We need action and we need action now.
Ms Dorries
I join the hon. Lady in wishing every woman across the world a happy International Women’s Day. She opened by talking about the mental health taskforce and saying it is not the first of its kind, but it absolutely is. It was a five-year project that the NHS used to bring together women and organisations from across the healthcare sector to develop a mental health plan—a five-year view—which it did and reported on. As she knows, partly as a result of that, we now have the long-term plan in mental health.
The hon. Lady also spoke passionately, as she always does, about the patients she meets as part of her work and the women who are suffering from eating disorders—sadly, that has been a tragic cost of covid. We know that two groups have been affected by the past 12 months in the mental health sphere: people, including women, with pre-existing mental illness; and, in particular, young women aged 15 to 26, in whom we have seen an explosion in the number of referrals—I believe the figure is 22% for young women seeking help with eating disorders. We have committed funding during the spending review, when £500 million was announced, and I announced £79 million on Friday. Part of that is going to deal with the problems that we have as a result of the pandemic, and with young women and girls—and in some cases young men—who are suffering from eating disorders.
The hon. Lady talked about the stillbirth and neonatal target of halving the number of stillbirths by 2025. We are way ahead of our target on that. The Office for National Statistics published new data last week, and I believe we are looking towards a 30% figure already. We are way ahead of target, and that is a result of the measures that have been put in place in the maternity safety arena, including the saving babies’ lives care bundle and the early notification scheme.
I reiterate that what we are announcing today is a call for evidence from women everywhere in the UK: from every organisation and every friend, every partner, every family of every woman.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 5MC.] The link has been published today. I published it on the Government website and it is on the Department of Health and Social Care website and on my Twitter feed. It is a link that women can easily access using their phones or their laptops, and it takes a few minutes to complete. We want to develop the first ever women’s health strategy within the Department of Health and Social Care that will deal with all the issues—there are too many for me to talk about now—and all the ways in which women have been affected. These will include research funding and cohorts of trials not using women, using all the information that we have from Paterson and Cumberlege and from women stating clearly that women are not listened to in the healthcare sector. To address that, we need to hear not just from the Paterson women and the mesh women who spoke to Cumberlege; we need to hear from all women everywhere, and that is why we have launched this call for evidence today, to develop this strategy before the end of the year.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I really welcome this call for evidence and my hon. Friend’s clear commitment to hear from all women everywhere. Can she please reassure me that the consultation will not just be about reproductive health, important though that is, and that it will include all conditions and ensure that women have the ability to express freely what they want to see from their strategy? I welcome the timescale of the strategy coming forward in September.
Ms Dorries
My right hon. Friend is a huge champion for women’s rights and a Committee Chair. I would ask her, following the work that was undertaken by the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health, to contact anybody that she knows who can help to get this dealt with or who she has liaised with throughout her time as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, so that they can help to get this message out to the people who they know, to encourage women everywhere—and, as I said, not just women but families and anybody who wants to contribute.
Within the first minutes of the link going live this morning, we instantly had 300 responses. I have not checked what the figure is now. We need huge numbers of women and yes, absolutely, it is not just about the usual issues that get talked about, although they are an important part of this. Menopause, menstrual health, maternity and neonatal issues are the things we talk about frequently, but this will be about everything. For example, we know that drugs that are used on women are trialled and developed using all-male cohorts, and that doctors are taught in medical school to recognise symptoms that are taken from men and not applied to women. We know about the inequalities, and we need to know about any subject from disability to mental health; anything that a woman experiences in a healthcare setting, we need to know about it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which is timely on International Women’s Day. I also refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A gender health gap has arisen during covid-19, and the Scottish Government are also developing a plan to address women’s health inequalities. Research indicates that young women in particular have been found to have increasing anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and loneliness. With coping strategies and social support diminished, eating disorders are tragically on the rise with high levels of morbidity. Young women disproportionately struggle to be referred for treatment due to an antiquated medical model based on body mass index to identify eating disorders rather than on a psychological model, treating the whole person. Will the Minister work with the all-party group for eating disorders and cross-party parliamentarians who want urgently to address this matter via the funding announced, but also to ensure the timely access to treatments for those crying out for help and a diagnosis, saving the lives of young women, and, in many cases, those of young men, too.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In fact, we met recently to discuss this very subject, and I have also had meetings with a number of Members from across the House who have an interest in this area. I also thank her for the work that she does in this area. I think that, as a result of our private conversations, she understands both my commitment and that of the Government. I know that she is aware of the funding that we have allocated to assist with this surge of eating disorders that have presented of late and of our commitment in the long-term plan to assist young women with both mental health issues and eating disorders in particular. An eating disorder is the most deadly of all mental health illnesses and also one of the most difficult to treat. I am delighted to hear that this issue is being taken seriously in the devolved nations as well and that Scotland is also embarking on a similar path. I hope that, as we do on all issues related to health, we and the devolved nations will share data and the methods of collecting it, experience and the evidence to develop a women’s health strategy, which will one day be rolled out across the UK.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 5MC.]
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
I really congratulate my hon. Friend on her statement today, particularly on International Women’s Day. Does she agree that the women’s health strategy, including the detailed pillars that she has outlined, is the first of its kind and will mark a real step change in approach in the way that it centres women, their voices, their lived experiences, and their evidence in making real change to the future of health policy in England?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for her encouragement. She is absolutely right. We are very excited about this strategy because it is the first of its kind. That is why we have put quite a tight timeframe on this to keep the momentum going. We will be collating all the information and data before the summer and we will be reporting when we come back after the summer recess. We will then be able to announce our women’s health strategy before the end of this year. I hope that everybody is as excited as I am about women getting involved and giving us their information, telling us what they feel, when we know that their voices are not heard. We have, I believe, provided the platform for women to have their voices heard. I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks and I hope that she will follow this process. I hope that she will download the link, provide evidence herself—I hope that every woman in this House does that—and be there when we announce the women’s health strategy later in the year.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Last year, the all-party group on sexual and reproductive health, which I chair, produced a report called “Women’s Lives, Women’s Rights” on women’s access to contraception. I hope the Minister will shortly meet me to discuss this report, which showed that, over the past 10 years, with cuts to public health budgets and the fragmentation of NHS services, women’s access to contraception has reduced, most strikingly in access to long-acting reversible contraceptives; that Black, Asian and minority ethnic women, in particular, lose out; and that abortion rates have increased. What does the Minister say about how we can put this right and how the separate sexual and reproductive health and HIV strategy running alongside a woman’s health strategy will actually work and ensure that women are at the centre of NHS services?
Ms Dorries
The Government are committed to developing a sexual and reproductive health strategy, which we plan to publish in 2021. Development of the sexual and reproductive health strategy will be separate from the women’s health strategy. However, officials are working closely together to ensure coherence between the sexual and reproductive health strategy and the women’s health strategy. We hope that they will not contradict each other; we want them to work closely together. The sexual and reproductive health strategy is an incredibly important piece of work in its own right.
Abortion is not a part of the women’s health strategy because, as everyone in the House knows, abortion is a free vote issue—it is a conscience issue; it is something that Members decide as individuals, not as parties—and therefore it is more appropriate that that goes into a strategy on sexual and reproductive health and contraception than the women’s health strategy. That does not mean that those subjects are off limits when women respond to the call for evidence on the women’s health strategy. Nothing is off limits; women can talk about anything. We have not yet decided what will go into the women’s health strategy, because we want to hear what women have to say and what issues we are contacted about that we can develop in terms of policy. We will be working closely, and officials will be working side by side.
The right hon. Lady also mentioned LARC. Access to SRH services is being maintained during covid-19, with a scaling up of online services. In response to covid, Public Health England launched a national framework for e-sexual and reproductive healthcare, which allows local authorities and service providers to purchase an expanded range of online services, including emergency contraception and the contraceptive pill. Those services have continued during the pandemic.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on the work that she does in her APPG. I hope that she will inform its members and those she knows who have an interest in women’s health issues to click on the link and provide their evidence to us.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
On International Women’s Day, I would like the House to think about women with complex and multiple needs—addiction, trauma, abuse and eating disorders. Some lives are just too complicated for one service, and some experiences are just too awful for many of us to contemplate. These women can, however, turn their lives around safely with the right support; I think of organisations in my constituency such as the Nelson Trust, which does so much brilliant work. Will my hon. Friend confirm that women with complex and multiple needs will not be forgotten in this strategy?
Ms Dorries
I would like to reassure my hon. Friend, and I hope that she will do her utmost to make sure that those women she is aware of are aware of the link and will provide us with their evidence. It is the evidence that we need to develop the women’s health strategy, so we need to hear from exactly the women she is talking about. Complex needs are just that: they are very complex. We need to know about these women’s experiences in the healthcare sector—what acts as a barrier to them, where they think they are not heard, where they think their voices are drowned out and where they feel they are not listened to and do not get the services they should get. I will use endometriosis as an example. It can take women seven to eight years to be diagnosed, all the time being told that they may have a mental health condition, that it is something they have to live with and that that level of pain is normal for a woman to experience, when none of those things is true. We want to hear from those women.
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is really important. She is right: many women suffer from a number of complex health issues and have difficult lives. That is why we have made responding so simple, via a link on a phone and taking a few minutes. I really hope that those women hear this call and will respond.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
I welcome the Minister’s statement on the women’s health strategy. It has already been mentioned this afternoon but, as the chair of the eating disorder all-party parliamentary group, it needs emphasising again: eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all mental health disorders. While eating disorders do not discriminate, they affect women disproportionately. The longer they go untreated, the longer and more complicated it is to recover. Will the Minister look at the evidence—there is already plenty of it—showing that we urgently need waiting time targets for adult eating disorder services?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; I was waiting for it as I knew she would be contributing today. We have had private conversations about this issue, and I want to reassure her. I hope she noticed that some of the £79 million I announced last week will be going towards dealing with eating disorders and the recent surge in referrals to mental health services. She is right to say that there is lots of evidence, and we are aware of what happens with eating disorders and how they develop, and we work with charities, as she well knows. We would still like those women to respond to this call to evidence.
Many women struggle to get anyone to listen or understand that they have an eating disorder. We struggle to identify them early enough or pick up such things. We still need to gather that evidence, because it is at certain points of contact that healthcare professionals do not recognise or realise that they are dealing with an eating disorder. That is the kind of thing that we think we could get fresh evidence about from women by them clicking on the link and letting us know, either via their phone or their laptop. The hon. Lady has a huge number of contacts, so I urge her to inform them and ask them to contribute to the call for evidence.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Keighley has fantastic women’s mental health charities such as Roshni Gar, which provides culturally appropriate responsive services for south Asian women experiencing mental health issues, and Wellbeing Women Talk & Thrive, which does an excellent job. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the forthcoming women’s health strategy will contain measures to level up access to mental health services for women and girls across England, so that no matter where they come from, they can always access the mental health support that they need?
Ms Dorries
Parity between physical health and mental health is a priority in the Department for Health and Social Care. This is about breaking down taboos and stigmas. That is why we have invested £2.3 billion, year on year, into mental health and into the development of a long-term plan. That is why we had another £500 million allocated at the spending review a few weeks ago. That is why we allocated £79 million of that on Friday to dealing with the very issues my hon. Friend has just raised. When we talk about a call for evidence for a women’s health strategy, I hope it is understood that we are talking about both physical health and mental health. I thank my hon. Friend for his question; it is important that such issues are raised as often as possible.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I, too, welcome the launch of this call for evidence today, on International Women’s Day. The consultation refers to evidence that female-specific health conditions can affect women’s workforce participation. However, the welfare system does not currently provide adequate support for many such conditions. For example, statutory sick pay is available to an employee only for a linked period of sickness for a maximum of three years, which penalises those people—women, of course—with chronic long-term conditions such as endometriosis. Will the Minister commit to the women who come forward with evidence that she will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve those issues?
Ms Dorries
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. If women are giving evidence that substantiates the points that she has just made, we will take it and provide it to the DWP. It is not the case that we would not do anything with that evidence; we absolutely will share it with other Departments.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
This is a really positive announcement on International Women’s Day as the women’s health strategy will deliver a much-needed step forward to improve the health and wellbeing of women across the country. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that women’s experience of healthcare can vary across different geographies, and can she confirm that the forthcoming strategy will contain measures to address this?
Ms Dorries
I have no idea what the women’s health strategy is going to contain because we have not had the evidence yet. We do not want to decide in advance where we are going to go with it; we are going to wait to hear women’s voices before we do that. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned in my statement, there is a geographic disparity in many areas. I think that, as part of the evidence that we receive from women, that will become very apparent. I hope that she will be involved, click on the link herself and direct any women she knows who could be involved to do so.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
The pandemic has seen us make dramatic changes in how we live, and the impact of these changes has been especially sharply felt by women. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that mothers are only able to do, on average, a third of the uninterrupted paid work hours of fathers, so is it any wonder that six out of 10 women are finding it harder to stay positive day to day compared with 47% of men? What are the Government going to do to ensure that there is support available for these women, whose labour is paid and unpaid, and who have been instrumental in getting the country through this pandemic? What will the Minister do?
Ms Dorries
That is not strictly a health question but, on the mental health issues that I think the hon. Lady was referring to—the stress and other issues that women are feeling—I hope she will encourage the women she knows to click the link and contribute to the call for evidence.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and welcome the launch today, on International Women’s Day, of the Government’s call for evidence to help to form the basis of a new women’s health strategy. Given that an estimated 13 million women in the UK are currently peri-menopausal or menopausal, including this woman, which equates to one third of the entire UK female population, will she assure me that menopause services will be at the heart of the strategy, and will she agree to meet me and a group of women experiencing the menopause to discuss how we can ensure that women are properly supported and do not have to deal with this major, life-changing experience on their own?
Ms Dorries
I answer this question as a post-menopausal woman. The online survey within the call for evidence seeks information on the menopause. It explores the menopause across various themes, including listening to women’s voices, access to information on women’s health across the life course and women’s health in the workplace. I encourage stakeholders and women with experience of this area to respond to the call so that we can identify future work. Women often face damaging taboos when starting a conversation about their health. It is really important that we start smashing those taboos here, as we have been doing for a number of years now, and that we talk about the menopause openly. Women can often face unsympathetic and stigmatised responses when speaking about the menopause, particularly in the workplace, which is clearly unacceptable. This Government are committed to breaking down those taboos, supporting women and working women at all stages of their life, and enabling them to reach their potential. This includes, of course, having more open conversations on the menopause, whether that be with healthcare professionals or employers, and assisting women through that stage in their life, so that they can remain full and active contributors during that stage of their life in their chosen careers or workplaces. I urge my hon. Friend to click on the link, to get involved and to make sure that women she knows do the same.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the Minister for outlining that women can discuss anything during this consultation. Can she therefore outline what efforts will be made to reach out and gather evidence from mums such as Rachel Mewes, who said on Twitter that she was pressured to consider having a late-term abortion at seven months pregnant, when she had previously stated repeatedly that she would never terminate for Down’s syndrome? As a result, she now has post-traumatic stress disorder and has said that being forced to imagine someone killing her little girl Betsy nearly destroyed her. Has the Minister considered the devastating impact that this kind of treatment is having on women’s health and wellbeing during pregnancy, and does she agree that disability discrimination in the womb should end?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Member for highlighting her constituent’s concerns. Abortion as such will not be part of the women’s health strategy, because it is being discussed under the sexual and reproductive strategy, which is also ongoing, and is a conscience issue in this House. It is not decided on party lines, it is down to individual Members’ votes, so it will not form part of the women’s health strategy, which will be about policy. However, the hon. Member is absolutely right; we will take evidence, we will look at that evidence and, if it comes in via the portal, we will pass it on to the sexual and reproductive strategy. However, there are no taboos and nothing that cannot be discussed. We want to hear about all women’s health issues, and I urge her to urge everybody she knows to click on the link and get involved.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for her statement and fully welcome the call for evidence. One area that I have been contacted about is IVF, for which we know there is currently something of a postcode lottery. I was contacted by my constituent Klara Halpin, who was seeking to have a child through IVF but was rejected NHS treatment in County Durham because her partner has children from a past relationship. However, if Klara had lived under a different clinical commissioning group, she would be eligible for that IVF treatment. Will my hon. Friend encourage women undergoing IVF to share their experiences, either to this review or the sexual and reproductive health review, to try to ensure more equalised provision of services right across the country?
Ms Dorries
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for highlighting that case. I urge her constituent to contact us and share her experiences with us. Fertility clinics across England have remained open throughout the last lockdown. Clinics obviously have to meet robust criteria to assure the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that safe and effective treatment can be offered. I am not sure of the geography that my hon. Friend was talking about, but I am disappointed to hear the difference between two care commissioning group areas and would ask her to ask her constituent to contact us and let us know more details about her experience.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
In January, Bedford Hospital’s maternity services were downgraded to inadequate due to significant concerns on the part of the Care Quality Commission about staffing levels and insufficient training. Maternity staff are facing extreme burnout during this pandemic. The hospital has taken steps to improve services, but will the Minister tell me what her Government’s plan is to urgently train, recruit and retain more midwives so that all women can receive safe maternity care?
Ms Dorries
One of our objectives is to be the safest country in the world in which to give birth, and we have made tremendous progress by halving stillbirths and neonatal deaths. This is an area in which we are making huge progress, and I would ask the hon. Member to ask those with whom he is discussing these issues to respond to today’s call for evidence.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her continued work ensuring that women have equal healthcare outcomes and experiences, and I look forward to taking part in this call for evidence. Consultations are most valuable when there is significant participation, allowing us to gather information from a wide range of people and experiences. Will she therefore say what conversations she is having with other Departments and organisations to ensure a broad reach, for instance, through participation from colleges, schools and universities, as well as charities and the workplace?
Ms Dorries
This call for evidence is going to last for 12 weeks, we are going to keep up the drumbeat consistently and it will be cross-departmental. I hope that other Ministers in other Departments will pick up part of the load along the way and use their contacts and access to charities and organisations. We are working strongly with journalists and other outlets to try to get the news over about what we are trying to achieve, our aims and objectives. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that working with charities, organisations, the third sector and all women, and their families and friends, across the UK is really important.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.] I ask her, as I have asked everybody else: if she knows of any particular organisations or charities that feel that they can contribute, she should encourage them to do so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
For decades, women with epilepsy were prescribed sodium valproate and were told it was safe to take during pregnancy. It was not. Their babies were harmed, and women continued to be prescribed sodium valproate and babies continue to be harmed right to this day. The Minister in her statement paid lip service to the Cumberlege review, but this statement comes on the same day she has given me a written answer that I have here, where she said that she is not going to implement recommendation 3, which is about a redress agency for victims of sodium valproate. If this statement is meant to mean anything on International Women’s Day, can the Minister remember those women with epilepsy whose babies were harmed in the womb? Can we get a redress agency for the victims of sodium valproate?
Ms Dorries
Ever since sodium valproate was first licensed, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s position has been clear: valproate should only be used in women of childbearing potential if no other medicine is effective or tolerated. The MHRA has kept sodium valproate under constant review. The national director for patient safety has recently set up a clinically led valproate safety implementation group to consider the range of issues relating to valproate and prescribing and to explore options to review and reduce prescribing. In terms of the redress agency, we have looked at that across the board as a result of the Cumberlege recommendations. A number of redress processes are available already, and we did not want to complicate the landscape any further. We feel that, with the MHRA and the national director for patient safety, we have a response to sodium valproate.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]
I absolutely applaud the statement from the Minister, especially as it comes on International Women’s Day. I speak on behalf of Broxtowe constituent Sarah Kolawole and her daughter Ariella Kolawole, who sadly passed away shortly after being born in February 2019. I welcome all the research that has been conducted to explore why negative birth outcomes and traumatic births for pregnant women of black, African and Caribbean descent are more frequent than other ethnicities. As we move forward with our NHS long-term plan, does my hon. Friend agree that we must use this call for evidence to ensure that equal outcomes are achieved for mothers of all ethnicities?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. It is the very reason I established the maternal inequalities oversight forum, so that I could learn from experts and organisations such as MBRRACE —Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries—and Maternity Voices about the issues that affect black, Asian and minority ethnic women in particular and why the statistics are as they are. I thank him for raising the individual case of his constituent, and I ask him to ask her to provide us with her evidence of what her experience was. It is really important that BAME women understand that we want to hear their stories and birth experiences. BAME women are five times more likely to die in childbirth than white women. We need to know what those issues are, and it is important to get that message out to those women.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.]
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I was pleased to hear the Minister mention endometriosis and acknowledge the shocking fact that it currently takes eight years, on average, for a woman to get a diagnosis, and the underlying assumption that it is just something that women have to put up with if they have pain during their periods. As I am sure the Minister knows, it is National Endometriosis Awareness Month, and campaign groups are asking for a commitment to reduce average diagnosis times to four years or less by 2025, and a year or less by 2030. I am slightly concerned that if we wait for this strategy, it will delay action being taken. What reassurance can she give that the Government are acting to reduce waiting times now?
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the all-party parliamentary group on endometriosis, which I have spoken to. The report has raised a number of important issues, and we are grateful to the APPG for raising awareness and for contributing to our understanding of this very important issue. The report’s recommendations are to be considered as part of the work to help the women’s health strategy. I urge that APPG and others, and the stakeholders, to participate in the call for evidence. As this is an issue in the women’s health strategy, we cannot go any quicker than putting the call out now for 12 weeks, doing what we can before the summer recess to get the data and working on it over the summer recess, and then have a strategy before the end of the year. Our timetable is tight and quick, but that is what we want, because we do not want to lose momentum. We want to get this report out before the end of the year.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
Happy International Women’s Day to all colleagues on both sides of the House.
Our successful vaccine programme has shone a light on concerns based on a lack of trust that make members of some communities more hesitant about coming forward to access services that could save their lives. Will my hon. Friend confirm that she is taking steps to ensure that a range of voices, from different communities, are consulted on this strategy, so that it leads to better outcomes for women and girls from ethnic minority backgrounds?
Ms Dorries
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer. The impacts on BAME women in the health sector are of the utmost importance. That is why, over a 12-week period, we are using all Departments and all Ministers to keep the drumbeat up and make sure that we reach all women across the sector. It is really important to us that as many women from as many backgrounds and as many geographical locations as possible across the UK respond to this call for evidence.[Official Report, 12 March 2021, Vol. 690, c. 6MC.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to all 20 questions on the call list. May I ask Members to be very careful as they leave the Chamber? We have Karen Buck on video link, which means that we can go straight on to the ten-minute rule motion. Perhaps during that period we could sanitise both Dispatch Boxes so that we can go straight on to the next business, if the principals have taken their places, and get at least one extra person in for the Budget debate.
Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty)
Monday 8th March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty) Bill 2019-21 View all Housing and Homelessness (Local Accommodation Duty) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that persons for whom a homeless duty has been accepted are accommodated in the local area, including on discharge into private rented accommodation; to require local authorities to publish annual reports on steps relating to housing demand and supply taken or intended to be taken to meet that duty; and for connected purposes.
Listen to anyone who has been through the experience of homelessness and it will become clear that losing your home is one of the most traumatising things that can happen. Yet homelessness is a reality for tens of thousands of people every year, and over the past 30 years, since the repossessions crisis that followed the 1990 recession, successive waves of families and individuals have had to live through it, and they have done so in the context of a shrinking supply of stable, affordable social housing to meet need. That shrinking of supply and the ratcheting down of support for housing costs as rents have risen have both caused homelessness and made it increasingly difficult for many councils to meet their local needs.
Housing legislation requires all local housing authorities to secure accommodation in their own district, as far as reasonably practical. In response to a debate in my name last December, the then Housing Minister said:
“We are clear that local authorities should, as far as possible, avoid placing households out of their boroughs...that should really be a last resort.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 183WH.]
Yet that is clearly and obviously not the case and not adhered to in practice. My own borough of Westminster routinely accommodates homeless families out of borough: 55% of the 2,217 homeless households from Westminster were out of borough last year, up on the year before. The council has now also stated its intention to further cut costs by discharging homelessness duty into the private rented sector for 500 more households.
London as a whole is the worst affected region in the country. There were 16.7 households per 1,000 in London living in temporary accommodation last year, compared with just 1.8 per 1,000 households in the rest of England. In the last full year to 2020, 19,727 of those homeless households were found out-of-area housing in London, which is 56.8%, while a quarter—25%—were not even in their sub-region and 2,559 were placed outside London.
Even across the country as a whole, a quarter of homeless households are accommodated out of area, because councils cannot find suitable properties for them. This is not, of course, to denigrate the places where disproportionate numbers of homeless households end up—quite the reverse. It is to point out the manifest unfairness of requiring some of the poorest and most stressed boroughs to take an ever larger share of homeless households from other places, increasing pressure on their housing stock and other services. As we know, it also leads to the use of substandard properties thrown up under permitted development rules in places such as Harlow, Merton and Croydon.
However, most of all, this is about the impact on homeless people themselves. It is the tearing up of local connections—not infrequently, lifelong—that are cast aside when they are most needed at a time of crisis. Uprooted families and vulnerable adults are removed from friends and family, support networks and communities, schools, work, and caring responsibilities that they themselves undertake. Parents are often desperate to keep their children in the same school to maintain what little continuity they can in lives marked by disruption. Forced mobility and upheaval have terrible outcomes for physical and mental health and educational achievement.
These are the stories of some of the families affected. One constituent said:
“My 6 year old, who has been through so much trauma from repeated changes…has to do a 4 hours a day bus journey back and forth to attend her current school. She often eats breakfast on the bus and does homework on the way back and most of the time she falls asleep”.
Another said:
“I have a child who attends a school in Westminster and who has been through a tough few years as have we all as a family. Her brother was diagnosed with a brain tumour and sadly passed away. My daughter has gone through and endured things I wouldn’t have wished for her to have faced at her age or any other child but we were still sent to a temporary property on the other side of London. My housing officer advised there was ‘no other option and I would advise you to accept as if you don’t you could be taken off the housing register’. I told her I just wanted anything so I didn’t need to commute for 1.5 hours every morning and ever afternoon and that school was one of only consistent things that has kept my daughter happy & well. I was born in Westminster, I’ve always been a resident and paid my dues and taxes and voted. I feel like I’ve been treated extremely unfairly and I feel sick to my stomach to the point I’ve been so stressed I’m not sleeping. I’ve been getting migraines, it’s just non-stop stress…and I feel like I have no rights.”
Another said:
“I am a 19 year old…who is registered blind and am going through daily stress and anxiety. My case worker had said”
she is unable to find anywhere to live in Westminster
“despite showing her all my records and how I have been living there all my life, knowing the area well and how to get around. They put me first up in North West London, but are now offering me”
east London,
“even further than where I am now. I am completely unfamiliar with the area. I’m very frightened from places I’m unfamiliar with as I can’t get around... The council told me if I do not accept it they will end my contract for where I am now.”
Another said:
“I have lived, studied and worked in Westminster all my life. I lived with my elderly father and looked after him, but we were too overcrowded. Thankfully, after being classified as statutorily overcrowded, the council accepted my family as being effectively homeless. However, notwithstanding our pleading and objections, we were moved away from my elderly father and placed in temporary accommodation in east London. I cannot begin to describe the negative impact this has had on myself, my wife and my family, but more importantly on my father. He effectively, overnight, lost his family and the people who helped and cared for him on a daily basis. I find it sad and frustrating that the Council are prepared to separate an old man from his family. For more than two years we have continued to travel back and forth every day from what should have been short term accommodation, in order to cook, clean and care for my father. However, this is expensive, time consuming and taking a toll on our health, marriage and on our children.”
Finally, there is a letter from a mental health worker about a family who were moved first to east London for eight months and then to another flat in outer west London for two and a half years. The parents made the choice not to move their children to another school because at the time three of them were taking their exams. One child, I am told, started to lose her hair from anxiety when they became homeless. The youngest are extremely anxious and stressed; one has problems with eating and is having panic attacks. The mother has had cognitive behavioural therapy in the past and tries to give her children the tools to cope, but her own mental health condition is deteriorating.
As I have said, successive Ministers have stressed that out-of-borough placements should be the exception rather than the rule. There have been landmark legal cases, but nothing has changed. Temporary homeless accommodation is expensive and too large a share of the cost is put on councils—£189 million for London councils alone. The truth is that councils are between a rock and a hard place. The shrinking stock of social housing and social security cuts, from reductions in local housing allowance to the benefit cap, make it impossible to do what successive Ministers say should happen, leaving cases to be tested against the law one by one. All too often, the families affected are failed. It is no good offering platitudes in the full knowledge that the system is broken. Local connections must be maintained and councils enabled to meet those needs in line with Government commitments.
The Bill strengthens the protection that is now honoured increasingly in the breach and, in doing so, reduces the harm being done to tens of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Karen. I do not know whether you know that you were on audio link rather than video link, but we heard you loud and clear. I have been given no indication that anybody intends to oppose the 10-minute rule Bill and I see nobody rising, so I intend to put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Robert Halfon, Bob Blackman, Fleur Anderson, Ms Lyn Brown, Siobhain McDonagh, Dawn Butler, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Feryal Clark and Dame Margaret Hodge present the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 266).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Secretary Oliver Dowden, I would just like to indicate to those participating remotely that there is a clock on whichever device you are using to transmit. Please could you abide by that, because the time limit of three minutes will be introduced from the beginning of Back-Bench contributions? If you cannot see the clock, please have another device handy. For those who are participating in the Chamber, the usual monitors will be used for timing.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
This Budget represents a turning point in our fight against coronavirus. It is almost a year to the day since the Prime Minister, in a televised address to the nation, took one of the most dramatic steps of any peacetime Government in history and imposed a national lockdown. From that moment on, we were facing twin crises: not just a public health emergency, but an economic emergency too. The Government promised to do whatever it took to see the British people and British businesses through the crisis, and we did. A year on, thanks to one of the most comprehensive and generous Government support packages in the world, we are now in a position to begin rebuilding our economy. This Budget lays the first bricks in that process. It offers businesses protection to get through the next few months, but, with the road map as a guide, it also sets them on a course to stand on their own two feet once the country reopens, and, most importantly, it puts us in a position to build back better from the pandemic, leaving us a country that is stronger, safer and greener than the one upended by the coronavirus.
In a debate about supporting businesses during covid, it is worth taking stock of just how much was at stake when coronavirus brought our country to a standstill last March. On the day that national lockdown was imposed, all non-essential shops were forced to close their doors, alongside pubs, restaurants, museums, galleries, gyms, theatres and cinemas. In the space of a few short hours, millions of business owners across the country had their income wiped out. Their livelihoods were hanging in the balance, and nowhere was that more apparent than at DCMS. Arts, culture and tourism thrive on the walls of human interaction. Theatres, cinemas, live performance venues, museums and galleries simply cannot exist without an audience or visitors; with lights switched off, seats empty and stages bare, people genuinely worried that a century’s worth of culture and heritage was at risk.
In Germany, the arts have been described as Lebensmittel —that which sustains life. Our museums, our theatres and our artistic and creative life are not frivolous add-ons; they are essential to our economy and to our national sense of wellbeing, so we stepped up to the plate and protected them. We unveiled the biggest single intervention in the arts in the history of the United Kingdom: the culture recovery fund, an unprecedented £1.75 billion safety net that protected theatres, cinemas, museums, galleries and live performance venues across the country. It has supported every thread of our rich cultural tapestry, from national Crown jewels such as the Royal Albert Hall to regional gems such as the Wolverhampton Grand and Norwich theatre, and through that fund we have given £170 million to music, £21 million to independent cinemas, £60 million to museums, and £180 million to theatres. Surely we can finally put to bed the old lie that the Conservative party does not care about the arts. After protecting arts and culture through a long covid winter, we are now preparing them for the spring and summer of reopening, with another £390 million in this Budget to help museums, galleries and theatres open their doors when restrictions finally ease.
Likewise, the Budget extends our hugely successful film and TV restart scheme, which during the pandemic has supported more than 200 productions up and down the United Kingdom. It has kept cameras rolling on movies such as “Mothering Sunday” and shows including “Grantchester” and “Peaky Blinders”. Most importantly, it has protected more than 24,000 jobs and £800 million-worth of production spend here in the United Kingdom. As a result, studios including Pinewood are currently running at full capacity. In fact, the British film industry just celebrated one of its most productive quarters on record. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will applaud the Chancellor’s decision to extend the scheme.
Members on both sides of the House should also applaud our decision to make another £300 million available to sports clubs as fans begin returning to stadiums, and a new fund that gives local communities the power to take ownership of their local sports clubs. These clubs are not just businesses; many, particularly smaller clubs, are the hubs of their communities, bringing life to villages, towns and cities across the country. The Budget will help to ensure that they are still standing when the pandemic is over, ready and waiting to have their seats filled once more with spectators.
However, support to DCMS sectors is only one small part of the unprecedented offer of support by the Government during the crisis. Together, the safety net we have placed under the British people totals £407 billion —more than the GDP of Sweden—and the Budget builds on that support, adding extra security for businesses to make it through to the end of the road map and back into normality. We have also extended the furlough scheme, which has already supported 11.2 million jobs across the United Kingdom; to be clear, more than 11 million people and families have been given the stability and security of money coming in the door and being able to put food on the table for their children. These are not just statistics; they are real people who have been able to get through the last 12 months thanks to the furlough scheme. We have also extended support for the self-employed to include an additional 600,000 freelancers, making this one of the most generous programmes for self-employed people in the world.
While we continue to support the British people through the final stage of this crisis, we have also announced measures that will put businesses across the country on the footing to stand on their own once more. They will no longer have to subsist day to day off the state; instead, we will put them in a position to thrive on their own. We have therefore extended the VAT cut and the business rates holiday, we are offering new recovery loans, and we are offering new restart grants to help businesses of all shapes and sizes get going again.
If last year’s package was a package of support—the vaccine against economic ruin—this Budget is the booster shot. These measures allow us to put covid in the rear-view mirror and start looking forward to a brighter future.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality and tourism, may I place on the record my thanks to the Government for the incredible support that they have given the sector to help it reopen? There is no doubt that the Government have done their bit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we now need, as soon as it is safe, is for the British people to do their bit—to take holidays in the UK, to go back to our pubs and restaurants, to go back to our theatres and cinemas, and to get our economy rolling?
Oliver Dowden
I of course agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I very much look forward to visiting Cornwall again myself. I spent many happy childhood summers on Crantock beach and have taken my own children there. That sits alongside other support we have provided for Cornwall and, indeed, my hon. Friend’s constituency, including, for example, the Lost Gardens of Heligan, which has had more than £600,000-worth of support. Under the culture recovery fund, a total of more than £1 million has been provided to his constituency alone.
Seven decades ago, when we were rebuilding from the rubble of the second world war, we looked to heavy industry—to coal and steel production—to power our recovery, but today our economy will be rebuilt on the back of cleaner, greener industries, and tech has the power to turbocharge all those other technologies. Science and tech now underpins our entire economy. Millions of businesses rely on the UK’s broadband networks to trade, to connect with customers and to advertise their goods, and in the year of pandemic, Zoom and Teams have temporarily replaced office spaces all over the world.
In building back better, tech will be at the heart of our recovery. We have set 10 clear tech priorities for this Government in the coming years—we will be setting those out later this week—but we also included a number of measures in this Budget to make the most of the digital revolution.
During this pandemic, millions of businesses were forced to move their operations online—to pivot to deliveries and to click and collect. This time it was a necessity, but we want to turn that into a long-term opportunity for British businesses. That is why we are launching a new UK-wide Help to Grow scheme to help 100,000 small and medium-sized businesses to get online or expand their digital businesses.
At the same time, we are cementing our position as the tech powerhouse of Europe. We have unveiled a new visa to attract the most exciting and talented tech brains in the world, alongside a new, improved visa process for scale-ups, entrepreneurs and disrupters. We have also launched a £375 million future tech fund. That is a breakthrough scheme for groundbreaking tech businesses. We have a plan to unlock billions from pension funds and funnel that money into new innovative ventures.
We also have ideas for a new listing regime that will make it easier for companies to raise money and list their businesses here in the United Kingdom, not on other markets. Some of the most successful and innovative businesses in the world have therefore chosen to make the UK their long-term home, as Deliveroo did just last week when it announced that it would be listing in London. This Budget paves the way for the next generation of tech entrepreneurs and disrupters to join them here in the United Kingdom.
Of course, the other great future-facing industry and powerhouse of DCMS and, indeed, the wider economy is the creative industries. We are genuinely a creative industries superpower. Our fashion and design businesses, those in film and TV, video games, architecture, advertising, publishing and beyond lead the world in every sector. They are a source of pride at home and envy abroad, and they now drive our economy. Film and TV alone are today worth more than the UK’s car industry. The sectors are not discrete—they are businesses that feed off one another and into this country’s wider, vibrant creative ecosystem.
When a UK business, for example, in the video games industry, designs a new game, they do not just support the video games industry. They boost tech, our artists and designers, the musicians who compose the game’s soundtrack and the animators who bring the characters to life. The furlough scheme, business grants and support for the self-employed have been a lifeline to all those businesses, which will continue to benefit from the schemes, as well as from the Budget’s new apprenticeship offer.
Those businesses have also benefited from our unprecedented, multi-billion-pound investment in the cultural and creative industries. That investment was made with our hearts, but also our heads. Cultural and creative businesses are vital to our economy, as they are vital to our national identity and, indeed, our very way of life. They will play a key role as we look to the country’s long-term recovery and renewal.
That recovery and renewal will also centre on the rehabilitation of the tourism industry, which, with planes grounded and airports closed, has been particularly hard hit by covid. Tourism is a major enabler in this country, supporting around 230,000 businesses in every part of our United Kingdom. Through the pandemic, including in the Budget, we have provided extensive support to those businesses, including through the cut in VAT. Our new levelling-up fund will invest in tourism infrastructure across the entire Union.
In spring, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, we will go even further, publishing a comprehensive tourism recovery plan that sets out an ambitious vision for the sector to bounce back from the pandemic and drive that new era of growth. At that point, Britain will start reopening for business. Shops will be pulling up their shutters, people will be returning to pubs and restaurants or working out in gyms and leisure centres. Day trips and mini-breaks will be back on and eventually, overseas tourists will begin pouring back into our great country.
We want a decade of great British summers, culminating, we hope, with the football World cup back here in the United Kingdom in 2030. Much sooner—indeed, next year—that feeling of national recovery and renewal will find its outlet in three unifying show-stopper events: the Commonwealth games, Festival UK* 2022 and the platinum jubilee, when the nation will come together to give thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for seven decades of unwavering public service.
After such a difficult time for all of us, those events represent a much-longed-for return to normality: the return of packed stadiums, packed theatres and streets full of people celebrating. They are not just an opportunity for us to come together and remember what unites us. They are milestone moments, alongside the rugby league world cup, Coventry city of culture, the centenary of the BBC and the 75th anniversary of the Edinburgh festival. They will help drive our economic and social recovery from the pandemic. They will reboot our tourism industry, demonstrating that our doors are wide open. They will bolster our creative industries, with tens of millions of pounds being invested in our arts and creators from every nation of the UK, and they will showcase our remarkable and wonderful country to the rest of the world.
Of course, we are not there yet. Coronavirus has shaken our economic foundations like no other peacetime crisis in our history. I know that businesses up and down the country continue to face many challenges as a result of the pandemic. The road map back to full economic health is rightly cautious, but it is one-way. As normality gradually returns, we have so much to look forward to as a country and so many opportunities to revive our businesses and our economy.
This Budget allows us to make the most of those opportunities. We protected businesses when they could not trade as usual or at all. Now we are putting them in a position where they can finally unroll their awnings again and declare Britain back open for business. I commend the Budget to the House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We just heard from the Secretary of State how very well the Government have done through this crisis, and he said how much we could look forward to the Government—to the Tories—uniting the country in times ahead. To use an old-fashioned northern expression, “I’ve heard ducks quack before”. The Secretary of State joined this House in 2015, so while I think I am right in saying that he is two years older than me, I have been around this Budget roundabout 13 times to his seven. That is nothing that I am proud of—I have spent my time in opposition and he has not—but, that said, he did work for David Cameron during 2012, so I am sure that he has experience enough to know the golden rule of Budgets: never tax anyone’s pasties.
Despite the exceptional context that the Secretary of State talks of, despite the many Budgets that he and I have heard in this House, the question at every Budget is the same. It is the question at the heart of all economics—who has what and is it fair, and what will this Budget do to change the prospects for the people of the United Kingdom? Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, that question is the same. So when I look back over those 13 Budgets that I have seen, I think, “What have the Tories done to make our country fairer?” They removed regional development agencies and slashed local authority funding, and now they complain that the economy is unbalanced. They ran down social security only to realise that when people with higher incomes needed it at the last minute, they had brought it to breaking point. They wasted years spending money on a costly reorganisation of our health service that they now say they want to reverse. Child poverty is high and rising. Food bank use is through the roof and we are staring down the barrel of an unemployment crisis. Economically, it has been a decade of misrule and now this Budget is on top of all that. Despite all that the Secretary of State says, I suspect that in the long term it will be neither use nor ornament at this time of economic peril, because this is a diabolical record, and I regret very much the choices that the Conservative party has made over the past decade. There is only one thing I regret more than its choices, and that is the failure of my party so far to replace it.
I have said that the economic questions remain the same year after year, but the economy moves on and, therefore, so must the answers. To make our economy and our country fairer, we need to understand the situation that we face. It is dire, as a result of both the pandemic and the pre-existing flaws arising from a decade of Conservative Government. Unemployment for young people has increased by 13% and 1.7 million people are currently unemployed, and the Bank of England predicts that this will continue to rise throughout this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the scarring effect of the virus a year from now will be that the pandemic lowers output in the medium term by 3% relative to its pre-pandemic path, and that is after the existing problems created by our exit from the European Union. This is the backdrop to my 13th Budget and the Secretary of State’s seventh—a lost decade of growth, with us now facing economic challenges that surpass even the crisis of a decade ago.
So what do the Government do? Well, finally, we have long overdue confirmation of the extension to furlough and vital business support, yet there is still a planned cut to universal credit, just at the very time that unemployment is predicted to spike. Also, less spoken of are the £14 billion cuts planned to public services for the rest of the Parliament and a 4% hit to our economy, as I said, due to our exit from the European Union. That is before we get to the things that they appear to have forgotten, including that missing pay rise for our nurses and cleaners in the NHS and the long-term plan for social care that the Chancellor remembered the day after. There was really very little help on the employment front either. As we know, just 2,000 young people have started their kickstart apprenticeship, when the Tories promised us 120,000.
Businesses in the UK have been challenged over the past 12 months in unimaginable ways, from total shutdown to recreating themselves overnight. UK business organisations, along with those in our social economy, have by and large proved themselves to be brilliantly creative and dynamic as well as having a keen interest in the public health imperative that we have all had to focus on. This Budget does far too little to support those businesses that really need it and too little to plan for the future. If a Government did get the framework right, the innovation and creativity of UK businesses would be able to thrive.
This poor lack of innovation is exemplified nowhere more clearly than in our brilliant creative industries. In this Budget, the Government have fallen well short of creating an environment for growth for creative and cultural businesses, which altogether contributed £225 billion to the UK in 2018, accounting for 12% of the economy. It is the part of the economy for which the Secretary of State is supposed to be responsible. The culture recovery fund, which he trumpets, saves buildings, but it does not do enough to save jobs and support the growth that is needed in creative industries across the whole country. The Secretary of State gave the game away when he said that the fund is there to protect the “Crown jewels”. There is no need for me to add to the extensive commentary on the royal family today. However, the Secretary of State’s comments reveal an obsession with that which we have inherited, rather than the demonstrable opportunities in the next generation.
The adjustments made to the self-employment income support scheme were not good enough either. Bringing newer entrants to the industry into the scheme was welcome, but analysis by the Musicians’ Union suggests that around 23% of its members are still left out in the cold. I understand from Prospect trade union that, while the fifth round of the scheme may run from May to September, it only provides three months’ worth of support, which means that the effect is identical to the scheme running out at the end of July. This will affect many industries, but it is particularly acute in the creative industries, in which it may take until much later in the year for normal work patterns to resume and in which two thirds of people are self-employed.
This is all a mistake because the creative industries deserve to be taken seriously. In growth terms, as we said the day before the Budget, the creative industries were up 7.5% in 2018 on the previous year, meaning that growth in the sector is five times larger than growth in the UK economy as a whole. That is a huge amount of potential that the Government simply have not met. Instead, they decided to spend £25 billion of taxpayers’ money on a tax incentive for businesses to invest in plant and machinery. It is pretty obvious that many of our newer businesses simply will not be helped by that. It is no bad thing at all to invest, but we are facing an unemployment crisis, and many small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. I think it is fair to ask the Government whether this tax cut will really get the money where it needs to be. How they will ensure that money is not spent on investments that were already planned?
If the Government do finally agree on a fundamental change to our tax system, undoing much of the direction of travel of previous Chancellors—and has anyone checked if George Osborne is okay?—where is the proper review that is needed? There appears to be a view across the House that the losses and gains from the pandemic have been hugely unequal, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that billions of pounds are not handed over to global logistics companies whose profits have already soared during the pandemic? Whether it is the culture recovery fund or this tax relief, there seems to be a pattern: the Tories handing cash to the already lucrative.
Worse still, what if some of the most important structural changes needed in our economy, which this Budget should be an opportunity to address, cannot be sorted out by these sorts of tax incentive? In fact, on International Women’s Day, could somebody explain to me how this tax cut for plant and machinery will unleash all women’s entrepreneurship? How does focusing on tax breaks for big firms solve the underlying structural issue of poor childcare, which is one of the biggest drags on the well-documented productivity problem in the UK? I worry that the Help to Grow scheme will be about as successful as kickstart and restart have been in reality.
It is not just that. The Government seem to be missing the point of the pandemic entirely: that a strong economy requires a healthy workforce. The Secretary of State seems not to realise that we need a comprehensive plan for public wellbeing. That means supporting public services properly and giving every person in the UK a chance to improve their quality of life.
We know that a healthy population is an important input to a strong economy. Labour councils are already leading the way, with Coventry City Council giving residents free and discounted access to cultural and leisure facilities. The council specifically argued that it was vital for women’s participation, and particularly for those from lower-income backgrounds. In the local elections, councillors are putting health and wellbeing right at the centre of their manifestos. For example, the Labour party in Lancashire launched a manifesto that includes free swimming for residents over the age of 50 and under the age of 16. Given all that we have been through, Labour in Lancashire is putting health and wellbeing at the heart of future economic prospects. To make our economy work well, we need DCMS to focus on a big, bold plan for national wellbeing, which is something that the Government have either forgotten or just do not understand.
Something else that has been forgotten is the fact that our economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. Not only have our financial services led the world, for good or ill, but so have our music, fashion, art and publishing industries. Creative industries exported £36 billion worldwide in 2018 because they are part of the modern services economy that the UK brings to the world. When pandemics hit, our open economy is going to be affected long after everyone is vaccinated at home, which is why, if we really want to rescue our economy, we need a much better plan than cutting aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
It gets worse. In addition to the year of hell that the pandemic has been for many businesses is the underlying cause of the disruption and damage to our economy that will last long after the pandemic: our exit from the European Union. As I said before, our country may be an island economy, but it is also an integral part of the continent of Europe. The project of those on the hard right and the far right—to blame European politicians for every ill that this country has ever faced, just as the Prime Minister did for years in his Telegraph column, with little connection to reality—is having a real impact on our economy across the board. Organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses highlight its impact on small firms, whose profits are being wiped out as a result of post-Brexit costs.
The creative industries about which the Secretary of State and I have spoken have been hit hugely by Brexit, as well as by covid. The Government show no show sign at all that they will fix the problems. Those in the fashion industry warn that restructuring is necessary due to the industry’s European and global supply chains and the disruption that our leaving the EU has caused, but where is the help? Musicians and performers are unable to tour freely in Europe—a vital stepping-stone for many emerging artists and a key part of a crucial industry. All that because the many are having to pay the price for the ideological obsession of the few.
As the journalist Rafael Behr wrote recently, Brexit has been turned into a “perpetual grievance” machine. Let me give an example. The Secretary of State got himself into hot water by asking the fashion roundtable to use its star quality to influence our European partners—whom the Conservative party has so successfully hacked off. Was that an honest acknowledgment that there just is not anyone in his Department who has star quality of their own? Or was it, on this International Women’s Day, an admission that the Tories see the fashion and creative industry not as a serious, leading industry that puts clothes on the backs of millions around the world but rather as a flighty and insubstantial part of our economy in which women are too busy doing the stitching to be consulted about the future of our economy? Is that how the Tories see us?
It is not lost on me that here we are, on International Women’s Day, debating the Budget—the money in people’s pockets and whether our kids have a decent life or not— and many of the speakers are men, as is often the case in this House. Who can say why that is? I can certainly tell the Secretary of State that I am not the only woman in the country who is a little bit fed up of the Prime Minister’s male-dominated Cabinet. We are fed up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in his Budget, forgot to mention social care, in which thousands of women work. The Budget also does little or nothing for the creative industries, in which thousands of women also work and which the Secretary of State dismissed in such pathetic terms.
The women of this country are not very enamoured of the Prime Minister, but that was true long before this Budget. We do not want his patronising arms around the nation. We want work that pays as much as men’s, we want to share the care of our children and older people so that we can have the same status as men at work, and we want people to listen when we speak. And before anyone says anything, yes I know that the Tory party has had two women Prime Ministers while the Labour party has had none, to which I would say yes, that is a serious criticism and it should be taken seriously. That is why Labour women will keep fighting, forever and a day, for women to be elected to the highest offices of state, not in order to get one woman on a pedestal but to achieve for all women the systematic undoing of the assumptions and strictures that make us less than we are.
In the context of this debate, the assumption consistently revealed by the Tories is that the work women do, from care to creativity and culture, is worth less than the work men do. That assumption—that revealed preference, as the economists would say—is wrong, and it will be the priority of Labour Governments to undo it, alongside the many other aspects of this Government’s economic policy, which, after a lost decade of growth, is nowhere near up to setting our country on the right path. The winners from this Budget will be those who are already comfortable enough. The losers will be the small businesses whose prospects have been shut down temporarily by the pandemic or permanently by Brexit, the children struggling after a decade of disaster for family benefits, and every woman, man and child whose ambitions are not well served by a Tory Chancellor more interested in his own.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am delighted, as a woman on the Conservative Benches, to be joining this debate. As I have only three minutes, I am unable to go through the many things in the Budget that I think are wonderful. It is a great Budget and there are many things to praise in it. The numbers that have been quoted by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) are frankly eye-watering in terms of Government spending, but in the midst of those big numbers there are some losers and some areas of our economy that need focus. I would like to spend my three minutes—two and a half, as it is now—focusing on them.
First, the self-employed who are employed through a limited company have not had any support at all. I cannot be the only Member in this House who has constant emails from such constituents asking for support. I am not saying that this is easy, but perhaps the Treasury could see whether there is a way to help the self-employed. Many of those who are self-employed through limited companies are in the creative industries, and it would be great if we could find some way of helping them.
The wedding sector has also been particularly hard hit. Wedding venues are too large to qualify for business rates relief. They have no turnover, so the VAT reductions do not help them, and they do not serve food, so eat out to help out could not help them. I know that support has been given to the wedding industry, but these venues want to get back open and to hold weddings. They can do that in a covid-safe way, and they were doing so before this lockdown. I ask the Government to bring forward support for that sector.
I also want to touch on pubs, and I declare my interest in that my family run pubs and it is the industry in which I grew up. While great support has been given, wet pubs in particular have suffered. Support such as eat out to help out has been available, as well as the VAT reduction to 5%, which is very welcome and I am pleased that it has been extended—as is Alton Towers, one of the biggest employers in my constituency. However, if a pub does not sell food, it does not qualify for the 5% reduction. Would the Government consider finding some way to help those wet pubs? They will be reopening just as the football season comes to an end and will therefore not have the benefit of people coming in to watch the football, and they do not serve food and therefore cannot benefit from many of the Government’s incentive schemes. Just a suggestion: maybe there could be a way to allow those businesses to continue furloughing staff but let the staff come back in to work to help them to reopen. There are great costs involved in reopening that they need to think about.
My final point is about getting people back into town centres and spending money in the hospitality businesses. We need a whole-of-Government effort to ensure that not just the great events that my right hon. Friend mentioned but local events are held. I spoke to the leader of my district council today, and we are looking to see what we can do because we want those businesses to be able to stand on their own two feet, as the Secretary of State said.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Let me join other Members in marking today as International Women’s Day. It is certainly a day for us to reflect on the contribution of women, and on how we ensure that everyone is able to make their fullest possible contribution and how we advance the cause of equality. It is also important for law makers to be considering the impact of the choices that are made all year round. With last week’s Budget, it is particularly important to ensure that the decisions as far as possible enhance equality and opportunity rather than diminish them.
Siren voices have been calling for action to be taken on the deficit that has resulted from the economic responses to covid, by which they inevitably mean the Government taking steps to cut public spending. Unfortunately, the Chancellor shows every sign of wishing to heed that. The only comparable economic event to the covid crisis in its impact on national debt was world war two. Most of us would find it hard to imagine the political voices that prevailed after world war two saying that a national health service was unaffordable, that public services were unaffordable or that it simply was not feasible for the Government to play a leading role in rebuilding housing and industry.
The important figure, of course, is not the debt in itself, but the debt as a share of gross domestic product. Economic demand will return as vaccinations start to take effect and more of life can begin to return to normal. If the Government continue to support that economic demand, the economy will return to trend growth and overall government debt will begin to shrink proportionately, exactly as it did after world war two. However, if the brakes are to be put on spending in the future, demand will assuredly fall and people will have less money to spend and growth in employment will be stifled. Inevitably, the impact will then fall most heavily on all those who have least, such as families that have one or more adult out of work and in receipt of benefits.
There are many actions, both big and small, that the Chancellor could have chosen to take in this Budget which could help or hinder the recovery, but one of the most significant choices would have been to make permanent the £20 uplift in universal credit. It is no exaggeration to say that for many families that £20 has made the difference between bills being paid or not, and food being on the table or not. It is a comparatively modest financial commitment, but one whose impact for the good has far outweighed the resources it has required. Extending it for six months falls well short of doing “whatever it takes” to ensure the financial security of the least well-off. Governments all over the world have increased their support for their economies throughout this crisis, many with interventions that are proportionately far larger than we have seen from the UK Government. Having rightly carried the economy this far, it would make no sense for the Chancellor to drop that commitment now. It is a real disappointment that he is not doing more to do “whatever it takes” and provide the 5% of GDP stimulus that the Scottish National party has called for repeatedly.
There are of course things that can be welcomed. We certainly welcome the excellent progress being made on vaccinations and on reducing infection levels of the virus, which gives us ever more hope that when restrictions start to be lifted they might be able to stay lifted. We can also welcome the extension of the furlough and the self-employment income support scheme. Obviously, the furlough is not without its cost to employers, and together with the SEISS it still fails to reach too many people, but both have been lifelines for those they benefit. To help fill in some of those gaps, the Scottish Government have provided nearly £30 million for newly self-employed people to mitigate the financial challenges for those who have been unable to access the UK Government’s SEISS. It is past time for the Chancellor to recognise the shortcomings of his support mechanisms, understand those they have left behind, recognise the hurt caused and undertake to do “whatever it takes” from this point onwards to support those people who have been left behind.
Although everyone recognises that those schemes cannot continue forever, the threat to end both in September is not at all helpful for those who are trying to plan how to trade out of their present difficulties. The repeated short-term extensions that we have seen over the past 12 months are obviously better than the alternative of not extending. However, it creates an image not so much of a Chancellor carefully planning a route back to recovery, but almost of a Wallace and Gromit Chancellor, desperately laying the rails in front of the train just before it runs out of track.
Ahead of the Budget the British Chambers of Commerce warned that a quarter of British businesses would fire staff immediately if the Chancellor failed to extend the scheme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies urged the Chancellor to recognise and address the multiple inequalities exacerbated by the crisis, saying that emergency support should be extended and that the furlough scheme
“should not be cut completely in one go.”
Placing a full stop date on furlough, rather than having an open-ended promise of continuing it until it is no longer needed, risks pushing businesses to lay off their workers while they are still in recovery. The resulting loss of skills and experience can only hinder the recovery of individual businesses and the economy, so we urge the Chancellor to reconsider the date. No business is or will be furloughing staff unnecessarily, and a Chancellor truly committed to doing “whatever it takes” would surely agree to maintain both schemes for so long as is required while restrictions remain in place.
Turning to the tourism and hospital sector, the best way to help it right now would be to allow it to trade out of its difficulties by getting money across the counter just as soon as it is safe once again to do so. The VAT reduction will be crucial. My party welcomed the VAT reduction to 5% for the sector, but to stop that on 30 September will not be helpful. It should continue for the full year.
Business rates relief will also be crucial and has been a lifeline for leisure, retail and hospitality businesses, helping them to strip out fixed costs and stay alive. It is a matter of regret that the Chancellor has not committed the same level of resource as the Scottish Government, who have announced a £1 billion package that not only cuts the poundage rate, but offers 100% relief not just until June, but for the next 12 months for retail, tourism, hospitality, newspapers and the vital aviation sector.
As a Member of Parliament representing the north-east of Scotland, I am only too aware of the importance of the energy economy and the criticality of ensuring a just transition to net zero. While I acknowledge the £27 million that has been announced for the energy transition zone in Aberdeen, it still falls well short of the wider £62 million transition fund committed last year by the Scottish Government.
Listening to the Scottish Tories would lead someone to think that the levelling-up fund will leave not a single pothole unfilled, not a bridge unrepaired and not a project unfunded in north-east Scotland. Instead, now that the detail has been revealed, we see that Aberdeenshire has been placed in the lowest category and Aberdeen city in the second tier. We are essentially being left empty handed, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK Government are so far falling far short of the necessary response to help secure the economic future of north-east Scotland. We can only hope that there is better news to come in the sector deal that we have been promised in the first quarter.
As I have said, there is also essentially nothing for the 3 million who have been excluded. If she has spent years of practice and study in pursuit of her dream to perform, Fatima’s next job should not have to be in cyber. She should have a fighting chance to get her next job in the area that she has worked so hard to be in. Our arts and cultural sector would be vital to our sense of who we are even without its economic contribution, but this is not just about the performer we see and admire, because there are so many other parts of the pyramid that helps to put that performer on the stage. Those people have been left behind without the ability to earn. If we impoverish them, we impoverish us all.
There has also been no additional funding to support musicians and touring artists who have suffered the double whammy of coronavirus and an end to visa-free touring in Europe and no provision for live events insurance, without which the industry will be reliant on support for much longer than necessary. The Scottish Government have stepped in with funds for the performing arts venue relief, for cultural organisations and the venues recovery fund, which has supported theatres and other performing arts venues across Scotland. That provision is supporting grassroots music venues and providing a stabilisation fund, furlough top-up payments and one-off grants for nightclubs and soft play centres. The UK Government can and should follow suit. Interventions have also been made in tourism and hospitality with no UK equivalent: in the wedding industry fund, the bed-and-breakfast hardship fund, the tour operators’ fund, and the events industry support fund. These tourism and hospitality businesses have lengthy supply chains, reaching all parts of the economy. It is not just the accommodation provider, but the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker as well. The recovery from the pandemic will not begin when covid recedes, as businesses will simply move on to dealing with the Brexit crisis. We need to offer wide-ranging support for businesses in this regard. Instead of offering loans, it would be better to convert loans to grants.
In conclusion, let me just make this observation: through the Barnett formula, Scotland is still dependent on problems being felt and choices being made in Whitehall in order to release the resources that we would wish to have in order to act in all the ways that we need. Scotland desperately needs borrowing powers, but as the UK Government take back control from the Scottish Parliament, they are also taking away resource and with it any reason for many to support the current constitutional and fiscal settlement. I am certain that that will not go unnoticed as we approach May’s election in Scotland.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure both to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and to be back in this Chamber to support the Chancellor on this Budget for recovery and renewal. In particular, I support his commitment to continue the unprecedented level of support: the extension of furlough relief, which will have given huge reassurance to many families around the country—£280 billion already spent on covid relief in the past 11 months; his help for the self-employed; his extraordinary commitment to freeports to drive transformational growth, investment and innovation in some of the most left-behind communities; his support for business-led investment, which is the key to growth and job creation; and, in particular, his support for green growth to drive a sustainable economic recovery.
I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but after a Budget, I look for a judgment not from the Opposition Front Bench but from the business community of this country as they are the people who drive the investment that creates prosperity. This Budget has been welcomed by the CBI, the FSB, the Institute of Directors and all the key trade bodies, which speaks volumes for the confidence of boardrooms in this country in this Chancellor and in this Budget.
As former Minister for life science, agri-tech and transport technology, I can say that the Chancellor is absolutely right to back the businesses of tomorrow—the highest growth sectors, which produce not just the odd single digit growth in jobs, employment and prosperity, but double digit and, in some cases, triple digit growth. Those new sectors of the economy are the best for getting us out of debt and releasing a generation from what could otherwise be a decade of decline after this covid disaster.
Let us be in no doubt about the scale of the economic disaster of covid as well as the healthcare impact. A total of £280 billion has been spent in 11 months, which is an unprecedented level of debt in peacetime. This is also the biggest recession that we have experienced in peacetime. This is a trauma on the public finances on a scale we have literally never seen in this country, and it takes us back to a debt-to-GDP ratio that has not been seen since 1760. This is an extraordinary moment. It is even worse than the economic legacy that we inherited in 2010.
How will we avoid a decade of decline and the next generation paying for it? The Chancellor is right about two things. First, we have to reassure the markets that we are the party still committed to returning our public finances to a sensible and balanced state. Let us not forget that a 1% rise in interest rates, if markets lost confidence in us, would lead to an extra £25 billion a year in interest payments. The Chancellor has taken some tough decisions and he is right to have done so, but, crucially, it is growth that we need and that commitment to those new sectors. Nine years ago, we set out an industrial strategy for life sciences, which has paid dividends this year in our ability to deliver a vaccine more quickly than anywhere else in the world, and if we do the same now in bioeconomy, artificial intelligence and robotics, we can do the same again, and the Chancellor has laid the foundations for a decade of growth.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me begin by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) that the measure of a Budget is not the Pollyanna-ish speeches of the Culture Secretary but the slow peeling away of the unpleasant and unfair political choices that the Chancellor made last week. I lay on a ventilator while medical and non-medical staff were saving my life, as they did the Prime Minister’s, and I did not come out of hospital to clap those NHS workers and then say to them, “But you will have a real-terms pay cut.” It would have been hypocritical of me to do that, as it would for anyone else.
One of the crises we face in this country is the crisis in social care. We know that the sector is dominated by low-paid women workers—indeed, far too low-paid. We have to do something about that, yet we saw nothing in the Budget to relieve those problems.
Rochdale is a town in a borough that has seen £170 million taken away by successive Conservative Governments since 2010. We have very high unemployment among our young people—probably 50% higher than in the country as a whole—and 17,000 universal credit claimants. With that kind of background, it makes no sense to say that universal credit will be cut by £20. That will take £17 million a year out of the Rochdale economy, and stopping furlough in September will do equal damage.
If this is a jobs-first Budget, what about the missing millions—those who got no help, such as Sarah Graham, who runs a business in Rochdale as part of the Travel Counsellors franchise? She has had almost no financial support for the last 12 months and will probably have no income for another 12 months, because that is the nature of her work. It makes no sense for businesses such as that to be put at risk. Where is the ambition in the Budget? Where is the hope for the future? Where is the plan for investment in education for our young people or jobs skills training for the future? It is not there. Where is the commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail? We have heard it promised so many times, but not a spade has yet hit the ground.
This is a Government that talk the talk on greening our economy, but nothing in the Budget will address the urgency of the climate crisis. This Government have failed, this Budget has failed, and the Chancellor has failed the nation. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is what I like, a timer. Well done, Tony.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd).
I would like to make three brief points in this important debate on the Chancellor’s Budget statement. First, I applaud the priority to help to protect jobs and support businesses as we emerge cautiously from the restrictions imposed to combat the covid pandemic. I therefore welcome the extension of the furlough scheme to September and the increased support for the self-employed, in particular those who started a new business during the year before covid struck. I am grateful to my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who opened the debate, for the work he has done to secure survival funding for the sports, arts, culture and heritage sectors. These groups have been a lifeline for cultural venues like the Ludlow Assembly Rooms and the Majestic cinema in Bridgnorth in my constituency, with major support going to the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, to ensure that these will all soon be able to reopen. The continued business rates holiday and the VAT cut for hospitality and tourism businesses will also be a huge help in south Shropshire when they are able to reopen.
Secondly, I welcome the green finance measures, extending the Bank of England’s remit to reflect the transition to net zero Britain, which the Environmental Audit Committee had specifically called for. The confirmation of the £15 billion green gilts issuance, the launch of environmental retail savings products and the review of carbon offset market trading will all help to cement the City of London’s leadership in green finance. The City and its regulators should lead the way in developing global standards of taxonomy to monitor and rate company performance and investment products and portfolios, as part of our contribution in hosting both the G7 and COP26 this year.
The Budget had some encouraging pointers to help the UK to meet its environmental obligations. The major boost to business investment through the super deduction capital allowance will help business to invest in newer, cleaner technology. It was also good to see the £12 billion investment in the new UK infrastructure bank, with a remit to help to drive green growth and create green jobs, as will the development of freeports and growth hubs, and the hydrogen projects, unlimited investment in offshore wind and the port infrastructure that were announced.
But despite these promising moves, covid has delayed many of the detailed environmental policies needed to deliver net zero Britain. The private sector is poised to invest in projects contributing to the economic recovery and to net zero Britain, but they need the demand signals and policy structures in place from Government to do so. The Chancellor missed this opportunity and made little further progress in aligning recovery measures to the overarching Government ambition to achieve net zero Britain. Last summer, the Chancellor launched the green homes grant—an excellent initiative to help the 19 million homes that need energy efficiency measures to cut carbon emissions, but unfortunately he did not choose the Budget to overhaul and extend this scheme so that it would live up to his ambitious targets.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
This is a shameful Budget. On International Women’s Day, whether you are a mother in a food bank queue in Britain struggling to feed your children or a mother of a child in Yemen, this heartless Chancellor is turning his back on your suffering. It is shameful because of the hypocrisy of standing on doorsteps clapping nurses and now slapping them in the face by cutting the pay of our NHS heroes and heroines. It is especially shameful because at the head of this Government who are insulting our NHS workers is a Prime Minister whose life they saved. The ultimate irony is that the Prime Minister is riding high in the polls on the backs of the hard work and dedication of the NHS staff who are rolling out the vaccination programme so successfully.
Anyone voting for this Budget will bear a mark of shame for throwing another 500,000 people into poverty when the Government cut the £20 a week in universal credit from the poorest families in our community, a mark of shame for yet again failing to provide even that meagre uplift to disabled people living in poverty on legacy benefits, and a mark of shame for failing to tackle the low level of sick pay that is forcing many workers to put their health at risk by returning to work. I have tabled an amendment to the Budget resolutions calling for a distributional analysis of the Chancellor’s proposals to freeze the tax thresholds. The Chancellor said:
“Nobody’s take-home pay will be less than it is now as a result of this policy”.—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 256.]
The tax threshold freeze is a real-terms pay cut for millions of workers. The OBR estimates that this will mean 1.3 million more people paying income tax. Their take-home pay will be less. In 2019 the Conservative manifesto, like the Labour manifesto, pledged no rises in income tax, VAT or national insurance for basic rate taxpayers. This Budget breaks the pledge on which over 550 Members of this House were elected. Many low-paid workers are in rent arrears, in household debt or taking mortgage holidays, accruing more debt interest. We should not be legislating to cut their take-home pay.
I have seen it reported that in this Budget the Chancellor is stealing my policies. No, he is not. His Budget plagiarises the rhetoric but not the substance, with promises of corporation tax rises, but delayed and overridden by tax giveaways—tokenistic gestures to levelling up but contaminated by pork barrel politics. Taken alongside the fast-track award of crony contracts to Tory friends and donors, it is hardly surprising that many now refer to this Government as corrupt. The decisions to freeze fuel duties and to dig a new coal mine, and the pathetic scale of environmental policies, do not just pay lip service to the climate crisis we face but put future generations at risk. By any measure, this is a Budget to be ashamed of.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) [V]
We all understand the maelstrom in which the Chancellor is operating and must congratulate him on his efforts to deal with the immediacy of the crisis. Despite this, I was somewhat disappointed that there was no reference to Morecambe’s Eden Project North.
Eden Project North meets all the Prime Minister’s policy priorities: it can be an exemplar project in terms of levelling up. As the project is shovel-ready, it is now possible that workers can be on-site this year, with immediate gains, demonstrating the green shoots of recovery from covid-19 and being a showcase for the Government’s commitments to COP26 in Glasgow in November. Eden Project North is precisely the type of project that the Government should be backing. Three Prime Ministers and four Chancellors have agreed with this, as did the Minister in my recent Adjournment debate.
The benefits and employment opportunities are obvious. Morecambe has a vibrant creative arts and tourism sector, and Eden will complement that as it has a proven track record of hosting arts and tourism events at its Cornwall site. I have submitted to the Treasury a private letter signed by 46 MPs from all areas of the UK, not just the north-west, to back Eden Project North, and almost 100 businesses in the wider Morecambe area have also signed a petition to Parliament. It seems that if there is any project to change lives, this is one that should be endorsed. I urge the Government to back this project as we emerge out of the pandemic crisis.
The levelling-up fund is good but is capped at £20 million per district, not per seat, with multiple restrictions on use and existing funding streams now seemingly being redirected through a levelling-up bank in Leeds yet to be implemented. How can Eden Project North access this scheme, especially as it has already been endorsed by the Government and can only apply in two years’ time through a council that will be abolished in the next 12 months? The levelling-up funds are not enough for Eden Project North unless they can be applied through an infrastructure scheme for £30 million to £50 million, seemingly only for roads. There needs to be more clarity on the levelling-up prospectus and I call on the Government to match-fund the £55 million Eden has on the table to get the bulldozers and builders to work on Eden Project North in Morecambe sooner rather than later.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]
There is nothing in this Budget for Northumberland. There is nothing in this Budget for my constituency of Wansbeck. It is typical of what has happened in the north. We have seen decades of decline and decay since the social and economic fabric of whole communities was torn apart and left unreplaced. The decline has accelerated in recent years as a brutal regime of austerity and cuts has taken its toll on already abandoned communities. Last week’s Budget was a kick in the teeth for my constituents and many more in the surrounding area, who, despite years of being left behind, could see no sign of any attempt to level up in the region.
Despite that, the exciting proposal of a new state-of-the-art electric battery manufacturing gigafactory in Cambois in my constituency presents an opportunity that our communities can be rebuilt around—a new industrial power in the north that centres on green energy, upon which we must and will become increasingly reliant. This will only be possible with the firm support of this Government, and the question from my constituents to the Government is simple: “Will you support us this time round or cast us aside once again? Will you deliver, or will you boot us into touch once again?”
Climate change is a real and dangerous threat, yet there was little mention of it in the Budget last week. But, believe me, there is no get-out-of-jail card with climate change; there is no vaccine for climate change. It is crucial that the Government do what they can to support the development of this gigafactory in my region. It is an opportunity for the people to get just employment—to get fair wages, and terms and conditions.
The Britishvolt gigafactory is only the first step in what has the potential to be a revival for the north, which has been given so little to cheer about in recent decades. We need this; we need and deserve this chance and opportunity. I urge the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and the Prime Minister to do whatever they can and whatever is in their power to ensure that this proposal is successful. It will transform the lives of thousands of families in my constituency. I urge them and their teams to work closely alongside those who understand our region. We are a proud region and a proud people; give us the respect we deserve and deliver.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) [V]
This was a Budget that had a clear direction. Whether we like it or not, if we do not continue to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the country, particularly in the private sector, we will not have an economy to return to that does any of the things that we take for granted, such as providing stability, growth or the tax receipts to fund the public sector. The Chancellor focused on that No. 1 priority. That is of the moment, and I commend him for it.
I have listened to the speeches by Opposition Members over the last few days bemoaning what was not in the Budget rather than acknowledging the sheer depth of support that this Conservative Government continue to offer. It is astonishing. Wake up! The answer to the biggest economic shock in history is not like a vaccine. We cannot fix where we are overnight; this situation will take years and years to recover from. It is a question of priorities—and where do we even begin to start? We do what this Government have done since the start of the pandemic—we protect people. We protect people’s jobs and livelihoods with support that is still needed now.
We heard it when the Chancellor said that the OBR now expects the UK economy to recover to its pre-crisis level six months earlier than originally thought. Unemployment is now expected to peak at 6.5%, instead of nearly 12% as feared last summer; 1.8 million fewer people are expected to be out of work than first forecast. That is not a bit of luck; that is a Government that have produced one of the best financial responses in the entire world to support their citizens.
We cannot fix the public finances in a single Budget when we are in the midst of spending £407 billion in total fiscal support, with our national debt reaching its highest level since the ’60s. The recovery from this economic shock will be long and prolonged, but like our exit from lockdown, the Chancellor’s plan is the right step. My right hon. Friend was honest: the steps will be steady, moving in the right direction and priority-driven. That is responsibility.
For my constituents in North Norfolk, the message has been heard. Tourism, leisure and hospitality, the dominant sectors for many rural areas, are on their knees, but we welcome the extension of the VAT rate cut and of business rates relief, and the restart grants to get our businesses back on their feet. No one, but no one, can question the commitment that the Government have given to this sector, and I am confident that we will see another year of safe domestic tourism into North Norfolk.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The Budget announced on 3 March left a lot to be desired. While there were certainly some welcome measures, it is astounding that so little was said about the NHS and social care, public sector pay, legacy benefits, schools, or what those families relying on universal credit will do once the uplift is phased out in September. Yet those are the issues that so many of my constituents in Hall Green regularly contact me about.
At the front of people’s minds is the NHS, yet here we heard nothing of substance from the Government—no new funding announced for the NHS in the midst of one of the biggest public health crises we have ever faced. To add insult to injury, the Government are now saying that they can afford only the derisory sum of a 1% pay increase for nurses. I direct them to the Royal College of Nursing on this issue and recommended that nothing less than a 12.5% pay increase is satisfactory for our nurses, who have worked hard and risked their lives to keep us safe and healthy over the course of the pandemic.
Also notable by their absence from the Budget were children and parents. In my constituency, nearly half of all children live in poverty—twice the national average—which is completely unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours. While the Budget gave sorely needed certainty to businesses, children and parents were given none whatsoever. As the Child Poverty Action Group has argued, the temporary uplift to universal credit only delays an inevitable and considerable fall in income for many families living in poverty. This is simply not good enough. The uplift should be permanent.
Finally, there was nothing on public sector pay. Many of our key workers in the public sector now face squeezed incomes as lockdown eases and the economy returns to normality. After all they have done for this country, to keep their pay frozen is a disgrace. This pay freeze must be abandoned, and decent pay rises must be granted to all public sector workers.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I do not think any reasonable person could have expected to see anything except a tough Budget this year. The measures taken by the Chancellor over the past year have been essential. We could not have stood by while so many fellow citizens saw their jobs and livelihoods disappear, so I pay tribute to the Chancellor for his speedy response and for the massive support packages he has put in place. Instinctively, I believe in low taxes and small government, but in a crisis like this, measures of this kind—unwelcome but necessary tax increases—are vital, as, I am afraid, are pay freezes, except in the NHS. I also very much agree with the Chancellor’s continuing focus on jobs. I say that as a former Minister for Employment who spent a long time trying to help people back into work a decade ago, when unemployment was 2.6 million. Getting people back into work has to be our priority.
However, there are a few areas where I would like the Treasury to have another look. The first is the situation facing people who have missed out on support over the past 12 months, and in particular those who pay themselves by dividend. I understand why the Treasury took the approach it did at the start of the pandemic, and I agreed with that approach then, but after 12 months and three lockdowns, the Treasury should be taking a different view. It should be offering support to those people, potentially as part of an expanded self-employment income support scheme. We have to do something for them now.
My second concern is the travel and tourism sector. The Secretary of State pointed out what a dreadful time this has been for businesses in that sector. From airlines to event managers, businesses across the sector have been crippled over the past year, and as of now, they have no certainty about when they can return to anything like normality. This sector is vital to our economy, and my constituency hosts a large number of small businesses that operate in it. I urge Ministers to make 17 May the start of an unlocking process. We cannot continue with borders shut to the degree that they are now. But if that is not going to happen and international travel cannot begin again without onerous restrictions, the Chancellor will need to return to the issue.
Finally, will Ministers look again at the conditions that apply to the rescue package put in place for zoos? The fund was welcome, but it is very difficult for zoos to apply for it. It makes no sense to have a rescue fund go unspent while the zoos go bust. Can Ministers look at this again and change the ways of applying for the fund?
This was a Budget that none of us would have wanted. I hate to see taxes rise, but a smart Budget deals with the challenges of the moment, and this Budget did that very well.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I have three tests for this Budget. The first is: does it leave anybody behind? If someone works hard and plays by the rules, they should be able to expect to get on in society. People who are unable to work should be protected and expect to have benefits that secure a decent life, and public services should be universal, properly financed and available to all. By those standards, the Budget fails.
Government Members argue that there is not enough money in Britain. This is one of the richest countries in the world. The problem is that the wealth is located in a handful of large corporations and a few thousand very wealthy people. In the last six months, during the pandemic, the stock exchange increased in value by £630 billion. Since the banking crash, the 1,000 richest people in our country have increased their wealth by £400 billion. There is almost £1 trillion in unspent corporate liquidity in the banks. There is a large amount of wealth available in our country. The problem is that it is held in a very few hands, and the Chancellor failed to touch it. At the same time, working people, who have sustained our country through the pandemic, are facing a disgraceful situation. We have £8 million being taken by stealth because of the income tax changes. We have a third of key workers now paid less than the living wage. Ten million people are currently working in precarious employment and 14 million people are living in poverty in our country today, alongside the vast wealth I have just spoken about.
It is true that the Budget envisages expenditure on infrastructure, but it is £2.4 billion a year. That is a large amount of money, but it is 147 times less than the amount of money that Germany is spending on infrastructure and it is 15 times less than what the Government are spending with their Tory chums on the track and trace system, which is not working very well. All those things mean that one has to worry about the chronic nature of the problems facing working people in our country. A towns fund has been created, but it has already been cut, actually, through austerity and it is not going to the towns in most need. It is going to those that are most convenient to the Tory party. As for housing, of course they are giving more money to buy houses, but they have done nothing to build more houses, thereby contributing to the chronic problem of housing facing our country.
This is not a Budget to build back better. This is a Budget that sustains everything we have seen—unemployment, poor work, precarious employment, poverty, cuts to the public services and austerity. It should be rejected tomorrow night. The Chancellor needs to go back, with a new calculator, to bring a new Budget back in due course.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The extension of the furlough scheme, the extension of the VAT reduction and the restart grants are all hugely welcomed by businesses and individuals across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, particularly ceramic manufacturers such as Churchill China and Steelite, which have been hugely reliant upon furlough, so they can bring back workers steadily as demand for their world-leading tableware increases.
If I can, however, make one further pitch for brewers, such as Burslem-based Titanic Brewery, I would argue that more must be done to help the on-trade. The new rate of duty for draught beer, defined as beer sold in containers of over 20 litres, could be set at a lower rate, reducing the price gap between cheap supermarket booze and a beer at the pub. This policy targets a sector that has suffered throughout the pandemic and is only possible now the UK has left the European Union.
I was astonished by the Leader of the Opposition’s sneering attitude over well-paid jobs moving to Darlington and money being invested in towns such as Kidsgrove. Instead of welcoming the investment, he showed how out of touch he is with the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke by suggesting that Kidsgrove is not entitled to the £16.9 million awarded in this Budget.
The Leader of the Opposition said that such announcements were “giving up”, not levelling up. Let us look at how, from 2012 to 2018, the Labour-led Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council gave up on the borough’s second town. During that period, the spend on infrastructure projects in Kidsgrove was: in 2012-13 nil, 2013-14 nil, 2015-16 nil, 2016-17 £15,000, 2017-18 nil. The local Labour party gave up so much on Kidsgrove that, when it was offered a chance to buy Kidsgrove sports centre for £1, it said no. Thankfully, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council is now Conservative-led, by Councillor Simon Tagg, who has worked tirelessly with the Kidsgrove sports centre community group and County Councillor Gill Burnett to develop plans for the sports centre’s big comeback—a comeback that would not be happening without the town deal money, demonstrating clearly to the people of Kidsgrove that, under this Chancellor and this Prime Minister, places such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are forgotten no longer.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Chancellor’s Budget has created a new cliff edge at the end of September. The furlough scheme stops at the end of September. It should be extended and be flexible. The 5% VAT reduction for food and drink in pubs and restaurants stops at the end of September. It should be extended and include the close contact service industry. The universal credit £20 uplift stops at the end of September. It should be made permanent and include legacy benefits. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts peak UK unemployment of 6.5% at the end of September. That is 2.2 million people without jobs at a time when coronavirus and flu may be overwhelming.
The Chancellor’s Budget is rhetoric over substance, playing down his £4 billion of cuts. Austerity is not over in Wales. While we wait for his rhetoric to turn into substance, the Welsh Labour Government have stepped in again to protect public services, build a greener future and create positive change for a more equal Wales, filling in the Chancellor’s gaps in support to move Wales forward. The Welsh Labour Government’s £2 billion economic resilience fund is the most generous coronavirus support package in the UK, securing 141,000 jobs in Wales.
Hospitality, leisure and tourism businesses in Wales that are affected by ongoing coronavirus restrictions will have an extra £30 million. If restrictions are extended in next week’s Welsh Government review, an extra £150 million will be available through the non-domestic rates scheme, with each business receiving up to £5,000. The business rates holiday for retail, leisure and hospitality in Wales will be extended for 12 months, with a targeted, responsible £380 million for businesses with rateable value up to £500,000, plus charities. Together with the small business rates relief scheme, that ensures that more than 70,000 businesses will not pay rates in 2021-22. Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UKHospitality said:
“The Welsh Government has again listened directly to our constructive proposals for more vital support and the new money will play a leading part in continuing to save local jobs and local businesses”.
One potential investment for Neath is the Chancellor’s announcement of £30 billion for the global centre for rail excellence in Onllwyn. Since 2016, the Welsh Labour Government have partnered with current landowners Celtic Energy, the rail industry, academics and Neath Port Talbot and Powys local authorities, and had positive consultations with local communities. Let us hope that this announcement is substance, not rhetoric.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I broadly welcome the Budget. It comes at an unprecedentedly difficult time for the public finances as a result of the pandemic and the Chancellor is indeed wise largely to leave the economy alone in the coming year. This is not, as we had in the financial crisis, a fundamental problem with the workings of the economy itself, but an external shock, and the economy will self-right if we allow it to do so.
It is not a surprise that there is a bigger drop in GDP in the United Kingdom than in some other countries. We have a much larger service sector economy, and service sectors require people to move for them to work, therefore it is not a surprise that, if people cannot move, we get a bigger shock than an economy that is largely manufacturing based.
However, I question some of the attitudes to the financial years ahead. We tend to get much of the same old, same old on tax and spend; that the way to balance the books is either to raise taxes or to reduce spending. No one looks at what a business would do, which is to ask how it can earn more money. This country could earn a lot more money.
British exports now count for under 30% of our GDP. That needs to improve—the figure for Germany, for example, is nearly 49%. We have identified 400,000 businesses that we know could be exporters because they have counterparts and peers that already export. Governments need to help companies into markets. The market will do the same.
The Government can also help by setting a wider and better international framework for business. We can liberalise global services post Brexit, with our freedom in world trade policy. We should do so. Britain, the United States and Japan, the world’s three biggest service economies, would benefit enormously from trade liberalisation.
We need more wealth creation in the country. Wealth creation is not the same as growth. Any idiot Government can spend tomorrow’s money today and call the result growth. Labour Governments have made careers of doing that since the first Labour Government. Wealth creation is taking someone’s unique intellectual property and turning it into a good or a service that does not exist today, or a better good or service than exists today. That is why I would like to see more creativity in what we do in the time ahead.
Are we really saying with a £39 billion tax rise that we can find no major efficiency savings in the years ahead? Are we really saying there are no supply-side changes in our economy that could make it work more effectively? Do we really have to be saddled in perpetuity with the balance of spending and the patterns that we see today? I hope not. I hope that, in the Budgets ahead, once we put the covid pandemic behind us, we can return to a Conservative tradition of not just tax reform, but tax simplification, because those are the things that will make a market economy work better. We cannot fund the public services we want to see unless we have an efficient capitalist economy working at its maximum level, and that is the duty of any Conservative Government.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor’s announcement last week about an extension to the universal credit uplift is of course welcome. However, by not committing to a permanent extension or offering tapered support, too many families are facing a cliff edge in six months’ time. Furthermore, by not providing a corresponding uplift for those on legacy benefits, more than 2 million people have been left to face increased costs, with many of our most vulnerable having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families.
It is evident that the enhanced conditionality of our hostile benefits system results only in a framework that is difficult to navigate, uncompassionate and penalises the most disadvantaged. The Institute for Fiscal Studies’ director Paul Johnson recently stated that the cliff edge reduction in universal credit will result in the income of some families in our communities falling by £80 from one month to the next. This drop in income will come at the same time as unemployment is expected to peak. The deepening impact of the austerity measures enacted by this UK Government will clearly result in a system that is unworkable and cruel.
Does the Chancellor really think it is acceptable to leave the millions receiving legacy benefits facing real hardship, just because they happen to be claiming the wrong kind of benefit? Does he really think it is acceptable to increase the income of these same individuals by a lousy 37p a week, while continuing to refuse them the vital £20 uplift? Why is their need any different?
With no immediate return to normality in sight, it is only fair and reasonable to provide the same level of support to those on legacy benefits as to those claiming universal credit. Many of my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill have faced the full force of this incompetent system, yet it is not the UK Government who are stepping in to provide support, but our grassroots organisations acting once again as the lifeblood of our communities. Tannochside Information and Advice Centre supports more than 200 of my constituents every month with benefit-related issues. Surely, given the circumstances, the Government should have extended existing benefit claim forms, instead of powering ahead with a system of inherent prejudice. This is just another abject failure in an already unsecure social security system.
The Budget should have been a chance for the Government to think more ambitiously about the welfare system. Given this failure and many fundamental issues around payment levels, the system will continue to leave people struggling. This was the time to give people dignity. Instead the Government have offered nothing but further deprivation, desperation and destitution.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome this Budget, which addresses current issues while also planning sensibly for future economic stability. The Government have put in place unprecedented support measures during a pandemic, which have provided a bridge to allow jobs and businesses to be there on the other side. I welcome that the Government are continuing the support with the extension of the furlough scheme and other support measures. I am so pleased that the Government have listened to our calls from both sides of the House for the uplift in universal credit to be extended, which will benefit around 635,000 households in the north-west of England alone. I hope it will be kept under review in case a further extension is required.
I am grateful to Treasury colleagues for responding positively to our calls for other additional support, and the inclusion of some of the newly self-employed in the self-employment income support scheme is very welcome indeed. However, I reiterate my calls for that to be expanded further to provide support for those who, sadly, are still missing out, including directors of companies and freelancers.
The tourism and hospitality sectors have been hit particularly hard during the crisis. Those sectors are vital in Penrith and The Border and across Cumbria, and they may be slower to recover than some other sectors. I am therefore delighted that the Chancellor has announced continued targeted support for those sectors, such as the extension of business rates relief, the extension of the VAT cut and additional recovery grants and loans being made available. The sector is there ready and waiting to welcome visitors back to beautiful Cumbria when it is safe to do so. This targeted support will make that wide welcome all the more possible.
The support for training and upskilling communities in the Budget will make a huge difference. The doubling of the financial incentive to take on new apprentices will allow more workplace training for folk of many ages. In Penrith, we have had the turmoil over the future of Newton Rigg College, and we now have a lifeline of land-based education provision through an innovative partnership between Myerscough College and Penrith’s Ullswater Community College. Investment in apprenticeships and further education training will bolster this lifeline as we work with local stakeholders to secure a future vision for a new Newton Rigg to re-emerge. I look forward to working with Government and local stakeholders in realising this vision.
Finally, I was saddened that Cumbria’s freeport application, involving Carlisle Airport, Barrow and Workington, was not chosen in the first round of freeports. I hope the Government will recognise the importance of Carlisle Lake District airport to our region’s economy and as a key part of the United Kingdom’s connectivity. I hope, therefore, that they will continue to look to support the airport with financial and policy interventions.
This is a Budget with strategic importance, both now and in the future, as we come through the pandemic. I am happy to give it my support.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) [V]
It is delightful to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I look forward to visiting his beautiful bit of the north-west as soon as we are able to do so.
This Budget is probably the most critical of my time in this place. The crisis has pushed millions into financial difficulty. Following a decade of austerity combined with the economic shock of Brexit, this emergency has thoroughly gutted parts of my communities in Wythenshawe and Sale East. The Budget was an opportunity to heal our economy and help those worst affected by the pandemic. I welcome the extra measures announced last week aimed at filling in the gaps of support. However, many of my constituents have shouldered an unfair share of the pain in the last 12 months. The Budget does not go far enough.
I have seen the huge impact the pandemic has had on Manchester Airport in my constituency and the surrounding community. For example, Naeem Ahmed, the secretary of the airport taxi association, shared with me the tragic news that several of his members had died of covid, unable to stop working due to the lack of financial assistance. These self-employed drivers and their families need proper financial support. Teresa McGeough, a self-employed children’s dyslexic assessor, was unable to work for much of last year. Teresa has only had access to a small amount of financial support that is not meeting her family’s outgoings. The Government cannot leave those like Teresa without the help they need.
The restrictions on hospitality in the past 12 months have had an unequal effect on wet-led pubs, unfairly affecting those in working class communities like mine. In addition, my constituent Paul Naylor, landlord at the much-loved Legh Arms in Sale Moor, is left with less than £100 a month due to the complex retail partnership between landlords and breweries.
This should have been a Budget to put the country back on the road to recovery and right the wrongs of the last decade by rebuilding our economic foundations. Instead, it just papers over the cracks. The Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the Conservative Government’s mismanagement has left Britain with the worst economic crisis of any major economy. We need to learn the lessons of the pandemic, not go back to the insecurities of the past. The Chancellor has the wrong priorities and is out of touch with what the country needs today.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget, not only for its record levels of support in the present due to the pandemic, but for having an eye on the future. However, if we do not own our future, the future will own us. Although this Budget was delivered in a period of extreme economic uncertainty and gloom, the one shining shaft of light has been the UK’s leading role in the covid vaccination programme, which has been delivered solely due to the impact of research and development. Clearly, research and development not only changes lives, as we have always known, but saves them too. As the covid R number begins to fall rapidly due to vaccination, we need now to turn our attention to the other vital R number: the figure that we spend on R&D in the United Kingdom. We have set ourselves a target of spending 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027, yet we currently spend only 1.8%. Compared with other countries—China spends 2.1% of GDP, the US spends 2.8%, Germany spends 3.1%, South Korea spends 4.5% and Israel spends 4.9%—we are falling behind in the global race when it comes to R&D. There are now just 2,135 days until we reach that 2027 target date. If we are not careful, we will miss the target altogether.
The Government have already committed to increase the public spend on R&D from £12 billion a year to £24 billion by 2024-25, which is incredibly welcome, but we must now focus on leveraging in private R&D spend, which is currently around £30 billion a year and needs to rise to £70 billion by 2027. How are we going to achieve that? I was delighted that the Budget includes a consultation on R&D tax reliefs. Although tax reliefs follow the Frascati manual, they are currently limited to staffing costs, materials and software. We urgently need to include data, education and skills in that package.
The reliefs are part of a wider picture that must be addressed in the spending review. We need to look at our R&D commitment for the future—for 2027—and be bold, establishing new international research schemes to bring in the leverage and get private companies to come to this country and commit to R&D. After all, research and development is about to get us out of this pandemic. If we wish to invest in research and development now, it can point us in a fantastic direction for the future.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) [V]
This Budget was a pivotal opportunity to deliver a stronger and fairer economic future, but instead the Chancellor has doubled down on the same economic illiteracy that left us so vulnerable to this crisis. The extension of wage and business support schemes was the right decision but was, as ever, taken needlessly late and came at the cost of businesses and jobs.
More needs to be done to tackle the looming cliff edge on rent and evictions, which puts hospitality businesses, including pubs, at risk. Many of those excluded remain without support and have received nothing during this pandemic. The impact will be felt disproportionately among the self-employed, freelancers and limited company directors who are the lifeblood of local economies such as Portsmouth’s. They will remember the Chancellor’s hollow promise to do “whatever it takes” to support them. The cultural and events sector, which is so vibrant in Portsmouth, will see the lack of Government-backed insurance schemes as a missed opportunity to help festivals such as Victorious to go ahead this summer.
This was a Budget that did not learn the hard lessons that the pandemic has taught us. There was nothing for schools, which are in dire need of investment if our children are to catch up and thrive. The Chancellor announced no support for job creation, yet the number of those under 25 and claiming out-of-work support in Portsmouth has increased by 135% in the past year. There was nothing for social care, which bore the brunt of the crisis and is in dire need of a sustainable funding settlement.
Most insultingly, the Budget confirmed a pay freeze for the public sector workers who have got us through this crisis, and concealed a cut in NHS spending in the fine print. Since then, we have heard that our NHS heroes have been offered a pay increase of just 1%, which is equivalent to a real-terms cuts. More than 11,000 public sector workers in my constituency will be worse off, as will more than 15,000 police officers and almost 40,000 members of our armed forces across the region. The Government cannot cynically clap our key workers one minute and then cut their pay the next.
Finally, the Budget confirmed that Brexit will leave us worse off, with a permanent 4% hit to productivity. We will feel that acutely in Portsmouth: this short-change Government continue to withhold funds that the port needs to build vital post-Brexit infrastructure. The Budget showed us that the Government are intent on the same economic insecurity and inequality that the OBR has confirmed caused the worst recession of the major economies. The Chancellor has put his signature all over a Budget that fails Portsmouth’s families, young people and key workers. It lacks the ambition that my city and this country need for the future.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
My constituents are most grateful for all the support that has been provided through the pandemic and towards the bounce back as we look forward, and for the success with the long-term project funding that has begun to come through. We are very grateful for the furlough and all the grant and support schemes. In particular, the business rates and VAT exemptions and the increase in capital allowances in this Budget will, I think, set us in very good stead to grow our way back into being able to have the revenue that we all want for our public services and to repair the public finances.
We have had some really big wins that are worth celebrating in Yeovil and district. In particular, there was £10 million in the Budget for the Octagon theatre, which is so important to creative industries locally. There was also some money for the Westlands Entertainment Venue to keep that going with revenue support. We have had, through the pandemic, support for the national league, which has been of great benefit to Yeovil Town and clubs like it. Outside the Budget, we also had some brilliant recent news with the final go-ahead—the final decision—on dualling the A303 section at Podimore, which kicks off a signature project that we as a Government have wanted to institute for the whole of the south-west. That will be of huge benefit to my constituents and everybody throughout the south-west peninsula.
However, huge challenges do remain. For example, our high street in Yeovil is definitely struggling. We have had success in being allocated £9.5 million from the future high streets fund, which is brilliant, but it is fair to say that the private sector involvement in that does need the high streets to be back on their feet, so it is a great credit to the Government that the vaccination programme has been going so well. I encourage everybody to get their vaccination as soon as they are offered it, because that gives us the best prospect of being able to stay open as an economy, stay open on our high streets, get our economy firing again and give people the jobs and opportunities that they need. Rapid tests are a fantastic thing that we have brought in. I think that that really gives us hope that we can get the economy back on track, repair the public finances and have a great future.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
I am grateful that I can make some remarks in the proceedings this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Budget was obviously in the worst and most hellish possible circumstances, but I am afraid that the Chancellor and, indeed, the wider Government have failed to meet the moment and really go big on the economic recovery and stimulus that so many people need and had hoped for.
There are two egregious elements that many people, including many of my constituents, have commented on. One is, of course, the fact that even still, a year into the pandemic, so many people who are self-employed are left behind. The other is the utterly egregious way in which the Government are using the levelling-up fund as some kind of party political slush fund aimed at their own constituencies. This is deeply egregious and needs to be fixed.
I want to raise two quick issues in the short time that I have. I have raised one previously, and it concerns hospitality staff in Glasgow at two venues, Blue Dog and AdLib. We are talking about a lot of people here. Because of a dispute between their employer and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, all those members of staff have had no furlough since November last year—none, not a single penny. I raised this two weeks ago and, in fairness, the Paymaster General’s office contacted me and offered to set up some kind of meeting to try to resolve the fact that those members of staff are not only not getting furlough but not getting universal credit because their real-time information is being updated as though they were still being paid. However, I am afraid to say that I am still sat here waiting, and almost 200 people, many of whom are my constituents, are still without any support. I plead with those on the Treasury Bench tonight to get this resolved and to do so swiftly.
The last thing I will raise in the few seconds left to me is that it is three years ago this month—indeed, you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—when I introduced a Bill to ban unpaid work trials, on that fateful Friday in March 2018. The then Minister talked the Bill out. Unpaid work trials are exploitative, they cost us around £3 billion per year and they unfairly target young people. As we go into the recovery, let us do something good, decent and right for people as they try to find work: let us ban the egregious use of unpaid work trials as we move into the recovery phase.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Government are delivering the biggest economic intervention in our country’s history, protecting the jobs, businesses and livelihoods of millions of people. It is one of the most comprehensive support schemes anywhere in the world, and of course I warmly welcome the help that it has given to so many of my constituents, but all this comes at a very high cost. The Budget confirms that the Government are due to spend £1,140 billion in this financial year. Borrowing will be £355 billion—some £300 billion more than was forecast in the March 2012 Budget. The perilous state of the economy means that it is not viable or sensible to start the task of repairing the public finances now, but inevitably there will be a day of reckoning—thankfully not today, but it will come. Right now, borrowing costs are at record low levels, but it is not sustainable just to continue to rely on an ever-expanding Bank of England balance sheet. As the economist Liam Halligan put it, this kind of funding is a stop-gap, not a “miracle cure”. We need strong economic growth to fix the nation’s finances and get us back on our feet, and that means supply-side reform and higher productivity as well as improving skills and infrastructure that requires smarter regulation.
Now that we have taken back control over making our laws in this country, we must do more to ensure that our rules and regulations are pro-competition. That does not mean a race to the bottom—of course we must maintain our high standards—but it does mean crafting our regulation so that it treats businesses equally, including start-ups and innovative disrupters, rather than entrenching advantage for market incumbents. We need a regulatory climate that encourages new entrants to markets rather than placing unnecessary barriers in their way. Regulatory rules are a core part of our economic ecosystem, and the OECD is clear that reforming them in a way that encourages innovation and competition can boost GDP and give consumers more choice and lower prices. Finally, if we are to have a truly roaring ’20s with the strong growth that we need, our regulatory system must keep up with new technology, enabling us to turn the scientific genius to which this country is home into the successful cutting-edge high-growth sectors of the future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
Treasury data shows that transport infrastructure spending in London is 2.5 times more per person than in the whole of the north of England. If the Chancellor is serious about levelling up, we need to see spending on our vital infrastructure in all parts of the north-east too. That is why, on Wednesday last week, I presented a petition to Parliament calling for the Leamside line to be reopened in full, and the Restoring Your Railway Fund bid calling for that was submitted on Friday. Reopening the line in full would bring rail back to Washington, which is the largest town in England without a rail link, but the line would also bring remarkable economic and connectivity benefits to the entire region. After more than a decade of neglect from Conservative Governments, with the added impact of the pandemic on top, the north-east needs that.
Some businesses in my constituency have had to close due to the coronavirus restrictions, without any access to financial support. They include driving instructors, mobile hairdressers and other businesses that do not have premises. The Government should not be putting local authorities on the line and making them the fall guys for a conscious decision that the national Government made. It is this Government who are hitting an estimated 6,500 key workers across my constituency with a real-terms pay cut. They include the NHS heroes we all clapped for, but clapping does not put food on their tables. This also hits our teachers, police officers and all public sector workers, who we all rely on day in, day out. After working on the frontline throughout the pandemic, our key workers really do deserve better.
My constituents all need assurances and certainty, but the Government have failed to do that in this Budget. The Government have made it clear that they are happy to stick to the status quo of the same unfair economy and unequal country that has been so cruelly exposed by this deadly virus.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
Listening to some Opposition Members in this particular debate, I am reminded of when my daughter was a teenager and one of her telling phrases was, “Get real.” This is a “get real” Budget. The fact that the Government have been spending approximately 17% of GDP to protect lives and livelihoods at the same time as the biggest economic contraction since the early 1700s brings home the phrase, “Get real.”
This Budget recognises that we need to continue to protect lives and livelihoods for some time to come. In my constituency, it is particularly welcomed by the hospitality, leisure and events industry. For them, it is in addition to the most welcome news that they are going to be able to open their doors.
The other side of the “get real” approach is the need to face the debt. The two tax changes about which I anticipate my constituents could be negative are the freezing of tax thresholds from next year and the large but delayed increase in corporation tax. I have talked about this to many of my constituents, big businesses and the man in the street. Their reaction has generally been positive, with an understanding of the Chancellor’s difficult situation, and a pleased acceptance of the continuing help, but a reluctant acceptance that debt payment must commence.
In the debate over the past few days, there has been little mention of the new 95% mortgage guarantee scheme, which will enable lenders to provide mortgages to buyers with a deposit of just 5% to purchase properties worth up to £600,000. I believe that this is a new opportunity, parochially, to rebalance the age spectrum of my constituency. Some 22% of the population are under 20, and 60% are aged 40 and over, which leaves about 18% who are in the 20 to 40-year-old bracket. Quite simply, many people in that bracket who have left and would like to come back cannot do so. Commonly, they are young, single, young couples or young families, but they cannot afford to move to Mole Valley.
The two main towns of Leatherhead and Dorking need boosting: they need shops; shops need shoppers; and shoppers need homes. Those two towns have suitable brownfield sites that could be developed to provide homes costing less than £600,000. Unfortunately, Mole Valley has the dead hand of an incompetent Liberal Democrat group in power. They are doing nothing to help, but I am hopeful that after May there will be a new Conservative council that can move on the brownfield sites, sort out the planning, bring investment and homes, and enable the 20 to 40-year-old age group to use the mortgage opportunity and revive the two towns of Leatherhead and Dorking.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
A very good evening to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Members are aware, I am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gaps in support. I want to talk about two issues that have arisen from my work on that front.
The first—ironically, almost, given that today is International Women’s Day, as others have pointed out—is maternity. Our APPG suggested certain policies to the Government that could be based on maternity, parental and adoption rights. I am not going to be churlish about this; there were some gives by the Government. They recognised some of our suggestions and have taken action as a result. I acknowledge that and give credit where it is due. Alas, what we suggested on the maternity front in particular, where a lot of people have lost out rather badly, was sadly not taken up by the Government.
It is only right that I should express my thanks at this stage to a number of organisations, including Maternity Action, Pregnant Then Screwed and ExcludedUK, as well as the campaigner Bethany Power, who did a great deal of work. But you know me well enough, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am ever an optimist. I therefore hope that perhaps, as the weeks and months go by, we can still fine-tune the package to try to recognise the sort of people I am talking about.
As the House is aware, I talk a great deal about the highlands. Therefore, I will go very local on my second point arising out of gaps in support. As has been said, the offer on the VAT front is welcome. However, while I recognise that that is helpful to hospitality and cultural businesses, I want to mention our highland games. I speak as a past chieftain of the Tain highland games, which is one of my proudest achievements and really puts being a Member of the House of Commons into the shade. The 5% help is of no use to highland games, because of course no tickets have been sold at all. These games are simply not happening, and this year we are already facing 13 highland games being cancelled. It is obvious to all that highlands games and events of this sort underpin the very fragile economy of parts of the UK such as the highlands of Scotland.
Finally, I say to those on the Treasury Bench that we really need a more finely tuned package to make these events happen in the future. If the Government could look at extending the VAT cut beyond September, that would be very helpful indeed.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Chancellor for having listened to the repeated calls made over the last 12 months to do something to help the female entrepreneurs and businesswomen working in what we now call the personal care sector but 12 months ago was just known as hair and beauty.
We have to recognise this is a significant sector that contributes a great deal to the Exchequer and employs in the region of 300,000 employees, most of whom are women. Hon. Members might expect me, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, to wish to focus on women and what was done for them in this Budget. I thank the Chancellor for the additional grant funding for the sector. However, I very carefully say to him that there was some consternation at the choice of words used, because some in the sector suddenly became very alarmed that they would not be opening at the same time as non-essential retail. I need some reassurance, and I hope that the Minister on the Treasury Bench will be able to provide absolute clarity that the sector will be in that step.
However, there was a measure of disappointment in the personal care sector that the VAT reduction, which we have seen so fantastically extended to hospitality, was not also extended to that sector. I think it only fair that I voice those concerns today, because that could have been a significant contribution to maintaining the viability of some of these important businesses. However, it is not just about jobs and the economy, because these are businesses that help to combat loneliness and help people to feel more confident in themselves, in turn giving them the enthusiasm and confidence to go and face those job interviews, which we know that many, many women will be facing.
I recognise that the retail sector may be changed irrevocably and would ask the Chancellor to consider how we can ensure that those women in the prime of their lives who may have worked in the retail sector for 20 years or so get access to the retraining opportunities that they will meet, because if the retail sector is changed forever, we will need them to move into new, sustainable sectors. Those jobs cannot simply be held for men. I am very conscious that, when we talk about “Build, build, build”, while construction is important, we also need to think about how we will move more women into that sector, and into STEM jobs and jobs in the green economy. It is so important that we make sure that none of them are left behind.
I would like to follow a Member who spoke previously and comment on the events sector. It is such an important part of our economy, but of course those businesses have not had the business rates break, because they might not have the premises that we see elsewhere in hospitality and in retail. It is a sector, particularly when it comes to weddings, that is crying out for assistance and, again, employs many women.
The Budget was a delicate balancing act, and I commend the Chancellor on his hard work, but I urge him never to forget that 51% of the population are women.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is having technical trouble, so we will come back to him.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate in support of a good Budget that recognised the consequences of the huge amount of borrowing that has had to happen during this unprecedented time. Debt must be paid back and can never be ignored, and this Budget helps to ensure that that will happen.
After every Budget, whoever delivers it, that person is always criticised by the Opposition, but surprisingly with this Budget the Chancellor was criticised for a lack of openness, yet the converse is true. I recall Gordon Brown raising national insurance in one of his Budgets, and not even mentioning it in his speech. That is an example of a lack of openness, not what we heard last week from the current Chancellor.
This Chancellor delivered a Budget that will enable businesses to play their part in the bounce back the economy needs. A crucial part of that was the creation of eight freeports, the potential of which to boost our economy is huge. It is unsurprising that more than 40 ports applied for freeport status, such is their popularity in the sector, so the idea that freeports are not wanted just does not stand up to scrutiny. I am pleased that the freeport of Thames, covering Tilbury and London Gateway, is to be created adjacent to my Dartford constituency. It will create many local jobs and play its part in a global post-Brexit Britain.
However, freeports must be approached in the right way to ensure that we get them right. They are not without their challenges, but their potential is enormous. Freeports are at their best when they incorporate an element of manufacturing within the perimeter, rather than simply being an import/export location. If raw goods can be brought to the freeport, assembled and exported, that offers the best opportunity for job creation and for the port itself. The Thames freeport is expected to create up 25,000 new jobs, and it will help to keep freight off our roads and fully utilise our links to the sea.
Freeports are exactly what is needed to encourage international investment in the UK and to facilitate companies wishing to increase their UK operations. The Thames freeport alone is expected to attract over £400 million-worth of investment, which is why nearby Labour-run London Borough of Barking and Dagenham supports the creation of a freeport on the Thames. We should back the opportunities that freeports can bring to this country. Creating them is a bold, forward-looking step that will bring opportunities not just to my Dartford constituency, but around the whole of the UK and, indeed, the world.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
In the 12 months since the previous Budget, we have had three difficult lockdowns, we have lost over 120,000 lives, with one of the worst death rates in the world, and our economy has been one of the hardest hit as a result, with difficult times for families, small businesses and people across the country. We look wistfully at some of the health decisions made in Australia, New Zealand and South Korea where so many fewer lives have been lost and where they have been able to keep their economy and schools open. We should recognise what went wrong last year, but also focus on what we need to get right as the vaccine is rolled out.
We need to rebuild our economy and services. However, the Budget fails to do that. The extension of short-term measures that many of us called for is right, but it is not a growth plan. Capital investment is being cut just when we need to be investing in sustainable growth. Skills and employment support is too weak, especially for the young, who need guarantees of jobs or training places to get them back on track. Kickstart is still too small and too slow, and key sectors such as pubs and the travel industry need more support. On International Women’s Day, we need urgent action on childcare and support for the often working mums who were more likely to end up giving up work while schools were out.
We need growth plans for all the towns that have been heavily hit by 10 years of austerity. We have worked very hard here in Castleford where I am sitting to get our fair share of investment from the towns fund, but after £200 million has been cut from Wakefield Council budgets over the past 10 years, too many other towns are not included. Across the north, we are still not getting our fair share of transport investment in our infrastructure for the future.
Crucially, we need to keep supporting our NHS. After the year that our NHS has had it is incomprehensible that the Government are proposing a real-terms cut in staff pay. Nurses have told me about the traumas they faced working on the covid wards, the long shifts and extra hours, how difficult it was nursing friends and colleagues who got sick, how fearful they were, and how burnt out they now feel, and yet they keep going. We need them to keep going, because it is our NHS staff who are rolling out the vaccine to get us through and it is our NHS staff who we need to catch up on all those lost operations and that vital cancer treatment. We already have 10% vacancies among nursing staff and the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has struggled to get staff. Local health managers have told us already how worried they are that people are leaving nursing because they are burnt out. The Government have no idea what a kick in the teeth this 1%—below inflation—rise is to them. Health and the economy go hand in hand. Our NHS staff have been there for us this year; we need to be there for them and get them a proper pay rise now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will now go back to Derek Twigg.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Let me first pay tribute to the NHS staff, especially the nurses and doctors, and also our carers who have worked so tirelessly and sacrificed so much in the past year. They have gone above and beyond what was asked of them. They are exhausted and stressed. Some have been traumatised by their experiences. It left a real sour taste when it became clear that, despite his claims of honesty, the Chancellor had not mentioned in his Budget speech the 1% that the Government are now proposing. Effectively, it is a pay cut. I want to see a pay rise that fully recognises the hard work and sacrifices of those who served the country on the frontline in its hour of need. I also do not believe the Chancellor’s self-proclaimed honesty when it comes to the resources that the NHS will need to deal with the huge backlog of non-covid patients waiting for treatment for things such as cancer. The Government have shown their lack of foresight throughout this pandemic, so it is time that they ensure that mental health support is there for frontline NHS and care staff who have served throughout this time.
Despite Halton being ranked the 13th most deprived area, it is not in the priority 1 group for the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund. It beggars belief that Halton is not a priority 1 area. The list of areas included by the Chancellor suggests that ranking is more about who has a Tory MP than real need. His claims of honesty did not stretch to how the areas were chosen. The Chancellor must correct the situation so that the priority groups are based on areas in most need.
The Runcorn town deal will be an outstanding bid, with some fantastic projects such as the Unlock Runcorn project to restore the locks and links to the Manchester ship canal and provide much-needed jobs. I hope the fact that the town of Runcorn has a Labour MP will not count against it. I asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in November if Runcorn would be treated less favourably than other towns because it has a Labour MP. He said that it would not be and that it would be treated fairly. I hope that he keeps to his word. This is against a background of cuts to Halton Borough Council’s budget of £52 million since 2010. Halton expects to spend £2.2 million more on tackling the covid pandemic, despite promises by the Chancellor that that would be fully funded. The Chancellor must fully fund it.
The cladding scandal in this country has had a devastating effect, not least on my constituents in the Decks flats in Runcorn. Despite repeated representations, the Government are still ignoring those buildings that are under 18 metres tall. They must put this right.
Today we celebrate International Women’s Day. Again, we heard nothing about the pensions injustice faced by women born in the 1950s. The Government appear to be completely indifferent to their financial suffering. These women must be properly compensated, and I again call on the Government to right this injustice. This Budget failed to meet the scale of the task.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in support of this Budget and to wish you a happy International Women’s Day and the whole House a happy Commonwealth Day.
Before I explain why I very much support the Chancellor’s Budget, I want to address some of the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). He spoke about economic certainty and stability being key to economic growth and recovery from the current situation. Sadly, he was addressing us virtually, so I could not ask him whether putting the case for another independence referendum would add to certainty or add to instability and uncertainty, and whether that would be good for jobs and economic growth across the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about schemes lasting until September and said that he would like to see them carried through, because otherwise that would add uncertainty and instability to the jobs market and business, and yet the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the SNP in this place, claimed just as recently as the weekend that an independence referendum could happen by the end of this year. I wonder how many people in the business community feel that that would add to certainty and stability through the rest of this year.
The hon. Member for Gordon also poured cold water on the £33 million being invested in north-east Scotland, which we both represent, to support the oil and gas industry as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables. He says that it does not match the ambition of the Scottish Government. He did not mention the fact that since 2014, the UK Government have supported the industry to the value of £2.2 billion and have made the North sea the most attractive and fiscally stable basin in which to invest in the world, supporting thousands of jobs in my constituency, in his and across Scotland.
This was a very good Budget—a pro-business Budget; a Budget building the foundations to prepare to build back better and build back greener; and a Budget that delivered for the entire United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, not that we would know it from listening to the Scottish Government last week. The furlough scheme, which protected nearly 1 million Scottish jobs at its height, was extended. The business interruption loan scheme, which supported 90,000 Scottish businesses to a value of £3.5 billion over the past year, is being followed up with the recovery loan scheme. The super deduction will foster innovation and investment across Scotland.
This was an upbeat, positive Budget that was required by the country to take us forward into the next steps as we recover from coronavirus. It was a Budget that spoke about building back better and investment in the future, not separation, division and distraction, which is all the SNP ever offers Scotland.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
The Office for Budget Responsibility was unequivocal in its analysis of our financial situation: it is the Government’s failure to control the spread of the virus that has dragged us into the worst recession of any major economy. Across the country, businesses are closing, unemployment is rising, jobs are insecure, food bank usage has soared and millions have fallen into poverty.
A recent survey of my constituents revealed a shocking threefold increase in people’s feeling of financial insecurity during the pandemic. At the most acute end of this insecurity, more than a quarter of constituents said that they were struggling to meet basic living costs. It is clear from speaking to my constituents that the distress and anxiety generated by this new financial insecurity is having a profound impact on their wellbeing and mental health. It is vital that we recognise the emotional toll of the last year and look to rebuild the country’s mental health alongside our economic recovery. With this in mind, it is unfathomable for the Chancellor to push ahead with the £30 billion cut in day-to-day health spending. If the last decade of austerity has taught us anything it is that public sector spending cuts disproportionately hurt those on low incomes.
Given that today marks International Women’s Day, it would be remiss of me not to touch on the particularly acute economic impact of the last year on women. Last month the Women and Equalities Committee concluded that the Government’s passive approach to gender equality was no longer good enough. It specifically called on the Government to undertake equality impact assessments, so the fact that not one of the many supporting documents to last week’s Budget statement was an equality impact assessment is utterly inexcusable. Continuing to ignore the fact that the economic impact of the crisis has not been felt equally risks turning the clock back on gender equality.
Missing from last week’s Budget was the ambition needed to tackle the deep crisis we are in. We needed a strong foundation to support businesses, to give security to families and households, and better economic resilience, and to ensure that no one and no community was left behind. Sadly, that is far from what we were offered.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
The exceptional circumstances of the pandemic require exceptional budgetary and financial responses, and I congratulate the Chancellor on having broadly got a balanced and very valuable package together to get the economy back on track. Of course, the best way to get the economy back on track will be to work swiftly to reopen businesses as soon as it is safely possible to do so. Meanwhile the support being given is welcome and necessary.
I particularly want to welcome the support given to the cultural sector, both in previous rounds and in the current round in the Budget. That has helped theatres like the Churchill in Bromley in my constituency and many of our other key arts organisations. But if there is one thing I would urge the Chancellor and the Secretary of State to look at doing further it is to give support not just to institutions but to individuals, and that has already been referred to.
The vast bulk of performers in theatre and the creative sector are freelancers; most of them are self-employed, mainly through limited companies, and I endorse the comments made by other Members about the need to look again at the treatment they receive. Also, the continuation of self-employed support is welcome. Round 4 is very necessary, but I hope that Ministers can look at one practical issue. While it is good that new entrants will now be able to get involved with the 2019-20 tax return and get support, there is real concern that some applicants will have to wait until mid to late April before they can apply for the next, fourth, self-employment income support scheme round. Given that the last payment from round 3 was in December, people will have gone for some four months in effect without any income. I hope we can address that. This is particularly important for young performers and artists at the beginning of their careers; we need to nurture them and keep them in the sector so that we have the stars of the future.
The other area that needs continual attention is financial services. It is the jewel in the crown of our economy, and it did not get enough attention in the deal with the European Union. I hope we can return to that. We should address three areas in particular. First, we must stress the centrality of financial services to future trade deals and liberalisation in that sector. Secondly, we must make sure that our regulatory system is updated and fleet of foot to deal with emerging sectors and developments. I hope the Government will move swiftly to implement, for example, the recommendations of Lord Hill’s report on UK listings to capture firms in those emerging sectors on UK markets. And, finally, the Government must also consider the Kalifa review on FinTech. Both of those are important, indeed critical, for our long-term economic wellbeing.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
The Office for National Statistics ranks St Helens and Knowsley as two of the top 10 unhealthiest places to live. Well, I have the honour of representing the people of these two historic towns. For our people, the past decade has been tough, with the decade of austerity still felt. The pandemic could not have come at a worse time. The existing deprivation caused even more suffering. Essential services that had been cut to the bare bones have been tested like never before. As we plan our economic recovery, the people of St Helens and Knowsley will live with the impact of the decisions taken, which will be felt for decades.
The Government have promised to take the levelling-up agenda seriously, but I am afraid that the evidence is to the contrary. My constituency is ranked as the 62nd most deprived, with the Chancellor’s being 450th. The child poverty rate in my constituency is close to double that in the Chancellor’s. The schools in my constituency have lost more funding per pupil than the Chancellor’s. Yet despite all this, the Chancellor’s constituency was given more money from the towns fund and St Helens was not. I understand why the Chancellor has done this—having the support of 39 Conservative MPs may come in handy for his brand—but this is not the time for political favours. The country agrees that this is the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the Chancellor intends to honour the Government’s promise to level up, why has the support not been provided based on needs? Towns like ours are looking for fairness and want the Government to provide a helping hand—to give towns the recovery funding they need to revitalise the town centres and rebuild public services. The Chancellor has a rare opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of millions. I hope he thinks again and decides to take it rather than trading it in for political favours.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome the Budget. The Treasury has had a particularly difficult time trying to do what it can to assist in this crisis, and I think it, and the British system of government, has done extremely well. Universal credit has worked well. Furlough has worked well. The self-employment income support scheme has worked well. There is some argument about where the boundaries are drawn, but from the point of view of the IT and getting the cheques out to people, it has worked pretty well. It is amazing that we have got through the crisis without the levels of unemployment that were once feared. One of the most pleasing things about the OBR forecast is that it looks as though although unemployment will go up in the next few months, it will peak at a lower rate and, towards the end of this Parliament, start to get back to where we were in the first place.
I am an optimist, and I am rather more optimistic than the OBR. I do not think we will have a budget deficit this year of £355 billion, which would require about £70 billion in the last two months. I do not think we will have a deficit of 10.4% next year and spend £250 billion. I think the economy, when the restrictions are lifted, will grow very rapidly indeed, because there is an awful lot of money sloshing around the economy. A lot of people I know want to go out to spend—to go to restaurants, buy a car or go on holiday. Once the restrictions are lifted and the degree of confidence from the vaccine goes through our country, things will move very rapidly. If there is a problem, it may be that there is so much money flowing through the system that it is chasing too few goods and we start to have inflation. Inflation has not been banished and we have to keep our eye on it. I think the deficits will be a little lower and the growth rates will be a little higher, and business will get back to growing rapidly when we lift all the restrictions.
My main plea to the Government is this: the data is going in the right direction more rapidly than people expected, and we have a pathway out of lockdown, so do not be afraid to bring it forward, as well as put it back if the data starts to turn bad. A lot of this debate has been about bailing people out, but what most people want is to get back to business, get back to work and get things running again. That has to be the key. We need to get back to normal as soon as possible, and vaccines and Government policy should do that.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
This Budget is taking place at a key time for the economy of this country. It is an economy coming out of a crisis that has caused businesses to shut and jobs to be lost, and that has harmed the prospects and potential of so many people across this country. The Budget was a chance to conduct a transformative change as we emerge from the crisis, to make the country fairer for all, to reward our key workers and to build a secure and prosperous future that ensures that any economic recovery from the pandemic is felt right across the country. It is clear, though, that the Budget failed to do that.
The Chancellor talks about support for the north-east, but travel any further north than Teesside and it is clear that the Government have forgotten us. The council in Sunderland, like many across the country, has done a brilliant job throughout the pandemic, working tirelessly to support businesses and providing vital services on a shoestring budget, but the Budget falls well short in helping it to do its job. Across the country, there are people who have had lifelong jobs suddenly finding themselves unemployed, and millions of children in this country are still living in poverty. What does this Budget do for them, and what does it do for the millions already excluded?
Then it emerged that our NHS workers, who have been working harder than ever over the last year, saving lives and taking care of our loved ones, will be given at best only a 1% pay rise, coming out of this year with a real-terms pay cut. Then there is our social care system, which was not mentioned once by the Chancellor—no funding lifeline for a system on its knees; no support for care homes or those who devote their lives to working in them. Our NHS and social care staff deserve much better.
Let me move on to the digital skills agenda and the proposals that the Chancellor outlined last week. I wrote to him on this subject, and while any investment in digital skills is welcome—from the boot camps announced last year to the announcement of help to fund software upgrades and training for SMEs—it seems that he is looking at sticking plasters rather than at solving the issue of digital inequality. That seems like the theme of this Budget.
Thanks to charities such as Laptops for Kids in the north-east and Rebuyer UK based in Sunderland, many more children and young people have had access to technology and connectivity. That is great for education—those new devices can be used both at home and in school—but it causes new issues too. It widens the gap. The Government need a comprehensive strategy for upskilling those who are out of work to provide support and devices to those who need them. The Budget was underwhelming, unequal and unsurprising.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
Just two weeks ago, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published its report “The impact of Coronavirus on businesses and workers”, which acknowledges the pace and unprecedented scale of the measures that the Government have introduced and how
“this support has kept vast numbers of businesses and workers afloat during this exceptionally challenging time.”
Last week’s Budget continues that work.
The Chancellor has recognised the need for businesses to continue to have certainty and for jobs to continue to be protected. I welcome the decision to extend the furlough scheme for an additional six months. It has already protected 6,500 jobs in my Rugby and Bulkington constituency. I also welcome the further round of grants to help businesses as they reopen, and the extra support targeted at the leisure, hospitality, arts and culture sectors.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to Coventry city of culture, which starts in May, and the rugby league world cup, with matches at the Ricoh stadium in Coventry—events close to my constituency that indicate that we are getting back to normal times. It is not just those sectors themselves that have gone through a tough time; the suppliers to them have, too. Those events coming forward will enable them to re-establish themselves and get the economy moving.
I want to focus on one key measure for business—Help to Grow, which will make a huge difference to the performance of small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country. The BEIS Committee in the last Parliament looked at this issue, and we concluded that the myriad sources of support for SMEs made it difficult to navigate. In particular, we were concerned that business owners and managers did not know where to go to improve their own skills. We noted that businesses grew faster when managers took time out to work on their business as well as in their business. Help to Grow will offer 30,000 leaders and managers a training programme over 12 weeks at a cost to attend of just £750 after Government support. As someone who ran a small business before arriving here and did not know where to go for personal development training, I can see immediately how valuable this scheme will be.
I hope that the scheme will cover the business skill of sales. It is not the most obvious issue to raise, but on a day when we learn that export sales fell last year by 14.7%, equivalent to £54 billion, we will need to make certain that, as a country, we get every single sale we can. The all-party parliamentary group for professional sales is launching a report tomorrow, which calls for a selling revolution to make sales a career aspiration for the brightest and best, and to ensure that first-class training in sales skills is available for both before and throughout a salesperson’s working life. Effective sales negotiations, with the measures that the Chancellor has given, will enable businesses to trade our way back to prosperity.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
I want to focus on just one thing: what the Budget says about levelling up. The Government promised transformation, but amid all the announcements and reannouncements, the reality is a reduction in the key regional development funds this year, and probably for years to come. Even if we include the national infrastructure strategy spending, much of which is not levelling up, we are well short of the transformative investment that levelling up implies. The comparison is made harder by the Government’s unfortunate habit of shuffling money from one fund to let them announce another.
Levelling up demands detailed plans, patient investment and, above all, local leadership. Combined authorities, such as the one I lead, understand our regions, both the challenges and opportunities, much better than anyone in Whitehall ever could. We are doing amazing things. In South Yorkshire, we are investing in everything from skills to active travel. We must plan, not just to recover from covid, but to comprehensively renew our region. The Prime Minister said that he wants to work with us, but the Government’s default preference is to force local governments to compete among themselves for modest, restricted, short-term funding pots, with Whitehall picking the winners. It is the model chosen if the priority is maximising photo ops, not actual progress.
The clearest test is to follow the money. As the Government repeat the mantra of ending regional inequality, their levelling-up fund puts the Chancellor’s Richmondshire constituency, ranked 251 out of 317 in England’s deprivation index, in a higher category of need than Barnsley, ranked 38. Richmondshire has had 141 covid deaths per 100,000 people; Barnsley has had 311. The Government claim that they are following impartial criteria, but the Chancellor must publish the full data and the decision-making process for those funds.
In one sense, the answer is irrelevant. Whatever formula was used, it was the one the Government chose. If their formula gives a result that systematically favours areas that are already doing well over those that need levelling up, they have the wrong formula. They should not pretend that it is some unalterable truth, they should just change it. If they do not, we can be sure that it represents exactly who they are and what values they represent.
We need to level up every part of the United Kingdom. Across the country, families and businesses are desperate for support to recover from the covid pandemic and to end finally the squandered potential of our regions. I stand ready to work with the Government because, in this hour of need, there is so much that we can do together, but we must work not for political gain, but for a much greater good.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I welcome the chance to speak in this debate in support of a Budget that is a delicate act to get the balance just right between not choking off the economic recovery fundamental to recouping our covid expenditure over the medium to long term, and ensuring that we live within our means for day-to-day spending from now on and future-proofing our debt repayments against the potential for interest rate rises.
To be a truly Conservative Government, we must go further by championing growth, promoting free enterprise —a concept rarely mentioned these days—but also improving financial resilience. We know that the economic harm done at an individual and family level during the pandemic has been aggravated by a lack of financial resilience. We should be accelerating the Government’s response to the Woolard review, tackling with vigour the disproportionate costs faced by those living in poverty and turbocharging schemes such as Help to Save.
Nowhere should that be more important right now than protecting access to cash. Important as it is to celebrate International Women’s Day, I note that the Fawcett Society is once more highlighting the lack of women on our banknotes. I do not disagree with that analysis, but what we should be debating is whether we will even have banknotes soon if we fast forward to a cashless economy without taking stock of how we get there. That is the debate we should be having. I declare an interest as a member of LINK’s Consumer Council, which seeks to safeguard access to cash machines.
As the Economic Secretary well knows, I am a little disappointed there is no commitment right now to an access to cash Bill, but I am in no way downhearted. I believe there is much that can still be done that is either regulatory or non-legislative. Any Bill would merely put in place a regulatory framework that would require steps that can be taken now without legislation to facilitate continued access to cash. Chief among those would be the rapid renewal of PSD2 regulations, which enable cashback without purchase. A number of pilot projects have demonstrated that it works well as an idea, but the commercial providers of the system will not invest without the confidence that the Government will renew the regulations. I urge the Minister to make it clear that the regulations are forthcoming soon.
All told, the hidden wiring that underpins our cash system costs some £5 billion per annum. The less cash in circulation, the higher the fixed costs for everyone who processes cash, right down to the smallest trader or shop owner. No wonder some have opted out of cash and might never return. There is much organisations, such as the Bank of England or the Financial Conduct Authority, can do in advance of legislation to consolidate and reduce those fixed costs. The Government should be not just pushing them in that direction, but shoving them forcefully towards the right agenda.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Chancellor said that this was an honest Budget which meets the moment. Well, the Chancellor certainly met the moment for his mounting leadership bid, but it was nowhere near what was required to meet the tough realities of my constituents.
This Budget was a lost opportunity to provide security for those in hard-hit and precarious sectors, to provide economic justice to the excluded millions who have gone a year without support and to provide recognition for our protectors or stability for our businesses. There was no recognition for our public sector workers who are at the forefront of the crisis and who we depend on to get us through. It was a Budget with a thin green veneer, not one that will properly finance climate action to protect the health of people and planet, or demonstrate to the world the power of the UK’s example as a climate leader in the year of COP.
The Chancellor said this was a Budget to provide certainty. Well, he should tell that to my constituents who have already lost jobs because businesses had to make tough decisions because they were kept in the dark. The Chancellor chose to time the extension of furlough and business support when it was politically convenient, kicking the can down the road to this autumn for when the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts unemployment to hit a peak and when the universal credit uplift will be stripped away along with the furlough scheme—a frightening cliff edge looming this autumn, one of the Chancellor’s own making.
Today, on International Women’s Day, let us not forget that this pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women, who are more likely to work in low pay and insecure positions. Unpaid carers hit 13 million last year, predominantly women. There was nothing in the Budget for them either. Thank God in Wales for a Welsh Labour Government, who have weaved a stronger safety net throughout the crisis. When the UK Government failed or dithered, they stood up.
This Chancellor is also slashing life-saving support around the world: the aid that builds resilience to the climate crisis and future health challenges. During a pandemic, the Government are pulling back our first response to future crises and hitting the vulnerable hardest, the consequences of which we will feel here at home. The Government are turning their backs. Overseas and here at home, the Government are recklessly playing with people’s lives, pushing people to the brink only to pull them back just a bit. That is not how responsible Governments behave. It is time to do the right thing.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
This is a Budget of which I am proud. I think that the Chancellor has done an astoundingly good job. It is a responsible Budget. It has found that balance between helping businesses, helping people and giving them some certainty that, while we have this road map out of our current lockdown, the support will be there, and that is incredibly valuable.
I had one of my regular fortnightly meetings with my local businesses this morning, and I was interested to gauge their reaction. I have to say that it was overwhelmingly one of relief. They were delighted with what the Budget delivered, and they were particularly pleased with the extension of the business rates relief and, indeed, the extension of the VAT relief. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Teignbridge, my district council, and my local businesses for making the most of the opportunities to keep going and to survive—and that is what they have done.
However, there do remain some concerns. The first, which has already been rehearsed by a number of colleagues, is about those who have been excluded. For example, directors who have paid themselves historically by dividends have been totally left out of any support during the totality of this pandemic. It is not their fault—there was nothing wrong with being paid by that mechanism—and I would urge the Chancellor to look at that again.
My second concern is that the very smallest of businesses on the edge may or may not, by the time we come out this, just fall over that edge. For them, it seems to me that we need to look to the future. We need to look at how we can help them start again. We have a history of being very concerned about phoenix businesses, because too often unscrupulous businessmen or women have established businesses, made money on the back of others, and then folded them and taken away the profit. But going forward there will be some phoenixes, and we have to find a way of distinguishing good from bad. I would urge the Chancellor to look again at the credit record framework to find a mechanism to fairly support the truly deserving, but not those that are not.
A good Budget—well done to the Chancellor.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor is by instinct a small state idealogue who slashes the public realm, but he prefers to claim to be a Keynesian spender who dispenses largesse to those affected by the covid crisis. But his treatment of the NHS shows us the true nature of the Chancellor’s Budget: it is sneaky. He said he wants to be honest with the public, but he substituted his previously promised 2.1% pay rise with a real-terms pay cut for our NHS heroes. He sneaked it out in the small print after he got his favourable headlines on Budget day—not exactly up front and honest.
The Chancellor said he would pay the NHS the extra costs of dealing with covid, but we read in The Times today that he is looking at ways of forcing them to pay those costs from existing budgets. NHS managers say they will have to start cutting services from 1 April to meet the £8 billion gap. There was nothing in his Budget to enable the NHS to start to treat the 4.5 million people now on waiting lists for treatment of non-covid illness; nothing to deal with the exhaustion and trauma that NHS staff, who have fought on the frontline of this pandemic, are dealing with, except a real-terms pay cut; and nothing to sort out the scandal of underfunded and unreformed social care. All this is part of the extra £4 billion in cuts in the Budget for public spending on vital services, over and above the £12 billion he had already pencilled in last November. Austerity is back for public services, not that it ever went away.
What about poorer households and low-paid workers, who are much more likely to be furloughed and much more likely to have lost their jobs or some of their income? There is not much in this Budget for them. This £30 billion fiscal tightening and the huge tax increases in this Budget hit the lower paid and poorest most. With incomes forecast to fall by 4.5% by 2025, the Chancellor has slashed help to those struggling. He is cutting the income of unemployed people by £20 a week—a 7% cut overnight, just as unemployment is forecast to reach 2.2 million when he ends furlough in September. It is a double whammy for those losing their jobs. He is forcing council tax up, hitting the poorest hardest. Many of my constituents are already finding it hard to feed themselves and their families. This Budget will make that even worse and it will remove support just when things are forecast to get even worse.
This Budget most certainly does not meet the moment. There is no plan for NHS recovery, just a plan for NHS cuts. There is no plan for helping poorer households, just a plan to impoverish them further. The covid crisis has exacerbated poverty and inequality. Far from setting the UK on a path to fix the damage, the Chancellor seems intent on making things worse.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) [V]
During this moment of crisis and uncertainty, I believe this Budget strikes the right balance. It ensures that vital support continues for families and businesses, while being honest and fair about how we fix the public finances. Crucially, the Budget also sets out the next steps for levelling up. Getting back to normal must not mean failing to address the deep-rooted economic and political imbalances in our country, especially the north-south divide.
Last month, my colleagues and I in the levelling up taskforce joined the excellent think tank Onward to launch a report on levelling up the tax system. The analysis showed how capital allowance reform would overwhelmingly benefit the north and midlands, especially in places such as Derbyshire. So I was delighted to see the Chancellor announce the proposed super deduction, which will help businesses to expand and create new jobs. It is exactly what we need right now and it is a potential game changer for rebalancing the economy.
The Budget marks a real turning point for the north as a whole. For decades, Governments of all parties have focused far too much on London and the south-east, to the detriment of places such as High Peak. The Leader of the Opposition chose to pour scorn on the decision to relocate large parts of the Treasury to Darlington, which was announced alongside the establishment of the first infrastructure bank in Leeds. What the Labour leader fails to understand is that these moves represent an important shift in both power and the culture of the civil service. If senior civil servants all live in London and all commute into Whitehall, is it any surprise that the capital has done disproportionately well when it comes to Government investment? If senior civil servants were commuting into Manchester from, say, New Mills, I reckon that railway line would have been upgraded decades ago. I appreciate that that concept might be difficult to comprehend for a Labour party that seems to think that new leadership entails moving from one north London borough to another.
The Budget is a real statement of intent that this Government are going to invest in the north. The £4.8 billion levelling up fund is a key part of this. I was really pleased that High Peak has been identified as one of the top priority areas for the fund and will receive more than £100,000 to help develop a local bid—and with good reason. High Peak badly needs investment in our local infrastructure. On some measures, Gamesley is ranked among the top 1% most deprived areas in the country, which is largely down to very poor transport links. Gamesley has been waiting for more than 50 years for a railway station to properly connect it to both Glossop and Manchester. Politicians of all parties have been promising a bypass to the people of Glossop and Hadfield for well over 50 years as well, and in the second half of 2019 the Hope Valley line had some of the worst train punctuality figures anywhere in the country. The capacity on that line desperately needs to be upgraded. Our digital infrastructure also leaves much to be desired. Given our unique geography in the Peak district, we have some of the worst broadband blackspots anywhere.
However, there are reasons to be optimistic. Highways England and Balfour Beatty have signed a contract to build the Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road. Punctuality on the Hope Valley line has improved markedly since the Government stepped in to take over the Northern franchise and the ancient Pacers have finally been replaced with modern trains. And Openreach has recruited an additional 15 engineers to speed up the roll-out—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech, but we need to move on now.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Missing from this Budget is any real effort towards addressing climate change and the environmental problems the world faces. This Government like to talk about climate change but they do not act on that chat. So we get a token commitment to a green economic recovery while they continue to crank up the pressure to carry on regardless. When France was creating the Paris agreement, it invested huge amounts of money, time and effort into global diplomacy to deliver it. We are months away from COP26 and the UK effort is nowhere near what is needed, with a delivery team that fails to inspire and with this Budget serving to remind us and the rest of the world that action on climate change is not a priority for the UK.
One could be forgiven for thinking that Brexiters would want to show that they can perform like a world Government, but instead we get announcements, 10-point plans, targets and wizard wheezes that lead to no action and that the Government seem to think are an end in themselves. The world will be watching while COP26 fails.
This Budget could have seen funding allocated to retrofit high-quality insulation and efficient heating or to get district heating systems up and running to help address the UK’s greenhouse emissions, but there is nothing practical, not even a bump for the existing green homes grants. There is nothing for a transition deal and a miserly £27 million for energy transition. There is nothing about recovery spending for nature and no mainstreaming of natural capital costs.
The Government have plenty to say about shiny competitions—there is a new one on energy storage—ignoring already successful and operational schemes such as Cruachan. There are competitions to create showcases, but no cash on offer to get on and deliver. There is net zero by 2050, but no practical strategy about how to get there. Should the VAT system not be altered to encourage green home upgrades? What about incentives for more efficient white goods or drivers of behavioural change to encourage action towards environmental sustainability?
The Chancellor has said his freeports will support green fast-growing industries, which is not something that anyone else thinks, but it is indicative of this Government’s attitude that someone else will sort things out. We need forward planning and anticipatory spend to upgrade the grid for the extra juice as we switch to electric vehicles and for domestic heating and cooking. That failure lays down problems for the future. In the same vein, we need to see the transmission charging scheme changed to ensure that renewable energy can be pumped into the grid wherever it is produced.
From an environmental and climate point of view, this UK Budget is empty, showing the lack of concern and ambition that the Government have for the issue. Perhaps it would better serve us all if they turned over responsibility and resources to the devolved Governments and Administrations, who are at least attempting to address these issues. The Government could even learn from their examples.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his Budget, which was strong on enterprise, innovation and recovery. The help announced last week for businesses has been particularly welcomed in the Cotswolds, where the local economy is built on small businesses, notably in hospitality, leisure and the tourism sectors. I have been calling for extra support for those businesses, as they are the backbone of our economy and deserve protection after being compelled to stop trading by the pandemic. The restart grant of up to £18,000 for hospitality and leisure businesses, including personal care, hairdressers and gyms, will help to reinvigorate them as we begin to open up the economy, in addition to the local council discretionary fund of another £425 million.
The road map has brought a great deal of reassurance for many business owners, with hospitality, leisure and personal care businesses starting to reopen on 12 April. They want to be able to reopen sooner and I have been making extensive representations to the Government on that point. Sadly, some are not scheduled to reopen until 21 June. I will continue to raise their plight. As the whole route map is driven by data, if it is safe to do so, we should accelerate the reopening of certain sectors, such as outdoor events.
Around 60,000 businesses in the UK are in the weddings sector. They usually thrive in the Cotswolds, but have been pushed to the brink by lockdown. I hope that many of those businesses will be supported by the restart grant, but they were not specifically mentioned in the Budget speech.
Debt and borrowing are at a peacetime high, so the fiscal challenge to reduce them is particularly challenging. No one wants to see taxes rise, but in these difficult circumstances it is right to even up the burden between individual and corporation tax.
Finally, it is important that G7 agreement is sought so that the digital tax is made effective. It would be totally unfair for those businesses on the high street that have suffered considerably due to the lockdown—and will have to start paying rates in June—if companies online that have made substantial windfall profits are not efficiently taxed.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
Last week’s Budget was the Government’s golden opportunity to step up and fix the endemic inequality that they have created throughout the country and in my own constituency of Enfield North. They failed in that task on every conceivable level. They failed nurses, who deserve better than the pitiful 1% pay increase they have been offered. They failed teachers, who have been given little support to plan a safe return to school for their students. They failed businesses and the self-employed, including White Photographic Ltd in my constituency, which is one of the 3 million businesses that have been excluded from the Government’s support over the past 12 months.
There are currently more than 19,000 people registered unemployed in Enfield and 28,000 on furlough who still do not know what the future holds for them. There are nearly 14,000 people who were punished by the Chancellor with a £500 cut to universal credit, which will see nearly £7 million taken out of our local economy this year. The Budget was bad for families, for small business, for frontline workers and for our communities.
Who was the Budget for? It turns out that it was a Budget to support the Government’s local campaigns for re-election, with more than £1 billon funnelled into their constituencies. This Government believe that they can help to level up the UK—[Inaudible.] London has some of the most deprived communities in the country—even more so after this pandemic. Analysis by the London Mayor shows that 14 boroughs should have been given the highest priority for funding, yet only two have. The politics are so obvious that I nearly took a drive to Barnard Castle to check whether my eyes were deceiving me.
Last week, the Mayor of London announced his vision for a 1945-style recovery for London, with “Jobs, jobs, jobs” as his mantra. The Chancellor must work with the Mayor to deliver this ambitious plan, instead of standing in his way, and to deliver a post-furlough jobs guarantee. Instead of a Budget to get our country working after covid, we saw the spectre of austerity return to the Dispatch Box. The Chancellor is more interested in his social media than in social justice. He found money for well-lit videos but nothing for NHS nurses. Tin-eared and cold-hearted, this Budget was a litany of opportunities missed and chances squandered. The Chancellor failed to meet the moment and his Budget failed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
I have given the Chancellor an enormous amount of praise during this crisis and for this Budget, but I offer him a few words of caution. He and I have crossed swords only once, and that was three years ago, when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government with the task of forcing through a law to abolish my local council in West Somerset and create a new, bigger council with Taunton, which was a financial disaster. The idea was conceived by local Conservatives and sold to the Government even though it was widely unpopular. The public never got a proper say or a referendum.
I warned my right hon. Friend that the issue would rebound, and it jolly well did. As soon as the ballot boxes came out, people picked the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives were punished. I warn him that this could happen again, with a huge financial cost throughout Somerset. He must remember the summer of 2018, when the leader of the county council came to London with a pet plan to form a local government. He did not bother to consult party colleagues in Somerset first. I warned my right hon. Friend then to tread very carefully, because he had seen it once already. I think he listened, but the leader of the county council returned and attempted to talk to his counterparts. The district council was invited to look at all the options and produce a report, but when it reached no definite conclusion the leader of Somerset County Council branched out on his own again and, again, we had a financial mess.
That brings us to 2020 and the start of this frightful pandemic, when every single council faced a huge crisis, and not just financially. Surely it is a lousy time to chase dreams when you are meant to be looking after people, but our county council insisted, and here we are. The Chancellor’s old Department is behaving in the same way—the people’s voice is not being heard. Instead of another tacky online questionnaire that can be tweaked, leaked and interfered with by anybody anywhere in the world, let us have proper consultation.
The Chancellor has been extraordinarily generous to Somerset County Council, providing it with £80 million. The emergency funding runs into many millions. My right hon. Friend may be shocked to learn that, believe it or not, £13,550 has been squandered on a local TV love-in and regional treasure, with a glowing video to promote the council leader using covid money. That is the monthly equivalent of a Cabinet Minister’s salary for a couple of days’ work. It is a tacky saga that could all end in tears for our party.
I warn the Chancellor that this will be a financial disaster. The council has used the money that was meant for covid in the Budget to balance its books and put money into roads and car parks, and unfortunately, that continues. I hope that the Chancellor is listening before we have another problem on our hands.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
I welcome some of the measures that the Chancellor has brought forward in the Budget. I am delighted that he listened to the concerns of the Showmen’s Guild in my constituency and across the UK by identifying that sector as having exceptional reasons to maintain entitlement to use red diesel beyond April 2022.
However, a sector that feels let down by this year’s Budget is the one represented by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, having been excluded from business rates relief while hospitality, retail and leisure have all been included since the beginning of the policy. I urge the Chancellor to consider the merits of including this long-struggling sector in his plans for an extension of the business rates holiday. If the wholesale sector continues to suffer the stress it has under this pandemic, with minimal Government support, the disastrous knock-on effects on the hospitality and retail sectors will be dramatic and unparalleled.
It is vital to acknowledge the lack of clarity given to another essential sector, many of whose employees live in my constituency: the aviation sector. As John Holland-Kaye, CEO of Heathrow airport, recently noted,
“The Chancellor talks about protecting jobs and livelihoods, fixing the public finances and laying the foundations for the future economy, and yet he continues to ignore the UK’s aviation sector.”
The extension of the airport and ground operations support scheme for a further six months is welcome, but the failure to guarantee a full business rates holiday for airports across the UK will have dramatic repercussions for the aviation industry.
UK airports have had high fixed costs throughout this period to keep their operations running 24/7. The impact on the sector has been unprecedented, with passenger volumes down significantly and virtually no revenue for the past year. The industry is at a standstill. It is imperative that a clear road map out of the crisis is provided by Government, so that the industry has time to prepare, plan and open up the market safely. That cannot be done overnight. As Robert Sinclair, CEO of London City airport, recently said, this is not just an industry in its own right; it underpins the rest of the UK economy and is an enabler of trade, tourism, import, export, retail and hospitality, so getting aviation open sooner rather than later will aid recovery.
I share the Chancellor’s expressed belief that we must give every business an opportunity to grow, innovate and succeed in the post-pandemic world and play their part in the economic recovery, but the reality is that this Budget continues to fail many businesses in my constituency, in Scotland and across the other nations of the UK. I hope that the Chancellor is listening and will address these valid concerns.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic has been immediate and severe. While it is welcome that the Government have taken some steps to protect jobs in the short term, the reality for many is that they face losing jobs that were stable and secure prior to this crisis.
Sadly, that process has already begun in Rotherham. In my constituency, 75 workers at Rolls-Royce face imminent redundancy. Those are well-paid, highly-skilled jobs, and their loss will have a devastating impact on the town. Rolls-Royce’s Rotherham facility is based at the Advanced Manufacturing Park, which I know will be familiar to the Minister. The park is a world-class base for innovation, research and manufacturing and the jewel in the crown of our local economy. The Government are more than happy to use it as a backdrop for policy announcements. What they must do now, however, is defend its long-term future. The aerospace sector has been hit especially hard by the pandemic, and I appreciate the profound challenges that Rolls-Royce faces. The need for the Government to support this strategically important industry is self-evident. They must recognise the inextricable link between aerospace and the wider aviation sector. That is particularly true for businesses such as Rolls-Royce, which derives revenue from the flying hours of the engines it produces. The global travel taskforce is an important step, but the aviation and aerospace sectors need a clear exit strategy, and one that works internationally. These businesses are global and do not work just to a UK boundary.
The UK should use its chairing of the G7 this year to create a global plan to get aviation flying again. Aerospace and aviation are industries that may take considerably longer than others to recover once restrictions are lifted. The Government need to acknowledge that additional, long-term business support will be needed. This means also accepting that measures such as furlough may need to continue beyond September in certain sectors. The Government should view this as an investment for future prosperity. As the Chancellor himself acknowledged in the Budget:
“Business investment creates jobs, lifts growth, spurs innovation and drives productivity.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 527.]
I agree, but the Government’s rhetoric on levelling up the north will ring hollow if they stand idly by while dedicated, highly skilled workers lose their jobs.
While I am sympathetic to the challenges that the industry faces, Rolls-Royce is not without fault. I am concerned that despite the furlough scheme, it is pressing ahead with substantial job losses. Furlough’s very purpose is to prevent that from happening, so why is it not using it? These are skilled employees who will not easily be replaced as the industry recovers. To show them the door now is deeply short-sighted and will have wider implications for the supply chain and Rotherham’s economy. Taxpayer support for business to survive the current crisis must aim to protect jobs and not the bottom line of shareholders.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) [V]
I welcome this Budget and the continued support for families and jobs in North West Norfolk. The scale of the package is vast, and I particularly welcome extending the universal credit uplift, continuing the furlough scheme and widening access to self-employment support.
The Chancellor once again recognised the very challenging situation faced by tourism and hospitality businesses. This is a vital part of west Norfolk’s economy, worth about £500 million and making up one in every five jobs, so it is great news that the business rates holiday and the 5% VAT rate, which I campaigned for, have been extended. There is also a strong case to consider extending the lower 12.5% VAT rate, which applies from October, on an ongoing basis.
Longer term, we need further action to build a more resilient visitor economy. The 2019 sector deal pledged to create five tourism zones, increase visitor numbers, extend the season and invest in skills. Visit East of England and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership are developing a bid for Norfolk and Suffolk, focused on heritage, culture, sustainability, skills and accessibility. Digital is also an important part of that bid, through skills for small and medium-sized enterprises and access to full fibre. I would be grateful if the Minister could ensure that the tourism recovery strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport mentioned will kick off that process. While some delay has been understandable, it is now important to get on with this initiative.
The Budget also shows the Government’s commitment to growth across the country. I am pleased that King’s Lynn and west Norfolk is in the priority group for the new levelling-up fund. After a very disappointing result in the Future High Streets bid, I know that Ministers will look closely at our town investment plan, which includes projects to maximise our historic riverfront and town centre, the creative hub and guildhall complex at the oldest working theatre in England, with strong Shakespeare links, the innovation incubator community hub and the sustainably connected town centre.
It is business investment that will help drive the recovery, so the super deduction is very welcome, but I urge the Treasury to look at the concerns of the National Farmers Union that many firms will not be able to benefit from investment in new farm technology. Measures to encourage apprentices and trainees are the right priorities, and, like businesses, I look forward to the interim business rates review. It is important that the timetable for creating a level playing field for our high streets does not slip.
In the face of an unprecedented pandemic, unprecedented economic support has been provided. The Budget was honest about the challenges, but it makes the right call to continue short-term support while setting out a path to fix the finances. While corporation taxes are unwelcome, they are necessary because as Conservatives we know, from clearing up the mess left by Labour Governments, that you cannot keep spending without one day having to settle the bill. I back the Budget to support the recovery as well as to lay the foundations for a strong economy.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
Time does not permit me to cover all the issues that I would like to, but I shall start with the vital extension of the £20 universal credit uplift to September, which is, of course, welcome and is something that I and many other Opposition Members have been calling for. However, it does not go far enough.
Last Wednesday, the Chancellor had the opportunity to do the right thing and make the uplift permanent. It was disappointing, albeit not surprising, to see that he still intends to go ahead with cutting the uplift in September. This will mean a cut of £7.8 million to the local economy just in my Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency, leaving as many as 6,750 vulnerable families £1,000 a year worse off. We all know that the economic impact of the pandemic will be felt far beyond September this year, with some of the most vulnerable families in our communities set to be hit the hardest as a result of the measures confirmed by the Chancellor last week. Therefore, the Government’s decision to end this vital extra support in September is all the more callous.
Turning to Wales, the Budget provides additional revenue funding for Wales of £735 million, almost entirely as a result of covid measures in England. On a like-for-like basis, the Welsh Government’s core budget for day-to-day spending in 2021-22 is still 4% lower per head in real terms than it was in 2010-11—11 years on and it is still lower in real terms. In addition, despite the Chancellor’s intentions for an investment-led recovery, he failed to provide the additional capital stimulus needed to lay the foundations, with not a single extra penny for capital spend in Wales.
That leads me to the lack of support for those affected by flooding in my area. Just over a year ago, I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions for his commitment on this issue and, at the Dispatch Box, he promised, in his words, to passport the money through to Wales to help to deal with the floods. Only after 10 months was there a sign of the support, but it commits only to the current financial year and provides only a fraction of what is needed. In this Budget, there is no provision to meet this urgent need.
Finally, the approach to replacing EU structural funds by directly allocating funding in Wales on devolved matters through the UK community renewal fund and the levelling-up fund is just not acceptable. Clearly, the people of Wales will benefit from only a fraction of the funding that they would have received from EU funding, demonstrating again the Government’s failure to invest adequately in Wales. This is despite the promise made to deliver not a penny less for the people of Wales.
The community renewal fund is £220 million across the whole UK, so a population share for Wales would be only around £11 million. The levelling-up fund is £4.8 billion over four years, with £600 million in the Budget for 2021-22, so our population share is £30 million. Based on the very limited information that the Government have provided, a reasonable assumption of what Wales might get from these two funds next year is around £40 million to £45 million, compared with, on average, the £375 million each year that Wales received in recent years from European structural funds. Clearly this is just not good enough, and I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity on these issues as he closes today’s debate.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) [V]
The Chancellor has delivered a fair and bold Budget in extremely difficult circumstances. He has rightly continued to provide support to those businesses and individuals that have been affected by the economic side-effects of the pandemic. At the same time, he has taken prudent decisions to ensure the health of the public finances and to incentivise investment.
I welcome the proactive engagement from Treasury colleagues ahead of this crucial Budget, and I am pleased that the Government have listened to concerns raised by myself and colleagues on a range of issues. I put my signature to a letter from the Northern Research Group urging the Chancellor to continue providing business rates relief to retail, hospitality and leisure venues. In continuing to give that support to high street businesses at 100% relief and then tapering it to 66%, the Chancellor is putting out a lifeline to affected businesses in our towns. The survival of these businesses will be important to the levelling-up agenda and in bringing new life to our high streets, which are the long-term goals of policies such as the towns fund, for which Dewsbury has submitted a bid. Similarly, I was pleased to see the retention of the stamp duty cut for the time being, before it tapers off over the course of the year. The furniture industry is a major employer in my constituency, and the cut was well received. I wrote to the Chancellor in my capacity as vice-chair of the all-party furniture industry group, laying out the link between house sales and furniture sales and the importance of a phased withdrawal.
Finally, it was encouraging to see that, despite the pandemic, this Budget recognised the importance of sports and culture. Our grassroots football facilities have long needed investment, and more than 150,000 games a year are cancelled due to poor pitch quality. There is a strong link between taking part in grassroots football and obesity reduction, meaning that, alongside funding for the World cup bid, this is a long-term investment that will pay dividends.
I hope that the Government will continue to engage on issues that did not fall under this Budget, which I commend to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Tees valley needed a Budget to help replace the extra 12,500 jobs lost in the past 11 months. What we got was politically opportunistic short-termism with more promises of jobs for our area, but without the investment and detail needed to actually deliver them. I wholeheartedly welcome the 750 Treasury jobs for Darlington, but we cannot ignore the fact that Stockton lost 400 HMRC jobs six months ago and that the north-east has lost 6,680 civil service jobs since 2010.
The freeport presents an interesting opportunity, and it could play a part in our recovery, although many economists question what, if any, real benefit freeports bring. We urgently need to see the detail and an end to all the secrecy and announcements without substance. That is more important tonight, when we hear that jobs at LIBERTY Steel on Teesside and hundreds elsewhere could be in jeopardy as its lender has gone bust, and I understand that LIBERTY is part of the freeport bid. The Tories have let us down in steel on Teesside many a time; I do not want them to do it again.
If we are going to achieve the Chancellor’s vision for Teesside, he will have to address some of the fundamental issues driving regional inequality. The most recent figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission reveal that the north-east has experienced the steepest increase in child poverty levels of anywhere in the country, rising from 26% in 2014 to 35% in 2019. In my constituency of Stockton North, the rate is over 34%, with other areas in the Tees valley higher still. For under-fives, the rate is a heartbreaking 42%. Those figures should shock the Tory Government; they certainly shame them.
In Stockton North, more than 3,000 families with children are in receipt of universal credit, so I am pleased that the Chancellor finally agreed to extend the £20 uplift. However, he will now cut it at the same time bringing the furlough scheme to an end and when unemployment is expected to rocket again—the exact moment at which the OBR has expected that unemployment will peak at 2.2 million. A fortnight ago I asked the Prime Minister what action his Government would take to
“free our children from poverty”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 913.]
He said that that was about jobs, and I agree, but he needs a reality check about the north-east of England. The region now finds itself with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest employment rate and the lowest average hours worked of all British regions. Workers in the north-east also have the lowest average full-time wages. We need bold action on jobs.
Stockton is often used as a case study to highlight health inequalities in the UK. Men in the town centre live 18 years less than people down the road. I have said time and again in this Chamber, and in every single Budget debate, that we need a new hospital in Stockton if we are to address the health inequalities in our area. It is time that the Government delivered it.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) [V]
Nobody has been immune to the impact of covid, so nobody should be left out when it comes to recovery support. Unfortunately, however, so many have been, and last week’s Budget suggests that that is set to continue.
The Chancellor may think that he can roll out the big numbers and the sensational headlines and that the small print will go unnoticed, but that small print is people’s livelihoods, and one industry that has been overlooked yet again is the personal care sector. On average, these businesses were closed for 140 days in 2020 and will be closed for at least 101 days in 2021. We are talking about 50,000 businesses that employ around 560,000 people—mostly women. Despite the unnecessary and insulting snickering that a number of colleagues on the Government Benches, including the Prime Minister, previously felt that this industry warranted, it is an industry worth £30 billion to our economy, not something to be laughed at. I am pleased that the hair, beauty and wellbeing sector can think about reopening on 12 April, but while other industries have been granted a third VAT cut, this sector has, yet again, been left to fend for itself. These businesses are facing, on average, £40,000 in lost revenue, so even with business restart grants and, hopefully, a guaranteed date for reopening, their future survival is by no means certain. To recoup their losses, they need a VAT reduction to match that of other sectors. They are not asking for special treatment. They are asking to be included in those arms that the Prime Minister is so keen to tell everyone that he is wrapping around the whole country.
Closely linked to the hair and beauty sector is the wedding industry, with each relying on the other for a proportion of their income. Both are worth multi-billions of pounds to our economy, both support hundreds of thousands of jobs, both employ women, and both are at risk of collapse due to sustained lockdowns and insufficient Government support.
We all want our route out of lockdown to be safe and restrictions lifted cautiously, but permitting sporting events to go ahead with 1,000 people indoors or 10,000 people outdoors six weeks before allowing 30 people to attend a wedding is an incredible decision. It feels as though this Budget has a disproportionate impact on women. On this day of all days, International Women’s Day, it saddens me to say that this Government have let women down throughout the pandemic. They continue to do so, and yet it is women who have carried the heaviest burden.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
There is much to welcome in this Budget, particularly the help that has been given to business. We have heard that this includes an extension to the furlough scheme, new grants and loans, as well as additional support to hospitality, cultural activities and leisure. There are two things that I want to concentrate on in particular. As the MP who helped to introduce the concept of assets of community value, which helped stop pubs being sold off and allowed them to become available to communities, I commend the £150 million community ownership fund, which provides grants of £250,000 to allow communities to have the money to buy them. The original scheme has saved many a pub and I have a number in my own constituency. They are doing rather well, providing good food and drink, and are owned widely by the community.
The second issue I wish to raise is the culture funds which are there to help in the cultural sphere. I hope that the funds will be adequate to support national museums—not just the British Museum, but museums throughout the land, which provide a valuable window on the history and culture of an individual area.
I also want to draw attention to the support for elite sports, as, of course, I have rowing in my constituency. The Henley regatta is intended, hopefully, to be run in August, but it is a sport that is much wider than the elite label that is often given to it. Along the banks of Henley itself, there is great support for rowing for children.
I also hope that the culture recovery fund will support the sector, but it is very sad that room was not found in the Budget to help out the courtyard societies in Burlington House, which are fighting to be allowed to stay, often after maintaining a presence there for several hundred years. I declare an interest in this as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, which is one of the learned societies there. They contribute so much to society, and the work that they do for society, teaching people about their cultural place in the world, is of enormous value. I hope that the Government will still do something positive for the antiquaries and the other learned societies.
Finally, I echo the comment that was made at the beginning of this debate about the directors of companies who take their income in dividends. We must do something for them. As an inspector of taxes, I fail to understand the arguments put forward by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on this issue. It really is a question of fairness that we do something to help them.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Budget that sounds half-reasonable when we first hear it, and then even that half quickly unwinds as we delve deeper. The latest blow, of course, will in my view be to social care, one of the hardest-hit sectors in this pandemic and the one that desperately needs funding. I went to my local hospice—on a Zoom call, of course—straight after the Budget, and I can tell hon. Members that many of us were deeply disappointed. Social care costs Brighton—quite rightly—£30 million a year. We only get £40 million in council tax, and unfortunately it is unsustainable. We could have both addressed the council tax bombshell that the Chancellor is putting on home owners and residents, and solved the social care problem, whereby hundreds of people have died because of an ill-equipped, ill-prepared and under-resourced sector. Instead, the opportunity has again been missed, the buck has been passed and we do not know when, if ever, funding for our older and vulnerable people will come forward. It is such a shame.
And then, of course, there is the kick in the teeth for nurses. Ministers gave them the clap in the summer, and now they have given them only a 1% pay rise. What do they have to be thankful for? Nothing, really, from the Government this time round. While the Government have quite rightly taken on my suggestion that returns for the past tax year be taken into account, and those people can be included, many more are still excluded.
Brighton is a hospitality town, but many in our hospitality sector still say that they are vulnerable. The VAT rate has not been extended to all businesses that need it, including bowling alleys and some beauty salons, and it is still not right that too many of the loans will cripple businesses going forward.
Climate change was almost untouched in the Budget. We know that the warm homes grant is completely useless. We need a street-by-street strategy, but the Budget did nothing whatsoever on that. In terms of home building and home buying, it will help those with the money but push up house prices and make things worse for many millions; and, with the local housing allowance matching only the 30th percentile, not the 50th as it did in 2010, many renters are still worse off.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) [V]
This is a welcome Budget statement and offers much for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. For example, I welcome the commitments to apprenticeships. I have personally employed three apprentices under a Conservative Government. Getting the right match between apprentices and jobs will mean a great and much needed route to skilled, well-paid jobs in construction of new homes, which we badly need, in retrofitting existing homes, which will lead to healthier, greener, warmer and cheaper homes for many, in renewable energy and nature recovery—massive areas of growth, not just here in west Cornwall but across the country—and in engineering, food and farming: all areas that are essential to this green, resilient recovery from covid.
There are also welcome measures in the Budget for our high streets. The grants to get pubs, restaurants and tourism going again, business rate holidays, the tapered return and the 5% VAT rate—for which I have argued for many years, and which I hope the Treasury will see as critical and agree should remain for hospitality and tourism—are all critical for west Cornwall and Scilly and our recovery, as well as home buyers. I am personally sure that the stamp duty cut will have helped in many parts of the UK. However, will the Treasury consider the impact on areas such as Cornwall and Scilly, where the housing market was already strong, but where house prices have not helped many local families, despite the stamp duty cuts? The 95% mortgage guarantee is very helpful for these families, but it relies on house building to get closer to the demand for it to be a true success. Will the Government ensure that all unnecessary barriers to homes built for local needs housing are removed so that local families can benefit from a home and from the 95% mortgage guarantee?
The support for small and medium-sized enterprises in the Budget is also welcome, and it is critical for west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Here across Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, SMEs are where most of the jobs are—about 85% of people are employed in such businesses—and they are where the recovery will be if it is to be sustainable and lasting.
I welcome this Budget. There are many helpful things in it, and there are certainly areas that will help us to deliver a green, resilient recovery in a low-carbon economy. That is absolutely what our constituents want, and this Budget really gives us the tools and the springboard to allow that to happen. I will watch with close interest how effective it is on the ground in providing the well-paid jobs that all our constituents need.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate. We have heard a lot from the Government and their Back Benchers about their concerns regarding the Budget—concerning facts and figures relating to the nation’s finances, in particular the financial obligations that we have built up over the last year. I believe that they are looking in the wrong place.
What we should be focusing on in debating this Budget is what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said. The good news is that the economy will bounce back quickly—of course it will; there is so much latent demand ready to be released—but the bad news is that, after that rebound, growth will bump along at around 1.7% for the following three years. That is the sort of anaemic growth that we saw during the historically slow recovery from the 2008 crash, particularly in the last decade. It is a damning indictment that the Government’s spending plans are likely just to generate the same impact as the failed austerity model that we were promised was over.
That is particularly the case because the Government have not learned the lessons of repeated years of real-terms cuts to the pay of public sector workers. As we saw from Ministers trying to justify the miserly real-terms pay cut to staff in the NHS, they simply do not grasp the collective impact on our economy of such pay cuts. That cut is wrong because we ought to recognise those workers’ sacrifice over the last year beyond a hand clap, but it also wrong because it starves our economy. Where does the healthcare assistant or the porter spend their money? It is in the local economy.
Taking that further, freezing wages for council staff is wrong. They have done incredible work over the last year and should not be expected to keep going for less pay. And where does the care worker or the leisure centre cleaner spend their money? It is in our local economy. These wage cuts are wrong for the individual and devastating for our economy.
The Conservative party profits by pitting public sector worker against private sector worker, but the reality is that the private sector—and wages in the private sector—benefits massively from having public sector workers with money in their pocket and the confidence to spend it, just as public services benefit massively from having a thriving private sector and all that comes with it.
You do not have to take my word for that, Madam Deputy Speaker; just look at the lessons of the last decade. Squeezing the public sector did not help the private sector, but instead caused the slowest recovery from a recession in our nation’s history, which in turn meant that we could not invest in our public services, leaving us so weak when this pandemic came. I cannot quite believe that the Government are choosing to do the same thing again.
Finally, regarding our councils, Nottingham has lost £270 million of Government investment over the last decade. Vital services that affect our daily life have all been diminished in some way or removed entirely. Our council stepped up during covid; it is simply wrong that the promise even to meet its basic covid costs, never mind to fund it properly, has not been met. We needed a Budget for growth; instead, we have just got more of the same, and it will not do.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
In December 2019, the Prime Minister pledged to repay the trust placed in us by the people of Teesside. Despite fears that the economic pressures of the pandemic could blow that plan off course, they have not. This Budget delivered for Teesside. It was Teesside’s Budget—not only because we left more money in people’s pockets, freezing national insurance contributions, income tax, VAT, fuel duty and beer duty, but because we increased the national living wage and maintained the personal allowance so that those on the lowest incomes pay less tax. Not only are we backing individuals, we are backing business—extending the furlough, extending the business rates holiday, and introducing a super deduction to incentivise business investment and growth.
This Budget delivered amazing, life-changing investment specifically for Tees Valley. Since being elected, I have worked alongside the amazing Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, and my Tees Tory colleagues on a campaign to land a freeport for Teesside. It was incredible, therefore, to hear the news that Teesside would be home to the country’s biggest freeport, bringing £3.2 billion into our regional economy and creating 18,000 great jobs for local people. But the good news did not stop there. Our campaign to move the Treasury to Tees Valley has also won through, with incredible jobs that could be taken up by young people from my constituency. We will be moving decision makers up north to see what it means to live, work and play in Teesside—and, more importantly, how their policies impact on my constituents.
Then there was the incredible news that Thornaby was to benefit from a £23.9 million bucket of town deal funding. Thornaby is an incredible town, full of amazing people with bags and bags of untapped potential, skills and energy. They do not want a handout; they want a hand up. They want their fair share of opportunities that so many other towns have had—and with this money, they will get it. I have had the pleasure of sitting on a town deal board alongside local people, great independent councillors, business people, educational institutions, housing providers and others to look at how we can ensure that this money is spent to best effect and on the priorities of local people: tidying up our town centre, restoring pride in the heart of our community by getting rid of dilapidated and disused buildings like the Golden Eagle hotel and the old Npower office block; eliminating and improving substandard housing to make sure that every family can have a proper home; and developing a skills hub giving opportunities to people young and old to gain the skills they need to secure great jobs, and helping the people of Thornaby to unleash their full potential.
So yes, Wednesday’s Budget was Teesside’s Budget, and we are determined to make the most of the opportunities that this Government have presented us with.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This Budget may come to be remembered for what it did not mention rather than for what it did contain. The health and care world was reported to be stunned that the NHS was mentioned only once and social care not at all in the Chancellor’s speech, and this despite the fact that we are still in the grip of a deep crisis in health and social care due to this Government’s failure to get covid-19 under control. The UK has experienced higher rates of infections, hospitalisations and deaths from the virus than other countries. The care sector was rocked by more than 30,000 deaths, and a fragile sector has now become even more fragile. Turnover in care staff is at 40% and there are still 100,000 care staff vacancies. The president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has warned that the care system risks “catastrophic failure” without urgent changes. During the pandemic, the number of people with unmet need is likely to have risen to 1.9 million. The £1 billion extra to councils for social care and the reliance on councils raising the social care precept by 3% are both inadequate sticking plasters. We need a recovery plan that gets social care functioning properly by putting it on a par with the NHS.
After a year of incredibly hard work spent fighting this virus, there was no mention of a recovery plan for the NHS, and we learned just a few days ago of the proposal for only a 1% pay rise for NHS staff who have sacrificed so much during this pandemic. My constituents are angry and upset at this derisory pay proposal, because last year Conservative MPs promised, budgeted for and voted into law a 2.1% pay rise for NHS staff.
Many people around the country were excluded from support in this Budget. The 2.4 million people who have been excluded from financial support are not helped by Budget measures that apply to only some of the self-employed. The Chancellor failed again to put in the financial support needed to help people to self-isolate, meaning that they still have to choose between their job and their health. Our schools are left with nothing for additional spending related to covid. Our local councils are being forced into a 5% council tax increase after a decade of cuts that have seen £211 million cut from budgets in my local area of Salford.
To add insult to injury, the Chancellor and the Communities Secretary have come up with a priority list for the levelling-up fund that puts their constituencies into priority 1 for investment but leaves Salford and other more deprived areas lower down the queue. This was not the Budget the country needed, with its triple blow of tax rises, a pay freeze and a cut to universal credit later. Worst of all, while Government Ministers are happy to waste billions on test and trace that fails to deliver and to give contracts to their cronies, they are failing the key worker heroes of the NHS and social care.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate this evening. This Budget was produced after a year of extraordinary economic challenges and an extraordinary economic response to give support to families and businesses. No Chancellor would want to raise taxes or increase Government borrowing to the current record levels, but in this Budget the Chancellor has rightly recognised the need to continue to support families and companies in the face of this extraordinary unforeseen economic shock.
Equally, the Chancellor is right to be honest. Modern monetary theory does not mean that a magic money tree has been found, and we cannot expand the Bank of England’s balance sheet forever, so rightly and probably unwelcomely, the plan to restore public finances understandably includes raising taxes.
A key imperative last week, alongside the need to restore the public finances in the medium term, was to encourage investment and enterprise and to embed recovery. So, alongside the planned corporate tax rises was a more generous treatment of tax losses and the announcement of the super deduction, which will inevitably help many companies to invest in exactly the capital formation that they will need for the future.
The Chancellor is also right to focus on infrastructure spending and investment. Infrastructure is not an end in itself; it is the driver of growth and productivity in economies. The policies announced last week will allow growth and investment in both physical and social infrastructure. I welcome the increase in departmental spending limits and the increase in transport spending. I also welcome the increase in skills investment, in kickstart and in the digital skills scheme. The establishment of the UK infrastructure bank is welcome, but it is the private sector that will drive investment. A green gilt is welcome, but I urge the Government to think about an infrastructure bond, which would open up the potential for private capital—individuals and pension funds—to invest in infrastructure. Equally, the announcement of the consultation on changes to the capital cap for pension funds will drive some of that investment.
Financial services are the jewel in the UK’s economic crown, so there is good news for many and I welcome some of the other measures, but I urge the Government to think about a review of the regulation of financial services, to ensure that we have competitiveness and also appropriateness in regard to capital and conduct. Financial services will allow the necessary investment to happen in the infrastructure of the United Kingdom. I welcome this Budget. It was the right Budget at this time, and the Chancellor is to be congratulated on it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Austerity is back, not that it ever went away, and despite a chameleon-like effort to convince us otherwise, it did not take long for us to see through the Chancellor’s Budget, which is a continuation of the austerity that is now in its 11th year. We have the insulting 1% pay increase for nurses, which, when we factor in inflation at 1.7%, will actually be a pay cut. There is no increase in the pay of other public sector workers. There is a £30 billion cut to NHS funding, nothing for social care and nothing for local authorities, some of which are on the brink of collapse. This is the true face of the Chancellor’s Budget for 2021.
We clapped for the NHS throughout the pandemic and we felt devastated when we heard of the NHS staff who had lost their lives while caring for others. We still do not know the full extent of the trauma and emotional scars our NHS staff carry from performing their daily work caring for many thousands of covid patients in the most extremely challenging conditions in our hospitals. The nurses, the porters, the cleaners, the healthcare assistants, the theatre staff and the hospital pharmacists—if ever there was a time to reward them for their selfless work during the pandemic, that time is now. I urge the Chancellor to give the NHS workers the proper pay rise they deserve.
The challenges for the NHS are not over yet. There is a huge backlog of delayed operations, appointments and treatments in the pipeline. The very same staff, who are battleworn and weary from the fight against covid, will now be expected to tackle the tsunami of the backlog, with substantially less funding in the NHS. That is scandalous and will cost lives.
In the Conservative 2019 manifesto, the first item in “Boris Johnson’s Guarantee” was:
“Extra funding for the NHS”.
What happened to that manifesto pledge? What about social care? Where is the elusive plan for social care that we were promised? Social care is in crisis, and unless we develop a properly funded social care system, older and vulnerable people will be put at risk.
That leads me to local authorities, which have a statutory duty to fund social care, but council budgets have taken a huge hit while supporting local communities during the pandemic crisis. It is no surprise that some local authorities are on the brink of bankruptcy, having to go cap in hand to be bailed out just weeks before the Budget. That is what happens after 10 years of austerity.
The Chancellor is always bragging about the huge amounts he has borrowed and seems ideologically wedded to austerity and the demise of the public sector. When reflecting on the way NHS staff, social care workers and the public sector stepped up to the mark and went beyond the call of duty during the coronavirus crisis, protecting the most vulnerable, I think most rational people will agree that the Government not only owe them praise and support, but the fair funding they deserve.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I welcome the Chancellor’s Budget as a clear path, a demonstration of continued support in difficult times, and a way to rebuild from the challenges we are experiencing. There is the honesty of levelling with people about some of the challenges, which has been absent from parts of the debate, but also the fantastic news that we are laying the foundations for some extremely important successes, which we can plan for now and benefit from in the coming years, with, for example, the town deals.
I was pleased that two town deals were awarded to towns in my constituency, Clay Cross and Staveley. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Support said in his opening remarks that in a few weeks, businesses will reopen and hopefully not have to close again. In North East Derbyshire, when we reopen in a few weeks in Clay Cross and Staveley, we will do so with a spring in our step and the huge confidence that we have the tools to make things even better and the real opportunity to build on our successes in the coming years.
First, I thank the Government for supporting Clay Cross and Staveley in the past few months. I also thank everyone in both those towns who has worked so hard to put the town deals together. I thank Gary Golden, chairman of Clay Cross town board, on which I have the privilege to serve, and North East Derbyshire District Councillors Alex Dale, Carolyn Renwick and Charlotte Cupit. From the Staveley perspective, I thank Ivan Fomin from the Staveley town board, on which I also have the opportunity and privilege to sit. That collaboration and coming together has been successful for towns that have had challenges over many years.
Coming from North East Derbyshire and seeing how the industrial base changed in Clay Cross and Staveley over many years and the difficulties we had in the 1980s and 1990s, I know it is a huge vote of confidence that we now have the opportunity to make things better, and not just because money is coming. Money is important, but it is not about what you put in, but what is done with the money and how it is built on. We now have the opportunity to do that. That demonstrates that when we are constructive and work with and are in partnership with central Government, we can achieve so much more.
I thank the Government again. They are saying clearly to us that they believe in Clay Cross and Staveley and that we can succeed and get on. We will pay them back by doing so in the coming years.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the second world war, and the Chancellor offers us a partisan and peripatetic Budget—partisan because it seeks to shore up the majorities of Conservative MPs, regardless of need or national benefit, and peripatetic as it jumps from area to area and sector to sector, giving and taking with no vision and little ambition, with nothing on social care, nothing for our key industries, nothing for Newcastle and almost nothing on climate change.
There is an infrastructure bank with one 20th of the funding for the failing test and trace system. This should have been the moment to light up the road to recovery; instead, it is a mean and limited mates’ rates economic sticking plaster. There is the super deduction capital allowance, which treats jacuzzis the same as manufacturing lines and rewards Amazon for investing in surveillance technology but not companies for investing in people.
After a decade of the Tories religiously repeating that cutting corporation tax increases the revenues brought in, apparently raising corporation tax now increases the revenues brought in. It really is the Tory magic money tree, is it not? It shows that all the years of austerity were driven by Tory ideological fantasy, even though they were a horror story for the communities that suffered, the public services that were cut and the jobs that were lost.
What about small businesses? For a year now I have heard from the wonderful, vibrant businesses in Newcastle Central that are trying so hard to keep going in this pandemic. They have shown amazing resilience and dedication to the protection of customers and jobs. They have invested thousands of pounds in making their premises covid-secure, in the technology to move online if they can, or in diversifying the services that they offer. Some are paying the costs of staff furlough from their own pockets and borrowing against their homes to do so. One pub owner told me that if he gets through this pandemic, he will be working for the bank for the rest of his life.
I wrote to the Chancellor about the town hall that I held last month for Newcastle Central businesses that have been excluded from covid-19 support because they were started a week too late, earned a few pounds too much or do not have business premises. There are thousands of them in Newcastle Central—what did the Budget do for them? There was the continuation of existing schemes, but nothing for those who fall through the existing gaps.
The Government say that local authorities have funds for discretionary grants—which is true, and Newcastle City Council has worked incredibly hard to distribute them—but it is a cowardly and base attempt to dodge responsibility. The Government know that they have not offered anything like the funding necessary to fill the gaps in support which they have created. If the Government allow our small businesses to go bankrupt, the demand we will see after this pandemic ends will be met by big national or international chains and fire-sale venture capitalists, not the local businesses that our economy and communities need.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Budget, which is a trifold balancing act in respect of continuing covid support, stimulus for recovery and fixing the public finances.
Faced with £335 billion in borrowing from the covid support schemes, the Chancellor has a difficult task, but I can help him immediately with in excess of £100 billion of that: I would not be true to myself or my constituents if I did not urge him once more to cancel HS2, a project that had a flimsy business case to start with that has now been blown apart by projections that rail demand is down for the long term.
Critically, we need stimulus for growth. The capital gains tax increases are uncomfortable, but I very much trust that the Treasury modelling will show the new rates to be on the right side of the Laffer curve. Fundamentally, the Budget has many measures that will stimulate growth. I particularly welcome the super deduction measures to unlock investments; fuel duty freezes for families and businesses alike; the restart grants, along with the extension of the 5% VAT rate, to give retail, hospitality and others a fighting chance; frozen alcohol duties; freeports and Help to Grow; and the extension of furlough and the self-employment grants, to give businesses, particularly those with long lead times for new contracts, certainty as they plan ahead.
It remains a mystery to me why some of those who are self-employed and earn more than £50,000 and owner-directors of limited companies who pay themselves through dividends have not enjoyed the same support as those on furlough or the SEISS. Such micro and small businesses, many in the creative, cultural, tourism, events and hospitality sectors—entrepreneurs to the core—are essential to our recovery. We must find a fiscal way to get them to the other side of this crisis. I am proud that my local council, Buckinghamshire Council, has been able to support many such businesses through the additional restrictions grants, but I have heard, with enormous sadness, of far too many businesses in my constituency simply giving up.
I particularly urge the Treasury to look once more at a sector I have spoken about before: the coach industry. One firm in my constituency is shouldering over £30,000 a month in losses, serving debts that have been caused because the state has asked it to meet PSVAR and Euro 6 standards. More debt simply cannot be the answer for such firms.
To conclude, this is a very strong Budget, a Budget that is honest about the level of national borrowing, but which understands that the path to recovery must come from growth. If we can close the gaps and open up as soon as possible, this Budget will stand us in good stead for growth and prosperity.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
At this moment, nearly a year on since the first lockdown was brought about, I am reminded of the words of Lord Tennyson:
“Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
Over the last year, we have all grown tired of the slow passing of time as the covid pandemic has brought to a halt our lives as we once knew them. The daily confirmation of lives lost and loved ones around the country in mourning—the pandemic really has taken a toll on us all. But now is the time, as this Budget has sought to do, to strive for a better future: seeking to improve the life chances for all and finding solutions to turbocharge our economy, and not yielding to the cynicism and pessimism of some.
This is a good Budget and the Chancellor has got the balance right between supporting our economy and jobs right now as we continue through this pandemic, and laying out the necessary and proportionate measures to pay for that support in the future. Global Britain in a post-covid-19 world can be a beacon around the globe, a shining example of how to transform an economy into a high-skilled, high-waged green economy, offering opportunities for many and levelling up our left-behind communities. This Budget sets us on course for that.
First, as vice-chair of the all-party group on hospitality and tourism, I welcome the extensions of the VAT cut and the business rates holiday. Those measures have really helped the hospitality sector through the pandemic. It is welcome that they will be in place as they fully open this summer. I would have liked to see them extended for a further full year to really give our hospitality and tourism sectors a turbo-boost to their recovery, so I hope my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will review that when the schemes are due to come to an end.
Secondly, I welcome the levelling-up fund and the inclusion of both Hastings and Rother local authorities in priority group 1. This fund will really help areas that have been left behind for too long to get the vital investment in local projects that matter to local people. I welcome the funding support that both the local authorities I represent will get in putting their bids together. I look forward to working with them on that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
Finally, I cannot conclude without raising the case for a High Speed 1 rail extension from Ashford International through to Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne. I know I have been banging on about it for a long time and it has been talked about for nearly 10 years, but we really need it to come through and get that train through there.
We may have grown tired and weakened by the pandemic in recent months, but now is the time to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield as we move our economy into a post-covid world, as this Budget does.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
On International Women’s Day, I would like to start by paying tribute to the achievements of women throughout history and put it on record that I stand in solidarity with all those who continue to champion equality. In my own constituency, I am proud that so many members of my community have put on events to mark the day and celebrate the role that women have played in our history, in particular Heaton Norris community centre for its work in creating an International Women’s Week activity workbook. I was delighted to receive a copy last week and I would like to say a special thanks to Nadia Ali and the youth group at the centre for all their hard work.
The 1% pay rise for NHS workers is shameful. It is insulting for more than 1 million staff who have put themselves in harm’s way on the frontline of the covid pandemic over the past 12 months to keep our population safe. We owe them a debt of gratitude and should be rewarding them for their efforts, not insulting them with a measly pay rise for staff who are already underpaid and overworked.
Statutory sick pay also remains shamefully low with a Unison North West survey revealing that 80% of care workers will continue to receive £95 per week statutory sick pay if they are ill or following the Government’s advice to self-isolate or shield themselves or loved ones. The right thing to do is give them full pay.
Furthermore, this should have been a Budget about investing in services given the record low borrowing costs for the Government and the chronic underfunding of the NHS over the past decade, which so cruelly exposed our country to this pandemic and resulted in the highest covid death toll in Europe. We need capital funding for urgently needed upgrades to my local hospital, Stepping Hill, which I raised with the Health Secretary directly in January, as well as additional funding in areas such as cancer services right across Greater Manchester. Furthermore, specific funding for areas such as dementia are incredibly important to my constituents. Indeed, according to the Alzheimer’s Society there are almost 4,500 people aged over 65 with dementia living in the local authority of Stockport. Despite that, services to tackle this degenerative condition remain significantly underfunded.
The Budget also fails yet again to go far enough for the 3 million people who are self-employed and have been excluded from financial help during the pandemic. ExcludedUK branded the Chancellor’s announcement “too little too late.”
There was also almost nothing in this Budget for maintained nursery schools such as Hollywood Park, Lark Hill and Freshfield in my constituency. This in an unsustainable position for these schools, with the National Education Union warning that many will struggle to survive year on year without a long-term funding settlement.
It is also high time that the national minimum wage be lifted to £10 per hour to reduce the level of in-work poverty. May I therefore ask the Minister when the Government will present their long overdue employment Bill to the House?
Recently, the House has been informed about civil service jobs moving to the north. I welcome that, but so much more needs to be done to level up this area of the country. My constituency has excellent transport links, the availability of high-quality workspaces and a thriving community; I therefore strongly encourage the Government to move their Departments to Stockport and other parts of the north-west.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I read in the newspapers this morning that millions of people are going to sit in front of their television sets this evening, and as I cannot imagine they will be watching anything other than the Parliament channel I would like to take this opportunity to say that this is a good Budget that will help the economy in its long recovery from the strains of the last year.
The theme of this evening’s debate is supporting businesses through the crisis, and the scale of that support can be seen in the assistance given to businesses in Gedling over the last year: over £12 million in business interruption loans; over £44 million in bounce back loans; nearly £9.5 million under the self-employed income scheme; and 88,000 meals under eat out to help out. But Government support cannot be reduced to a list of statistics on a spreadsheet; behind every loan or grant there is a business and a family struggling to get by. That was brought home to me when a constituent, a small businessman, stopped me in the street and said, with tears in his eyes, “If you see Rishi, tell him thank you for the self-employed support scheme; it’s been a life saver.” The Chancellor’s interventions have helped to save jobs, and he and the Treasury should be commended on their work.
The Government schemes are among the most generous in Europe, but not all have benefited. I welcome the major improvement in access to the self-employed scheme now that the tax return deadline for this year has passed, enabling over 600,000 more people to claim the fourth and fifth grants. The all-party group on gaps in support has produced a report with further proposals, which I will read with interest.
No Government can create jobs, but they can create the conditions that encourage job creation, and I therefore welcome the creation of a new wave of freeports in the UK, particularly the fantastic news that one of them will be in the east midlands. Centred around East Midlands airport, the freeport will focus on innovation, low carbon and trade. I was disappointed to hear that the Leader of the Opposition disparaged this scheme by saying that the creation of freeports “isn’t levelling up” but is “giving up.” The east midlands freeport has the potential to create up to 60,000 new jobs in the region, and as I already have constituents who work in and around the East Midlands airport site, some of those jobs will go to Gedling residents. That is to be applauded, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will reflect on his comments. I further applaud the launch of the levelling-up fund and look forward to working with colleagues in Gedling to put in what I hope will be an extremely successful bid.
These are difficult times and I appreciate that they will not get easier in the very short term, but I congratulate the Treasury and the Chancellor on setting us on the course to future prosperity.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In three minutes, I can touch on only a handful of my serious concerns about this Budget. For NHS staff this year has been the toughest ever, yet the only reward and recognition in this Budget is a 1% pay rise, which is, in effect, a pay cut when inflation is accounted for. We now know that the Government are to cut health and social care by £30 billion, with yet another year of no plans to fix our social care crisis. There was nothing to help a couple in my constituency after she was discharged from hospital and they both now face astronomical costs to ensure she gets the care she deserves. What does this Budget offer them? It offers them nothing.
With the UK hosting COP26, we would have thought the Government would have a bold, ambitious and sustainable plan that both tackles the climate crisis and creates high-paid, secure green jobs, with the associated economic stimulus the UK economy so desperately needs, but they do not. They have just a green-focused investment bank, and the Chancellor did not mention that it fails even to plug the gap left behind by leaving the European Investment Bank, nor does it replace the green investment bank that the Conservative Government sold off. There was a £1 billion cut to the green homes grant, which was justified on that grounds that “too few applied”; it was not reformed so that it actually worked for homeowners needing to make their homes energy secure and efficient, while also ensuring there is work for small and local businesses in my constituency and across the country.
Again, there was nothing for aviation communities, which have been so badly hit and are dominated by a sector that will be the last to recover from the pandemic. This could have been an opportunity to make aviation more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, while sustaining jobs, skills and businesses, for example, in the areas around Heathrow and other airports. Unlike Governments in France, Germany, Spain and the US, our Government have chosen to do neither. Where is the promised sector-specific support for aviation? It should be led by a tripartite body of government, the unions and industry that could help shape the sector’s recovery. It is not there.
This is a Budget where the rhetoric simply does not match the reality. It fails to support the NHS staff and further extends the social care crisis. It is a Budget that bakes in the already huge inequalities in our society. It is a Budget that fails to invest in covid pandemic recovery and fails to address the economic hit we know our economy faces after Brexit. It is a Budget that neither meets the challenge of the moment we are in nor plans for the future, but it is a Budget that rewards political friends. This Budget is yet another missed opportunity.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a delight to be here physically in the Chamber once again, rather than speaking to a screen. There is no doubt that the hospitality and tourism sector has been one of the most severely impacted through this pandemic. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as a former tourism Minister, will know how important this is to Cornwall and to my constituency. A recent report highlighted that one in three households in Cornwall rely on tourism and hospitality for some of their income, and that my constituency is the most reliant on these businesses in the whole country. Therefore, it was vital that the Chancellor delivered further support for businesses in the sector so that they can not only survive through the coming weeks, but be ready to reopen and bounce back quickly, and the Chancellor did deliver on those things.
I am chairman of the all-party group on hospitality and tourism, and there were five things we were particularly asking the Chancellor. It is not often we get everything we ask for in a Budget, but this time the hospitality and tourism sector just about got everything we asked for. We asked for an extension of the VAT cut, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a continuation of the business rate holiday, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a continuation of the furlough scheme, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for further grants to give businesses the cash they need to be ready to reopen, and the Chancellor delivered it. We asked for a freeze in beer duty, and the Chancellor delivered it. So this was a Budget that delivered for businesses in my constituency and across Cornwall, and therefore it is very welcome.
There were, however, just two things I was particularly disappointed with in the Budget. Another sector that has been severely impacted by this pandemic is the aviation sector. While the further business rate grants to support airports through the coming months were very welcome, we were hoping for some good news on a cut on air passenger duty, and we did not quite get that. So I would encourage the Treasury to look further at what we could do to support aviation through cutting air passenger duty in the near future.
I was also disappointed about the removal of the relief on red diesel. This is particularly going to hit very hard the quarrying and mining sector, which is another very important sector for Cornwall. I understand what the Treasury is trying to do—to move people on to clean energy—but the fact is that for some of the heavy gear needed, particularly in mining and quarrying, there just are not alternative clean bits of machinery available on the market yet. So it will be relying on diesel, and this extra duty is going to hit that sector very hard. That is another thing I would ask the Treasury to look at once again: what can we do to help businesses in this sector while new technologies come on board?
Overall, however, it was a good Budget, and one I am happy to wholeheartedly support.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wrap up this debate for the Opposition. Whatever is happening elsewhere on our television screens, I want to begin by thanking all the hon. and right hon. Members for contributing to this debate, whether they did so physically or virtually. We have had a very wide range of contributions over the past few hours, and hon. Members have raised a whole number of issues in relation to the Budget. These included the Government’s business support schemes, the importance of technology, the creative industries, tourism, International Women’s Day and the differential impact of the pandemic on women, green finance, the universal credit uplift and its impending cut-off, unemployment and youth unemployment, the 1% NHS pay offer, the levelling up funding and those still excluded from Government support.
The backdrop is of course one of the most difficult we have known. There is a pandemic that has killed over 120,000 people and given us a huge hit to our economy. I want to focus on the taxation aspects of the Budget, because on this particular issue this was no ordinary Budget. The Budget announced by the Chancellor last week marked a watershed in taxation policy on the part of the Conservative party. For years, we have heard the mantra that lower taxation rates would lead to increased revenue by stimulating more economic activity.
Indeed, that was the previous Chancellor’s justification for cutting corporation tax in the first place back in 2010. He partly funded it by cutting investment allowances for manufacturing businesses, and he continued to stick to that justification for years afterwards. In 2016, the then Chancellor, George Osborne, said:
“Not only have our corporation tax cuts given us the lowest corporation tax rate of all the advanced economies of the world, but we have seen a 20% increase in receipts from corporation tax”.—[Official Report, 4 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 625.]
This was not just a single policy and not just a political argument; it was an article of faith. It was the core of the taxation ideology of the Conservative party. It goes way beyond the Osborne-Cameron years and right back to Thatcherism itself. This is a stance that has lasted not years, but decades. Its believers include the current Prime Minister himself who, when campaigning to be leader of his party, said that
“every time corporation tax has been cut in this country it has produced more revenue”.
With the changes announced in this Budget and the increase in rates, we do not just have a different policy; we have a different philosophy. It is all there in the Red Book, set out in table 2.1 on page 42, under the heading “Strengthening the public finances”. By raising corporation tax rates, the Government hope to bring in an extra £17.2 billion in a few years’ time. That is the claim; that is the estimate of the increased revenue that the increased rate will bring.
If there was any lingering doubt about the sea change that this represents in the thinking of the Conservative party, it was swept away by the Chancellor the day after the Budget. He used his post-Budget interview on the “Today” programme to bury the argument of his predecessors. He said:
“the vast majority, if not all, of that increase in corporate tax receipts is probably more likely due to the cyclical recovery in corporate profits, which took a real hammering in the last crisis”.
He went on to say:
“There was an idea that they”—
cuts in corporation tax—
“could help spur business investment. And what we’ve seen over the past few years is that we haven’t seen a step change in the level of capital investment that businesses are doing as a result of those corporation tax decreases.”
So there it is: Thatchernomics and Osbornenomics buried in full public view by Rishinomics—no more Laffer curves; no more pretending that tax cuts always magically lead to more revenues; no more tax bombshell posters; “Singapore-on-Sea” laid to rest by Budget 2021.
With a Budget set to bring the overall tax take back to levels not seen since the 1960s, the Conservatives have surrendered the mantle of claiming to be the party of low taxation. The old Conservative slogan was that it was the party of low taxation. The new slogan could be, “Tax on families up, tax on businesses up, but nurses’ pay down.” Let the Chancellor put his signature on that. This is the platform to which he has now signed up the whole Conservative party. This is the change that the Budget represents.
When we look at what the Budget predicts further ahead, UK economic growth after this year and next is projected to be just 1.6% or 1.7%. The Budget papers predict a long-term hit to growth of 3% from covid, on top of the 4% hit to growth as a result of the Prime Minister’s agreement with the European Union. The more that we can mitigate this damage to growth, the better it will be for prosperity, family finances and the public finances. That is the heart of the country’s challenge—how to get economic growth going. After the long, hard year that business has had, we need to let companies grow, breathe and get back on their feet, not weigh them down with ever growing debts, so why have the Government set their face so firmly against the proposals that came from business groups themselves to turn the covid debt burden into a contingent tax liability in the future, dependent on future performance?
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on the Black Country economy heard alarming reports from manufacturing companies about the forest of red tape, cost increases and delays that they have faced in trying to export goods since the beginning of January. Those businesses represent the finest Black Country tradition of making things and selling them all over the world. There is an old saying in the Black Country: “If you can draw it, we can make it.” But those businesses now find themselves hobbled and hamstrung by the mountain of red tape involved in the Government’s Brexit arrangements.
I appreciate that some Government Members may not regret that—in fact, some of them may welcome it—but the hard-working businesses of this country deserve more than to be used as components in the Government’s ongoing grievance factory against the European Union. They deserve more than to be used as pawns in a battle of ill feeling that will not create a single job or export a single product. We know that the Prime Minister has dismissed business, but that attitude is no good to hard-working exporters and manufacturing companies. They deserve support for their efforts.
Covid has exposed deep inequalities in our country, from the pattern of those killed by it to the frontline workers who have kept the country going. It has imposed on us all a responsibility to build a better economy out of this: one that combines prosperity and security; and one that combines the wealth creation we need with a commitment to heal the divisions exposed by what we have been through. Under new leadership, that is exactly the approach that my party will support.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Over the past four and a half hours we have had contributions from well over 75 right hon. and hon. Members from across the United Kingdom—from Blackpool to Buckingham, and from Stockton North and South to Somerset. There may be many geographical differences between us and differences of opinion, but I think all of us, no matter our political allegiance or the location of our constituencies, are united in our desire to safeguard businesses from the impact of covid-19. On this International Women’s Day, I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to those businesses’ female employees, whose work helps to drive this country’s economic success.
Indeed, the desire to safeguard businesses has been this Government’s guiding mission since the first days of the pandemic. That is why, over the past year, we have rolled out a series of extraordinary, unprecedented interventions, including the furlough and self-employment income support schemes, billions of pounds of grants and loans, as well as VAT cuts and rate holidays for eligible firms. Those steps have worked. According to official statistics, insolvencies last year were ranked 25% below 2019 levels. However, while the pandemic continues, it is only morally right that we do all we can to support the hardest-hit firms. That is why in last week’s Budget the Chancellor built on our existing help for businesses as part of a total covid support package worth £352 billion this year and next.
Let me remind hon. and right hon. Members of the headline measures: extending the furlough scheme to the end of September, with firms required to make only a small contribution to wages as the economy reopens; more help for the self-employed with a fourth income support grant worth 80% of three months’ average trading profits and capped at £7,500; and a fifth grant, with its value determined by a turnover test, to target support at those who need it most. In addition, more than 600,000 extra people, many of whom became self-employed in 2019-20, will now be able to claim for the scheme. The CBI praised those steps and said it was right that businesses start to contribute a little more as revenues recover, while the Federation of Small Businesses declared that the Government’s interventions were the building blocks of a pro-business Budget.
We are also providing targeted support to the sectors that have found themselves at the sharp end of the pandemic. As my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary outlined this afternoon when he opened this debate, that includes hundreds of millions of pounds to support our arts, culture and sporting institutions as they reopen and an extension of our hugely successful film and TV production restart scheme.
We are giving eligible properties in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors a £6 billion tax cut by continuing the 100% business rates holiday for three months. We are extending the 5% reduced VAT rate for eligible hospitality and tourism businesses until the end of September. I listened carefully to the representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild). We will continue to think carefully about what is required to support all aspects of our economy.
As we start to emerge from the pandemic, our new restart grants will help get shops bustling, hairdressers snipping and fitness centres buzzing again. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that personal care businesses will be included in stage 2, which will open from 12 April.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, the Government continue to take their world-leading environmental commitment seriously. They remain dedicated to meeting climate change and wider environmental targets, including improving the UK’s air quality.
The billions of pounds that we spend on such interventions are necessary and affordable in the short term but, as the Chancellor also said last week, we cannot allow debt to rise indefinitely, so let me touch on the role of businesses in rebuilding our nation’s finances, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). We are providing over £100 billion of support to firms throughout the pandemic, and it is only right that we ask businesses to help as they return to profit and the economy rebounds. That is why, in 2023, we are increasing the corporation tax rate to 25%. Even at that level, I say to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), the UK will still have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7. Before that increase kicks in, we are making the tax treatment of losses more generous by allowing businesses to carry back losses of up to £2 million for three years, and we are reviewing the 8% surcharge levied on bank profits to ensure that the sector remains globally competitive.
However, that is far from the sum of business’s contribution to our economic renewal. Companies small and large have another important role: driving growth and spreading opportunity around the country. I strongly support the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on the role of changing regulations in growing growth and competition opportunities.
In our Budget plans, we are building an investment-led recovery and we have set out how to support the firms that are going to do it. First, we are increasing opportunities for young people while ensuring that firms benefit from a steady pipeline of talent, with £126 million to fund up to 43,000 high-quality traineeships. In addition, employers who hire a new apprentice will receive a £3,000 payment. We are also rolling out a new unsponsored points-based visa, so that high-growth firms in science, research and tech can attract the best global talent.
Secondly, we are helping firms turbocharge their growth by providing greater access to capital through a range of new schemes, as acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). They include giving the pension industry more flexibility to release investment into innovative ventures and helping firms scale up through a new £375 million “future fund: breakthrough” programme. The FCA will also consult on the IPO listings regime following Lord Hill’s excellent review, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) will watch that with great interest.
Thirdly, we are closing the UK’s productivity gap. Our super deduction—the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history—will mean our business investment tax regime leads the world. As the Culture Secretary outlined earlier, our £520 million Help to Grow scheme will offer small businesses MBA-style management training, as well as help to embrace digital technology. I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who gave some begrudging support for Help to Grow and digital investment, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), whose enthusiasm demonstrates his understanding of the sector.
I end my remarks by saying that UK businesses and the men and women at their helm are the backbone of our economy. We are committed to doing whatever it takes to support them through this crisis and to unleash their potential to drive our national recovery and renewal. This extraordinary Budget in extraordinary times sets out how we will achieve that and, in so doing, secure a stronger economy and a better future for the people of this country as we emerge from this pandemic.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David T.C. Davies.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
Disused Mineworks in Skewen: Flooding
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On 21 January, residents living in Skewen in my Aberavon constituency had their lives turned upside down. Unbeknown to them, a blockage in a disused mineworks was preventing water from draining away. Thousands of gallons of water therefore accumulated underground, creating the liquid equivalent of a ticking time bomb, which finally exploded on the 21st, causing a blow-out from the mine shaft.
The force of the water was so great that not only did it punch through the cap that had sealed the mine for over 100 years, but it erupted through the road above. The torrent of water and sludge then cascaded through Goshen Park, down Drummau Road and The Highlands, through Sunnyland Crescent before settling in Sunnyland, Jubilee Crescent, Dynevor Road and the bottom of Cwrt-Y-Clafdy. Residents, including at a nearby care home, were evacuated as the mine waters continued to rise. The sheer terrifying force of the water was breaking down walls, displacing cookers, fridges and furniture, shattering glass and destroying belongings. It left a trail of destruction in its wake. Miraculously, nobody was physically injured, but make no mistake: the traumatic emotional aftershocks of this will be felt forever in this tight-knit community.
Before I make any further comment about the impact of this horrific incident and how the UK Government and the Coal Authority must respond, I would like to place on record my thanks to the emergency services and all the agencies that responded to the incident and helped residents. The local councillor, Mike Harvey, has also been a rock for his residents, standing by them from the outset. Neath Port Talbot Council’s response has also been rapid and effective. It has continued to support residents, helping them to find temporary accommodation, administering the Welsh Government’s financial assistance, facilitating council tax exemptions, providing support for pursuing insurance claims and organising generators and dehumidifiers for residents without insurance to dry out their homes.
I would also like to thank those at Skewen Salvation Army for the wonderful work that they have done to support and help the victims. They were on site with their emergency vehicle within hours. They opened their hall for donations, and they have set up a fundraising page and raised thousands of pounds to help residents. Residents are particularly grateful to Briony Powell, the volunteer co-ordinator, Emma Jones, the local area co-ordinator, and Captain Jo Walters, who so quickly mobilised the relief effort. We are fiercely proud of our legendary community spirit in Aberavon. We have certainly seen it in Skewen, and it has certainly been needed.
Of the 144 properties affected, 59 were flooded internally and 17 were flooded externally. Over 50 households have needed to find temporary accommodation. For each one of these properties, their owners are facing every homeowner’s worst nightmare, and they are facing it in the midst of a global pandemic. Having visited the site a number of times, I have seen for myself the sheer scale of the destruction that has been caused, and I can tell the House that the residents’ stories have not got any less heartbreaking.
Mr Godden and his son work in the ambulance service, and Mrs Godden is a nurse. The last 12 months on the frontline in the battle against this pandemic have been hugely challenging for them, and now this has happened. Their home is devastated. There is not much left. Their caravan and the vehicle they were unable to move have both been written off, but they still have to pay off the lease on the car. To add insult to injury, they have been told by their insurance company that because they cannot make a claim against the Coal Authority, they are considered to be at fault for the damage the water has caused to their caravan. This is nothing short of a scandal.
Emma Jones was at work when it happened. Her 15-year-old twins were at home studying when the water engulfed their home. They were rescued though waist-deep water by firefighters. The ordeal of what unfolded that day has left her daughter suffering from nightmares, seeing images in her mind’s eye of her family and friends face down in water.
Ria Evans grew up in her home on Dynevor Road. Her mother lived there and so did her grandmother. The home holds great sentimental value to her. It was full of loving memories and treasured belongings, but they have all been destroyed. Ria has yet to find long-term accommodation. She is desperate to find somewhere to settle so she can get a bit of stability and stop living out of a suitcase. Every day is a constant battle for her. She is struggling to sleep, she is struggling emotionally, and she is struggling to focus, which is affecting her work.
Every time I speak with residents, I am profoundly impressed by the dignity with which they are conducting themselves. However, I have to tell the Minister that there is a growing feeling of anger and betrayal about the way in which they are being treated by the Coal Authority and the UK Government.
The Coal Industry Act 1994 transferred responsibility for mines, including the one in Skewen, to the UK Government. At that time, the Coal Authority was established and given the responsibility for managing the effects of past coalmining and dealing with the myriad environmental and safety related issues that are the legacy of the coalmining industry. The Skewen mine was inspected in 2011 and deemed a low risk, but it has since transpired that the map was incorrect and the wrong location had been inspected. Lessons must be learned from this sorry tale, but the bottom line is that the responsibility for the botched 2011 inspection lies squarely at the door of the Coal Authority and the UK Government.
Why on earth should residents be expected to pay a single penny for damage that has been caused through no fault of their own? Residents simply cannot fathom why the Coal Authority is not accepting liability for the damage that the mine water, ochre, debris and sludge from the mine has cause to their homes. I have to say that I am equally baffled.
Residents are continually being told that the UK Government and the Coal Authority do not have liability for flooding and that water is water—it is not owned by anyone. These arguments are both insensitive and nonsensical. The blow-out was not an act of God, like a river bursting its banks or a storm surge; the mine workings are man-made. They are the responsibility of the Coal Authority and, by extension, of the UK Government.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is a moral responsibility that each property should be returned to the condition it was in on 20 January, and that no resident should be burdened with the cost. What has been offered so far by the Coal Authority is, frankly, an insult: £500 does not begin to scratch the surface when the cost of the damage caused by the mine water is running to tens of thousands of pounds for each property. One resident has been quoted £50,000.
The Coal Authority and the UK Government are sticking dogmatically to their mantra that residents need to go through their insurance companies, but what about those who do not have insurance? There are about 20 properties with no insurance, and the intransigence of the Coal Authority and the UK Government means that people are expected to find substantial amounts of money to make their homes fit to live in again. This is an appalling way to treat people who have had their homes destroyed through no fault of their own. Even those with insurance are finding that it does not cover everything. Gardens, garden furniture, driveways, fences and outbuildings that have been damaged are not included. In some cases, residents have buildings insurance but not contents insurance.
Rhian David, her husband and two young children were evacuated from their family home and have been told that they will not be able to return for another year. Despite taking out a large sum of insurance, it is not enough to cover the extensive damage. The initial damage came to £18,000, but the secondary damage such as damp has added a further £5,000 to the costs.
By the Coal Authority’s own admission, this was a unique incident and the work to remediate the mineshaft and install a water management system should prevent any future recurrence. A compensation fund must therefore be set up to cover all uninsured losses and other unforeseen costs. The unique circumstances and the work of the Coal Authority would mean that that was a one-off payment in exceptional circumstances. It would not be setting a precedent; it would simply be doing the decent thing in response to an exceptional and unprecedented incident. This is a question of doing what is morally right, and the UK Government must respond accordingly.
The Minister has stated from the Dispatch Box that she will visit Skewen to see for herself the damage and destruction that the water has caused and to hear directly from residents, but we still do not know when she is coming. Only by visiting the site can she appreciate what has happened and truly comprehend the devastation. It is vital that she comes to Skewen before too much remediation work is carried out. Only by speaking directly with the residents can she fully understand the enormous emotional toll that this is taking. She needs to grasp the traumatic impact that the intransigence of the Coal Authority and the UK Government is having.
The saying goes that actions speak louder than words. The Coal Authority and the UK Government have offered the victims plenty of warm words, but statements of sympathy rapidly curdle into empty platitudes if they are not backed up by tangible deeds. The longer the Minister stays away, the clearer it becomes to my residents how little the UK Government care about what has happened to them.
Residents are equally worried about the impact of the incident on house prices. The Coal Authority and the UK Government must engage with estate agents and mortgage providers to ensure that their valuations and advice are based on a clear and comprehensive understanding of the uniqueness of what has happened.
Residents’ treatment by insurance companies has been a lottery. Some have acted reasonably well, but others have not. Residents have had real problems with insurance companies increasing premiums, with quotes that have seen premiums double after the incident; in one case, the annual payment jumped from £341 to £1,389 and a £10,000 excess. Others have been told that they cannot claim off the Coal Authority so they cannot make a no-fault claim.
This is a scandalous way to treat people. Residents should not be punished financially as a direct result of a blow-out happening through no fault of their own. The Coal Authority has promised to provide an information pack, which will provide estate agents with reassuring details about the unusual nature of what has happened and the new water management system, but that is taking far too long. Residents need that information pack urgently. The longer it takes for them to receive it, the more stress is caused and the more cost incurred.
The UK Government and the Coal Authority must also step up their efforts with insurers. They cannot be allowed to get away with this behaviour. It is imperative that the UK Government make it clear to all relevant insurance companies that they must not add a single penny to the premiums of those who have been impacted by this incident, and that all claims should be treated as no-fault.
The people of Skewen are strong and resilient. They will not take this lying down and, to quote Dylan Thomas, they will not go gentle into that good night. I am therefore giving the Minister fair warning this evening that the Coal Authority and the UK Government have awoken a sleeping dragon. She needs to know that she is in for a fight if she continues to stick rigidly to her stance.
I have great respect for the Minister. I know her to be a reasonable person and a credit to the important position that she holds. I therefore call on her to recognise that this is about doing what is morally right. It is time for the UK Government to step up and create a compensation fund to cover uninsured losses and to help those who have lost so much through absolutely no fault of their own.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his campaigning on this issue, which I recognise is a very serious one indeed for the residents of Skewen. I would also like to add my respectful gratitude to all those he mentioned who have helped residents through this incredibly difficult and stressful time. Some years ago now when Morpeth, just outside my constituency, was flooded, it was extraordinary to see the commitment—the continued commitment—of those among the affected who just quietly continued to support people and make sure that families got back on their feet, so I absolutely understand that. I just wanted to put on the record my thanks to them too, because I know just how difficult that can be.
I would like to provide the House with a little background on the important work that the Coal Authority undertakes, which I feel is relevant to the hon. Member’s very important constituency situation. The coalfield areas of Wales, England and Scotland cover some 26,000 sq km, or 11% of our country’s surface area. Since the start of the industrial revolution, human settlement has followed natural resource availability, industry and employment. The coalfields are consequently some of the most densely populated parts of the UK. Some 7 million properties lie within the coalfields, with 1.5 million properties lying above workings where coal has been mined at a depth of less than 30 metres, and more than 170,000 mine entries are known of. Alongside these, there are hundreds of miles of underground roadways, adits and drainage systems, which are often only partially mapped, especially in very historic coalmining areas.
In south Wales, 52% of the population live on the coalfield, and the vast majority will fortunately never experience any issues. Although there is little active coalmining today, centuries of underground and surface extraction have created a legacy of environmental issues and public safety hazards. As the hon. Member mentioned, the Coal Authority was created under the Coal Industry Act 1994, when the previously state-owned coal industry was privatised, to regulate the industry and manage these legacy issues. The authority helps to manage the UK’s energy legacy safely and responsibly.
A substantial legacy of mining hazards remain in many major conurbations, with one third of the documented coalmine entries being in urban areas. Surface collapses above abandoned workings and shafts present the most common risks to the public. The authority therefore has a 24/7 hazard line, enabling the public to report mining hazards around the clock, in order to ensure immediate responses. Approximately 1,000 surface and subsidence incidents are reported each year, about half of which are found to be coalmining related. The scale of the issues means that costly proactive remediation of the surface effects of mine workings and mining entries is carried out only when there is a higher risk to persons or property. In 2008, the authority began a risk-based mine entry inspection programme to identify such areas for proactive remediation. To date, some 149,000 shafts have been inspected, less than 1% of which have required remedial treatment.
The coalmine works in Skewen date back beyond 1830. There are 287 recorded mine entries in the immediate area of Skewen, which are part of the proactive inspection programme. The mineshaft involved in this awful flood and the area around it was inspected in 2011, as the hon. Member mentioned, and no concerns were identified at the time. It was mapped approximately 20 metres away from where the Coal Authority now know it to be. A mine drainage level in the vicinity has operated effectively for a very long time, but had become blocked, causing water and pressure to build up, eventually connecting with the nearby mineshaft, which allowed it to rise to the surface. The additional heavy rain from Storm Christoph caused the water to force its way out, leading to the flooding on 21 January. This is considered an extremely rare event and was unforeseeable.
Since then, the Coal Authority has worked fast with local partners and continues to provide a blended package of support to the community, which has included developing a solution to reduce the risk of this ever happening again, cleaning up in the aftermath of the flood and practical help for residents affected, including, to date, increasing the maximum payment for each household for outside restoration to £500. However, this is without doubt a deeply sad and very upsetting incident, and I heard absolutely what the hon. Member for Aberavon said about liability and, indeed, moral responsibility.
The Coal Authority’s work handling subsidence and safety issues associated with former coalmines is a statutory duty under the Coal Industry Act 1994 and the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991. The 1991 Act sets limits to the liability in terms of defining coal-mining subsidence damage. Flooding such as that at Skewen does not form part of these duties, because flooding, whether the water comes from a river, a stream, the sea, groundwater or a mine, is dealt with in the main through insurance. The Coal Authority is doing everything it can to support the community within the bounds of the legislation and the guidance it has to work within, but I am very pleased to note that, following a meeting last week, the Coal Authority is reviewing its package of support. I shall watch closely to see how that progresses.
The scale and complexity of our historic mining legacy mean that the authority will never be able to inspect all that is underground. I deeply sympathise with the hon. Member’s constituents and I realise that this is an incredibly frustrating and distressing time for them. However, it is neither affordable nor practical to underwrite flooding damage risk associated with former mining works for some 7 million properties, any more than it is for flooding from other sources. None the less, I will continue to monitor progress and hope to get to Skewen for myself as soon as lockdown restrictions allow, so that I can hear at first hand both from residents and those of the coal authority charged with the management of our coal mining legacy. I will watch very closely to see how this revised package under consideration rolls out. Once again, I hope very much that, when the lockdown restrictions hopefully lift in the weeks ahead, I can get on a train and head to south Wales as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We all know the rules about social distancing, and you are all sitting perfectly satisfactorily, so I will not bore you by repeating them.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Performance of Buildings (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
It is an ineffable pleasure to serve under your chairman-ship, Mr Gray. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 22 February, under paragraph 12(1) of schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will be debated and moved in the House of Lords as parliamentary time allows. Mirroring legislation is being prepared for data registered against properties in Northern Ireland, and that will be presented to the Assembly later in March. Scotland operates its own energy performance of buildings register, and is not covered by the draft regulations.
This is a straightforward statutory instrument relating to the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports for properties in England and Wales. Fees are applied to two classes of data registration, covering domestic and non-domestic properties. The draft regulations propose to reduce fees from £1.86 to £1.64 when data is lodged for domestic properties, and from £9.84 to £1.89 for non-domestic properties.
The Committee may recall that the fees charged for data registrations in England and Wales were last adjusted three years ago. They were amended by statutory instruments on six occasions between 2012 and 2018. The Committee will also, I am sure, recall that the United Kingdom has set a target in law to bring its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 to help tackle climate change.
Heating and powering buildings accounts for some 40% of the United Kingdom’s total energy usage, so we must ensure that buildings are constructed to high standards of energy efficiency. The energy performance of buildings registers are a key tool in promoting energy efficiency, providing valuable information about the energy performance of buildings and encouraging homeowners, and commercial building owners and occupiers, to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.
An energy performance certificate is needed whenever a property is built, sold or let, and must be ordered before a property is marketed for sale or rent. At a glance, a consumer searching for a new home or commercial premises—as the cap fits—may determine how efficient a property might be, while an owner may consider the recommendations as to how they might improve the energy efficiency of their property.
Historically, energy performance of buildings regulations were part of the energy performance of buildings directive. We retained the regulations after we left the European Union, as they contribute to our target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. They set out the Secretary of State’s obligation to maintain a register of data so that energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports can be recorded in a readily accessible format and made available to the public.
Regulation 28 of those regulations sets out a power to levy fees to maintain registers. Officials in my Department calculate the appropriate level of fees each year and, on that basis, propose costs of service divided by a forecast number of data lodgements expected to provide the charge. A reduction in fees is possible now, because the Government have invested in new cloud-based digital platforms and moved away from the fixed hardware model that has been in place for the past 13 years. That will ensure that energy performance of buildings—and the register thereof—is user-centred and fit for the future.
The new fee rates set out in this draft instrument will allow the costs of operating the energy performance of buildings register service to continue to be met without profiteering or allowing lodgement fees to subsidise a loss. In other words, the charge will not cost the lodger more than it should, and it will not cost the taxpayer anything at all. Costs of the service have been calculated in line with Government policy and tested with the Treasury and stakeholders in the property energy profession.
The draft regulations serve a very specific purpose: to reduce the statutory fees that are charged when data is registered for domestic and non-domestic energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning inspection reports. Over the two classes of fee, reducing domestic data registration fees represents a 12% saving, while reducing non-domestic data registration fees is an 81% saving. I hope that the Committee will agree that these are sensible measures, which will afford the lodger some saving and cost the taxpayer nothing, so I commend them to the Committee.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The measures under consideration are not controversial, and we will support them, but this is perhaps an opportunity to express some concern about the Government’s green homes agenda more widely—
Steve Reed
Absolutely, and in response to comments made by the Minister.
Homeowners, for example, would have had more encouragement to green their homes had the Government not cancelled the zero-carbon homes standard, which was due to come into force in 2016, only later to replace it with a future homes standard that will not come in before 2025. Every year of delay pumps millions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and families spend years more in homes that are colder and more expensive to heat. Many people have commented on the failings of the green homes grants—
Steve Reed
It is connected with the issues of concern, and the Minister was speaking about encouraging home-owners to green their homes. Sorry, I was merely making comments in response to the Minister.
Steve Reed
Absolutely.
In a report last week, the Public Accounts Committee said that the Government have “no plans” to meet climate change targets, two years after setting them in law. The UK’s stock of 27 million houses includes some of the worst insulated and least energy-efficient homes in Europe. We hope that the Government will take the example of what is proposed in this SI to move further with that agenda and to deliver a big improvement in work to hit our climate change targets by making homes in the UK warm, dry and affordable to heat.
The provisions in the draft regulations are welcome, but we need the Government to get more serious about the green transition necessary to tackle the climate crisis. The green homes agenda should be a central plank of that.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged for your indulgence, Mr Gray, and to the shadow Minister for his support for this—as he rightly said—uncontroversial measure. The hon. Gentleman made a couple of comments about the Government’s policy on greening our economy and greening homes to meet our net zero carbon agenda, so I will spend one minute responding to those, Mr Gray.
Christopher Pincher
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises what the Government are doing. Perhaps I might point him with some advantage to the work that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is doing with the green homes grant, which will retrofit more than 600,000 properties in the country over the next several years to ensure that they are far more energy-efficient and therefore far less costly to the dwellers in them, because energy will be saved in houses and far less will have to be spent by the homeowners on their energy bills.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the future homes standard, which we are introducing in 2025. Homes built after that point will be at least 75% more carbon-efficient than present homes. That is a fine objective, which will be met, because by that time we will have ensured that the sector, with the skills to support it, will be ready to implement the changes necessary to meet the objectives.
In the meantime, we are uplifting the performance requirements of homes by 31%, which will go a significant way to preparing the industry for the future homes standard, while ensuring that we also reduce our carbon footprint as quickly as the economy allows. With that, Mr Gray, I am grateful for your indulgence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gillian Keegan
We know there has been strong support for face-to-face education. East Kent College polled its learners just a couple of days ago and found that 97% wanted to return to onsite education.
[Official Report, 25 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 1174.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
We know there has been strong support for face-to-face education. East Kent College polled its learners recently and found that 97% wanted to return to onsite education.
Education Route Map: Covid-19
The following is an extract from the debate on education route map: covid 19 on 25 February 2021.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We continue to be impressed by the resilience and positivity of everybody involved—parents, students and, of course, teachers—throughout these difficult times. I know that the whole country will be delighted that children are returning to schools and colleges, and will once again see their families and get the education that they deserve.
[Official Report, 25 February 2021, Vol. 689, c. 1176.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct response should have been:
Gillian Keegan
I thank the House for this opportunity to discuss the route map for schools and colleges in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We continue to be impressed by the resilience and positivity of everybody involved—parents, students and, of course, teachers—throughout these difficult times. I know that the whole country will be delighted that children are returning to schools and colleges, and will once again see their friends and get the education that they deserve.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Welcome to the first hybrid meeting of Westminster Hall. I remind Members that there are changes to some of the rules in the new hybrid arrangements. Members present must stand when they are speaking. Interventions are allowed on Members present in the Room, but not by or on Members who are speaking virtually.
The timings of the debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between each debate. Members who have not arrived for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall will not be called, and those Members who are here are expected to remain for the entire debate.
If Members who are attending virtually have technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members may speak only from the horseshoe.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 563473 relating to press freedoms and safety of protestors in India.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this return to Westminster Hall debates, with virtual participation—something I know many Members are grateful for—which gives e-petitions awaiting a debate the public hearing that the petitioners deserve.
Farming protests in India may not seem to be the most obvious issue for a petitions debate, but the Petitions Committee has always accepted petitions calling on the UK Government to engage with other Governments on human rights issues. The petition focuses on the protests in Delhi and across India following the agricultural reforms agreed by the Indian Parliament. It calls on the UK Government to
“Urge the Indian Government to ensure safety of protestors & press freedom”.
It argues that
“democratic engagement and freedom of the press are fundamental rights and a positive step towards creating a India that works for all”,
and calls for “transparency & accountability” from the Indian Government.
The petition has already been signed by more than 115,000 people, and it has until 17 June to run—a fact that highlights the public interest in, and topicality of, the issue. The close ties, and many family connections, between these islands and India are another factor. The petition was created by Gurch Singh, whose family is from a farming background in the Punjab, after the distress he observed when he found his mother in tears watching the Indian news channels’ coverage of the protests. He then spoke with relatives in India about the distress they were in, and with members of his local community. It is testament to his efforts that his area is in the top 10 constituencies for signatories. Gilles Verniers, a political scientist at Ashoka University, has said:
“Every farmer community everywhere is discussing these farm laws. It is not just a local or regional matter.”
He is right. It has even found its way to being debated in these islands.
The farming protests are complex in their nature and origins. Indeed, even as a Member who takes a keen interest in India and has family connections there, I must admit that, prior to the scheduling of the debate, I had little knowledge of the subject, other than having seen some brief news footage of clashes between farmers and police in riot gear, from which I gleaned that it was something to do with farming laws, and that several high-profile celebrities such as Rihanna and Greta Thunberg had spoken out about it. I am grateful to those who have taken the time to speak with me over the last few days, and to those who have provided briefings. The House of Commons Library, the Indian high commission, the petitioner, and several political contacts with first-hand experience have all greatly assisted my understanding of the issue.
Today, we are not having a debate about the merits of the agricultural reform Bills passed by the Indian Parliament. The UK Government have repeatedly acknowledged that it is a sovereign matter for the Government and people of India. In their diplomatically worded response to the petition, the UK Government stated:
“We respect that agricultural reforms are a matter for India”.
That new-found support for self-determination and sovereignty from the UK Government is quite encouraging —those of us from Scotland are paying close attention.
The Indian Government’s right to enforce law and order is also not in dispute, and again that has been repeatedly acknowledged by the UK Government in their statements on the protests. In their response to the petition, the UK Government stated:
“We also recognise that governments have the power to enforce law and order if a protest crosses the line into illegality. We look to the Indian government to uphold all freedoms and rights guaranteed in India’s strong constitution.”
However, this debate is an opportunity to note concerns raised regarding the safety of protesters and press freedoms in reporting on the protests.
To help those who may be coming to the debate with a similar knowledge base to the one that I had a week ago, I believe the background to be as follows. It can be argued that the farmers have been ripped off for generations, that the sector requires reform, and that they have suffered a huge loss of income due to the covid lockdowns. Agriculture is controlled by the state in India, and three farm laws were passed by India’s Parliament last September, resulting in opposition from farming groups. There are arguments about the constitutionality of the laws, which is an issue for India’s own legislative and judicial process.
The farm laws allow, for the first time, farm gate sales to corporations. They put an end to warehouse capacity limits for processors, and they introduce tax-free, privately owned corporate yards, or mandis. We have heard reports of water cannons and tear gas being used against protesters in the early stages of the protests, repeated clashes between police and protesters, and the suspension of mobile internet access and social media accounts in late January and early February. There are good links to reputable sources on those events in the House of Commons Library debate pack.
Sadly, several farmers have suicided in protest, and others have died from exposure during the winter conditions of the protests. Indian farmers have been occupying roads around Delhi since 26 November, and on 26 January—Republic Day—they drove more than 120,000 tractors to the capital. The vast majority of those taking part, it should be stressed, did so peacefully. I believe it was inspired by an American farmers’ “tractorcade”, which brought Washington to a standstill in 1979. It is a small world.
Across India, some 750 million people are directly engaged in agriculture. That is around half of India’s population. Land has been described as sacred, and farming seen as a religious duty or way of life. It is a very significant issue for India, and has a resonance with the Indian diaspora around the globe, and for concerned environmental and political activists. While the protests been largely peaceful, they have on occasion involved the use of direct action such as strikes and blockades, which have disrupted road and rail traffic. The most significant clash between police and protesters so far came on 26 January, when one protester died and more than 80 police officers were injured after protesters deviated from an agreed protest route, including breaching security to enter the iconic Red Fort in Delhi.
The BBC cited local media reports of police using tear gas and batons, and of police officers being targeted by protesters driving tractors. The violence was condemned by farmers’ groups and union leaders. In response to the violence, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs put out a statement on 3 February arguing that the violence on 26 January had been the result of “vested interest groups” influencing the protests. It argued:
“Indian police forces have handled these protests with utmost restraint”,
despite hundreds of police officers being attacked. The statement also noted that the Government have held multiple rounds of dialogue with protesters’ representatives and farming unions, and had offered to suspend the implementation of the laws—an offer rejected by the farmers’ unions, who want to see the laws fully repealed.
Following the violence at the end of January, the Indian Government also temporarily suspended mobile internet access in three areas around Delhi where protesters had gathered. The Indian Government claimed that the suspension was in order to maintain public safety. The UK Government have since acknowledged and welcomed the removal of those restrictions in their answer to a House of Lords written question on 22 February. However, on 9 February, Amnesty International released a statement calling on the Indian Government to stop what it referred to as an “escalating crackdown” on protesters and farming leaders, citing reports of arrests, threats and harassment of peaceful protesters. The International Press Institute took the matter up in its communication directly with Prime Minister Modi, in which it urged him
“to take immediate steps to ensure that journalists can work without harassment and fear of reprisal”
from the Government,
“and to direct the state governments to drop all charges against journalists, including those under the draconian sedition laws, that have been imposed on them for their work”.
Press freedom and the right to peaceful protest is central to any democracy, so the images emerging from India over the past few months are deeply worrying. Some 67 journalists were arrested and detained last year alone. The escalation in violence and the press crackdown, including over social media accounts, cannot simply be ignored, especially at a time when the UK Government are keen to strengthen ties with the Indian Government.
As the world’s largest democracy and a key regional player, India has a pivotal role to play on the world stage. That is why it is vital that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary impress on our Indian partners our joint convictions on free speech and the right to protest. I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will advise whether these concerns will be raised by the Prime Minister on his trip later this year.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Back-Bench speakers, I have two points to make. I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on speeches. I also announced at the beginning that hon. Members who were not present for the start of the debate would not be allowed to speak, but this is the first time we have had these arrangements so at the end I will call two hon. Members who were not here at the start—one of whom I think I went to Westminster Hall, as opposed to the Boothroyd Room, which is understandable. I do not expect there to be that flexibility after this sitting, but it makes sense to do it this way for this first meeting.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
Thank you for your stewardship of this first hybrid meeting of Westminster Hall, Mr Stringer. We are addressing a critical issue. This is the largest trade dispute in the world at the moment, and it is not just about people having a deal to be able to survive; it is about their livelihoods.
Huge numbers of farmers have committed suicide. Those with small shareholdings of up to five acres will suffer hugely under this law change, which is not about looking after the welfare of farmers in India, who are by and large one of the most downtrodden communities across the whole of Indian culture, because of the work that they do with their hands and the fact that the whole family has to be involved. When they have sought a peaceful change to the legislation, the Indian Government have abused them and delivered lathi charges—charges by the police with batons of wood. They hit elderly people and women, not seeing who was there. By and large, the farmers have been peaceful. Some individuals from outside the movement have tried to instigate violence, but that has been condemned by the farmers’ unions.
The dispute is about livelihoods. It should not be treated in a way that disregards all of the issues that the farmers wish to raise in Parliament. The dispute could have been finished quite easily. It did not need to go on for the 100 days that it has gone on for now. The Government must listen, but they have chosen not to. They should work with these poor farmers, but they have chosen not to. They have taken a belligerent attitude towards a community that provides crops for the whole of India, a community whose livelihoods support the people to eat. Some of the most impoverished people in India can get support from agriculture and the work that the farmers do. The Indian Government—
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Anywhere in the world, in whatever country and on whatever continent, agricultural reform is very, very difficult. It is always accompanied by division and controversy, and in some instances there are protests and even law breaking. For example, our nearest neighbour across the channel has a farming sector often prepared to embark on civil disobedience and direct action.
Many of the laws governing India’s system of farm support date back to the ’50s and ’60s, a time when the country was sometimes on the edge of famine. Thankfully, there has been massive change for the better in the intervening decades. Reform of farm subsidy and support has been under active and intensive discussion in India for 20 years, and international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund have welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s attempt to take action on this challenge, which many of his predecessors have backed away from.
I accept and understand that protesting farmers feel insecure about their future, but Prime Minister Modi’s Government have repeatedly said that a core purpose of the reforms is to make farming more profitable, raise the incomes of people who work in farming and promote investment in agriculture in order to increase yields. Food security is obviously a priority for every Government around the world.
Although the three items of legislation that have sparked so much controversy will mean change, they also leave many structures, principles and rules intact, and Mr Modi was emphatic in a speech on 8 February that the commitment to a minimum support price has been retained and will not be removed by any of the new laws. Moreover, his Government have offered to postpone the implementation of the new laws for 18 months to allow for more engagement, consultation and discussion with the farming sector.
I hear the concerns expressed about the response to the protests, but when thousands and thousands of people are involved in demonstrations and encampments lasting months and months, no policing response can altogether avoid controversial episodes. After all, complaints about police officers here in the UK are frequently made after mass protests, but that is not evidence that democratic values are under threat in this country, and nor is it in India.
India is a country where respect for the rule of law and human rights is constitutionally protected and embedded in society. The authorities’ approach to the protests should not shake our faith in that central truth. Rather than denigrating India with unjustified criticism, we should celebrate it as the democratic success story that it is.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate, and on the excellent way in which he introduced the subject today.
The fact that over 100,000 people have signed a petition in support of Indian farmers shows the strength of feeling in the Indian diaspora, as well as in the rest of the communities all across this country. From clothing workers in Leicester to shopkeepers in London and elsewhere, many people in the diaspora have signed a petition to ensure that this debate takes place, because of the unprecedented nature of the demonstrations in Delhi and because of the unprecedented nature of the support for those taking part. For all those hundreds of thousands of protesters in Delhi, many more have joined in, and when a national call was made for a strike, 250 million people took part in it—the biggest ever industrial dispute in the history of this planet—so we should think about why those people are protesting.
They are protesting because they are predominantly small farmers on less than five acres, many of them very poor. Over 22,000 have committed suicide in the past few years as a result of the stress they are under. It is as if globalisation has been forced upon them, and they do not want it, so this debate is about the media reporting, and it is about the views that people take on this issue all over the world.
When a protest takes place, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) pointed out, there are often complaints. However, the nature of the way in which the protesters—the strikers—have been attacked in Delhi is unprecedented, as has been the reaction of the Indian Government to the way in which the media have responded: internet access has been closed down, media access has been prevented, and mobile phone access has been limited. The media have been prevented from getting their message out to the wider world.
Last week, a number of colleagues now participating in this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), had a meeting with representatives of the National Union of Journalists. On behalf of their colleagues in India, they told us how concerned they were about the way in which Indian journalists have been prevented from reporting on this issue. Indeed, most of the British media have barely reported on it.
In the few seconds I have left, I would like to quote Sabina Inderjit, the general secretary of the Indian Journalists Union, who concluded:
“Our brief view of the prevailing situation: Democracy in India is in danger. Its fourth estate is badly bruised and battered. Over the past five years, the country’s independent and free press, which has aided India to gloat of being a vibrant democracy, is being systematically and ruthlessly attacked like never before.”
We should listen to Sabina Inderjit.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. What happens abroad affects us here. This is evident in a pandemic but true in many other ways. Peterborough is a diverse, multicultural city: we have a large diaspora from the Kashmiri region of Pakistan, and we also have many families of Indian heritage. The events on the subcontinent are of daily personal concern and, quite rightly, my inbox and postbag fill when we witness the disturbances in New Delhi and elsewhere.
We can all have our views on the rights and wrongs of the changes to the Indian agricultural law. It is not necessary to rehearse those here today, nor for the UK Government to side with one view or another. Diplomatic norms should be observed, but those norms assume others. The actions of the Indian Government in response to the farmers’ protests break accepted norms; they cross a line. It is terribly sad that we have reached this point, because India is a great country and a proud democracy. As such, it should conduct itself like a democracy and uphold its own constitution. However challenging the situation becomes, this democratic value should not be suspended, even in the face of provocation.
Instead, the Indian Government have blocked the use of the internet on mobile phones and arrested journalists, and now we read the reports of new legislation to force social media platforms to censor posts and break into encrypted messages. These are illiberal measures. The strength of feeling of protesters does not make them acceptable, and the excuse of national security does not make them any less authoritarian.
Even supporters of the agricultural reforms must have concerns about freedom of speech. The fears of my constituents are evident. One regards the response as an attack on “the minorities of India”, particularly the Sikhs. He worries equally about
“the safety of the protestors and the censorship”.
Another says:
“All we are asking for is for our voice to be heard by constitutional and right means. If you think I am just in my demand as your constituent then please do something about it.”
They doubt some of the allegations levelled at the protesters, and they reiterate the heavy-handedness of the Indian Government’s response.
My constituents with family connections to India are right to be worried. It is right that concern is expressed in this House, and I hope the Minister will convey our Government’s concern. Upholding the law should never be allowed to slide into authoritarian oppression.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
I offer my absolute support for, and solidarity with, the farmers protesting in India. Their protests have brought the world’s attention on India, and particularly on the abuses of the extreme far-right Government led by Prime Minister Modi and the Bharatiya Janata party. The protests are for a just cause, as the farmers are fighting against significant privatisation of agriculture, which would negatively impact on their livelihoods. As we all know, however, the BJP and Modi have responded to the protests with repression. Political opponents of Modi in India are at risk of arbitrary arrest, and the civil liberties of all Indians are being eroded by an extremist, right-wing Government.
Therefore, I demand that the UK Government condemn Prime Minister Modi and the actions of his BJP Government. The Government’s history of abuses and criminality is well documented. They continue to abuse the human and civil rights not only of farmers, but of Kashmiri people through the military occupation of the region. They are cracking down on press freedom and political dissent, censoring critics and blocking access to the internet. A British man, Jagtar Singh Johal, remains imprisoned in India on spurious charges. Furthermore, both Modi and the BJP Government are linked to the rise in violent religious persecution within India, including attacks on Muslims, Sikhs and Christians.
Therefore, I am calling on the UK Government to consider the imposition of sanctions—diplomatic and otherwise—on Prime Minister Modi and his Government. Those sanctions should include banning Modi and other representatives of the BJP Government from entering the UK, and they should extend to the seizure of any UK-based assets belonging to Modi or BJP Government figures until such abuses stop. The UK should work alongside international organisations to protect human and civil rights in India and Kashmir, including the release of all political prisoners and an end to the crackdown on the freedoms of press and speech.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I know that numerous colleagues are keen to speak and that we do not have many minutes, so I will endeavour to be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) is unable to be present today, but he asked me to make the Minister aware of his concerns and the strength of feeling among his constituents who have been in touch with him. They are deeply concerned about the Indian authorities’ use of force, and are adamant that the farmers must be able to exercise their right to peaceful protest. I am pleased that the debate has been called on the issue of safety of protesters and the continuation of press freedoms. It can never be wrong to stand up for human rights and for the right to peaceful protest in safety. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy and a right that thousands of Indian farmers are using today, and which they have used for months now.
Both sides need to step back and recognise the need to come to an agreement. I hope that the Minister will commit to helping that cause by offering British skills in negotiation and compromise to help both sides bring the issue to a close. I know the farmers of India—I grew up in that same community. They worked hard to feed their families and the nation. I know that they would not be out there protesting if they could avoid it, so a solution must be within reach.
Until that is possible, I thank every constituent who signed this important petition. The continuation of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly is important to everybody with a commitment to democracy. All those who are speaking today, all those who signed the petition and everybody who has written to me is part of that call. We are speaking to represent the more than 100,000 people who have signed the petition. They are British citizens, British Indians, and the Indian diaspora, who all care so very deeply about an equitable solution. I implore the Minister to use our skills in compromise to help find a solution that works for both sides.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I represent thousands of constituents with family roots in India. Many are Sikhs with family roots in Punjab. I have received a great deal of correspondence on this issue in recent months, and many of my Wolverhampton South East constituents have signed the petition on press freedom and the defence of the right to public protest. There is a great sense of solidarity with those who are protesting, and a sense that they are fighting for their livelihoods and the right to earn a living. Punjab has long been known as the breadbasket of India. The Punjabi community in the UK have deep family ties with many of the people who are protesting.
The roots of the issue are the three farm laws that were passed last year, which those protesting fear will expose them to huge multinational forces and remove the minimum price guarantees they currently enjoy. Of course India, as a sovereign nation, has a right to debate and legislate for its own laws on that, but—and this is also the case if we look at ourselves—how many countries operate a fully free-market system when it comes to agriculture? Systems of subsidy are very common.
There is a great deal of anguish at the sight of protesters being ill-treated, the internet and social media accounts being cut off, and the arrest of activists. I would always say that protest must be peaceful, but I note the dignity of the protesters, with the provision of langar—free food—not only for each other among protesters, but often for those policing them, too. There is also a rejection of the idea that those engaged in the protests are somehow not loyal to India, or that the response to people fighting for their livelihoods should be to suggest that they are somehow externally controlled, or to place a question mark over their motivations, saying that they are against the state in a broader sense.
What unites those signing the petition, and the hon. Members present, is a defence of the right of peaceful protest and a desire to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict, so I ask the Minister to convey the concerns of the UK Parliament, to stand up for the right of peaceful protest, to defend press freedom, to explain why there are such concerns in the UK, and to urge a peaceful resolution to this long-running and very serious dispute.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Some supporters of the governing party in India have said that this is an internal matter—“Foreigners, keep your nose out of it.” I can tell them why everyone is so concerned. It is because human rights are universal, and a world in which they are upheld in all of our interests.
Hundreds of farmers have died already because of the freezing cold and because of ill health while protesting. Imagine the collective pain for those of us whose parents and grandparents have been tilling the land in the Punjab, who have a strong connection with the land and whose family and friends are involved in the protests, when we see scenes of tear gas, water cannon and brute force being used against them, and when we see them herded into the protest sites like animals, with metal barricades, barbed wire and deadly steel spikes installed in the road, as if it were some sort of international border and not the outskirts of the capital city. The irony is that many of the protesters have served on the border, or have children or grandchildren currently serving in the army. Mercilessly, their water supply, sanitation, electricity and internet have been intermittently cut. Trade unionists, human rights activists and journalists, including young women, have been arrested, with reports of sexual assault and torture while in custody.
The millions of protesters are from across India and different faiths, yet because a significant number of them are Sikhs, they have been singled out and branded separatists and terrorists by unscrupulous elements of the mainstream Indian media. It is part of a pattern where Muslim Indians are labelled as Pakistanis, Christians as being under foreign influence, and Sikhs as Khalistani separatists—but we see you, and so does the world. Let me let Members into a little secret about the Sikhs: they are taught to feed millions of those in need for free, year in and year out, regardless of background, colour or creed. They are brought up to stand up for the rights of others, so we can bet our bottom dollar that they will go to the nth degree to stand up for their own rights.
Those of us, like me, who dare to speak up for the farmers are faced with a deluge of hundreds of fake profiles from the Twitter troll factory, and are accused by some disingenuous elements of being, among other things, racist. I do not need lectures from them about the wonders of India. I have been fortunate enough to have lived and studied in India for over four years, learned to converse in Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu, travelled the length and breadth of that beautiful country, and experienced at first hand the warmth and welcome of its lovely people.
While I am at it, let me debunk another myth used to silence anyone in Britain who offers anything but praise: that they must apparently have a colonial hang up. To those people I say that while we spend most of our time discussing national issues, the beauty of being a British parliamentarian in the mother of Parliaments is that almost every day we conduct debates about what is happening around the world. It will not be lost on anybody that the UK Tory Government, in their desperation to get a trade deal, are failing spectacularly to stand up for the human rights of the protesters, so I call on the Government to request that the Indian Government speedily resolve the deadlock and ensure peace and justice for those farmers—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We move to Bradford West now, with Naz Shah.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing the debate. It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who speaks very passionately about the subject.
The truth is that we should not need someone such as Rihanna to speak up on such issues as the farmers’ protests in India for the world to take notice, but that in some ways explains how the world now works. The powerful are heard with a single tweet, while the average person’s voice is often ignored. That is one of the central arguments that the Indian farmers are making.
The very argument made by the innocent farmers is that when the new laws take effect, taking away the regulated markets that allow for minimum prices for their crops and replacing them with deregulated markets that work in the favour of the big, powerful corporations, who then will listen to the average farmer? The Indian Government talk about how prices will be able to be negotiated, but as we all know, without the safety net of minimum prices, when the big, powerful corporations do the negotiating, it is the average farmer who is left worst off. That is what the debate is really about: ensuring that the voices of ordinary farmers can be heard.
Let me be clear: when we raise such issues because they are a very serious concern for our constituents, who often have families in India struggling in such circumstances, it is not about being anti-Indian. India is the fifth largest economy in the world. It is ranked second in the world in agricultural production and ninth in the world for agricultural exports. India has a rich history and culture, and is a rising economic power. However, with such increases in economic opportunity comes responsibility. It is important that we support the average farmer, especially when they are faced with large and powerful corporations.
This is not a debate between two equals. These farmers are already struggling. More than 52% of India’s farmers are living in debt, which is causing a shocking increase in the suicide rate. In 2019 alone, nearly 10,300 Indian farmers killed themselves. Such an alarming situation cannot be ignored.
In addition, because the protests have been dominated by Sikh protesters from Punjab, the Government have tried to silence their voices by marginalising the issue to one that affects a single community. The current Indian Government’s record on minority rights is not one to be proud of. I urge them to consider the issues of globalisation and capitalism in a serious way, and to avoid making this situation another case of nationalism and marginalising yet another minority community in India.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Thank you, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I speak today as the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson proudly to support Councillor Gurch Singh, the Liberal Democrat councillor who organised this important petition, amassing more than 115,000 signatures. I hope that all hon. Members and the Minister will join me in applauding him for his hard work to galvanise greater action on this issue.
It is right for British MPs to speak about this issue, not just because of our constituents who may have family ties with India, but because wherever democracy and human rights are under threat we cannot look the other way. We all know—in this virtual Zoom room or elsewhere—that democracy does not just happen at the ballot box. People must have freedom to protest, freedom of the press and freedom to debate, which are all cornerstones of a thriving democracy.
This is no small matter: more than 250 million farmers have been protesting since August last year. We are witnessing what could be the largest organised protest in human history, yet the police brutality and arrests against peaceful protesters and journalists covering the protests are of deep concern. Tens of thousands of police have been mobilised across India to quash the protests. Barricades and roadblocks have been set up to block protesters, and more than 248 farmers have died just outside New Delhi in camps. Some have died of health issues and others from suicide. These farmers are sacrificing so much and all they want is to be listened to.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have written to the Foreign Secretary, calling on him to work together with India to ensure that democratic values are upheld and that fundamental freedoms—such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly and association —are respected. I am afraid to say that so far his response has been woeful.
Of course we welcome close relations between the UK and India, but they must be based on a mutual commitment to human rights, freedom of religious belief and the rule of law and democracy. The UK must work to ensure that these principles are consistently upheld. Can the Minister please update us on what steps the Department has taken, including at the Human Rights Council, since the Foreign Secretary met his counterpart in India 12 weeks ago? Can he tell us what assessment has been made of whether the new farmers laws in India are in breach of article 9 of the international treaty on plant genetic resources on food and agriculture? Will he speak to the Food and Agriculture Organisation about this matter? The UK has a prominent position on the world stage and in UN institutions. We need to take this responsibility seriously, and I urge the Government to act without delay.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) [V]
As the granddaughter of Punjabi farmers, I am proud to speak today in solidarity with the millions resisting Modi’s regime. Farmers from across India—of all faiths and none, of all genders and all castes—are protesting against laws that threaten livelihoods. In total, 250 million workers went on strike in solidarity. That is the largest strike in world history. In response, in order to stoke communal violence, the Indian Government-controlled media has demonised protesters as Sikh separatists. Protesters have been met with state repression and brutality.
It is timely that the debate is being held on International Women’s Day because women are leading this historic revolt. In January, the courts told women protesters to go home. They suggested that women farmers were not real farmers, but the women workers of India are refusing to be silenced, from farmers’ leaders, such as Jasbir Kaur Nat, to jailed climate activist Disha Ravi, to Dalit trade unionist Nodeep Kaur, who was wrongfully imprisoned, reportedly sexually assaulted and tortured by police.
These women could not contrast more sharply with their sexist Government and the misogynistic movement that supports it. When Modi was Chief Minister of Gujarat, he was banned from entering the EU, Britain and the US for his part in instigating the 2012 riots that saw more than 1,000 Muslims killed, so it should concern everyone that this Conservative Government are a close ally of the far-right Hindutva regime in India. Modi spoke alongside David Cameron when he visited the UK, our Home Secretary is an active supporter of the BJP and there are billionaire donors who bankroll both parties.
In the 2019 election, Hindu nationalists mobilised for the Tories, and the Tories are responsive to their bigoted agenda, like their opposition to banning caste discrimination. Modi and Amit Shah decried the truth as propaganda and divisive, but it is not protesting farmers, Rihanna or Greta Thunberg who are dividing India; it is the BJP. This Conversative Government need to decide which side they are on: the side of farmers or the side of fascists.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
May I apologise to you, Mr Stringer, and to the Minister? I am also listed in the Budget debate and I might have to leave before the Minister responds. It is beyond my control; I am sorry.
I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, but, like others, also as a friend of India, not just because of my constituents who originate from India but because of my own family ties. As a firm and true friend, we have to be honest with our friends in India.
As has been said, India is the largest democracy on the planet, and democracy needs the firm foundation of a free press and media. Tragically, democracy is being undermined because there are those that seek to prevent the operation of a free press and media. It is unfortunate that it is those in government who are part of the process of undermining that free press. Regrettably, as reported by the International Federation of Journalists and others, eight journalists have been killed over the last 12 months. The Government use false arrests and legal actions to deter and intimidate. Journalists are arrested on trumped up charges of sedition, incitement or illegal demonstration. We have even seen the tax authorities in India used against media operations. As has been mentioned, there has also been suppression of the internet and access to social media.
The farmers’ protests have excited the latest round of harassment of journalists, and now it seems that simply reporting the actions of the state and the police in violently attacking protesters is somehow an illegal act. Journalists are continuously being targeted by arrests and intimidation, and falsely accused of criminal charges. Tragically, the political leadership feels it can act with impunity.
We understand that Prime Minister is seeking to visit India in due course. May I suggest that before that the Government call out the actions of the Modi Administration and what they are doing to undermine press freedom? When the Prime Minister visits India, he should meet the National Union of Journalists (India), as well as the International Federation of Journalists, to find out the exact truth of what is happening there. Through the Prime Minister, the Government should demand that the intimidation ends and that the freedom of press and media is firmly guaranteed for the future. That is what a true friend advises.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has pointed out on many occasions, it is not anti-Indian to voice concerns about the policies of the Government of the day in India, whoever that may be. I want to make it clear that I stand in complete solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers, as do tens of thousands of my constituents in Ilford South who understand that the freedom to protest, wherever it takes place, and the ability to provide food and welfare for one’s family is clearly an international human right. The issue has so galvanised the Indian diaspora community, especially those from a Punjabi or Sikh background and others who have land links or familial links to farming in India, that tens of thousands have engaged in global protests, including hundreds and hundreds in streets, towns and cities across the UK.
Many of my constituents in Ilford South have been horrified to see how Sikh farmers, many of whom are their family members, have been treated by the Indian Government. They have had water cannons hitting them, and tear gas and brute force used against them repeatedly while peacefully protesting against the so-called farmers Bill. Everyone has a fundamental human right to protest peacefully, and the actions of the Indian Government cannot go unchecked. In Ilford, we have a hugely diverse community, and they are fully in support of the Indian farmers, with support extending way beyond our large and vocal Sikh community. There are posters up in mosques and churches across Ilford about how outraged people are about what is going on in India.
I speak regularly to the members of the Singh Sabha London East Gurdwara in my constituency, and, thankfully, they have been leading the campaign and globally co-ordinating the effort to shine a light on what is going on. Like many hon. Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, I have signed a letter to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, urging them to engage properly over this issue. It is important that the torch of truth is shone on what is happening.
India is one of the greatest democracies in the world, but using water cannons and police to crush dissent strikes me as highly undemocratic. There are reports of elderly protesters being beaten and police even vandalising tractors owned by poor farmers who are protesting. India’s leaders are not behaving in the traditions that have made India such a great democracy, and that is of great concern to thousands of people in my community in Ilford and to millions globally. Given the urgency of this matter, I call on the Minister to ask our Prime Minister to speak to Mr Modi and seek assurances that there can be a better way forward.
The situation is bringing such damage to the reputation of India globally. It is simply not acceptable that our Prime Minister is not prepared to raise this with Prime Minister Modi. Now is not the time for the British Government to look the other way. Trade deals and crucial business with India or any other nation should not come before standing up for human rights globally. The world is watching. “Bole so nihal, sat sri akal”, as my constituents would say at our local kabaddi club.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. A large number of my constituents have parents and grandparents from India—indeed, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was one of them. He will confirm, as he did in his speech, that very large numbers of them, and virtually every such family in my constituency, either have relatives working on farms or own land. This is really a huge concern and worry to many of those families. It affects not just Sikhs, but every geography and every creed in India.
I say to the Minister that I fully appreciate that we have limited leverage. The idea that the Prime Minister could tell the President of India what to do is clearly preposterous. However, I plead with the Minister and the Prime Minister to express their concern in the most powerful way possible. Looking at the TV images of some of the brutality, it really is quite extraordinary and utterly disproportionate. The other point I would urge the Minister to make is that India is a great democracy and should have the self-confidence to treat a free press properly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to speak in the debate. I thank the Petitions Committee and Gurcharn Singh, who organised the petition, which was signed by more than 3,400 people in Feltham and Heston. It is of great concern to many of my constituents and those of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who was unable to join the debate today. We have friends and family who are deeply affected by the situation, who understandably feel anxious that things could escalate further. Indeed, our local gurdwara in Hounslow has raised the issue with us. My family, two generations ago, worked in agriculture in Punjab. We are all friends of India, and that is another reason why the issue cuts very deep.
Men and women have been away from their families on a protest that has now gone on for more than 100 days, day after day, in incredibly tough conditions. Indeed, on the front of Time magazine this week, the week of International Women’s Day, are three generations of women, forming part of the protest. According to Oxfam India, 85% of rural women work in agriculture.
We know that the issue must be resolved through discussion and democratic means, in India alone, but in doing that, along with democracy there is a right to press freedom and safety for protesters. No one supports violence, and that has rightly been condemned. The laws in question have been suspended for 18 months by the Supreme Court, and a solution must be found. While the largest protests have been in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, there have been smaller ones across the country involving people of different faiths. It is not a religious dispute. The Indian Government have said that they will preserve the minimum support price, but there is not yet a legislative base for that. The laws have led to fear about income and livelihoods. Experience in other countries has suggested that, rather than improving farmers’ incomes, corporatisation has depressed them, and it needs to be debated.
Whatever assessment is made of the laws, today we are discussing concerns about press freedom and the safety of protesters. Those issues led to the Leader of the House saying:
“As India is our friend, it is only right that we make representations when we think that things are happening that are not in the interests of…the country of which we are a friend.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 495.]
The world saw the arrest of 25-year-old Nodeep Kaur, and then of climate activist Disha Ravi. The sessions judge said, in granting bail, that
“citizens are conscience keepers of government”
and that they cannot be jailed
“simply because they choose to disagree with the State policies”.
Medical support staff have been beaten at rallies. Concerns have been raised about journalists. The Sikh Human Rights Group, an NGO with special consultative status at the UN, has received highly credible evidence, in the form of 20-plus first instance reports from the senior advocate overseeing cases, about allegations of unsustainable charges being made by the police. Those who have made any comment against the abuses have been subject to a tirade of abuse from far-right forces. Indeed, also, an approach against gurdwaras in three cities a few weeks ago—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. We now move on to Front-Bench speeches. There is time for no more than 10 minutes from each Front-Bench spokesperson, leaving a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer to wind up. We go to Scotland and the Scottish National party spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate, Mr Stringer. I am sure that I speak for everyone in thanking the House staff who have worked so hard to get Westminster Hall debates back up and running this afternoon. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate, and I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people from across the UK who have signed the e-petition, asking that we in this House take the time to consider the plight of Indian farmer protesters and the difficult situation of many journalists currently working in India.
I acknowledge in particular the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and thank him for the thoughtful way he opened the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As he said in his opening remarks, the issues are complex. It is important that we reiterate, and make it clear, that in today’s debate in the UK Parliament we have no locus on the merits or otherwise of the agriculture reform Acts passed by the Indian Parliament last year. The future of Indian agriculture is a matter entirely for the people of India and their Government.
Likewise, it is right that the Indian Government appropriately enforce law and order, and should protests cross the line into illegality, it is not our place to say that they cannot police that appropriately. But what is undeniable is that in a democracy the Indian Government have an obligation to uphold and defend the rights and freedoms guaranteed to her citizens by the Indian constitution. That includes the right to protest and the right to a free press: one that is not subject to harassment, intimidation, violence or state censorship. Therefore, while the internal political matter of agricultural reform is not a matter for this House to discuss, I do believe that on matters concerning international human rights, people outside India can, and indeed should, make their voices heard.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk said, since the start of the protests there have been numerous and widespread reports of violence being meted out against protesters by both the police and Government-supporting mobs. We have all read the reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and, indeed, other human rights organisations about the beatings, harassment, intimidation and unjustified detention of farmer protesters that have sadly escalated in recent weeks. Since the tractor rally and the violent clashes on 26 January, protest leaders have claimed that more than 100 people have gone missing as the Indian Government resorted to using laws of sedition to clamp down on protest. That move prompted the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to call on the Government to
“stop threatening, demonising, and arresting peaceful protesters and stop treating them as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘terrorists”.
Amnesty International called for the
“immediate and unconditional release of activists and others who have been arrested for simply exercising their right to peaceful protest and for the government to stop the harassment and demonisation of protesters.”
In many ways, I am glad that the UK Government have called out the Indian Government. They have made their position clear: they will continue to champion human rights, and they regard the rights to peaceful protest, freedom of speech and a free press to be a vital part of any democracy.
As we heard from so many right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the crackdown against farmer protesters did not happen in isolation. It was coupled to a raft of draconian measures affecting the ability of the press to report freely what was happening. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) was right when he described the clashes on 26 January and how the Indian Government ordered mobile internet service to be suspended in the Delhi area where the farmer protests were ongoing, claiming that it was to maintain public safety. The move was quickly condemned by campaigners and trade unions, who pointed out that under international human rights law, Indian officials should not use broad, indiscriminate shutdowns to curtail the free flow of information or to harm people’s ability to assemble freely or express their political views. A few days after the suspension of those internet services, the Government actually ordered Twitter to suspend the accounts of hundreds of users, claiming that they were inciting violence. A report in The Guardian afterwards said that those accounts belonged to
“news websites, activists and actors”.
As we have heard, at about the same time, eight journalists covering the protests were arrested on what Human Rights Watch has described as utterly baseless criminal charges.
With eight journalists facing criminal charges including sedition, promoting communal disharmony and making statements prejudicial to national integration, it is right that we as an international community speak out in condemnation. As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) pointed out, the arrest of the journalists came just before other detentions including that of the 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi, who was accused by the police of being a key conspirator, a formulator and a disseminator of a protest toolkit for farmers. Indeed, they also claimed that she shared that knowledge with Greta Thunberg.
I was struck when the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) suggested that what was happening was nothing unusual. I beg to differ. These draconian clampdowns on press freedom and individual freedom of expression have not just been condemned by international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights watch; a whole raft of journalist groups in India have been unequivocal in their condemnation. The National Union of Journalists in India, the Editors Guild of India, the Press Club of India, the Indian Women’s Press Corps, the Kashmiri Journalists Association, the Delhi Union of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Boarders and the Indian Journalists Union have all released statements on the crackdown on press freedom and in support of the journalists covering it. As we heard, the International Press Institute has taken up the matter directly with the Prime Minister and has asked him to intervene.
As was said in the opening minutes of this debate, how India wants to organise its agricultural sector is entirely and exclusively a matter for the Indian Government and their people, but human rights abuses and the silencing of the press are a matter for us all. Rajat Khosla, senior director of research, advocacy and policy at Amnesty International, said:
“We have seen an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest the government’s repressive laws and policies…The crushing of dissent leaves little space for people to peacefully exercise their human rights including the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly in the country.”
There has been an alarming escalation in the Indian authorities’ targeting of anyone who dares to criticise or protest against them. We add our voice to those in the international community and domestic organisations calling for the Indian Government immediately to stop their crackdown on the protesters, the farmers’ leaders and journalists. We want to see the immediate and unconditional release of all those who have been arrested and detained solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. The shutting down of the internet, the censoring of social media and the use of draconian laws against protesters and journalists who have been peacefully voicing opposition to the new laws and questioning the Government’s methods must immediately cease.
Freedom of speech, the right to protest and a free press are the hallmarks of a democratic society. A democracy cannot function if those fundamentals are under attack, suppressed or eroded. Right now, it appears that all is not well in the world’s largest democracy. It is up to the Indian Government to show their own people and the international community that they want to protect that democracy and create a country that works for all its citizens. I urge them to take heed of what has been said here this afternoon, and indeed across the world, look at their own actions and act for the benefit of all their citizens.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for opening this debate. I pay tribute to the many tens of thousands who secured the debate through the petition process—what a great example of democracy in action.
We have heard many memorable and passionate contributions. I look forward to the Minister setting out what actions the Government will be taking. I particularly thank the other contributors to the debate, not least my 11 hon. Friends who made some truly compelling arguments. The fact that the overwhelming majority of contributions to the debate have come from the Labour Benches shows how hugely important this issue is to our party.
The farmers’ protests taking place in Delhi relate to three new agricultural laws that affect farmers. Taken together, they loosen the rules relating to the sale, pricing and storage of farm produce, allow private buyers to stockpile essential commodities for future sale, and set out rules for contract farming. The legislation is deeply controversial, and Opposition figures and the protesting farmers have complained that there was insufficient consultation. The ongoing protests on the outskirts of Delhi illustrate the strength of feeling and the level of anger that so many members of the farming community feel. Prime Minister Modi will by now be acutely aware of the backlash against his policies, but India is a sovereign, democratic nation, and its agricultural laws are a domestic matter.
In a democracy, there will always be different views on the right course of action to take. We acknowledge and fully respect that those views are held passionately by many British Indians and those who retain close ties to India, but as it is a domestic issue it would not be appropriate for the UK Labour party to comment on the specifics of the legislation itself, so I will not do so today. However, since the first worrying evidence of escalating violence emerged, the Opposition have been urging the Indian authorities to protect and defend the universal human rights of all those protesting in India. I assure hon. Members present that we shall continue to do so without fear or favour.
The Labour party’s foreign policy puts the rule of law, democracy and universal human rights and freedoms at the very heart of our global agenda, and we call for those principles to be upheld consistently in every country across the world. Let me stress in absolute terms that the Labour Front Bench stands firmly behind the rights of Indian farmers to exercise their right to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest.
That is why on 1 February I issued a statement in which I drew attention to the escalating violence and the clashes between the farmers and police, and the threat to essential democratic rights. I called on both sides to show restraint, but made it clear that the onus is on the Indian authorities to protect the farmers’ right to peaceful protest, to respect their right of freedom of assembly and expression, and to respond to any incidents of civil disobedience in a proportionate and appropriate manner. For instance, we are deeply concerned about reports of live ammunition being used by the police. We of course call on demonstrators to keep their protests peaceful and within the constraints of the law. The Red Fort incident on 26 January is an example of where both sides must understand the limits of what is acceptable, and that certain actions are likely to provoke outrage and escalation.
In recent weeks, campaigners have been particularly concerned about the Indian authorities’ disregard for freedom of expression, and specifically for media freedoms. Human Rights Watch has stated that during the protests the authorities have introduced politically motivated charges against activists, and charged journalists and Opposition politicians with sedition simply for reporting on claims made by the family of a dead protester.
Following the Red Fort clashes between protesters and police, the Indian Government shut off the internet as a way of curbing the protest, suspending 4G mobile internet services in three areas around Delhi, where tens of thousands of protesting farmers are camping. Services were restored, but it is clear that bans of that sort violate basic freedoms. The Labour party therefore calls on the Indian authorities to recognise the vital role that independent journalism plays within a democracy, and to protect its journalists from reprisals.
Mr Dhesi
In terms of independence, and the link between the Government and certain celebrities, the farcical manner in which some Indian actors and cricketers copy-pasted the official Government line simultaneously on to their social media accounts not only exposed to a global audience the 2019 Cobrapost cash for tweets sting operation, but severely dented their credibility of conscience. Does my hon. Friend agree that if our Government had issued such an edict, they would have been laughed out of our country, and subsequently celebrities with a conscience would have tweeted out the exact opposite in defiance?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree that the media and social media should never be manipulated for such political purposes, speaking through others in such a way that it is not clear where the originator of the message is coming from. It is important that the media is used as a neutral source of information rather than one that is loaded with a particular agenda.
Another universal human right is that of religious freedom. Prime Minister Modi will be aware of the deep concern about how protests by farmers on economic issues, which is what this is about, have resulted in a significant backlash against Sikhs. He will have seen Government supporters holding rallies outside Sikh places of worship and the fear that that will have engendered. Mr Modi must recognise his responsibility in line with international law to keep—
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware of the car rallies that targeted Southall, Leicester and Birmingham two weeks ago. They caused great concern, and I pay tribute to the Home Office and the police. Does he agree that this is why it is so important that inter-faith communities such as Southall Faiths Forum and Hounslow Friends of Faith come together, as they did at that time, to say that they stand firm against right-wing groups that want to harm our community? It is vital that across the world we defend our democracies and freedoms and protect our communities from attempts at division.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Let us be clear that this issue must be seen be as an economic and political one. It must never be allowed to tip into prejudice around people’s faith or ethnicity. It is vital that we keep focused on the issue that the protesters are protesting about. Mr Modi needs to recognise that the world is watching and that what happens in India resonates here in our country. He must recognise his responsibility, in line with international law, to keep the Sikh community safe and confident in India’s law enforcement. Such recognition is important for the individuals and families affected, and also for those of us who are keen to see India flourish as the great, successful, multicultural nation that we know it to be.
The UK Government naturally and rightly value their trade relationship with India, which stands at more than £18 billion annually, but the UK-India relationship must be broader and deeper than just trade. It should be based on working in partnership on issues of security and climate change. Critically, it must be about the joint promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law.
On 1 February, I asked the Foreign Secretary to raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government, and today I urge the UK Government to engage more actively and more urgently with New Delhi. What steps has the Minister taken to engage proactively with his counterparts in New Delhi to ensure that the right to peaceful protest is upheld? Secondly, what representations has he made to his Indian counterpart about the need to resolve the situation peacefully by working with all parts of Indian society, including trade unions, and the need to advance the negotiations that have stalled? Thirdly, will he publish a broader strategy to defend internet and media freedom, not only in India, but in other places such as Belarus, Hong Kong and Uganda? Fourthly, what steps have the UK Government taken to support the rights of Amnesty International, which was recently forced to discontinue its operations in India?
Finally, the invitation to join the G7 in Cornwall represents a significant development in India’s role as a leading nation in global politics. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister will take this opportunity to stress to Mr Modi the need for India to adhere to the high standards that are expected within the international community, particularly with regard to universal human rights and the rule of law?
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, under these new arrangements. So far, so good—the technology appears to have worked very well. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing this debate in an excellent way. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Petitions Committee. I am also grateful for the contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members, many of whom have given passionate speeches this afternoon—under-standably so, given the interest in their constituencies and their own personal connections with India.
I also want to thank Councillor Gurcharn Singh, whom the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) rightly commended for initiating the petition and ultimately this debate. There are clearly very strong feelings, both inside and outside the House, about the farmers’ protest and about press freedoms in India, as indicated by the fact that more than 100,000 people have signed the petition. May I thank every single one of them for taking such a keen interest and for bringing the subject to the House? I will try to respond to many of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, but I am conscious that I need to give the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk a few minutes at the end of the debate—he says hurriedly, looking at the clock to see how long we have. Perhaps you might give me a pointer, Mr Stringer.
I will begin by saying that the officials in our network of high commissions in India have monitored and reported back on the protests in response to the agricultural reform laws ever since they first flared up in September. In January, the Indian Supreme Court suspended the reforms and established an expert committee to scrutinise the laws. We understand that the committee has completed its consultations with concerned parties and will give a final report to the Supreme Court at the end of the month. We are also aware that the Indian Government have met farmers’ unions on several occasions and that those talks remain inconclusive, but are ongoing.
Understandably, those events have caused alarm and uncertainty for many British people who have family ties to farming communities in India. The Government’s written response to the petition aimed to address those concerns while making clear that agricultural policy is a domestic matter for the Indian Government, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), confirmed. The UK Government firmly believe, however, that freedom of speech, internet freedom, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and many others, and the right to peaceful protest, are vital to any democracy.
We also accept that if a protest crosses the line into illegality, security forces in a democracy have the right to enforce law and order in a proportionate way. We encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws and the way in which they are enforced comply with international human rights standards. In that spirit, we look to the Indian Government to uphold the freedoms and rights guaranteed to the Indian people by the constitution and by the international instruments to which India is party.
Concerns about press freedom in India were raised by right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). Again, let me be clear that this Government believe that an independent media is essential to any robust democracy. That is why we are committed to championing media freedom around the world, as is evident from our ambitious media freedom campaign that we launched in November 2018.
India has a vibrant media scene that promotes lively debate across the political spectrum, and the UK Government have worked to support that democratic tradition. In 2019, for example, we awarded scholarships on our flagship Chevening programme to seven talented and aspiring young Indian journalists. Last year, we supported the Thomson Reuters Foundation to run workshops for Indian journalists to help them report on human rights issues.
My colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is the Minister responsible for both human rights and our relations with India. He regularly discusses media freedom, including the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the UK is a founding member, with India’s Minister of State for External Affairs. Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that this is a time of great ambition for the UK’s relationship with India. Both Governments are working to advance shared priorities across trade and investment, health, sustainability, climate change, and defence and security. We are also working with India as a force for good on the UN Security Council, and it is one of the Prime Minister’s guest countries at the G7 summit later this year in June. This co-operation will help us to fix global problems and it will strengthen prosperity and wellbeing in India and the UK.
While this is an exciting time for the UK-India partnership, it does not hinder our raising difficult issues. A number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) spoke about the Prime Minister’s upcoming visit to India. This will be an opportunity to discuss a range of bilateral issues with India. Where we have serious and specific concerns, we will raise them directly with the Indian Government, as would be expected of a friend and neighbour. Candid discussions are an important part of our mature and wide-ranging relationship with the Indian Government.
The hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon and for Aberavon wanted to know what further discussions the United Kingdom has had since the Foreign Secretary discussed the farmers’ protest with his counterpart during his visit to India in December. This month alone, senior Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have met with the Indian high commissioner and discussed this very thing—the UK parliamentary interest in the freedom of civil society groups, for example, to operate in India—and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon speaks regularly to his counterparts in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, as well as to the high commissioner here in the UK. Human rights issues are an essential part of these conversations.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon raised the issue of article 9. We have not made an assessment of India’s agricultural bills in relation to article 9 I will certainly consult officials on this, but I would stress again that these reforms are a domestic matter for India. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) raised the issue of sanctions. This sanctions regime, which we launched in July, enables the UK to impose sanctions on those who commit serious human rights violations or abuses. It is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the regime in future, as to do so could very well reduce their impact.
The Opposition spokesman also raised the issue of Amnesty International in India. We raised this case with the high commissioner on 1 December and with officials via Lord Ahmad, and our officials have raised our concerns most recently in November, as well as in December. We have requested that Amnesty’s accounts be unfrozen while the investigation is ongoing, and in our contacts with the Government of India we have noted the important role in a democracy of organisations such as Amnesty.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Can the Minister bring his remarks to a conclusion very quickly?
Nigel Adams
I can; thank you, Mr Stringer. Let me end by reassuring colleagues that the UK Government will continue to monitor developments relating to the protests incredibly closely. Where we have concerns, we will continue to raise them with the Indian Government, while respecting the fact that these agricultural reforms are an internal matter.
Martyn Day [V]
I thank all who took part in this debate. It is fantastic that these debates are taking place, so I also thank the House authorities for facilitating them, although we could clearly have done with a much longer debate. The spirit of today’s contributions was very much one of concern born out of friendship. The images and testimonies that we heard today are thoroughly depressing. We rightly regard India as a valuable friend and ally, which makes it imperative that we do not turn a blind eye to the events taking place. To do so would be a failure of both diplomacy and friendship.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting. Please will Members participating physically leave the room promptly by the exit door on the left while observing social distancing. Thank you.
Sitting suspended.
LGBT Conversion Therapy
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Gray (in the Chair)
We come now to the second of these hybrid debates in Westminster Hall, which are actually being held in the Boothroyd Room in Portcullis House. From my point of view, they are an extremely good innovation.
Before we start our debate on LGBT conversion therapy, perhaps I can remind Members of one or two matters. Social distancing must be maintained in this room, as it has been already. Those who are here are expected to be here for the beginning and the end of the debate, including those who are with us virtually; please stay until the end. And those who are here physically should use a wet wipe to clear up their space after they have spoken.
With that, I call Elliot Colburn, who is appearing virtually, to propose the motion.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The petition is entitled, “Make LGBT conversion therapy illegal in the UK”. The prayer of the petition states that
“I would like the Government to:
• make running conversion therapy in the UK a criminal offence
• forcing people to attend said conversion therapies a criminal offence
• sending people abroad in order to try to convert them a criminal offence
• protect individuals from conversion therapy
Despite all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies in the UK, including the NHS, condemning LGBT conversion therapy, it is still legal and LGBT individuals in the UK are still exposed to this psychological and emotional abuse to this day. The very thought of this sickens me, and I would like to see it stopped one day.”
When the petition closed, it had 256,392 signatures, including 487 from my own constituency of Carshalton and Wallington.
I can think of few moments so humbling as opening this important debate today. II is a testament to the importance of this issue that the debate was heavily over-subscribed, and I know that many colleagues who wanted to get in could not do so. Briefly, I want to thank and acknowledge from my side of the House the campaigning done by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Watford (Dean Russell), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for High Peak (Robert Largan), for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), and others.
In preparation for today’s debate and throughout my campaigning on this issue since being elected as an MP, it has been my absolute honour to speak to campaign and charitable organisations, to experts from the fields of health, religion, education, law and beyond, and to legislators from across the world, including Malta, Canada, Australia, Spain and New Zealand, where these practices have either already been banned or are in the process of being banned. Most importantly, I am grateful to the survivors for speaking out and sharing their stories. Their bravery in shining a light on these abhorrent practices will help to save countless lives in the future if we can secure this ban.
First, we must ask ourselves what conversion therapy is and why it needs to be banned. According to a May 2020 report by the UN Office for Human Rights, and indeed according to a definition from the Government Equalities Office, so-called conversion therapy is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. These so-called therapies can manifest in many forms, from pseudo-psychological treatments and aversion therapies to practices that are religiously based, such as purification or fasting. At the most extreme, there has been evidence that this practice can also involve physical and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape.
I will share just some of the stories of the survivors who have bravely shared their stories with me and the world, in an attempt to help campaign for the end of this practice in the UK. The first is Joe’s story. As a boy, Joe grappled with his hidden gay identity before leaving for his year in a yeshiva in Israel—a highly significant moment for many young Jews. He sought out conversion therapy and began weekly phone calls with a so-called therapist. After a year this clearly had not worked and instead he sought in-person therapies, where a group leader would force them to process moments of homosexual attraction, only for them to be scrutinised, judged and shamed, leaving Joe with an immense sense of depression. Thankfully, after hearing other gay Orthodox Jews speak out about their own experience, he stopped his conversion therapy, but the experience has left a scar to this day.
Next is Josh’s story. In 2017, Josh went undercover for the Liverpool Echo to a Liverpool church that offered a cure for homosexuality through a three-day starvation programme. The assistant pastor told Josh to starve himself and not drink any water before taking part in weekly prayer sessions, referring to being gay as “the deceit of Satan”. In the prayer groups the assistant pastor would shout phrases such as “kill it with fire” and “die in the fire,” while members of the congregation were seen crying, shaking, sweating and appearing to speak in tongues. It is shocking that the assistant pastor was an NHS doctor at that time, and I can find no evidence that he is no longer an NHS doctor.
Finally, I want to talk about Carolyn. At 17, Carolyn confided in her local vicar her feelings of self-hatred and depression, and her suicidal thoughts, because she did not feel like a boy. Her vicar took her to a doctor and a psychiatric hospital, where Carolyn was strapped to a wooden chair in a dark room. As images of women’s clothing were projected on to the wall in front of her, doctors would deliver painful electric shocks, hoping to associate the feelings of being a woman with memories of intense pain. As with Joe and Josh, that experience remains with Carolyn to this day.
Joe, Josh and Carolyn are just three survivors I have had the privilege of speaking to, and they experienced a wide range of so-called conversion therapies. I commend them for their bravery in speaking out, sharing their stories and campaigning to end these practices in the UK. Sadly, they are just three of many. In 2018, the Government’s first ever national survey of over 108,000 LGBT people in Britain found that 7% of respondents had either undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Some 13% of trans respondents had undergone or been offered conversion therapy. Of those who had been offered it, 51% said that it was conducted by faith groups and a further 19% said that it was done by healthcare providers or medical professionals. As the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition has outlined, though, given the clandestine and deceptive way these so-called conversion therapies are offered—giving them different names or dressing them up as alternative treatments—the real number is likely to be a lot higher. Tragically, we will never hear the testimonies of many who, grappling with their own identity while being told how wrong they were through these therapies, were left feeling that they had no other option than to take their own life.
It is important to point out that we are not talking about harmful practices that occurred some time ago; this is happening today, here in the UK, right now. A UN report into conversion therapy last year summed it up perfectly when it concluded that any and all forms of conversion therapy are
“inherently degrading and discriminatory. They are rooted in the belief that LGBT persons are somehow inferior, and that they must at any cost modify their orientation or identity to remedy that supposed inferiority.”
So strong was the report that it called for nothing less than
“a global ban on conversion therapy.”
Here in the UK, the practice has received almost universal condemnation. In 2017, a memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK was signed by NHS England and 12 other psychotherapy and health bodies, charities and organisations. I thank Igi Moon for their time speaking to me about the impact this has had. In another powerful intervention, in 2017 the Church of England also passed a motion condemning these practices and calling on the Government to ban them—a call that has now been echoed by over 370 global religious leaders and organisations. I pay particular tribute to Jayne Ozanne and her foundation for her leadership, her courage and her tireless efforts in campaigning on this issue.
Finally, in the national LGBT action plan of 2018, the UK Government committed to bring forward proposals to ban conversion therapy—a call that has been echoed many times in the House since that commitment was made. We have the agreement, the commitment and the coalition of voices from all parts of society urging a ban to be implemented. What we need now is the action. With every day that passes, another person is at risk of being subjected to this degrading treatment. We risk losing even more lives of people who feel there is no other way out.
I have two final points to make today. On what the ban must include, the Government do not need to start from scratch. Highly praised examples already exist in places such as Madrid, Malta and Victoria in Australia. Learning from those examples, and in line with the UN report’s recommendations, a ban must cover both the public and the private spheres and all forms of intervention, no matter what they might be, whether that be healthcare, religious, cultural or traditional, and so on. It must cover children and adults, those who have been coerced and indeed those who consented to such conversion practices. There must be an up-to-date definition of advertising to ensure that it encompasses public, private, community spaces and online advertising. The ban must include the sending, or the threatening to send someone, overseas to undergo so-called conversion therapies. As well as investigative frameworks, a punishment framework for non-compliance must be established, and mechanisms created for support and redress to victims. Finally, it must truly protect all LGBT+ people.
The ban cannot be just on gay conversion therapy. It must cover degrading and inhumane interventions aimed at changing anyone’s sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. We must remember that this is about the practice itself and about the fact that absolutely no one should be subject to such abhorrent interventions. To avoid confusion and to protect those delivering real and actual support to LGBT+ people, laws passed elsewhere in the world have introduced specific mention of what should not be considered as part of a ban, including safe and supportive therapies.
My final point is about the need for a timeline. We have the commitment, the evidence and the international working examples, so what we need now is a Bill. I appreciate that the Government have been gathering evidence, looking to understand this better and exploring options, but I hope that the Minister will deliver some good news and tell us when a Bill will be published, so that we may debate it on the Floor of the House.
To conclude, the evidence is clear. So-called conversion therapy does not work. There is no scientific basis for it whatever. Parts of every section of UK society have come together, united in their condemnation and calling for it to be banned. Since 2021 looks like a year of restarting, reopening and regrowing, let us add to that positivity by getting a conversion therapy ban on to the statute book this year. As a gay man and on behalf of LGBT+ people in the UK and around the world, I will end by saying, we are here—our existence is real, our lives are valid, and we cannot and do not need to be cured.
James Gray (in the Chair)
It may help the House to know that some 50 people originally put in to speak in this debate, of whom Mr Speaker has selected 20. If we are to achieve that number, as a courtesy to each other, I suggest a maximum speaking time of three minutes—two minutes would be even better.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
“Converting gays”—just wonder for a moment about how primitive that concept is. It is a cruel hangover from a darker time—a time when to be gay, lesbian or trans was to be flawed or inadequate.
I do not know why I am gay. I do not know why I have green eyes or curly hair, but I do know that no one made me gay; I was born gay. When I was younger, to borrow from Alfred Kinsey, I would have taken a magic pill to make myself straight, but I now know that that was not because I hated being gay, but because I did not want to be the victim of prejudice. Who does? We know that there is no magic pill, nor do we need one. We need love and acceptance.
LGBT conversion is the very antithesis of that. It promises a cure where none is available and none is needed. We look back in horror at the tortures endured by our LGBT brothers and sisters, even in recent history—electro-shock therapy, lobotomy and the chemical castration endured by Alan Turing at the hands of a vicious and ungrateful political class and legal system.
Changing people’s sexual orientation is, as we know, scientifically impossible, but that does not stop bigots from trying. “Pray away the gay,” cry some religious groups, who somehow see no contradiction with the command that thou shalt love thy neighbour. People who hold out the promise of conversion are cruelly targeting the most vulnerable. It is abuse.
Some hon. Members know I was a journalist before entering politics, and I once made a film for the BBC in which I interviewed a conversion therapist. It was one of the most chilling encounters of my career. The man in question, who was utterly untrained, advertised himself as offering the last chance at a normal life. He preyed on the young and the vulnerable: teenage boys and men in their early 20s who were terrified of who they were. He talked of weak fathers and overbearing mothers. I sat in on one session, and it was gibberish.
I asked the man what his motivation was, and he told me that his gay son committed suicide using the car exhaust pipe in their garage. The boy had written two suicide letters: one for his father, and one for his lover. The man showed me the letter that had been written to him. The handwriting tailed off as the boy lost consciousness. He was pleading with his father to understand his anguish. He could not reconcile his certainty that he had been born gay with the church’s teachings, and he implored his dad to befriend his boyfriend and learn acceptance. “So what did you do?” I said to the father. He said he redoubled his efforts to convert and confuse the young. We must protect society from men like him. I welcome the petition, and the Government must now act.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading the debate so well, and I congratulate his Committee on securing it. I have two key points for the Government. The first is that we must legislate. Deliver the promise to protect in law. Use the work done in the Government Equalities Office before 2019. Use the examples elsewhere, particularly in Spain and the Australian state of Victoria, which have already legislated. Our common law system enables the drafting challenge of defining conversion therapy to be met. There is no need to overcomplicate this issue. The police, prosecutors and jurors will know conversion therapy when they see it. Most critically, the victims will know it too, and they will have been equipped with a defence mechanism.
Such a law is an important step as a declaratory statement, as it is as a legal tool. If someone is LGBT, the law says that the state supports them. It supports how they want to live their life. When victims find themselves under pressure that is improperly applied to convert them to something they are not, they will know that it is against the law and that they can call it out. They can say to the person or people who are the source of this—[Interruption.]
Crispin Blunt
My apologies.
The law gives the victims the opportunity to go to the police and, therefore, to have a weapon in their hand against the source of a conversion therapy. The state is on the side of victims’ freedom—the freedom that that individual is trying to take away from them.
The second point I want to make is that such protection must include trans people. They are by far and away the most vulnerable group among the LGBT community. Identity around gender dysphoria is surely a much more challenging thing to meet than a minority sexuality, but all must be protected. The law must include trans people, and not only because they are the group who need it the most. In 2018, it appeared that trans people were on a trajectory to achieve their rights and protections to live their lives as they wished, supported by the Government’s comprehensive LGBT action plan, but all that now seems to have changed. Trans people are a community under siege. Organisations whose principle raison d’être is to attack and challenge the very legitimacy of trans people have come into being, and they appear to trans people to be firmly in the ascendant.
The lived experience of trans people reflects the awful paucity of services for them in the United Kingdom, as graphically illustrated by VICE News in January and November. They also see 250 articles a year attacking them in our newspaper of record, The Times. They see that groups such as the Conservative Women’s Pledge and LGB Alliance, whose purpose seems to be to protect cisgender women from trans women, have the ear of Ministers. They see reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 abandoned, and the principle of gender-neutral legislation was reversed only last week.
Gender is much more complicated than sexuality, and the drafting of the ban on conversion therapy will need to protect those giving informed, regulated and properly peer-reviewed advice to assist those on the path to reconciling their gender dysphoria. If the legislation does not include the protection of trans people, however, it will send to them the unmistakeable message that their Government do not want to protect them, do not value them and, at some level, do not really accept that trans is really a thing. That awful message would inadvertently make the Government themselves party to the practice of conversion therapy.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
I was proud to be a Minister in the last Labour Government, which did so much to ensure that LGBT+ people were finally afforded equal rights in law. There is a difference, however, between ending bigotry and prejudice in law, and making the right to equal treatment and respect a reality for every LGBT+ person in our country. The petition aims to move us further towards that point.
That would seem like an obvious, non-contentious step when considering the mistaken beliefs that underly the existence of the degrading and dehumanising practice of conversion therapy: that sexual orientation can be changed; that LGBT+ people are a threat to society, evil or disordered; that LGBT+ people are ill, sick or can be cured; and that LGBT+ people can be persuaded or forced to become heterosexual by undergoing treatment or counselling. If that approach sounds almost medieval, that is because it is, yet every day, people in our country have their lives and mental wellbeing put at serious risk by being subjected to attempts, by people who have power over them, to change their sexual orientation.
The extent of the prevalence of conversion therapy in the UK is shocking, as we heard in the excellent opening contribution by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). There is very strong evidence of the harm that conversion therapy inflicts: more than half of those who have gone through it report mental health issues, including breakdown, eating disorders, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts. Evidence also shows that it is being inflicted mainly, but not only, on vulnerable LGBT+ teenagers. That is horrific, but it is not surprising. Being told by faith leaders or your family that you are sinful, evil, and disordered for being yourself creates self-loathing and trauma that only the strongest can survive. Being told to pray harder to change and to question your innermost feelings and thoughts, and being taught to hate yourself—none of that should be legal.
Conversion therapy certainly causes untold damage and trauma for those who encounter it. Many survivors need specialist help because of the damage that that unethical and degrading process has caused. The Government must end the delay and bring the ban forward now. I welcome the petition, and I look forward to what I hope will be the Minister’s positive response and a timetable for legislation.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his thoughtful opening of the debate and his moving acknowledgment of survivors. I think it very important that we see the debate as an opportunity for a call for action from the Government.
The debate is obviously of moment, particularly for the quarter of a million people who signed the petition. It is an acknowledgment, as the national LGBT survey demonstrated, that this is going on in our country: 2% in the LGBT+ community had received such therapy and 5% had been offered it. We must treat the term “therapy” with the contempt it deserves, because we must be clear that this is not therapy; it is a pseudo-psychiatric 21st-century snake oil. There is nothing more pernicious than to deem someone sick and then to try to coerce them into treatment for something that is right at the core of who they are and who they love. We cannot tolerate it continuing.
There was a similar petition in the Scottish Parliament entitled “End Conversion Therapy”, which was dealt with last year by its Public Petitions Committee. Stonewall Scotland, Equality Network, Scottish Trans Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland all supported the principles of that petition. In response, the Scottish Government—positively, from my perspective, because this is not always how they respond—said they wanted to work with the UK Government to bring about a ban. I want to encourage that working together on this issue so that we can deliver a ban that works across the United Kingdom and impacts on those in my own constituency in Scotland who might be put in this position. I also want to see the Scottish Government and the UK Government working on the GRA issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) mentioned in relation to trans issues, we need that to be dealt with—on a UK-wide basis, in my view.
While I am sure that the Government’s intentions are positive and the Prime Minister’s statement will be honoured, the Government have given the impression of being tardy, and now is the time to end that impression. As the chief executive of Stonewall, Nancy Kelley, said:
“The UK government must stop dragging its feet and make good on its promise to bring in a full legal ban, and put a stop to conversion therapy in the UK for good.”
I hope that the Minister, in her summing up, will give us clarity that that will happen and set out the timescale.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my colleague the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his wonderful introduction to the debate. I have been contacted by many of my constituents about the petition, each of them as shocked as I am that the Government have still not acted to outlaw the practice of so-called conversion therapy inflicted on LGBT people.
The petitioners’ aims are not difficult to enact, nor are they asking too much. Their requests are clear and simple: they simply want LGBT people to live in dignity without having their sexuality or gender identity questioned. Every human being should have the right to express their own identity without the judgment of others. It is clear from the evidence surrounding this practice, compiled by the charity Stonewall, that that is not the case for everyone who identifies as LGBT in the UK. According to Stonewall’s figures, one in 20 LGBT people living in the UK has at some time been subject to or recommended for therapies that question their very identity. That number rises to almost one in 10 among young LGBT adults aged between 18 and 24 and almost one in five for trans people.
In a modern, supposedly decent society, that should not even be an option, and it certainly should not be legal. Many of the people subjected to such practices have them forced upon them by their families. In some cases, LGBT people are sent abroad for treatment by relatives who believe it will somehow cure them, when there is nothing—absolutely nothing—to be cured. The only result is severe distress and untold psychological trauma.
Every recognised medical and professional body in the UK has described the practice as dangerous. Many other public bodies have signed a common pledge against the practice. However, substantial evidence still shows that too many people continue to believe, despite the evidence, that sexuality and gender identity can be cured in some way. Enacting legislation to end these so-called therapies and ensure that no practitioner in the UK can consider them an option to which they can refer a patient would contribute greatly to preventing people from persisting in that belief.
I appreciate that the Government have previously made supportive statements on the issue. The Prime Minister himself described it as “abhorrent”, and as something that
“has no place in a civilised society”.
He made that statement last summer, but nine months on there has been no movement. There is clearly cross-party consensus in favour of legislating to outlaw this practice. Every day that the Government delay legislation, another LGBT person could be subject to this continued abuse. We have the power to act and the support to pass the legislation. All we need is the legislation to put our words into action. We can prevent further damage to the lives of LGBT people in this country, but only if we act quickly.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Physically speaking and back from her maternity leave, we have Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
When I was elected, I said that I would be a voice for those whom others seek to silence, and I stand here today to do exactly that. The need for this ban is quite simple: victims of conversion therapy currently have no legal recourse to justice and, without a legislative ban, lives are being destroyed.
Last year, I submitted to the Minister a proposed legislative framework, backed by more than 15 major LGBTQ advocacy groups and 10 representatives of all major faith groups in the UK. It sets out a framework that would enable prosecutions to stop this heinous practice and enable statutory bodies to give victims support and protection. It would enable us to identify serial perpetrators, stop the advertising of this fraudulent quackery, protect potential victims and prevent them from being taken abroad.
It is only through legislation that we will achieve the protection that those communities need and deserve. I thank the Prime Minister, the Women and Equalities Minister and the Health Secretary for their support for a ban. I want to focus today on the arguments made by those opposing the legislation. First, on the idea that people can consent to this so-called therapy, Parliament and our courts have long recognised that one cannot consent to bodily harm and torture, and conversion therapy is that. Victims of conversion therapy bear mental and physical scars for life, and for that reason consent cannot be freely given.
Secondly, it is said that a ban somehow infringes on the practice of religion. It does not. Religious liberty is fundamental, but so too is people’s liberty to live their lives free from identity-based violence and abuse. We must protect the conversations between religious leaders and members of their flock. This is not a fight between faith and unbelief; rather, it is about protecting the freedoms of the LGBTQ community and stopping those who abuse their authority. We must protect people from those who carry out practices that would never be accepted by any qualified mental health professional. For that reason, representatives of every major faith group, including the Church of England, have backed a ban. The legislation I propose does not prevent individuals from seeking guidance from faith leaders.
Thirdly, it is argued that a ban will not end the practice, and that the worst forms of conversion therapy are already illegal. A practice such as this can never truly be eradicated, but legislation gives victims legal recourse. We need specific legislation, like we have for female genital mutilation, rather than relying on existing general bodily harm laws.
Fourthly, it is argued that conversion therapy is not happening in our country, or that it is happening to very few people and is not that severe. How many lives have to be lost for it to be deemed to be worthy of tackling? In our country, people are being forced to eat purifying substances. They are beaten and whipped, forced to undergo exorcisms and corrective rape, forced into marriages and made to undergo genital mutilation. People in my party have been threatened with, and forced to go through, conversion therapy. Two thousand people in the country have had the courage to tell the Government that they have been subjected to it, but how many more suffer in silence?
Finally, some opponents claim that transgender individuals should be removed from the legislation. It is quite straightforward to introduce a safeguard for professionally accredited individuals who can assist persons considering undergoing a gender transition. Conversion therapy falls disproportionately on this community, and any ban that excludes trans people would make legislation self-defeating.
On my election, I came to Parliament with one legislative change I wanted to deliver, which was a ban on conversion therapy. I particularly pay tribute to the campaigning that took place before I came to this place by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), and all those LGBT groups and survivors who have worked so hard. To my fellow MPs I say that, as legislators, we have a duty to protect the vulnerable and deliver a ban. To the survivors of conversion therapy and all those hurting—to all those made to feel ashamed—I say today that love is not conditional. You do not need to change. Love is not a pathology, and it damn well does not need treating.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
Conversion therapy, in many ways, is a manipulation. It is a manipulation of emotions; it is a manipulation of the coming-out process; and it is a manipulation of people finding themselves and understanding themselves over many years. I came out when I was 22, nine years after I probably realised that I was slightly different from the rest of the lads at school. People go through emotional turmoil when they are going through that process. Even when I started school—I am only 31—it still was not legal to adopt, and marriage was a distant, far-away thought. Until recently, the NHS still did not want my blood.
We go through this process, and it is incredibly difficult for people to process it, because we put ourselves under so much strain and pressure. For me and so many other people, the emotions that we feel—the emotions that are being manipulated by this conversion therapy—are emotions of shame, of not belonging, and of being selfish. These are the things we put ourselves through. We talk ourselves down and we end up convincing ourselves that we are doing wrong—that we are deliberately trying to behave differently from other people. The reason it took me so long to come out of the closet is that I did not want to tell my mum that she would not be a granny, because I am an only child. We put ourselves through this for years and years. I was very lucky, because I plodded on and managed to get through that very difficult period in my life, but so many other people can have those emotions manipulated. By allowing these conversion therapies to continue, we are opening the door for this sort of practice to continue.
I talk about gay and lesbian people, because I am gay, but I also fully support many of the contributions today that have said that this conversion therapy also needs to end for trans people; I am 100% behind that battle too. I want to send a message to the Government that it has been three years since this promise to ban conversion therapy. We have got to get on with it and make sure that we deliver on it, because every day is a delay; another day in which somebody else has their emotions manipulated; another day in which someone else’s life could be ruined forever by going through these highly traumatic experiences.
That could be any one of a number of us. Looking through these stories, we can see similarities in what we read. We can point them out and think, “This was me at one point during my life” or, “This was a friend of mine at some point during their life.” I look at the apology that was given last year by the University of Birmingham, where electric shock treatment was given to gay people in the 1970s, and think, “That could have been me.”
We owe it to all those people to make sure that we ban conversion therapy as soon as possible, because if we allow that door to be open for much longer, I fear the consequences for so many young people—and not necessarily just young people; it could be middle-aged people; people who are later on in their life who find themselves hiding things and make daily lies a normal thing, as I did, to try to cover their tracks. This sort of stuff puts people through enormous emotional turmoil, which is why it is so important that we ban conversion therapy as soon as possible.
James Gray (in the Chair)
I apologise to the House. I inadvertently missed out the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is easily done, Mr Gray; please do not worry.
I am honoured to be able to take part in this incredibly important and powerful debate, which clearly has cross-party support. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for the way he introduced the debate and, in particular, for centring the survivors of conversion therapy in his remarks. It is incredibly important in a debate like this to remember those whose voices may not yet be heard in this place, but for whom we need to speak.
I also pay tribute to the journalist Patrick Strudwick and to Vicky Beeching, who have done amazing work uncovering and talking about their own personal experiences, bringing to the fore an understanding of how toxic this treatment is. To everyone who has spoken so far and given their personal experience: that is what Parliament at its best does.
Like previous speakers, I want to take on some of the arguments about why conversion therapy should be made illegal. There has been a lot of focus on whether it works, as if there are any conditions in which such a therapy would be acceptable if it could be shown to be ethical. Many of the major bodies for psychotherapy in the UK have outlawed the practice and said that there is no semblance of an evidence base behind it. However, I believe that we have to make it illegal, to send the clear message that it is not about whether homosexuality is a pathology, because it is not. It is not about whether being trans is a pathology, because it is not. It is a part of who someone is. We in this place need to send the clear message that we will not see the behaviour in question indulged. We will not see the question as one of medical ethics, but as about a progressive, inclusive society that bans practices that demean, belittle and discriminate against people.
Where young people who are gay, lesbian, transgender or bi grow up in communities where they are not supported, they are eight times more likely to have attempted suicide, six times more likely to report depression and three times more likely to use illegal drugs. There are consequences of living in a society where what I am talking about is even a debate, in many different communities, but we know it is a live debate. Right now there are websites where people can go to book conversion therapy, and it is talked about as a matter of free speech. Let us put the argument to bed today. It is not a matter of free speech to cause someone harm in the way that conversion therapy does.
It is also claimed that the matter is about a conflict with spirituality. There is no conflict with spirituality. I will not give a platform to the organisations that can be found, but I want to give a platform to the House of Rainbow and the Reverend Jide Macaulay, who is a proud member of the local community in Walthamstow and our local faith communities too. He teaches every single day that God loves you, not that God cares about who you love. Those are the organisations that we should be supporting. But we also need to send a clear message that it is not just about the medical side; it is simply about living in a better society. We want to outlaw the practice, to protect people from the harm and damage that it does.
We know that it is possible to do that. Frankly, when countries such as China, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Malta and even Samoa have a ban, we could have one in the UK, and quickly. As the debate shows, there is cross-party consensus for it, so I urge the Minister to use the energy from the debate and the support across civil society for action and not to delay further. Let us make Britain proud to be a world leader, for once, on some of those issues, rather than following the pack. Let us tell everyone in the community that we love them not for who they love but for who they are.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I can think of no better way to open my speech than where the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) finished, with a passage from Vicky Beeching, who gave me a lot of support before I came out publicly. In her book “Undivided: Coming out, becoming whole, and living free from shame”, she writes: “There was only one thing that had caused vast emotional shame in my life for years. I had known I was gay since I was 12 or 13. Keeping that hidden for two decades had been wrecking my heart and mind. Now, as I neared the age of 30, it seemed to be wrecking my body too. All these years I’d prayed and fasted, submitted myself to an exorcism, confessed to a Catholic priest, believed that conversion therapy could change a person’s orientation, read the Bible until my eyes were sore and never acted on my attractions even once. I’d done anything and everything to try and become straight or to shut down any desires for a life partner. My immune system, my adrenals and my sympathetic nervous system were all stretched to breaking point from years of living in fight or flight mode.”
If Members need any other first-hand accounts of how devastating conversion therapy is, a good friend of mine who wanted to remain anonymous shared this with me: “I had not known until today what they had endured. It’s only now, at almost 35 years old, that I even have some small level of strength to begin to deal with it. It cost me most of my teenage years and 20s. I still struggle with acceptance of my sexuality to this day, which has affected my ability to have any open and meaningful relationships. I went through years of really dark mental health battles because of this. The first time I tried to kill myself by suicide was at 12 years old, because I wasn’t who I was meant to be, and this was unfortunately the beginning of what was to become a very dark decade of self-hatred brought on because of these practices. It’s torture, and it has had lifelong debilitating effects that affect every part of my life. It has to stop.”
We should not have to choose between our religion and our sexuality, or between following the faith of our choice or the person we love. I might not be formally part of any faith, but I recognise what a huge part faith can play in many people’s lives and in our society. The national LGBT survey of 2018 showed that 51% of respondents who had undergone conversion therapy said that faith groups had conducted it, and 19% said it had been conducted by healthcare providers or medical professionals. As parliamentarians and legislators, we simply cannot allow such a practice to continue.
I was well into my 30s when I came out. Why I did not come out sooner will always be a mystery to me, but a big part of it was because I was from a single-parent family. I grew up in a loving family that I knew would accept me for whoever I was, but I did not grow up in a society that would accept me for whoever I was. I grew up in a society that said heteronormativity and having a parent of each gender was the ideal, and I could not face up to being a lesbian. Now, as the daughter of a single mother and as a proud out lesbian, I realise that they are my strengths, my superpowers, but that is not the case for so many in the LGBT community.
I know how hard it was to come out to a loving family and friendship group. I cannot imagine how difficult it is for people who are oppressed and subjected to conversion therapy, so we must draw a line in the sand. We must ask ourselves as parliamentarians, “What are we here for?” We are not here just to make grand speeches and gestures. We are here to bring about change, to change the law, and to outlaw that abhorrent practice.
James Gray (in the Chair)
We have 50 minutes to go and six speakers. I call Simon Baynes
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
It is a particular honour to follow that very moving speech by the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). Today I received an email from my constituent, Madeline Dhesi, to thank me for my card wishing her a happy 18th birthday, which she is celebrating today. She asked me to speak today in support of the campaign to ban conversion therapy, particularly as articulated by Stonewall Cymru to both her and me. I am honoured to speak in this debate on Madeline’s behalf and on behalf of many of my other constituents in Clwyd South who have written to me with views similar to those of Madeline.
The speakers who have come before me have articulated with passion, emotion and clarity the barbarity of conversion therapy, which is an alarmingly widespread practice that seeks to erase, repress, cure or change an individual’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. I hope very much that we can end soon the possibility that conversion therapy can currently legally take place in medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious and cultural communities in the UK.
I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken a clear position and has stated that conversion therapy has no place in a civilised society. Put simply, being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not an illness to be treated or cured. I am deeply concerned by the long-term impacts of this practice on victims, both mentally and physically. There are clear links between conversion therapy and an increased risk of suicide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) said in his powerful opening speech, the issue has cross-party support, and the call to ban conversion therapy is backed by those in the health, counselling and psychotherapy industry.
Numerous countries have already banned conversion therapy and have taken action to tackle that abhorrent practice. The Government have been clear that such a practice has no place in our society, and that they will take action to prevent these activities from continuing. I know that Ministers are considering all legislative and non-legislative options in order to end conversion therapy practice for good, but I hope that the debate will accelerate the Government’s move to legislate for that ban, and therefore enable us to continue to progress towards a world where everyone can live without shame or fear of their sexuality and whom they love.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate, and all Members who have spoken so far for their powerful contributions.
The first thing to say is that conversion therapy is happening. It is happening in this country, and that should be a shame to us. We must act on it. It has no scientific basis. It is torture. It is a denial of basic human rights. It leads to violence. It can, in some cases, as we have heard, lead horrifically to corrective rape. It is abuse and, in tragic circumstances, it can lead to death. I thank the many constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth for writing to me and reaching out, and the friends who over many years have spoken to me of their own harrowing direct experiences.
I pay tribute to the group of organisations, the memorandum of understanding group and all the other individuals and organisations, some of whom I have met with this week, for all the work that they have been doing. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has been raising this issue for many years. In fact, he introduced Bills in this place to ban conversion therapy in 2013 and 2018. It is a shame that they were not taken up by the Government before now. This is not a party political issue; it is a human rights issues, as we have seen from the breadth and strength of feeling across the House.
I will speak predominantly about the religious context, because that is where I come from. I am gay. I am a Christian. God created me, God loves me, and I love God, but I have had some pretty unpleasant experiences in repressive environments when I was not able to be clear about my sexuality. I was very lucky that I saw a therapist once, and when I said, “I don’t want to have a sham heterosexual marriage,” she just said, “You don’t have to, Stephen. You don’t have to.” What if there were more therapists like that, instead of some of the horrors that we have been hearing about today?
Anybody who has watched such films as “Boy Erased”, or heard the powerful testimony from such groups as the Ozanne Foundation will know the reality that many people can go through in religious experiences. The 2018 faith and sexuality survey showed that, of the 468 people who had been through conversion therapy, 91 admitted attempting suicide and 193 had suicidal thoughts. Over 50% were advised to go through it by a religious leader.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) raised a point about consent. I do not think that someone can give consent to this, and I was alarmed to see, I am sorry to say, in the Secretary of State’s letter attached to the debate, what I fear could be a get-out clause. It talked about “seeking spiritual support”, but we need to be aware of what that can be used to cover up. I point to article 10 of the Evangelical Alliance’s biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality, which says:
“We encourage evangelical congregations to welcome…lesbians and gay men. However, they should do so in the expectation that they, like all of us who are living outside God’s purposes, will…see the need to be transformed”.
It also states that there is a need for
“pastoral care during this process and after a person renounces same-sex sexual relations.”
That could be used as a cover for some very dangerous practices.
I stand by all those who have stood by the trans and non-binary community. They must absolutely be included in this, and we must also protect the legitimate services that are there to support them through transition and the challenges that they face. We have to ban this, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what the definition is of “seeking spiritual support”, how trans and non-binary people will be protected, and when we will get on with this.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I declare a brief interest, in that my husband works for a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender charity that works in schools. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) touched on the fact that society has come a long way. Some of that has been law led and some of it has been developments over time. Ultimately, the discussions around conversion therapy are really about acknowledging who we are—not who we want to be, not who society wants us to be, not who our parents or friends want us to be, but who we are as individuals.
To be different is still difficult. So many things have changed and society has improved, but we still live with tremendous pressures upon individuals, who still feel the need to deny who they are. One of the difficulties that I have had in listening to an amazing array of speeches from people from all parties—this is a cross-party issue and debate—is that we want to solve everything, and to say to every person in this country, “You can be who you want to be, and you can be proud and happy.”
We cannot do that as lawmakers because only so many things are under our control. However, one thing that we can do, and there is clear consensus to do it within this room and among all the people on all these wonderful screens in front of us, is to take a step in the right direction and end this “abhorrent” practice—not my words but the words of the Prime Minister—for which there is no medical justification. The hon. Member for Wallasey said it is medieval, and that term is absolutely right.
I stand here as someone who is openly gay and who came out at a comprehensive school in Doncaster. I am not religious, but I did not have the best experience with coming out, which I am sure many people can relate to. I want to say to all the boys and girls who know that they are a little bit different, whether they are gay or whether they think that something is just not quite right, that we have your backs. We will continue to push for this ban and we will continue to try to make your lives a little bit better.
In my last 30 seconds, I will just say one thing to the online LBGT community who have looked today and said, “Why should there be a debate? We should just crack on and end conversion therapy.” I understand their argument, but I question that arrogance, because there is always a need to win the argument, and there is always a need to keep advancing and making sure that the things that we do here and elsewhere are led by the best arguments, and that we continue to fight that fight.
James Gray (in the Chair)
We have three more Back Benchers to speak and five minutes left.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
In my constituency of Arfon, 243 people signed this important petition. I add my support and that of Plaid Cymru to the calls for a legislative ban on conversion therapy across the UK and on minors being taken out of the UK for conversion therapy abroad. This must include a ban on the advertising and promotion of such practices, and proper support for victims.
In 2018, the Conservative Government acknowledged the issue and committed to ending conversion therapy in their LGBT action plan. Nearly 1,000 days later, this practice is still legal. Cranogwen, who was an important 19th-century figure in the history of LGBTQ+ people in Wales and a literary figure of national importance, said:
“It is a pretence in everybody…to try to be what they are not; and it is a loss for anybody not to be what they are.”
Despite progress since then, her words still ring true. In fact, Stonewall Cymru found that a third of LGBTQ+ employees in Wales hid or disguised their identity at work.
Banning conversion therapy is an important step towards creating a truly equal society, as is the Plaid Cymru policy of ensuring that trans people have legal recognition of their gender through a streamlined and de-medicalised process based on self-declaration.
Lastly, the action plan says that ending conversion therapy will require a UK-wide approach. What discussions has the Minister had with the Welsh Government about this issue and have the Welsh Government requested legislative competence to introduce a comprehensive ban in Wales?
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on leading this very important debate and on making such a compelling and moving opening speech.
Conversion therapy is a damaging, degrading and discriminatory practice that seeks to correct something that does not need fixing—somebody’s sexual orientation, or their gender identity and/or expression. It causes severe physical and psychological suffering; it violates the human rights of the LGBT community; and it is considered by some to be a form of torture, and for good reason.
If we want to eradicate this insidious form of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse, we need a legislative ban to make conversion therapy illegal and we need one as soon as possible. It is vital that this Government lead the way for our LGBT+ community and make history with an effective legislative ban as quickly as possible.
The national LGBT survey found that 7% of people had been offered or undergone conversion therapy. I should echo comments made in support of trans people, because trans respondents to that survey suggested that they are almost twice as likely to have undergone or been offered such therapies.
It is important to echo the comment that this abhorrent practice is taking place across Britain right now. As it is, the law does not protect my constituents from conversion therapy, despite how harmful and damaging it is.
In the short time I have, I will finish by saying that the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition’s ask for support for victims and survivors—whether through charities, faith groups or mental health practitioners—to help them overcome the trauma that they have endured and rebuild their lives is very important. I ask that it be included in any future services that are offered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made some very good points about what an effective ban should include, and I echo his statements on that. A ban should prevent people from being threatened or sent abroad, it should protect people regardless of age, and it should support victims and survivors regardless of whether they were coerced into or consented to the practice. It must ban the advertising and promotion of said practices, both offline and online. These are the right things to do, and the sooner the Government take action, the sooner the UK can join the growing number of global leaders in LGBT rights who have taken such steps.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I can be brief.
I called for this debate back in September and am glad to see it tonight. I am also glad to see so many passionate and thoughtful contributions from all points of the compass across the House. This is an issue that we need to act on, and I praise the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his excellent speech. I have to say that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) made a very strong contribution—it is good the see her back, and she has demonstrated why it is good to see her back. She has done a power of work on this issue, and it is great that there is such a cross-party consensus on it.
I will confess that I am a gay man, but I am happy to say that I have no direct experience of this issue. Frankly, the scale of the problem was news to me. According to the UK Government’s 2018 LGBT survey, 5% of respondents had been offered conversion therapy and 2% had undergone it in one shape or another. In the trans community, the figures were even higher: 9% had been offered it and 4% had undergone it. There is much to agree with in the discussion tonight, but it boils down to one phrase: let’s get on with it. I say that as a challenge to the Minister while offering my support for her efforts.
There is a cross-party need for legislation. There is work to be done, of course, but work is well advanced on the proposals for a legislative framework. The NGOs are behind it, the equalities community is behind it and the faith groups are behind it. There is cross-party support. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and many people in Northern Ireland are supportive of this legislation, and we need to get it done. The only people who are speaking in defence of conversion therapy are quacks, bigots and bullies. They need to be called out for what they are, and their dreadful activities and consequences criminalised. If the UK Government are serious about bringing forward legislation, they will have my support, and I look forward to hearing some good news from the Minister tonight.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure to have heard such impassioned and important speeches. The stories that people have told have highlighted the damage that has been done and the lasting consequences for lives. That is well understood, so it must be time for action.
When I looked into the background to the debate, I was struck by the number of signatures on the petition that closed in September last year, compared with two previous petitions on the same subject in 2017 and 2018. Across the UK, the number of signatures increased over sevenfold from 2017 to last year’s quarter of a million signatures. In my constituency of East Renfrewshire, the 2017 petition attracted 33 signatures, but almost 400 of my constituents signed last year’s petition, and I have heard from a great many of them by email. That upswing in signatures tells us two things. The first is that there is a growing and welcome recognition of the need to tackle the wholly unacceptable practice of conversion therapy, which we know is not only hugely discriminatory, but so very damaging to those directly affected. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) spoke very powerfully about that.
The second reason for the upswing in support for the petition could very well be a growing frustration that action is taking so long, which results in people who are potentially directly affected feeling that we are not listening to them. A similar frustration was expressed by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) when, over five years ago, he sponsored a debate on conversion therapies. In that debate, he wondered why we are struggling to get conversion therapy banned, when there is such significant agreement on the issue. Let us be clear: LGBT people do not need their identities debated nor do they need to be converted. That is fundamental. Nobody’s identity should be subject to debate or to change by other people.
When we get to the end of this debate and hear the Minister’s response, I hope that is what she will say. I hope she will accept these concerns about delay, and respond to them by telling us what is the hold-up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) has just said, let’s get on with it. Is there a reason for the delay? Are the Government experiencing some push-back on this? Who would be doing that? What has prevented action from being taken before now? It is difficult to comprehend. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) described in vivid detail why it matters and the horrific impact it has on many lives.
I accept that the UK Government have been clear that they are committed to banning conversion therapy. I welcome that, but it is nearly three years since they laid out the plan to ban it across the UK. Since then, it looks like inactivity and prevarication to me. It looks like they are kicking the can down the road. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) so eloquently described, more and more human tragedies occur.
In July 2017, the UK Government launched what would become, with over 108,000 respondents, the largest national survey of LGBT people undertaken anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) has told us, almost a thousand days after publishing the results and an accompanying action plan informed by its findings, it seems that the Government are still at the research stage. What exactly are they researching?
In July last year, the Prime Minister said his Government would do a study on where conversion therapy was happening and its prevalence, and then bring forward plans to ban it, but that information is already there. It is contained within the survey that the Government already did, with over 7,000 people among the respondents who had either undergone conversion therapy or been offered it. That surely provides a clear picture of the geographic spread and the demography of conversion therapies across the UK. This determination to do more research, three years on, does not look like a process of implementing change; it looks more like an attempt to stave off change, and that is not okay.
The UK Government have also said they will take a UK-wide approach to this. The Scottish Government have expressed their support for action by the UK Government. There is already cross-border co-operation on the issue. For instance, NHS England and NHS Scotland both signed up to the 2017 memorandum of understanding, along with other stakeholders, to record their commitment to ending conversion therapy in the UK. Commitments like these, from health groups, counselling groups, psychotherapy groups and many religious groups, are welcome, but we need to do our bit now. We need action.
If we look at the July 2018 action plan, the UK Government said that they would bring froward these proposals, but their correspondence in May 2020 with the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT+) rights, of which I am a member, raises some serious questions about what progress we are going to see.
There are examples of attempts to implement a holistic ban on conversion therapies, starting with Brazil, which acted on the issue over 20 years ago; that is something we could ponder. Action has also been taken by Canadian cities and by Spanish cities and provinces, including Madrid and Andalusia, which adopted a broad definition of conversion therapies as
“all medical, psychiatric, psychological, religious or any other interventions that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a person”.
Given these widespread examples, and the widespread understanding of good practice, it is concerning that in her response to the chair of the APPG, the Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), mentioned Germany and Albania as countries that she is reaching out to in order to gain an understanding of the way forward. What is proposed in Germany looks like it could be a prohibition on conversion therapies only on minors and on adults whose participation was secured by coercion or deception. That would absolutely not
“end the vile practice of so-called conversion therapy”
that she says is her intention in her letter. There is a real danger that going down a road like that would legitimise conversion therapy, and we are absolutely not prepared to support that. To be clear, and to echo the very sensible words of the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), this is not therapy; it is very unfortunate that that is the phrase that people use to describe the practice.
I want to hear from the Minister a response that tells me whether the Government are actually thinking about introducing a more narrowly defined Bill. I certainly hope not, but if that is the intention, when did that change of policy take place and why? The Minister for Women and Equalities’ mention of Albania raises some serious questions about the Government’s commitment. In Albania, every therapist has to be a member of the Order of Psychologists, and it is that body, not the state legislature, that has banned conversion therapies. There seems to be little that we can learn from the Albanian approach that has not already been implemented in the 2017 memorandum of understanding, so why is it raised as an example?
When I look at all those things, I am concerned that the UK Government are potentially finding diversions along the way to avoid confronting the difficulties they now face due to changes on their Back Benches. I hope I am wrong about that. The LGBT community cannot be held hostage by right-wing politics or changes in political personnel. I say that, but I am mindful of the powerful speeches that we heard today from Members from across the House, including very powerful speeches by Conservative Members. I take some heart from those consistent and clear words.
In that context, and thinking about the people who are directly affected by this practice, I urge the Minister to do the right thing. We have a responsibility to take action to right wrongs. This practice needs to be made illegal. Nobody should be subjected to that kind of assault on their identity. It needs to stop, but it will not until we move this from being a debate to being a reality. It is time to make progress, and I really hope the Minister tells us that will happen.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this important debate.
So-called LGBT conversion therapies are disgusting, exploitative, damaging and a relic of bigotry. In 2021, we recognise better than ever what illness and disease look like. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans is not a sickness; it is a fundamental part of an individual’s very identity. So-called LGBT conversion therapies need to be banned.
I thank in particular the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) for their powerful contributions. We are lucky in this place to have such assiduous campaigners on LGBT issues on both sides of the House, and I am pleased that there appears to be cross-party consensus on this issue.
Pedlars of these supposed treatments not only perpetuate a fraud on the public but cause genuine harm, psychological distress and lasting emotional damage. The 2018 national faith and sexuality survey found that 58.8% of people who had undergone such therapies had suffered mental health issues. Significant numbers cited anxiety, self-harm and eating disorders. More than two thirds had suicidal thoughts, and more than a third had actually attempted suicide. That is why all major UK therapy professional bodies and the NHS oppose treatments that try to change a person’s sexual orientation or supress a person’s gender identity.
All our major faith groups support a ban, as was reiterated at the interfaith conference held remotely in London in December 2020. As a religious Jew and a bi woman, I have been heartened by contributions from hon. Members in the debate who hold their faith close to their heart but know that there should be no dichotomy to reconcile between religious freedom and protecting the safety, wellbeing and dignity of the LGBT community. That cannot be a justification for continued delay, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for making that point so clearly.
A number of countries have fully banned conversion therapies, including Malta. In other federalised countries, various states and provinces have legislated for bans. I commend Instagram and Facebook for banning the promotion of conversion therapies on their sites, and hope that other social media companies will follow suit.
In 2018, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Conservatives announced in their LGBT action plan that they would ban conversion therapies. That was apparently still their policy at the last election. However, last year the Prime Minister said:
“What we are going to do is a study right now on, you know, where is this actually happening, how prevalent is it, and we will then bring forward plans to ban it”.
I am sure that colleagues on all sides, not to mention the LGBT+ community, will say that we have waited long enough. Last month, Labour supported the Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 that rightly permitted the Attorney General to take maternity leave. That showed that the Government can take legislation through quickly when they want to—it did not require lengthy studies to consider the prevalence of Attorney Generals becoming pregnant.
There are LGBT+ people experiencing harms from these practices every day and the longer we wait for action, the longer they are denied legal redress. The most recent annual update on the implementation of the Government’s LGBT action plan was published in July 2019. Given that it is now 2021 and that February was LGBT+ History Month, when can we expect publication of the 2020 annual update? Labour has consistently urged the UK Government to live up to their promise and implement the 2018 proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), the shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equalities, has continuously pressed the UK Government to deliver on their LGBT action plan.
Putting laws on the statute book such as protection orders for people who are vulnerable to cultural or religious pressure to suppress, deny or forcibly change their sexuality or gender identity is not merely a matter of virtue signalling; it would make concrete legal defences for people who need them and would make it simpler for statutory support services to work together to help people in need. I commend Galop, the LGBT+ anti-violence charity that I met on Friday ahead of the debate to hear not only the harrowing evidence it has collected about such abhorrent practices but how protection measures, including multi-agency risk assessment conferences, would have allowed individuals to have been safeguarded. The Labour party welcomes the action that the Government have taken in the past decade to legislate against female genital mutilation and to take further steps against honour-based violence and forced marriage where these protection order frameworks are in place. This is a further area where we must now see action.
This is an opportunity to show the world the face of global Britain, setting an example and doing what is right. Our values can be clearly put into law to be seen by other countries where these awful practices are more common. The time has come for the Government to act to ban these practices. If they do, the Opposition will support them.
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by thanking those who signed the petition for raising the important issue of conversion therapy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate? I also thank all colleagues for speaking so passionately about this issue. I know how important it is to so many parliamentarians, and it is right that we should have this time to debate it. I will endeavour to answer the various questions put this evening.
I am pleased to be able to respond not just to acknowledge the importance of the topic but to say more about the Government’s approach to ending conversion therapy. We have a proud record of championing equal opportunity, and it is of great importance to me and the Government that everyone has the freedom to live their life as they see fit without fear or intimidation.
I assure hon. Members that we are committed to ending conversion therapy in the UK and we take the issue very seriously. The Prime Minister reiterated recently that we want to end conversion therapy and underlined that the practice has
“no place in a civilised society”.
It is indeed shocking to think that conversion therapy practices still take place in modern Britain, yet the 2017 national LGBT survey found that 5% of respondents—people in the UK—had been offered conversion therapy and 2% had undergone it. The national LGBT survey was launched in 2017 and received more than 108,000 responses, making it the largest survey of its kind in the UK. The aim was to gather more information about the life experiences of LGBT people in the UK and the biggest difficulties they face, including conversion therapy.
Acknowledging that conversion therapy is wrong and should end is only the first step in tackling such behaviours. The Government want to ensure that we correctly identify and capture these harmful practices. To do that, we have been working hard to establish a clear view of what constitutes conversion therapy. “Conversion therapy” is often used as an umbrella term for a number of acts. On the most egregious end of the spectrum are acts of violence. Around the world, sexual violence, including rape, is used in sinister attempts supposedly to cure someone of an innate aspect of their person. People may also be beaten, or forced to fast or to take snake-oil medicines, all because of who they are and who they love. We are fortunate that in this country we have cultivated a robust criminal law framework for dealing with those types of conversion therapy.
I would like to take this opportunity to be clear that if someone commits an existing offence in the course of conversion therapy, they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, no matter what their reason for doing so is. At the extreme end of such practices, someone could face charges of rape or grievous bodily harm. At the other end of the spectrum are acts that are primarily delivered through the spoken word or through the guise of healthcare support, such as advertising and selling products, or charging a fee to undergo conversion therapy practices.
The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support. The Government will exercise great care when considering what does and does not constitute conversion therapy, and how to intervene. Just because greater care is required, however, it does not mean that we should shy from protecting our most vulnerable from those practices.
It is clear that conversion therapy is associated with significant mental health problems and isolation from a support network. That, in turn, can lead to homelessness and abuse. We are also alive to the need to ensure that the action we take does not push those practices underground, which could ultimately cause more harm to those who are victim to them. Our response to the issue will ensure that we end those practices, not hide them.
It may help to explain the work that the Government are doing to tackle conversion therapy. Officials are undertaking a review of the current legislative framework to see how conversion therapy can be stopped by making use of existing laws and offences. As I have mentioned previously, many acts of conversion therapy are already illegal, including sexual violence and kidnapping, as well as inciting violence. People who engage in those criminal activities can and will be prosecuted for doing so. Where dangerous practices are not already unlawful, we are examining the best ways to stop them without sending them underground.
The Government believe that a comprehensive approach is needed to end the suffering that those practices inflict. We need to explore all measures to combat those abhorrent practices, ensuring that survivors have access to the help and care that they need. In addition to the work on legislative and non-legislative measures to end conversion therapy, we have commissioned research into the scope of practices and the experiences of those subjected to conversion therapy, so that we can fully consider the needs of all those whom it affects. That is important in our approach to establishing the most effective way to stop it happening. Once the findings have been reviewed, we will continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure that we progress an effective approach as quickly as we can.
I know that there may be questions around what a legal ban could include, and we have heard a number of views on that. We are actively considering that issue, on which we have been consulting widely to seek a broad range of views. We will continue that engagement to ensure that any action that we take is proportionate and effective. As I said earlier, I want to make it absolutely clear that we do not want to prevent LGBT people from seeking support on their own terms. People will always have the right to seek support from anyone and have conversations to rationalise and understand their own identity. We will not restrict the right to seek counsel when needed, but that does not mean that we will tolerate the use of conversion therapy described in the debate. We are working to understand the impacts on wider rights and freedoms of any Government action to tackle conversion therapy. The legal landscape is complex, and we want to ensure that we get our proposals absolutely right.
We will continue to engage with religious organisations and groups to understand how best support to LGBT people of faith. It is not the place of Government to dictate what is legitimate spiritual guidance, but it is the Government’s place to protect all their citizens, and we will not tolerate the use of harmful coercive practices under the guise of spiritual support. I am also pleased that all major counselling and psychotherapy bodies in the UK have agreed to tackle conversion therapy in healthcare settings. We will engage with experts to understand the best way of ending conversion therapy in these contexts in a targeted and proportionate way.
It is also encouraging to see jurisdictions around the world starting to take notice of the issue, and join us with their own commitments to ending conversion therapy. We are in conversations with international counterparts, both those who have introduced a variety of legislative and non-legislative actions and those who plan to. Although it is important to figure out what will work in a UK context, we may also look to our friends around the world to understand the effectiveness of different approaches. Hon. Members have mentioned, for example, that Germany has implemented a ban on conversion therapy for minors only, or when an adult has been coerced, and I understand that other countries such as Malta have also taken this route. However, we understand that different countries will take different approaches that best suit their needs. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
The safety of LGBT people in the UK in every aspect of their life is of the utmost importance to me, including in our work on conversion therapy. However, this is only part of the work we are doing to promote equality for everyone. The Government understand that colleagues across the House who have taken the time to attend the debate are passionate about the work that my officials and I are doing, so I wish to update them on all the broader LGBT work we are undertaking. In April 2019, we appointed Dr Michael Brady of King’s College Hospital to be the first national adviser on LGBT healthcare. This appointment shows the Government’s commitment to improving healthcare for all. I am very proud that in December 2020, the Department of Health and Social Care announced that men who have sex with men in a long-term relationship will be able to donate blood in England, following changes to blood donation criteria that will be implemented in the summer.
I am also aware that waiting times for gender identity services are currently very long. We are taking meaningful actions to address the historical problems that have resulted in long waiting times, and I am pleased that we will establish at least three new gender identity clinics over 2021, with the first of these opened by the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust in July. This is the first service of its kind established in the NHS in England for around 20 years.[Official Report, 15 March 2021, Vol. 691, c. 2MC.]
There is so much more that I would say about the work that the Government are doing, but I am afraid that we are out of time. Our goal now is to end these harmful practices, and we are going to engage widely and listen carefully so that we can develop measures that end them for good. I know that all Members are keen to know the timetable. We continue to work to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate and effective, and will set out our next steps soon. We have heard a range of views and voices, and it is imperative that we continue a constructive dialogue to ensure that we get our proposals right. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), officials from the Government Equalities Office have been in liaison with Welsh Government officials, and the Welsh Government have not requested devolved competence.
Put simply, being LGBT is not an illness to be treated or cured. This is an issue that has cross-party support, and the call to end conversion therapy is backed by those in the health, counselling and psychotherapy industry. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that LGBT people can be truly safe and free to live their life as they wish, and this will be the next important step in ending conversion therapy for good.
I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have spoken in today’s debate in support of ending conversion therapy. It is wonderful to see so many people united against this abhorrent practice, and I look forward to many more debates on the issue. I am happy to continue individual engagement, as I have already done, where there are further questions.
Elliot Colburn [V]
In my short summing up, I sadly do not have time to go through everyone’s contributions, but I do want to send my heartfelt thanks to every Member who has spoken today for their very powerful interventions. This has proven to be a truly cross-party moment, and I hope that it has proven that there is true consensus across the House that we want a ban on conversion therapy, and we want that sooner rather than later. I thank the Minister for replying, and I hope we can send her away today with the message that we want to see some proposals made very quickly indeed. I believe I speak for everyone who has spoken today when I say that we would like to see those proposals in the form of a Bill.
I thank you, Mr Gray, for being in the Chair, and for allowing the petitioners’ concerns to be raised this afternoon. I also thank the petitioners for signing the petition, and I will end by reiterating what so many people have said throughout this afternoon’s debate: being LGBT is not an illness, and we do not need to be cured.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 300976 relating to LGBT conversion therapy.
Written Statements
Unauthorised Encampments
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today, I am announcing the Government’s response to the November 2019 consultation entitled, “Strengthening Police Powers to Tackle Unauthorised Encampments”. The consultation sought views on how to address and prevent the harm and distress caused by some unauthorised encampments and followed a public consultation in 2018 which demonstrated support for more police action.
The vast majority of travellers are law-abiding citizens. As of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41% from January 2010. However, there continue to be unauthorised encampments that can create significant challenges for local authorities and cause distress and misery to many. Harmful or disruptive encampments can also perpetuate a negative image of travelling communities.
I will therefore introduce legislation to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will create a new criminal offence to tackle unauthorised encampments. In addition, we will give the police the power to seize vehicles, and we will strengthen existing powers.
The measures complement the ongoing work by MHCLG to strengthen councils’ powers to tackle unauthorised developments—building on land that an occupier owns without planning permission.
Introduce a criminal offence of residing on land with a vehicle, causing damage, disruption or distress
A person will commit an offence if they:
Are aged 18 or over and reside or intend to reside on land without the consent of the occupier of the land;
Have or intend to have at least one vehicle with them on the land;
Have caused or are likely to cause significant damage, disruption or distress; and
They:
Fail, without a reasonable excuse, to leave the land with their vehicle and/or property once asked to do so by the occupier, representatives of the occupier or a constable; or
They, without reasonable excuse, enter, or re-enter the land with an intention of residing there without the consent of the occupier, and they have or intend to have a vehicle with them, within 12 months of a request to leave and remove their property from an occupier, their representative or a constable.
Give police the power to seize any property including vehicles from those committing the new offence
The police will be empowered to seize any property including vehicles owned or in the possession of the individual on the land if they reasonably suspect that the person has committed the above offence.
Strengthen existing powers
Section 61(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (“CJPOA”) sets out the power of the police to direct trespassers away from land. We will amend this section to enable the police to direct trespassers away in a broader range of circumstances, including if there is damage to the environment, such as excessive noise, litter or deposits of waste, and if there is disruption to supplies of water, energy or fuel.
We also intend to increase the period in which persons directed away from the land under section 61 and 62A of the CJPOA must not return—without reasonable excuse—without committing an offence or being subject to powers of seizure from three months to 12 by amending section 61(4)(b) 62B(2) and section 62C(2)of the CJPOA.
We will in addition strengthen measures to tackle unauthorised encampments on roads by amending section 61(9)(b) to allow police to direct trespassers to leave land that forms part of a highway.
I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to the two consultations carried out by the Government on this issue. The views expressed in response have all been considered and have informed the decisions we have made.
The measures I intend to introduce are a proportionate increase in powers for the police. I hope they will deter unauthorised encampments from being set up in the first instance but, where that is not the case, they will allow the police to take more effective action in response to an encampment causing damage, disruption or distress, in support of those communities living with or near them.
I am confident that we have taken steps to ensure those wishing to exercise their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures.
The response to the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-police-powers-to-tackle-unauthorised-encampments.
[HCWS826]
Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Following my recent announcement of the Government responses on reforms to the judicial pension scheme and on proposals to address the unlawful age discrimination identified in the McCloud litigation, I am today publishing the Government response to the Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation.
Running from 16 July to 16 October 2020, the consultation sought views on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders to 72 or 75, alongside a proposal to allow public interest-based extension of magistrates’ appointments beyond their existing mandatory retirement age of 70, as is currently available to other parts of the judiciary. The consultation attracted considerable interest with over one thousand responses received from across of the magistracy, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other key stakeholder groups.
It has been over 25 years since the mandatory retirement age for most judges was set at 70. A mandatory retirement age remains an important requirement of judicial office which protects judicial independence, preserves public confidence in the judiciary, and promotes opportunities within the judiciary for those who wish to apply and to progress. I believe, however, along with the majority of respondents, that it is now time the MRA is amended to reflect improvements in life expectancy and the changing demands on our courts and tribunals.
Following careful consideration, I have therefore decided to raise the mandatory retirement age to 75 to enable us to retain for longer the valuable expertise of experienced judicial office holders and to attract a wider range of applicants. I believe the new retirement age could also have a positive impact on diversity by attracting and promoting opportunities for individuals considering a judicial career later in life, such as those who may have had non-linear careers or taken career breaks to balance professional and family responsibilities. I will legislate for this change as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Magistrates currently are unable to sit beyond the existing mandatory retirement age unlike many judges who can apply to have their appointments extended or to sit in retirement on an ad hoc basis. To further boost capacity in the magistrates courts, I will include a transitional provision as part of the legislative change to allow recently retired magistrates who are below the age of 75 when the new MRA comes into force to be able to apply to return to the bench, where there is a business need.
As Lord Chancellor, it is my duty to ensure the courts and tribunals have the required resources to continue dispensing justice. I am grateful for the commitment and resilience of judges, magistrates and coroners across the country who have worked tirelessly throughout this challenging period. I know the changes I am announcing today will not immediately alleviate pressure on our justice system. However, this once in a generation change to the mandatory retirement age, alongside the important reforms we are making to the judicial pension scheme, will help to support and promote judicial recruitment and retention, ensuring we are able to continue resourcing our world-class judiciary for the future.
[HCWS828]
Covid-19 Road Map: Planning and Hospitality
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
As set out in the Government’s road map for easing the lockdown restrictions, in step two, which will be no earlier than 12 April, hospitality venues will be allowed to serve people outdoors. I have written to local authority leaders to make clear the Government’s expectation that local authorities support hospitality businesses to safely reopen, once they are permitted to do so.
Last summer the Government introduced a series of measures to support hospitality businesses to open safely when lockdown restrictions were eased. These measures were a lifeline to many businesses, enabling them to continue to serve their local communities under the challenging circumstances.
I have confirmed to local authorities that these measures will remain in place to support businesses as they reopen this year. I am also pleased to confirm that we intend to extend pavement licences for a further 12 months, making it easier and cheaper for pubs, restaurants and cafes to continue to make al fresco dining a reality with outside seating, tables and street stalls to serve food and drinks.
Providing these flexibilities will support hospitality businesses to trade in these challenging times, helping to protect jobs and livelihoods. The measures that we introduced and will remain in place are:
Al fresco dining
As part of the Business and Planning Act 2020 the Government introduced a simplified process for businesses to obtain a licence to serve food and drinks from seating, tables and street stalls outside their premises. The process was previously long, costly and inconsistent across areas. We addressed this through a capped application fee of £100 and quicker consultation and determination periods (10 days with automatic deemed consent if the authority does not make a decision on the application before the end of the determination period). This enabled business to serve more customers safely outdoors last year and support them to do so again when they are permitted to reopen.
The Government have made clear in the pavement licence guidance that we expect local authorities to grant licences for 12 months or more unless there are good reasons for granting a licence for a shorter period, such as plans for future changes in use of road space. Therefore, unless there are very good reasons, the Government expect that licences granted under these provisions continue to apply into this summer so that businesses do not have to reapply for another licence or be charged a further application fee when they are able to reopen to serve customers outdoors. These temporary legislative provisions are currently due to expire on 30 September 2021, but to give further certainty to businesses I will introduce secondary legislation to extend these provisions for a further 12 months, subject to parliamentary approval.
Freedom to use land for community events and outdoor hospitality
Last year the Government provided greater flexibility for individuals and businesses to use their land for temporary events, such as markets and motorsports. We increased the number of days allowed for such events from 28 to 56 without needing to apply for planning permission. In November we extended this provision until 31 December 2021 so individuals and businesses, such as pubs, can set up moveable structures like marquees and hold outdoor events without making an application for planning permission. This will help businesses take forward outdoor activities such as markets, car boot sales, summer fairs and sporting events. We expect local authorities to support businesses using these additional freedoms as they reopen.
Outdoor markets
We have also introduced a new temporary right, extended to March 2022, that allows local authorities, either by themselves or by others on their behalf, to use land to hold a market and erect moveable structures on it.
Takeaways
Finally, we also introduced measures to support restaurants, pubs and cafes to serve takeaway food when they were otherwise closed due to coronavirus restrictions. These measures will continue to apply until March 2022.
We introduced these changes to support hard hit hospitality businesses to reopen last year. I have encouraged all local authorities to use these measures pragmatically to help support the high street, businesses and jobs, once restrictions allow them to do so.
[HCWS829]
Commercial Spaceflight
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
On Friday 5 March 2021, I published the Government’s response to the consultations which were held in the summer and autumn of 2020 on the secondary legislation which will implement the Space Industry Act 2018. We sought views on the operability and effectiveness of the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance and supporting documents (July); as well as the Government’s approach to liabilities, insurance and charging (October). We also asked respondents to provide evidence and test the assumptions in the consultation-stage impact assessment.
This Government are committed to growing the space industry in the UK and cementing our leading role in this sector by unlocking a new era in commercial spaceflight across the UK. The draft space industry regulations, together with draft instruments covering accident investigation and appeals, will pave the way for a new commercial licensing regime for spaceflight activities from the UK. It will support safe and sustainable activities that will drive research, innovation and entrepreneurship, exploiting the unique environment of space. This will feed into our emerging national space strategy as we develop our priorities for levelling up the UK and promote the growth of this thriving sector in the long term.
We also recognise the importance of ensuring that the environment is protected from the adverse effects of spaceflight activities. This is why the Space Industry Act 2018 requires applicants for a launch or spaceport licence to submit an assessment of environmental effects as part of their application. We also published a consultation on 10 February, setting specific environmental objectives for the spaceflight regulator to take account of when considering these assessments, reinforcing Government’s wider policies towards the environment and sustainability.
Our spaceflight legislation has been designed from the outset to support commercial operations. This, together with the technology safeguards agreement signed with the US in June 2020, means that the UK is well placed to attract new commercial opportunities in this rapidly growing sector. Together with industry we set a target to grow the UK’s share of the global space market to 10% by 2030. Today we are a step closer to reaching this goal.
The Government welcome the thoughtful and detailed responses received from across the four nations of the UK. Invaluable insights were provided by those who responded to the consultation and included enthusiastic responses from schoolchildren. We are pleased to report that our modern regulatory framework was supported by the vast majority of respondents, with many applauding the flexibility of our proposed approach, which fosters adaptability through an outcomes-based focus.
The response I am sharing today sets out the ways we have adjusted the draft space industry regulations and associated guidance material to reflect, and where possible accommodate, the suggestions and recommendations made through the consultation process. We believe that this collaborative approach will not only strengthen the licensing regime we are implementing, but demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to growing this exciting sector.
My Department has worked closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency and Civil Aviation Authority to legislate for a wide range of new commercial spaceflight technologies, including traditional vertically launched vehicles, air-launched vehicles and sub-orbital spaceplanes and balloons. It is our intention to bring this legislation before the House later this year.
Next steps
Following the publication of the Government’s response I will update the House once we are ready to submit the secondary legislation for parliamentary scrutiny.
[HCWS827]
Grand Committee
Financial Services Bill
Monday 8th March 2021
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 162-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (8 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, 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.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk using the Grand Committee address if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived and if a single voice says “Content” a clause stands part. 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.
Amendment 74
“Alignment of accounting to prudential standards
Where the prudential capital and profit or losses for a banking company are lower than the accounting numbers for that banking company where International Accounting Standards have been used, then the accounting numbers must have an adjustment to the balance sheet and profit and loss account in order to—(a) align the accounting numbers with the regulatory capital of the banking company which constrains the growth of a banking company and its ability to lend,(b) align the regulatory capital for going concern purposes with the accounting capital for going concern purposes,(c) align the regulatory capital and profits for remuneration purposes with the accounting capital and profits in accordance with the regulations for shareholder approval of director remuneration, and(d) align the regulatory capital and profits for distribution purposes with the accounting capital and profits for distribution purposes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that when there are prudential filters discounting capital these should be carried through to accounting capital figures.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my financial services interests as in the register. The two amendments in this group concern the use of international financial reporting standards, particularly with regard to banks. Their aim is to permit a very abbreviated explanation of some of the problems with and lack of transparency of IFRS and to probe the return of a role for the Bank of England concerning the endorsement of accounting standards now that the approval of IFRS is repatriated to the UK and their approval under UK legislation involves an economic interest test. I thank my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for signing my amendments.
It is undeniable that IFRS played a part in the financial crisis and, even though they have been amended since in recognition of that role, they are still not fit for purpose for calculating prudential capital. As far as banks are concerned, they have two sets of numbers: statutory accounts for Companies Act going concern, on which there is an auditor’s opinion, and numbers for the prudential regulator which—if I may put it this way—really show the going concern situation, because that is what prudential regulators want to know.
It is worth looking at a couple of points to see the sort of thing that regulators discount for prudential purposes. Good will is taken out, because obviously it is not loss-absorbing and is not much good when a company is running out of money. It is also the case that a bank’s debt can be shown merely at the junk bond debt value in a bank’s IFRS accounts rather than the sum actually owed, which again is not the real money situation. For a bank that is going bust, or just not doing so well, the published accounts can show a rosier picture than the prudential numbers. I do not know any serious analysts who use the IFRS accounts rather than regulators’ numbers.
Regrettably, there are many other anomalies affecting other businesses. IFRS 15, for example, can introduce a smoothing effect, changing some sales into an income spread over future years and therefore providing exactly the kind of disguising of downturns that has caused problems in the past.
Given that a bank’s ability to trade is determined by its prudential solvency and banking licence rather than its IFRS accounts disclosed to the market, it is actually a bit absurd to say that a set of accounts can fit the Companies Act going-concern requirements and be signed off for the market when a bank might be a gone concern as far as the regulator is concerned and no longer able to trade. That may be the theoretical end-game problem, but it would seem more sensible for the banks to have to disclose to the markets the accounts that they have to live by for their licence. That is probably a better set of numbers on which to reward executives as well.
Many other countries recognise such anomalies and do not allow IFRS to be used without modification. Australia has its guidance note AGN 220.2, Impairment, Provisioning and the General Reserve for Credit Losses, and fared better in the financial crisis as a result. EU countries do not allow IFRS or IFRS-like calculations at the company level for determining going concern. The US will have nothing to do with it and only very grudgingly allows it to be used by non-US companies. I know that because I helped to negotiate it. The UK is really the outlier here.
Amendment 74 suggests that where the prudential capital and profit or loss for a banking company are less than the accounting numbers, the accounting numbers should be adjusted to the prudential numbers in the balance sheet and the profit-and-loss account because it is the regulatory capital that is the true amount for limiting growth, the real going-concern number, the safe distribution calculation and the fair director remuneration assessment. Yes, I am being provocative because I want some thinking on this, not the usual bland leave-us-alone acceptance.
I turn to Amendment 77. The PRA is the body closest to dealing with the unrealities still existent in IFRS that affect banks and recognising the effects that they have on the safety and stability of companies. The Bank of England is surely the pre-eminent body for analysing economic effects in the UK. Therefore, my Amendment 77 proposes to give the Bank of England a role in determining whether there is an adverse effect on the economy of the UK—the test set in the relevant statutory instrument for endorsing IFRS—and whether the standard is suitable for use in prudential regulation and, if not, to require that it not be used for the purpose of prudential regulation. Of course, some of this overlaps with what it is already doing.
I am sure that the Minister and other Members of the Committee realise that I am using this opportunity to highlight a matter that should be looked at more carefully, rather than just letting the IFRS juggernaut trundle on, whether that be for another HBOS or another Carillion. There are significant issues that affect the economy as well as many other issues with IFRS that depart from the normal logic of what accounts should mean and that are hard, if not impossible, to reconcile with the various requirements of company law. They have been swept under the carpet for far too long. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I am struggling with Amendment 74 because I think that it is aiming at a target that does not really exist, and it confuses capital and profits and losses.
The amendment would require what are quaintly called the “accounting numbers” to be adjusted to align with regulatory capital. Apart from anything else, that would result in accounts that do not comply with the Companies Act 2006, which requires, under Section 393, that accounts show
“a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss”.
The amendment seems to suggest that adjustments would be made to the accounts other than for the purposes of compliance with international accounting standards or to show a “true and fair view”, and, in that case, I believe that the resulting accounts would not comply with the Companies Act. We have to emphasise that these are international accounting standards, to which all countries that sign up follow, so this would be a major departure for accounting by banks and other institutions in this country.
I also note that, in proposed new paragraph (d), this is to apply to “profits for distribution purposes”, but that seems to misunderstand the fact that distributable profits are determined at the level of the parent entity solo accounts, whereas the adjustments that I believe are being targeted would be found in the accounts of subsidiary regulated entities or in the consolidated accounts, rather than those of the parent itself.
Regulatory capital already operates as a constraint on lending, so I fail to see what real-world impact any adjustments in the statutory accounts would have. While I understand the concept of regulatory capital, I do not understand the concept of “prudential” or “regulatory” profits or losses. I do not believe that “regulatory profits or losses” is a term that really exists, except to the extent that accumulated profits or losses form part of regulatory capital. It is difficult to see how proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 74 would work in relation to remuneration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has explained the sorts of adjustments that are made for regulatory purposes and that, under her amendment, would be taken into the statutory accounts—for example, the treatment of intangible assets. It is not clear to me why the prudential treatment of these items should be imported into true and fair accounts. The treatment for regulatory capital is linked to loss absorbency, which is not an underlying principle of financial accounting, and it therefore cannot readily be accommodated within the structure of accounting standards.
Pillar 3 statements, which are required to be produced by all regulatory banks, set out the information required in much detail. If the noble Baroness is correct—I am not sure that she is—that analysts use and rely on Pillar 3 statements, not statutory accounts, they already have that information: all of it is in the public domain.
Amendment 77 is unnecessary. It is already open to the PRA to base regulatory capital on different numbers from those in the annual accounts. I have already mentioned intangible assets. It also ignores gains or losses or known liabilities, a very arcane bit of the accounting standards that makes companies recognise gains when their credit ratings reduce the fair value of their outstanding liabilities. The PRA has not needed any special statutory cover to eliminate that from regulatory capital.
Furthermore, it is unsound for the Bank of England to approach accounting for individual institutions on the basis of the impact that a standard may have on the economy of the UK, as if accounting were a mere plaything of policymakers. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, will not press these amendments.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Noakes. I will speak to Amendments 74 and 77 because they both raise some real, important and fundamental issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, indicated, vastly different numbers for bank capital and profits are communicated through conventional financial statements and by the regulators—because they are prepared on different assumptions, for different audiences and for different purposes. I hope that the Minister will tell us which of those numbers can considered true and fair. Can he also say whether the regulators are justified in relying on something that does not pass that test?
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, these amendments, which are technical in nature, require banks that prepare their accounts in accordance with international accounting standards to apply prudential filters discounting capital to the banks’ statutory accounts. Having read the amendment, I am not clear which is the tail and which is the dog. Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, requires a bank to align its accounts with its regulatory capital or prudential capital, and at the same time requires the bank to align its regulatory capital with its accounting capital, for three separate purposes.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s forensic criticism of the amendment. I am not a chartered accountant, but I have worked in corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions for many years, and I find the amendment confusing. Does
“then the accounting numbers must have an adjustment to the … profit and loss account”
mean that the bank concerned must alter its accounting principles and adjust its accounts to use the prescriptive and conservative accounting principles used by the PRA for the monitoring of banks? If so, would a bank be required to restate past years’ published accounts for consistency’s sake? Proposed new paragraph (a) suggests that the PRA’s measurement of capital must be carried through to the bank’s accounts, but proposed new paragraphs (b) to (d) suggest that the bank’s regulatory accounts should be adjusted to conform with the PRA’s measurements. I am not clear how that can be done and what the PRA would have to say about it.
The amendment refers to international accounting standards, which were standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, based in London. EU legislation has continued to use the term “international accounting standards”, but they were replaced in 2001 by international financial reporting standards—IFRS. The noble Baroness confirmed that she meant IFRS rather than IAS in her amendment, but how does she intend that her amendment should affect banks that apply other accounting standards, such as American banks, which still prepare their accounts according to GAAP? Concepts in the amendment such as accounting numbers and regulatory capital need proper definition.
I have rather more sympathy with Amendment 77. The International Accounting Standards Board develops and issues IFRS for use internationally. In the EU, things are then at the discretion of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group—EFRAG—which advises the European Commission on whether and how the IFRS should be adopted for businesses in the EU. EFRAG will consult the relevant national bodies as part of that process; for example, if a new or revised IFRS is issued by the IASB that impacts the banking industry, EFRAG will consult the European Central Bank on the impact of that standard before making a decision on its adoption.
Now that the UK is able to establish an independent endorsement process, it seems sensible that that process should similarly involve the Bank of England in matters relating to IFRS that may impact the institutions over which the PRA has regulatory authority. I am not sure whether the amendment as drafted is satisfactory, but I would support the introduction here of an endorsement role for the Bank. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s views on that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in this area I cannot pretend to have the scope of knowledge or the expertise of my noble friend Lady Bowles or the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, but I have a great deal of sympathy with their amendments which comes from long frustration with trying to deal with banking standards. I probably had some small part to play in the focus that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards applied to looking at IFRS and other banking frameworks. I would defy almost anybody looking at the published accounts of Northern Rock, HBOS or RBS to have identified how fragile those institutions were and how easily they would crack the moment any pressure was applied to the very fragile arrangements they had in place. It is no wonder that it was missed by the regulators if they were looking at the disclosures that came from those institutions. They were not falsified; it is just that working your way through the disclosures very often discloses very little.
I spent a good part of my banking career trying to extract real and consistent information from accounting statements. That was largely in the States, so we were using GAAP, which I think many people will acknowledge tells one a lot more than IRFS ever does, but a bank has the resource to do that kind of deconstruction for a potential or existing credit client. Investment firms have the resources to do that kind of deconstruction, and so do regulators, but for any normal investor, and certainly for any smaller creditor such as a trade creditor, it is impossible to have those resources, as it is for any normal politician, even if in the end we carry the buck, in a sense, for whether or not we have a system that works. Over many years, the only clients who ever handed me a straightforward deconstructed set of accounts were Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, who headed up the GEICO insurance subsidiary. They did it simply because they felt that bankers should know what was going on. That is a good enough recommendation for any company or regulator.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I have sympathy with the concerns behind these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lord Sikka have spelled out so clearly, there is an intimate link between accounting standards and effective prudential regulation. It is probably true that nothing has a greater impact on policy than the manner in which relevant variables are measured.
That relationship between accounting standards and prudential regulation has been exposed just this last week with the collapse of Greensill Capital, a supply chain financing firm. Its business model was based on flaws in UK accounting—that was how it worked. As the Financial Times reports:
“While a company that uses supply-chain finance owes money to a financial institution, accountants do not class these facilities as debt. Instead a company typically books the money owed in the ‘trade payable’ or ‘accounts payable’ line of its balance sheet, mingled in with all the other bills owed to suppliers. While a footnote to the accounts might explain how much of this line is made up of money actually owed to financial institutions, rather than suppliers, there is no requirement to disclose it.”
Lack of disclosure means that the supply chain has proved popular with struggling companies looking to mask their mounting borrowings. When nervous lenders remove these facilities from heavily indebted companies, it can create an effect similar to a bank run on their working capital position, whereby that quasi bank run then escalates into risk to the financial services sector. Who really suffers? Typically, it is the SMEs at the origins of the supply chain. Greensill is not an isolated example. Parliamentary investigations into the collapse of the Carillion group, already mentioned, found that it made heavy use of the Government’s supply chain finance programme. MPs investigating the outsourcer’s demise said that the scheme allowed it to “prop up” its failing business model.
This is a major concern in the prudential management of the financial services sector in the UK. If accounting standards and methods do not accurately represent the fragility or strength of an institution, especially a financial institution, they severely compromise our efforts at prudential regulation.
A quite different prudential and market conduct risk created by accounting standards arises from the fact—again already mentioned—that while the UK’s accounting standards apply IFRS, the US maintains its own GAAP different standard. Are the UK Government pursuing negotiations with the US Administration to encourage the adoption of a common standard, perhaps one that accurately represents the risks present in financial institutions?
The issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, require urgent consideration, not just by the accounting profession but by Her Majesty’s Treasury and by the prudential regulators.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendments 74 and 77 concern accounting standards. I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and other Members of the Committee have said. It is perhaps best to begin by making a key distinction: the objective of accounting numbers is to show a true and fair financial position of a company; the objective of regulatory capital numbers is to provide information to the regulators in meeting their supervisory objectives. These are different numbers used for different purposes.
Amendment 74 proposes a kind of conflation of those purposes by requiring UK banks to align their accounts prepared under international accounting standards with their regulatory capital equivalent where the regulatory capital number is lower. My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly made the point that I have just made: these accounting standards are international. It is in the UK’s interests to maintain convergence with international accounting standards—IFRS—set by the International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. The IFRS bring consistency to financial statements and allow investors easily to compare the financial statements of companies across the world. It is therefore consistent with the Government’s aim of ensuring that the UK retains its reputation as a global hub for business for the UK to continue to adopt these standards.
The amendment would result in financial statements of UK banks not being prepared in accordance with those international accounting standards. UK banks wishing to maintain listings abroad would however still need to prepare a second set of financial statements. The UK prudential regime for banks is supported by detailed regulatory reporting. It is these reports and other data gathered from firms that are the basis for prudential regulation, and not financial statements and annual reports.
A subset of the information contained in the regulatory reporting is published in the form of what is referred to as Pillar 3 reports. These reports include details of the regulatory capital held by banks. Therefore, while Pillar 3 reports are not identical in form to financial statements prepared for accounting purposes, they already provide a significant amount of the information sought by this amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for having taken part in this debate and for enabling me to find some way in a busy parliamentary schedule to enable airing of a few of the problems with IFRS. I regret that IFRS has not been picked for a study by a Select Committee; I have tried but it is a rather dry subject that gets few votes when set against competing topics.
I have to admit that Amendment 74 was not only probing but perhaps a little impetuous in trying to provoke some thought about what was actually going on. My main point is that accounting has made it very difficult to get a genuine view of what is true and fair. If anybody wants to look at the RBS preliminary hearings that went to the courts, it was said there that the law was not for experts but for ordinary people. The fact is that we have got to a stage where there is such a departure between accounting standards and what the normal person would understand that I seriously challenge whether they really do give a true and fair view.
Things that can be done with supply chain financing, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, expressed, have undermined several significant businesses, yet still it is there and going on. I accept that one needs something like IFRS for international comparisons, but the UK is still the outlier in having copied a lot of the flaws of IFRS into the national accounting, so it appears again at the company level beneath. It is that which can therefore cause some of the crashes, whereas, in other countries, because they do not apply it at their national accounting standard level and to company-level accounts, they manage to escape.
Amendment 77 is not as impetuous, perhaps, as Amendment 74. Once upon a time the Bank of England used to jointly appoint the head of the FRC, so it had some say in it, but that now seems to have disappeared and it is left just to the Minister and BEIS. But I did not invent the bit that I pointed out about the economic analysis; that is what the endorsement board has to do to endorse IFRS and what is present in the International Accounting Standards and European Public Limited-Liability Company (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, one of the 100 or so SIs that I diligently scrutinised with other noble Lords. So I have not invented the test; a test is there and is going to be conducted by a subset of the FRC, a board established under the auspices of the FRC, or the ARGA, when we get round to doing it. Will it really be the right body for that economic interest test? As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, explained, taking an opinion from the Bank of England would seem appropriate.
The Minister’s argument is that we should not rock the boat on anything. We can let the deceptions and failures keep on coming but, underlying this, if we do nothing and leave it with the accountants to do their fancy footwork on the figures, which might suit them but nobody else, we can record now that the Treasury did not go poking around to find out what was going on and has done nothing to help. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Short selling review
(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of legislation relating to short selling.(2) Following the conclusion of the review, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to and move Amendment 78, and to thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his support and for co-signing the amendment.
Clause 40 deals with subordinate legislation made under retained direct EU legislation. This is a probing amendment to look at what I consider to be a timely review of the practice of short selling. The background to this is that short selling is regulated now by the Short Selling (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, based on the earlier EU regulation 236 from 2012, also amended by the Technical Standards (Short Selling Regulation) (EU Exit) Instrument 2019. Clearly, there are powers for the UK to prohibit or restrict short selling or limit transactions when the price of various instruments admitted to trading on a UK trading venue, which includes shares, sovereign and corporate bonds and ETFs, has fallen more than the appropriate percentage threshold from the previous day’s closing price. In exceptional market conditions, there are also powers under these regulations to address adverse events or developments that pose a serious threat to financial stability or market confidence in the UK.
The powers are set out and include extending the scope of the notification disclosure regime to include additional financial instruments admitted to trading on a UK trading venue and requiring lenders of financial instruments admitted to trading on a UK trading venue to notify any significant change in their fees. There are other powers as well.
Most recently in the UK, the Bank for International Settlements conducted a study suggesting that fund providers offered lower-quality paper to fill redemption markets, as reported in the Financial Times, and that it was felt and alleged that bond ETFs might have short-changed market-makers during the 2020 panic—as if there was not enough going on with the Covid-19 pandemic. It is obviously deeply worrying that this happened in 2020, as confirmed by the Bank for International Settlements. This is a good opportunity to revisit this, as this is not supposed to happen. Obviously, this is a timely moment to look at this, after the collapse and then the surge in the US of the GameStop share fiasco in January and February.
I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend whether he is convinced that an event such as GameStop would not happen in the UK and that we have robust regulations, as I have set out. I am slightly concerned that they have not been tested enough and I believe that we should revisit them. If the ETFs performed in the way that was alleged and concluded by the Bank for International Settlements in 2020, that was deeply unhelpful at a very difficult time. Therefore, does my noble friend agree that this would be a good opportunity for the Government to look at this and undertake to conduct a review to ensure that the regulations, as I set out this afternoon, are fit for purpose? Are they robust enough in terms of Covid, as we saw in March 2020 in the UK, to prevent something like GameStop happening here?
I realise that anybody making an investment is taking a risk, and that we are always told that share prices can go down as well as up, but this is a very modest amendment, ensuring that, within six months of the Bill being enacted and coming into force, the Secretary of State will commission a review of the legislation relating to short selling and, at the conclusion of the review, lay a report before Parliament. I personally have deep misgivings about short selling and question whether the regulations in place are sufficient. As we have left the European Union, and were told that the United Kingdom Government would take every opportunity to revisit those regulations that we have now adopted as part of UK law, it would be a good opportunity to review them within six months of the Bill’s enactment. It gives me great pleasure to move this amendment today and look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was not sure where the debate on short selling would go. I am broadly satisfied with the present rules that prohibit naked short selling and require that a short seller has identified where they will obtain the shares when delivery is required. There is a little bit of wriggle room in the identifying, which was very hard fought for by the UK when the EU regulation was being negotiated. Some would like it more relaxed so that there is a looser understanding of how the shares will be found; others would like to ban short selling altogether. I am not convinced that any significant change is needed in that area but, having negotiated the current compromise, I am both biased and happy for someone else to gather the scars on their back.
As the noble Baroness said, there has been additional interest in short selling because of the developments around GameStop and AMC shares, with some retail investors deliberately seeking to put a short squeeze on to hedge funds with large short positions. The shares became heavily promoted on internet sites and social media, and no doubt there are individuals who made poor decisions about investing as a consequence. Eventually, brokers took steps to curtail retail access, and therefore activity, which stopped extreme movements, but that also calls into question rights of retail access and whether there will be discouragement of things such as commission-free retail trading.
In the UK—and, indeed, the EU—we do not have such large net short positions as tend to be found in the US. That may well be due in part to the more restrictive requirements on the identification of where one is going to get the shares from, and stricter disclosure requirements. Retail access is not so well developed here, either.
I do not know whether the Treasury Select Committee has taken any evidence on this—it seems taken up by the Gloster review—but the chair of ESMA appeared before the corresponding committee in the European Parliament on 23 February. In that appearance, there was a suggestion that other things around the subject may need looking at—such as market abuse and best execution, which would be under MiFID II—rather than short selling.
The FCA website has a six-line generic statement, put up on 29 January, about “recent share trading issues”, warning about potential loss of money, that losses are unlikely to be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and that broking firms are not obliged to offer trading facilities to clients, which covers the point about withdrawal of service. It tweeted a similar warning.
Here I should probably draw attention to my specific interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. I know that a close eye has been kept on the situation, looking at additional analysis, possible additional monitoring and scenarios that could arise within our markets, and having discussions with the FCA, but that is all work in progress.
A lot of people seem to consider short selling fundamentally evil, but it is really just like ordering a book from a bookseller, paying for it, and getting it later when the seller has purchased it from the publisher. That is okay if you know there is a book and a publisher and you have not already been told that it is sold out. It is not okay when there is no book, and so on. That is the distinction between naked short selling, when you do not know whether the book is there, and having identified that you can actually get your hands on the book to fulfil the order. Broadly speaking, I am not sure that a huge overhaul of short selling needs to be looked at. If all these things are to be looked at, it probably needs to go beyond what is in the short selling regulation and look at how execution has to happen as well.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day five of Committee of the Financial Services Bill. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I was keen to speak to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering—and have put my name to it—mainly because of the reasons set out by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. That is, given the position we are now in with financial services, it seems opportune to review this practice. In saying that, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that it makes sense to see this as part of a wider review of a number of other market practices. Indeed, it reflects an earlier amendment that I put forward on day one on the opportune moment to review all our financial services regulations and regulators’ rules, given that our situation is so fundamentally different from what it was a matter of weeks ago.
On short selling, it is important to understand the difference between different markets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, eloquently set out. It is important for that to be understood, not least as a number of people’s understanding of short selling will have been informed by the earlier situation with GameStop on the exchange in the United States and the excellent film “The Big Short”—excellent unless you happen to be on the wrong end of that practice. However, it is different in different jurisdictions. Which jurisdictions would the Minister look at in considering potential better practices around the world? Would she also see this as a positive, opportune step to take as part of a wider review of all financial services regulations and the rules of our regulators?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the call of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for a review of short-selling legislation, although I start from a very different position to her. As she explained, our short-selling rules were acquired via the EU, which is how they found their way on to our statute book. I believe that all EU-derived legislation should be reviewed at some stage; I am not sure this is the most pressing area, but it should certainly be reviewed.
When the EU introduced its short-selling rules in 2012, we had to follow, but it is far from clear that, left to our own devices, the UK would have introduced such rules. The FCA has been clear that the existing powers to trigger a ban on short selling would not be exercised lightly and the bar must be set very high. That must call into question whether we actually need the powers. The trouble with regulators is that, once they have powers, they never give them up voluntarily, even if they can never envisage when they would be used. A review would allow us to look at this again. We ought not to allow regulators to keep draconian powers to intervene in markets without very strong justification.
Against that background, I was particularly disappointed to see that the EU’s temporary—though extended several times—reduction of the threshold for notification of short selling, which expired when we left the EU, was almost immediately reinstated into UK law. That is not a good direction of travel.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with short selling. It can provide liquidity to markets, improve bid-ask spreads and assist in price discovery; it also offers a route to hedging long-only exposures. There are, of course, downsides, including the potential for unlimited losses, so the risks have to be well understood and managed. We recently saw in the US that some hedge funds got their fingers burned on short selling GameStop shares due to action taken by amateur investors; but that merely highlights the need for sound risk management—it does not speak to short-selling itself being a problem or suggest that powers are needed for market intervention.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; it is also something of a challenge as she speaks so authoritatively on matters such as these and I often find myself agreeing with her.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke compellingly in her introduction to this amendment. She made the point that she has misgivings about the practice. Clearly, for a practice that dates back to the first days of stock markets, short selling retains its ability to attract controversy. Indeed, a short seller was accused of manipulating the share price of the Dutch East India Company in Amsterdam as long ago as 1609. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, suggested that it is sometimes regarded as an evil practice, so I felt that it deserved a defender today.
The goals and effects of short selling are often misunderstood and, when markets enter a downturn, many are quick to call for short selling to be banned. While such bans are unfortunate, they have left us with a wealth of data on the effects of short selling and how the practice contributes to the proper functioning of markets. The practice of selling a stock short is always the same but the intention behind it varies considerably. At its most common and passive, short selling is a conservative investment technique used to hedge against risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has just highlighted, but obviously at the cost of forgoing some returns. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the volatile first quarter of 2020, the Alternative Investment Management Association, which represents 2,000 corporate members in 60 countries, reported that funds which had hedged in this way outperformed the broader market by 20%.
To be sold short, a stock has to be borrowed, and it will usually be borrowed from an asset owner for a fee. The fee helps the returns to the holders of that stock—in practice, anyone who participates in a long-term equity fund and, therefore, probably everybody involved in this debate. The fact of selling the stock helps create valuable liquidity, which is often essential to ensure the smooth functioning particularly of smaller markets, but it also works in reverse during periods of market turbulence. In practice, short sellers are often the buyers of last resort when markets are under pressure; they take profits in their short positions and therefore help to provide stability to markets.
The more controversial end of the short-selling spectrum is that populated by activist short sellers. They are often characterised as predators who create and exploit misery, but that is simply not the case. These investors act as the canaries in the coal mine. Short selling does not directly undermine the health of a company any more than buying its shares improves its fundamentals. Companies are not deprived of funds when investors sell shares, nor do they become financially stronger when investors buy shares in public markets. Short sellers cannot send a good business under. What they can do is expose bad business models, bad management, dodgy accounting, fraud and other bad behaviour. At a more mundane level, they can expose unjustifiable valuations.
There are plenty of recent examples but one will suffice as the regulatory reaction was instructive; here I am very grateful to Jack Inglis, the CEO of the Alternative Investment Management Association, who provided me with some detailed facts. In 2019, Wirecard in Germany famously went bust. It was at the time a member of the main German index, the DAX 30. The first queries into the company’s accounting practices date back to 2014, when short positions began to be initiated. However, when the pressure mounted on the company to explain itself, the German regulator instead went after journalists at the Financial Times who had published a deep dive into the company—and, of course, the short sellers. They filed a criminal complaint against them, accusing them of market manipulation, and, in February 2019, initiated a two-month ban on short selling the shares, citing the need to curb
“a serious threat to market confidence”.
As we all know, the company subsequently went bust, the subject of a multiyear fraud involving €1.9 billion going missing and the CEO being arrested, among other things.
Since then, Germany has become much more circumspect about joining other European states in banning the practice. Indeed, the regulator’s president apologised and paid tribute to those
“journalists, analysts or yes, let it be short sellers, who have been digging out inconsistencies persistently and rigorously.”
In saying this, he was following a long historical tradition—such bans are inevitably repealed.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 78, in the names of my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to commission a review of legislation relating to short selling. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom; I must say, I agree with everything they said.
From time to time in the UK and in other countries, financial regulators have sought to restrict short selling, as the British Government did to stabilise the market after the bursting of the South Sea bubble in 1720. While short selling has been blamed for market crashes and is considered unethical by some as it is a bet against positive growth, many economists and financial practitioners now recognise short selling as a key component of a well-functioning and efficient market, providing liquidity to buyers and promoting a greater degree of price discovery.
I note that, under the statutory instrument transposing the European regulation into UK law, the minimum threshold for the notification of short positions has been set permanently at 0.1% of the issued share capital of a listed company, whereas in the EU, the threshold will revert to the less onerous 0.2% of issued share capital on 19 March. I consider both thresholds unnecessarily restrictive and wonder why the Government have adopted a rule that will be even more cumbersome and bureaucratic than the EU’s, when the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of England have said that we will get rid of red tape. The EU will relax its red tape on short selling reporting on 19 March but we will not. That is disappointing, is it not? What does my noble friend the Minister have to say about that?
In any case, the competitiveness of the market would be best served by removing the current restrictions on short selling. However, I do not think it would be helpful to place in the Bill this kind of requirement, which will add to uncertainty over the freedom to sell short in future and send the wrong message about the kind of regulatory framework the Government intend to adopt.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, once again, I am moving outside of any area where I can claim expertise. Essentially, I have no problem with short selling in the right place and time and under the right regulations, but I am concerned that, in the current environment, any move to look at the regulations again would listen more closely to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—in other words, look for opportunities to reduce the restrictions on short selling.
We have had a number of exchanges on short selling in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, is particularly vocal, and I do not think that I represent him unfairly by saying that he believes that the restrictions on short selling that were set in place in 2012, which severely limited naked short selling on AIM, are too onerous and that relaxation would be a good thing. He would argue for bringing more liquidity into AIM. I remember that campaign, which was strong and led by companies that were either listed on AIM or wished to be so but that were concerned about becoming the target of speculators who were not interested in supporting sustainable growth but were very interested in bubbles. Of course, this is a risk that goes alongside naked short selling in particular.
I suspect that this issue will be reviewed; I am sure my noble friend Lady Bowles is right that it should be done in a much wider context—I think the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, agreed with that. But I would not work on the assumption that this comes from a concern that rules need to be tightened and safeguards increased; this will very quickly become a process of trying to see whether we can return to the old animal spirits and largely casino-like speculation that once fired London so powerfully and which many of us think largely contributed to the financial crash in 2007-8. While I understand the concerns of the City of London that it needs to make itself more of an exception in order to gather increasing amounts of business, I am rather disturbed if that mode of exception is to allow a great deal more risk to be taken in ways that then impact on the real economy.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, this request for a review of short selling is essentially a request to focus on just one of the aspects of the financial markets today that may contribute to enhanced instability in times of stress. It is not just short selling that involves the sale of borrowed assets—this is what the repo market, for example, is all about. The repo market was central to the dangerously short-term funding of the banking sector in the run-up to the financial crisis of 2007-9.
Of course, short selling is prominent because it is a factor in falling markets, when money is being lost, as opposed to similar practices in rising market bubbles, when money is being made. Of course, the short sellers sometimes get their comeuppance, as has been mentioned by several noble Lords in reference to the case of GameStop. The fundamental question is not whether short selling is a process that can be abused—of course it can. What is important is whether the very existence of the practice contributes to market instability and risk or, as has also been argued, to price discovery and greater liquidity.
Those questions may be asked of many practices in our financial markets today, and, at a time when the UK is rethinking its economic and financial future after leaving the European Union, perhaps the time is right for such a wider review of permitted practices. This could begin with consideration of the impact of trading in borrowed assets—as well as, of course, naked transactions—in forward markets.
Since the liberalising years of the 1970s and 1980s, a wide range of these market practices have developed, with potentially serious destabilising consequences—indeed, we have seen these. As such, does the Minister agree with the many noble Lords who have argued that it is time to stand back and think through whether matters have gone too far, are just right or have not gone far enough? Perhaps such a review is too specific for the regulatory framework review that is going on at the moment because, after all, that is about the framework. However, it is necessary to consider, from time to time, practices that will inevitably have downsides but may also have upsides. That sort of consideration should not be delayed at a time when market regulation is changing significantly, with the exit from the European Union.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is important to stress, as a number of noble Lords have done, that short selling is a legitimate investment technique that can contribute to orderly and open markets supporting many consumers. Taking short and long positions can ensure that investors are able to manage risk and volatility in their portfolio, particularly during uncertain times; for example, if a firm has purchased a large number of shares, that firm might want to short some of those shares if they have a volatile price.
As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering ably set out, the UK’s regulatory regime for short selling is predominantly set out in the short selling regulations, which were introduced in 2012 to regulate short selling practices while safeguarding companies and the financial system. Among other things, it requires persons to notify the FCA of the size of their short positions in shares traded on a UK trading venue. It also gives the FCA various powers to intervene in response to exceptional circumstances that pose a serious threat to financial stability or market confidence in the UK. These include requiring the notification or disclosure of short positions, as well as restricting short selling to periods of up to three months. Furthermore, the FCA can temporarily prohibit or restrict short selling when the price has fallen significantly during a single trading day relative to the closing price of that instrument on the previous trading day. This regime is working as intended, providing the necessary safeguards to allow the operation of a fair and effective market. The Government continue to work closely with the regulators and market participants to monitor the effectiveness of the entire regulatory regime to ensure that legislation continues to be fit for purpose and delivers on its objectives, in particular to support economic growth and maintain financial stability.
As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering noted on the example of GameStop, the UK short selling regime was not breached because it does not apply to shares admitted to trading on US trading venues. Furthermore, the regime that I have just set out that applies to short selling would mean that in such a scenario in the UK the FCA would have been able to identify short positions building up and would have been able effectively to engage with the firms holding the short positions in that case.
I am not sure that I recognise the characterisation of the Bank for International Settlements’ report set out by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, but I will happily write to her on that matter.
A number of noble Lords have spoken, from different perspectives, in favour of a review of short selling. In response to a number of direct questions about what jurisdictions such a review would look at or whether it would look at relaxing or shoring up such regulations, at this point the Government do not see this issue as the most pressing area of financial services regulation to look at. We see no need to conduct a review of this legislation at this time, so I ask my noble friend Lady McIntosh to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister and to all those who have contributed. I recognise the role that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, played in the adoption of the current EU regulation. I am grateful to my noble friend and others who set out the arguments on one side or the other. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and his earlier amendment calling for a review of all financial regulations and regulators’ rules, and I note that my noble friend Lady Penn does not see the need for this at present.
This is something that I will personally continue to monitor. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Noakes, who speaks with great authority and expertise on these issues, and my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Trenchard would prefer that many of the regulations would just go away, but I am rather pleased that they are not going away for the moment. My concerns have been addressed to a great extent. I will continue to support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s call for a further review of all these practices. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate these issues and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“FCA duty to regulate buy now, pay later firms
(1) Within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament regulations which confer a duty on the FCA to regulate—(a) buy now, pay later credit services, and(b) other lending services that have non-interest-bearing elements.(2) The duty conferred in regulations under subsection (1) must take effect no later than 6 April 2022.(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Chancellor to confer responsibility for regulation of the non-interest-bearing elements of buy-now-pay-later lending to the FCA, with such a duty to come into force no later than the beginning of the 2022/23 tax year.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, many colleagues will recognise Amendment 79 as a response to the recent publication of the Woolard Review into change and innovation in the unsecured credit market.
The Government have been on something of a journey on buy now, pay later products. In December 2020, the Economic Secretary resisted a similar amendment tabled by long-standing personal debt campaigner and MP for Walthamstow Stella Creasy. He said that while the Government were aware of potential risks resulting from a boom in the use of buy now, pay later products,
“we are yet to see substantive evidence of widespread consumer harm”,—[Official Report, Commons, Financial Services Bill Committee, 3/12/20; col. 398.]
and it would therefore be inappropriate to act.
To be fair to the Government, they did not want to pre-empt the findings of the Woolard Review, which was published a month ago and is a very strong piece of work. It warned of “significant potential customer harm” if there was not a role for the FCA. By bringing certain unregulated credit products under the FCA’s watchful eye, we could see requirements around affordability checks, as well as the introduction of proper protocols for individuals who find themselves struggling to repay the loans they have taken out.
The review also stressed the importance of ensuring a well-functioning debt advice sector, and the need for both government and regulators to take a more holistic approach to a range of issues around personal finance and debt. I know that this piqued the interest of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who has already dealt with the concept of financial well-being and will turn his attention to Victorian log-book loans shortly. We support his endeavours and hope that at the very least the Government will commit to a review of the antiquated legislation whose repeal was recommended by the Law Commission several years ago.
We strongly welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Woolard Review’s recommendations, as well as their commitment to implement the necessary changes as soon as practicable. It is in some ways a curious change of position, as the review’s discussion of theoretical risks does not appear to meet the evidence test set by the Treasury just three months ago. However, this is a policy change that we can support and, luckily for the Minister, this legislation provides a means of delivering on the Government’s promises.
No doubt we will hear later that this is a very complicated matter and the Treasury needs time to think through the consequences—intended and unintended. Mr Glen hinted at this back in December, talking about the need for the Government to “assess the options” and to weigh up whether they “would be proportionate” in responding to potential harm.
One worry previously cited by the Government related to the potential restricting of flexible payment options for such things as gym memberships or sport season tickets. Nobody would wish to restrict access to such options, in part because they have shown themselves over many years to be low risk. We therefore welcome the distinction made in the review, which talks of “certain new credit products” being brought under the FCA. Our Amendment 79 is more wide-ranging but is, as so often in Committee, a vehicle for debate.
Another worry of those who oppose regulation relates to the potential stifling of innovation in the sector. Of course we welcome new entrants and new services, but on the basis that they operate in a responsible manner. These products are booming in part because of Covid-19 and changes to peoples’ shopping habits. Buy now, pay later grew exponentially during 2020, with an estimated 5 million people using products from firms such as Klarna and Clearpay. The value of these transactions is in the billions, and that figure is likely to grow.
We do not oppose Klarna, Clearpay or other providers of these services. They offer a product which many shoppers wish to avail themselves of, and I am confident that such companies will continue to grow once subject to FCA regulation. All we are asking is that these players, as with others across the financial services sector, are subject to the correct balance of rights and responsibilities, including duties to those who may have problems with debt.
I have no doubt that the brilliant minds at the Treasury and the FCA can come up with a solution, and do so while the Bill remains under consideration. Our amendment mentions the 2022-23 tax year, and if we are to learn lessons from the past, including the failure to properly regulate payday lenders, surely we must keep this target at the forefront of our minds.
I know from previous discussions with the Minister and officials that they are working very hard on this. Therefore, I am hopeful of seeing a government text on Report, if not establishing the detail then committing to the principle and providing the powers that will be needed to implement changes in the coming months.
Other noble Lords with amendments in this group will be very keen to make their speeches, so I will not detain the Committee for too much longer. However, I want to voice support for the other amendments, including that from my noble friend Lord Stevenson referred to earlier in my remarks. I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment on access to bank accounts and cash. Sadly, we continue to see the withdrawal of bank branches and cash machines from towns and villages across the country, suggesting that previous initiatives have not had the desired effects. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by expressing support for Amendment 79, introduced by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. As the Woolard Review pointed out, the buy now, pay later issue is a hotspot at the moment and in need of urgent action. My noble friend’s amendment would require that the non-interest-bearing elements of lending under that regime should be regulated by the FCA, and we support that. I thank the Economic Secretary for the time given to us recently on this issue and I appreciate that this is not easy to regulate for. However, as my noble friend pointed out, there is time to get this right by the next financial year.
At heart, this looks like a consumer-friendly initiative—something we could all support. Credit-financed purchases have been with us for a long time, and there are some examples of activity in this field that could be damaged if the regulations to be brought forward are too aggressive. My noble friend mentioned employees, advances of salary and season tickets, and similar arrangements. However, the real profit motive which drives these schemes lies in the small print. Like so many similar schemes, these buy now, pay later schemes put pressure on customers to make unnecessary purchases, do not make effective credit checks, and there is evidence that they can cause mental health difficulties for those who sign up. I am sure that it would be possible to get this side of things properly regulated. However, what is less easy to regulate—although in fact it is far more damaging to hard-pressed consumers—are the penalties that get applied to missed payments and the excess interest that is loaded when payments are missed. In addition, compulsory insurance is often levied against default, links to loyalty follow-up purchases are imposed, and no real comparator APRs are somewhere available for those who wish to shop around before purchasing.
The focus placed on the FCA’s duty to promote competition rather than on a duty of care is an issue in play here. When the FCA was asked to regulate payday lenders, this House made it clear that its concern was the usurious rates of interest being charged, often many thousands of percentage points measured by APR. The solution favoured by the House was banning the products, which was why many of us were mystified by the FCA’s proposed solution of reducing the number of players in this market to a smaller number of well-capitalised companies—which indeed got the interest rates down, but only to around 1,000% APR, so consumers were left facing usurious rates. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that the approach that the Government are thinking of taking to buy now, pay later will not fall into the same trap as the payday lender regulations. The aim is consumer care and stamping out egregious behaviour, and not just promoting competition by allowing companies to rip off vulnerable consumers.
My Amendment 101, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for signing, is also about high-cost credit. As I said at Second Reading, it is high time we repealed the Victorian bills of sale legislation, which permits an egregious area of high-cost credit to continue and flourish outwith current consumer protection rules. Harm is being done.
Bills of sale are an early form of mortgage, aimed at goods and chattels and not property, which allow individuals to use goods they already own as security for loans while retaining possession of them. The use of bills of sale grew from fewer than 3,000 cases in 2001 to more than 30,000 in 2016. The number has dropped recently, but it is probably still in the order of 15,000 a year and it is going up. Ironically, bills of sale were legislated for before cars were invented, but they are used today mainly for what are called log-book loans, where a borrower raises cash on the security of his or her vehicle. Borrowers may continue to use their vehicle while they keep up the repayments, but if they default, the vehicle can be repossessed, sometimes from outside their front door, without the protections that apply to hire-purchase transactions or other consumer credit. It is also difficult to discover, when a car is being sold, whether it has a log-book loan attached. The register is kept by the High Court and it is not easily searchable. The new owner has no protection against losing the car if that loan has been defaulted on by the previous owner. This is just not fair.
Bills of sale are currently governed by two Victorian statutes, the Bills of Sale Act 1878 and the amendment Act of 1882—the statute was apparently so obscure in 1878 that it had to be re-regulated for in 1882. The legislation is described by the Law Commission as “archaic” and “wholly unsuited” to the 21st century. The current law creates hardship for borrowers and for private purchasers. The Law Commission argues that it imposes unnecessary burdens on lenders, and the lack of a proper chattels mortgage system restricts access to finance for unincorporated businesses and high-net worth individuals.
The great majority of bills of sale are taken out by borrowers who have difficulty in accessing other forms of credit. The current APR in a recent advert that I saw was 450%. The Law Commission says that the statutory form of a bill of sale as set out in the 1882 Act, which has to be followed absolutely to the letter, confuses borrowers rather than helps them to understand the consequences. It is clearly an area that should be cleaned up. A simple way, which is what I propose in my amendment, would be to repeal the Acts. While I accept that some people currently using log-book loans would be adversely affected by such a radical change, the greater harm lies in continuing the status quo.
I currently have a Private Member’s Bill on this issue, drafted by the Law Commission, which includes provision also for a goods mortgages scheme. Perhaps a way forward on this would be for the Government to agree to take on all or part of this Bill in the next Session using the special scheme for approving uncontentious Law Commission Bills. I would be happy to meet the Minister on this issue, if he could find the time, to see whether this would turn out to be a way forward.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Before I speak to Amendments 127, 131 and 136C in my name, I shall speak to Amendment 101, so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; Amendment 135, in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who is speaking after me so I shall not eat too much of his afternoon tea; and, briefly, Amendment 136F.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 135 in my name, although I find myself in agreement, as is so frequently the case, with the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on their amendments, and, of course, with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, who very kindly served as my warm-up act for my amendment. With such unanimity, let me explain what this is about.
At Second Reading, the Minister might have read that I raised two issues of concern. The first was that FOS and the FCA had been overzealous and overreached themselves. As a result, they had destroyed a segment of the financial services industry, namely the SIPP industry. I was disappointed that there did not seem to be anything in this Bill dealing with that, but I am pleased to say that I have had constructive meetings with the City Minister, John Glen, and representatives of the FCA and FOS and there are further meetings ahead. I accept that this matter will not be in this Bill, but perhaps it will be dealt with at a later stage elsewhere.
The second matter that I raised was about a situation in which FOS and the FCA were not doing enough to protect consumer interests, and I had an idea that might enable them so to do. As the Minister here today was not at Second Reading, I will just remind him of the reason why I have raised this. In the summer, I received a letter in the post with a credit card in my name, which was very nice except that I had not applied for it. It arrived unsolicited. I did not think too much of it, but a few days later—in those halcyon days of last summer when one could go outdoors and talk to one’s neighbours—a neighbour mentioned to me that they had seen some slightly unsavoury-looking individual rummaging through my letterbox at the front gate. I managed to put two and two together and worked out what had happened. Someone had found my home address and date of birth—which is not difficult, I am sorry to say, because they are available at Companies House; I have since changed that, but it is generally true. Then clearly he applied for a credit card in my name and was rummaging around in the letterbox to find it and to find the PIN, which followed in the post a few days later. It was clearly an unsatisfactory situation.
I contacted people in the company concerned, which I shall not name on this occasion, and complained that it was odd that they had sent me a credit card that I had not requested. I invited them to explain why and perhaps to change their procedures. They replied that they were sorry to hear it, but as I had not lost any money, there was nothing that they could do, or chose to do. Eventually, after a few letters and emails, they sent me a form to use to complain to FOS. I could not resist, of course, so I put a complaint into FOS—and it took FOS six months to reply to the complaint. After six months, a very well-crafted letter arrived from FOS, explaining to me that it could not help me because I was not actually a customer of the credit card company concerned. I was a potential customer of the credit card company concerned, and under the FCA handbook—the FCA instructs FOS—it has no power to deal with situations in respect of potential customers.
There were audible gasps of horror at Second Reading when I explained the situation, and my noble friend Lord Agnew agreed to write to me because he, too, was surprised. He wrote to me on 9 February and said:
“As you set out in your speech, the FCA is responsible for setting the rules for what complaints the FOS are able to consider. These rules do not allow FOS to consider a complaint from someone who is not a customer or potential customer of a firm. Extending eligibility to make a complaint to the FOS about a firm that they are not a customer or a potential customer of would be a very significant expansion of the FOS’s remit, which could result in delays to other complaints being resolved. However, the FOS are able to consider complaints from people who are being pursued for a debt that is not theirs following an identity theft. Therefore, had the attempted identity theft you experienced resulted in losses, then the FOS would have been able to consider a complaint from you.”
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for putting down Amendment 79; I will address that first and then move on to Amendment 93.
I spoke earlier about the difference between home credit companies and payday firms, so I shall not go down that route again. Buy now, pay later reminds me of the old days of hire purchase and some of the challenges that arose then. In many ways, this is almost equivalent to gambling: it plays on people’s weaknesses, who then build up a cycle of debt, as so many noble Lords have said—and lingering in the shadows, ready to swoop, are the claims management companies. Frankly, I do not see why, in this scenario that we all know is happening and will get worse, not least with the huge temptation that will come after furlough is lifted, we cannot act earlier than the next financial year. I do not know the answer to this, but I begin to wonder whether all these payday loans are registered. If they are not, something should certainly be done about that. Finally in this area, we need to ensure that the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service are really watchful of the action of the claims management companies when it gets to that state.
Turning to Amendment 93 on access to cash, I thank my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. As has already been said, 1.3 million people have no access to a bank account. Cash is vital, particularly to the elderly in our society. Covid has made the whole thing even more difficult; the impression has been left that those who carry any notes in their wallet could be carrying Covid. It took some weeks for Her Majesty’s Government to put out clear statements that that cannot happen—it cannot transmit Covid; nevertheless, the rumour was out there and has stuck. The problem then comes down to the many outlets with a sign up in the door or on the cash till basically saying “Cards only”. Indeed, our own refreshment department is card only. The question in my mind is whether it is legal to trade and offer card only. I would have thought the very fact of being given a licence to trade ought to mean they can trade but must accept legal tender in whatever form it is offered.
The Post Office provides a really good service, and I pay full tribute to what it has done in these months of turmoil that we have faced. However, from the little work that I have done, I understand that the people behind the cash machines—those promoting them and the companies involved—state that they are becoming increasingly unviable. If that is the situation, it is very worrying, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will take this very seriously and make sure that, one way or another, cash machines are still available to the more than 1.3 million people who do not have bank accounts.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments has an underlying theme of identifying the need for greater consumer protection in this area. I support the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, in the aims of the much-needed—it would appear—Amendment 79. If he is minded to say that there is no need for such an amendment, could the Minister, in responding to this debate, point to the consumer protection regulations for those using buy now, pay later services? Many of us have seen how the level of personal and household indebtedness has greatly increased due to the lack of regulation in the area identified by Amendment 79.
I will turn to Amendment 101 before coming back to the others. I entirely support the thrust of this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, supported by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. It seems extraordinary that when consumer protections apply to hire purchase of a vehicle, they do not apply to the circumstances that have been set out and so eloquently identified by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, so the time has come for these two Victorian statutes to be replaced. I would like the Minister to give a very good reason why this could not happen and why we cannot simply rely on hire purchase schemes, which give greater protections to the owner and the existing user of a vehicle, for this form of purchase.
Amendments 92 and 93 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer and Amendment 136C from my noble friend Lord Holmes identify the need for access to cash. I find cashless societies highly regrettable, particularly for elderly and other vulnerable people; I know there are some in Europe; Sweden is well down this path and Denmark is going down it. On continuing access to cash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has set out, and my noble friend Lord Holmes set out in his Amendment 136C, why it is extremely important to have proper protections in these areas.
My noble friend Lord Holmes pointed out the role of cash in Covid and why it goes to the heart of financial inclusion. Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I will take his thoughts one step further: I am deeply concerned that the Government propose that the amount available in a contactless transaction will imminently be increased to a maximum of £100. This will possibly enable many people to lose control of their finances, and it will open the door to greater fraud, even where a debit or credit card has not left your possession.
I have been the victim of such fraud. I am delighted to say that the credit card company I was with at the time reimbursed me almost immediately for the loss. What that means is that we are all paying for that loss as credit card or debit card users. The existing limit of £45 is right at the moment; I would hesitate to increase it to £100. I do not know whether there is a bottomless pit for endless frauds or what it means if the limit goes up to £100 on a contactless transaction. Are there limitless reserves? Who pays for the fraud in this regard?
In Amendment 136F, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has identified an area that is timely for review: the regulation of bailiffs and bailiff firms for the purpose of taking control of goods. I would be delighted to hear from the Minister that, even if the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, he will come forward with similar provisions as set out therein and recognise that there is a need for this to take place.
On Amendment 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh, I think all of us say, “There but for the grace of God go I”. Identity theft is a compelling crime. He set out some modest requirements that the Government would do well to follow.
I find that the amendments in this group have an underlying theme of the need for greater consumer protection. Although they are disparate in what they seek to achieve, each of them has merits to commend it. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the excellent case that has been made for each amendment in this group.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
I wish to speak in support of Amendment 79 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Tunnicliffe. It seeks to protect people from buy now, pay later firms that, in many instances, financially abuse people. It is important that people who find themselves in this position are financially protected. In many ways, the amendments in this group seek to do what the noble Baroness said: they are all about consumer protection.
In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the Woolard review, part of which clearly states the need for customer harm to be minimised and to come under the purview of the Financial Conduct Authority. From doing some background reading, I thought I learned that the Government were receptive to the review’s findings. In this regard, I wonder whether the Government, through the Minister, will bring forward on Report amendments to deal with this issue if they are not prepared to accept Amendment 79 today. However, it may be that they will accept it in view of their acceptance of the Woolard review.
At Second Reading, I highlighted this area and asked whether the Government would bring forward in Committee amendments to ensure that buy now, pay later credit services are brought into the scope of the Financial Conduct Authority to protect people from spending more than they can afford. Indeed, many people in this net take out further debt to repay initial credit, then end up with their debt spiralling out of control.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I read all the amendments in this group, and I found myself in support of every one of them. It is an excellent group. We all realise now that Amendment 136F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is in the wrong group, which I suspect is why she is not speaking on this group under the heading that I loosely call offences.
Picking up on that theme, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that he was the victim of an attempted fraud. It is astonishing that action did not follow. When we discuss that group of offences, one of my underlying concerns is about the lack of resources to pursue offences of any kind within the financial services spectrum, so I suspect that that is probably where the resistance has been coming from. It is an area that we need to resource properly, and we need to make sure that when a red flag is raised by an experience such as his there is follow-up, knowing that that will have been one of many attempts to defraud and that some of them will have succeeded. I hope that the Government will look at resourcing.
When I look at quite a number of the amendments in this group, whether on buy now, pay later, bills of sale or mortgage prisoners—which I think we will deal with in more detail later—it strikes me that all of them could have been headed off at the pass as problems if we had had an underlying duty of care. That takes me back to the first group of amendments that we dealt with, because with that in place we would not have had a regulator hanging back to see what the competitive implications were, whether or not various tests were reached and so on. It would have shaped very early the framework within which these activities sat. It really is a very strong argument for that duty of care.
On the excellent Amendment 79, I understand, following Chris Woolard’s report, that we are to expect action. The Woolard report raises the issues in detail; I will not repeat them here today but I will say this: if the FCA does nothing more than introduce an affordability test, which is how it tried to manage the payday lenders, we can guarantee that this House will intervene. We will expect stronger action than that, to make sure this problem is grasped—and not allowed to encourage people to fall into debt which frankly they cannot handle—and to put a proper framework around what is essentially a form of lending. I note in that context that Klarna is described today as the most valuable new start-up in Europe; its rate of growth and the appetite for buy now, pay later should set alarm bells ringing.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for supporting my Amendment 92. It is a probing amendment that deals with a crucial aspect of financial inclusion—I find echoes of this in some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. The inadequacy of basic bank accounts and the reluctance of many of the banks that offer them to engage with the needs of basic bank account customers is an underlying problem. It certainly means that basic bank accounts do not lead to appropriate vehicles for people in the most disadvantaged end to borrow or save, or to engage much more broadly with financial service products. In this day and age, that is a serious issue.
The situation is better today than it was a few years ago; I remember listening to high-street banks who would encourage those coming in to open a basic bank account to go down the street to Nationwide, where they would receive a friendlier reception. Basic bank accounts were regarded just as cost; this was not only inappropriate but meant that those who were welcoming ended up with the greatest share of the burden. I have always taken the view that trying to make an institution provide a service to a customer that they do not want will mean a failed product. We have about 7.5 million people with basic bank accounts and some 1.2 million people completely unbanked. We have to grasp this nettle.
In the United States, intended or not, the approach to people who have been shut out of the financial services system has been different and rather more effective. I would like the Government as well as the regulators to go away and look at it. Under the Community Reinvestment Act 1977, any bank that sought permission to acquire or merge with another bank—something almost every bank was doing at the time—was required to demonstrate that it fully served the disadvantaged communities in its service area. As a civil rights measure, banks were basically red-lining African American, Latin American or Central American communities. They were allowed to serve those communities by supporting local institutions identified as much better fitted to the purpose. This gave a new lease of life to community development financial institutions—CDFIs—of all kinds, including credit unions and community banks. The major banks invested in them to pass that threshold and be able to do acquisitions and mergers, and supported them with expertise in marketing and technology.
I would very much like to see that model here; that is the purpose of my amendment. The DWP’s 2019 report on financial inclusion states:
“Social and community lenders such as credit unions and … CDFIs … provide a lower cost alternative to high-cost lenders, they are small in comparison and lack the visibility and capability to compete at scale. The UK needs a much larger, more vibrant social lending sector”.
CDFIs know the needs of their clients—that is where their work is targeted. They often work with local charities and civil society groups to provide money advice, business advice and a wide range of additional support to make people financially capable.
Some investors in the UK are developing new entities in this space. I am aware of two potential new mutuals, one in the south-west and one in London, targeted at this group of people. The recent report by Ron Kalifa on fintechs identified that new fintechs have the capability to provide a tailored, low-cost offering. But the reality is that very few new players have emerged to serve the excluded sector, which tells me that the system that we have at present is not working. I want all major UK banks to engage with this sector and for the regulator to make it a requirement, not just an act of charity or public relations. That could be done within the banking licence or through regulation, but that would change it from being a passive set of actions to an active way in which to make sure that this gap in the market is filled by people capable of doing it well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and others who supported Amendment 93, which deals with the current and accelerating crisis of access to cash. The Government promised legislation at last year’s Budget, but there is no sign of it yet. Covid has driven a sharp drop in cash usage from three in 10 people before the crisis to just one in 10 people. That is a huge drop, but it still leaves about 5 million people who rely on using cash. Of course poverty and age are often a characteristic, but for many people it is a strong cultural preference; they want to use cash, and it is really their right.
As I understand it, the Government are going to follow the direction recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes; they will be able to confirm whether that is correct. That would permit retailers to provide cash without a purchase, which would help, but it is still very hit and miss. The Access to Cash Review done by Natalie Ceeney in 2019 highlighted the fact that retailers’ reluctance to accept cash is driving a lot of the change. Bank branches are closing across the country, especially in rural and disadvantaged communities. LINK, the largest cash machine network, has a contract with the Post Office, but it has about 18 months or so to run. Free-to-use ATMs are disappearing fast; when I talked to the industry, the estimate that I was given was that, if we do not do something quickly, half the ATMs in the country will be pay to use within 18 months.
We will need intervention by the FCA. Lots of commercial companies are involved in the system and any change or rationalisation throws up competition issues. The banks, for example, could be given an obligation to provide free access to cash but then allowed to use a utility model whereby they combine to provide free, shared smart machines capable of a range of services, perhaps with an assistant present to help users to navigate the machines. That changes how we think about this issue quite dramatically—and normally we would have time to do that, but we are now faced with an urgent situation.
I quote one final phrase of Natalie Ceeney’s report, because to me it says it all:
“It is … critical that action is taken now, so that no-one is left behind.”
I recommend that the Government take urgent action to deal with access to cash.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken very genuinely, because we are considering an important group of amendments on consumer access to credit. I am very grateful for the continued and thoughtful interest of noble Lords in this area. I assure all those who have spoken that we are listening carefully and will read this debate.
Amendment 79 would require the Treasury to introduce legislation to bring buy now, pay later products into FCA regulation, to which all speakers referred. The Government are committed to protecting the interests of consumers and, since Second Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said in moving his amendment so ably, the Woolard Review has recommended that these products should be brought into the scope of FCA regulation. The Government are acting swiftly, following the outcome to this review, just as the Economic Secretary committed to do during this Bill’s passage through the other place. That is why, on 2 February, we announced our intention to legislate to bring them into regulation. However, it is important to know that these products are interest free and, therefore, inherently lower risk than most other forms of borrowing, so it is essential that regulation protects customers in a way that ensures that they can continue to use these products to manage their finances, rather than more expensive forms of credit on which they might otherwise rely. The Government therefore intend to consult stakeholders to ensure that a proportionate approach to regulation is achieved.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I did not study this group with the care I should have, otherwise I would have realised what an extraordinarily rich group of amendments it is. They seek to address individual areas of customer concern and equalise the balance between customer and firm. It is interesting that, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, each has its merits.
I thank the Minister for his response and note the little chinks of optimism that he has allowed us to go away and, hopefully, talk. I hope he will also extend that invitation to many of the movers of amendments in this group, perhaps working together to see whether there are areas where more progress can be made. While normally we would not be happy with bits of legislation leaving most of it to happen via regulation, in comparison with the possibility of no finance legislation for a year or so, we must have an open mind about mechanisms going forward. Furthermore, I and my fellow noble Lords in this in no way seek that he accepts our wording. We know that the chances of our wording being acceptable to the Government are negligible, and therefore have an entirely open mind about his wording, provided that it leads to the same result.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned en passant the concept of duty of care. I know that terrifies Governments; they will have to come to terms with it sooner or later, but for the moment I recognise that we cannot get there. Sadly, in many areas of retail finance, products and services, sectors of the industry at least seem to have a duty to exploit. The problem is that this exploitation frequently leads to real harm to real individuals. These amendments are about real individuals and preventing real harm. The problem is that there is an asymmetry of power in the sector, certainly at the level of the individual, between the firms and your typical consumer.
Purists will argue that this asymmetry will be held back by competition. I am not that enamoured with competition. To me, competition is when, on a Friday morning, I drive out to do the shopping for the week and can turn left for Waitrose, straight ahead for Tesco or right for Sainsbury’s. That is real competition. Every week I make that decision—it is not like the bother and fear of moving one’s service providers in the financial world, if you are an unskilled typical consumer. Possibly nowhere in our modern society is the concept of intelligent regulation more necessary than in the financial services sector. The complexity on the one hand and the opportunity and possibility of getting into serious harm on the other are so significant that we must accept that intelligent regulation, of which the amendments in this group are all examples, must be part of the financial services landscape of activity. All we seek to do in this group is introduce intelligent pieces of regulation to make the whole thing fairer for the customer.
I look forward to further discussions with the Minister and his colleagues. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“Sharia-compliant financial services
Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the availability of Sharia-compliant financial services in the United Kingdom, including financial services to support students.”
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 80 and 88 are probing amendments. Their purpose is to allow the Committee to debate access to Sharia-compliant student finance. I raise this issue because there is no such access.
Noble Lords will know that Islam forbids interest-bearing loans. This prohibition can be and is a barrier to Muslim students going on to attend our universities. I first became aware of this when I visited the Preston Muslim Girls High School as part of the Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools programme. I talked about the work of the House and tried to answer the girls’ questions. There was one question I could not answer: why was there no Sharia-compliant system of student finance?
Many of the girls came from deeply religious backgrounds and would not be able to accept interest-bearing loans. This meant that they could not go on to university, which they were certainly qualified to do. Ofsted rated their school as outstanding on every measure. The headteacher explained to me that, when tuition fees were low, many Muslim students were able to attend university financed by family and friends, but, since 2012, this had become much more difficult because of the very large increase in fees and the real rate of interest now payable on student loans. The situation became even worse when maintenance grants were replaced by interest-bearing loans.
The Government have known about all this since 2012. In early 2014, the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the issue. The consultation generated an astonishing 20,000 responses. The Government’s report on the consultation noted:
“It is clear from the large number of responses … that the lack of an Alternative Finance product as an alternative to conventional student loans is a matter of major concern to many Muslims.”
This same report also identified the solution: a Takaful, a well-known and frequently used non-interest-bearing Muslim financial product. The Government explicitly supported
“the introduction of a Sharia-compliant Takaful Alternative Finance product available to everyone”.
That was six years ago, and nearly four years ago we passed enabling legislation in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, but there is still no Sharia-compliant student product available. Over the past five years, I have repeatedly pressed the Government to act. I have spoken in debates in the Chamber; I have asked Questions, oral and written, and I have written directly to the Minister. I last spoke about the issue at length in the Queen’s Speech debate in October 2019. Soon after that, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, wrote to me saying:
“The position remains the same as when the Government responded to your PQ in July. We will set out plans for implementation as we conclude the Post 18 Review. This will ensure that students in receipt of an Alternative Student Finance package are not disadvantaged compared to other students in receipt of mainstream student support.”
As I had heard nothing further, I emailed the Minister on 4 January this year. I pointed out that, since her letter to me, one more student cohort had entered higher education, and another was now preparing to do so, but there was still no available Sharia-compliant student finance. I asked her for an update on implementation. I asked whether we were still waiting for a formal response to the Augur review and suggested that we should not. I pointed out that the Government had recognised the problem more than six years previously and had had the power to deal with it for four years. I sent this email on 4 January and I have had no reply.
We are having this debate as students are considering their university choices for next September. Once more, there will be devout Muslim students who, though qualified, will not be going to university because of the lack of a sharia-compliant student finance product. It is very hard to understand or excuse the Government’s behaviour over this issue. They know the problem, acknowledge the need to act and have taken the powers to introduce the remedy, yet nothing has happened. It is shameful that the Government have allowed so much time to elapse and that they display such a casual neglect of and disregard for our Muslim community.
At the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2013, David Cameron promised to introduce a sharia-compliant student finance scheme, saying:
“Never again should a Muslim in Britain feel unable to go to university because they cannot get a student loan—simply because of their religion.”
When will the Government finally make good on this eight year-old promise? I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to support my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, who has clearly positioned the problem. I have had the privilege of working in Pakistan—which is almost totally Muslim—and India, which has a very significant Muslim population, as well as Sri Lanka, where a big majority of the minorities are Muslim. Locally, they do not seem to have a problem in dealing with this issue; can we not learn from them, particularly Pakistan? We have high commissioners here, so why do we not at least find out from them what the problem is in relation to the UK—and get their help?
This issue is increasing. The sharia families who are really strong in their faith increasingly want to send their children to university—that is part of the philosophy of that faith—and here we are, years down the track, making it very difficult for them. We must do something about it. In towns and cities such as Luton, Leicester and some of the other major ones in the north of England—let alone London—there are students and families who do not know what to do about it. We have to take some action.
It goes further than that, does it not? We want students from overseas; we are seeking them. There are sharia-compliant students from the Muslim fraternity overseas who want to come. I really do not see why this is so difficult to do, so I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: Her Majesty’s Government need to solve this problem; sit down with the sharia-compliant banks and, if necessary, with the high commissioners to seek their support and help; and solve this problem.
Frankly, it is an embarrassment for any of us who have good friends in that community—as I do and I guess most of your Lordships may well do—to find that potential students are not able to pay their tuition fees and receive student maintenance grants without being penalised or having to find some method to go around the scheme, where the senior mothers and fathers are doing that at all.
As such, I make a plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench: this is not a party-political issue or anything like that—this is just good and straightforward. The problem is known about and has taken years to be solved; can we please take a significant step forward?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I believe the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for the work he has been doing on this issue over the last nine years. I have been involved in part of the process, which is why I put my name down to speak: like him, I feel rather confused and not a little embarrassed that no action has been taken in recent years.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I first got involved in this when policy changed in the early part of the coalition Government and new arrangements were introduced for interest-bearing loans and, eventually, maintenance loans. I recall that in about 2014 there was the consultation process described by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. As I was then the Labour spokesperson on higher education in your Lordships’ House, I got a lot of correspondence, exactly as he described, from potential students and some existing students. Potential students wanted to know whether at the time they applied and went to higher education there would be a real chance of there being loans that they could take out that would not be a problem in terms of sharia compliance. More worryingly, students who were already at university in the middle of their course found that they could not continue without a guarantee in some form that finance would be available to allow them to see out their course.
In a sense, we were all trying to do the same thing. Indeed, I sat in on meetings with the Higher Education Minister at the time, Jo Johnson, and other colleagues in the House. We had meetings with representatives of Muslim students and the community at which a lot of these issues were explored. When the Government took powers in the 2018 Act, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to ensure that they could facilitate the production of loans of this type, we thought the matter was over. Indeed, I wrote to a number of people I had been working with saying that we thought that the process had reached its natural conclusion and that it was just a matter of time before the Government brought forward the necessary proposals.
As we have discovered, that has not happened, and although there have been promises and suggestions that it was coming, it has not. The Government have got themselves into a very bad position here. I cannot believe that it is impossible to go forward—as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, just to do it—and I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. If there is anything we can do to help, he should be sure that there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, no politics in this. We simply want a good job done to make sure that all people who contribute and wish to contribute to higher education in this country can do so and are not in any sense disadvantaged simply because of their religion.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, any one of us can go on to our smartphone and find an app for halal financing for someone who wants to buy a car or a house—they are called “halal mortgages”—or who needs money to support a small business. It is incredible and quite incomprehensible that we do not have a sharia-compliant version of student loans. It is not as though we do not know how to do it or the institutions do not exist in the UK. I suspect that many noble Lords have been, like I have, at general meetings of the financial services industry where, as well as talking about being world leading in terms of green finance, we have talked about London as a very important centre for sharia-compliant finance as we attempt to expand and have a much greater global reach. Six years is an incredible time to wait. It has been four years since enabling legislation was put in place.
I was looking at a Metro article on the web about students who were interviewed in 2019. Some had managed to put together a way to pay their student fees. One said:
“I was constantly broke as a student and never, ever did anything remotely fun. I always felt too guilty if I spent any money on myself.”
Students who started out and found that they just could not keep going left and went to work, but then found that, as this lady said,
“to progress further I need that degree so the plan is to go back.”
However, this young woman has no idea how to finance it. Another youngster talked about the stress of
“having to live scrupulously and scrape up enough to pay each instalment in time.”
We really should not be putting any student into this situation. I do not understand the delay. There does not seem to be an obstacle in terms of designing the appropriate facility or the appropriate legislation. I hope that the Ministers who are here, all of whom are people of understanding and sympathy, will go and put pressure on the Government to take this from the bottom of the in-tray and put it at the top. It could be a minor amendment that we make on Report.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the last Labour Government were supportive of facilitating access to sharia-compliant financial services, and we understand—and welcome—that Her Majesty’s Government have made similarly helpful noises during their time in office. This is an interesting time for financial services as some firms prioritise divesting from fossil fuel projects, and so on. If such moves are possible, surely we can make progress on services that do not have involvement in industries such as gambling or alcohol?
Amendment 88 raises the issue of sharia-compliant student finance, which was subject to a recent e-petition on the Parliament website. In their response, the Government recalled their consultation on the matter back in 2014 and said that they intend to publish an update on progress later this year. While we appreciate that it takes time to engage with communities to understand their needs, evaluate feedback, devise new schemes and ultimately make them operational, there has been a significant wait for new products, and we need evidence from the Minister that we will soon turn a corner.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as has been eloquently expressed, these amendments relate to sharia-compliant finance and specifically to the availability of sharia-compliant student finance products. This is an area where the Treasury and the Department for Education are in close contact. The Government are committed to ensuring that all students in England with the potential to benefit from further and higher education are able to access it. I know from this debate and from others that many noble Lords of all parties are keen to see action on this.
On the specific amendments, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, stated are probing, Amendment 80 seeks to require the Treasury to publish an assessment of the availability of sharia-compliant financial services, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that no UK customer is denied access to competitive financial products because of their faith. As referred to in the debate, the United Kingdom is indeed the leading western hub for Islamic finance, a position we have maintained for several years now. Treasury Ministers and officials conduct regular engagement with key stakeholders in the Islamic finance sector to inform our policies.
Amendment 88 seeks to add access to sharia-compliant student finance to the FCA’s objectives within Section 1B of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It would be ineffective to add this objective because student loans are exempt from FCA regulation, meaning that the FCA would not have the powers to fulfil this duty. Additionally, student finance provision is a devolved matter while the FCA is our UK-wide regulator. Finally, as I have explained, work is under way in government to ensure that all eligible students are able to access student finance.
A number of noble Lords commented on the pace of this work. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Government published a consultation in September 2014 into a potential model that could form the basis of a new student finance product. The Government signalled in the consultation response that they would need to take new primary powers to enable the Secretary of State for Education to make alternative payments in addition to grants and loans. These were secured in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The Government have also carried out work with the Islamic Finance Council UK on an alternative student finance product for tuition fee and living cost support compatible with Islamic finance principles.
As has been stated, the implementation of alternative student finance is currently being considered alongside the review of post-18 education and funding. The interim report of that review was published on 21 January and the review is due to conclude alongside the next multi-year spending review. The Government will therefore provide an update on alternative student finance in due course. We should not underestimate the scale of complexity here. The Department for Education is trying to replicate a system of student finance that delivers the same results as now where students do not receive any advantage nor suffer any disadvantage through applying for alternative student finance.
I am sure that our colleagues in the departments concerned have heard the concerns expressed by noble Lords. I hope that, for these reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate on this group. I confess that I should have said clearly at the beginning that my amendments and their text were not the issue; the amendments were simply the fossilised remains of my scope negotiations with the Public Bill Office and a means of introducing the subject of sharia-complaint student finance.
I must say that I am, as usual, extremely disappointed by the Minister’s evasive and unconvincing response. It is a great pity. I still do not understand why there has been such a long delay in addressing this serious problem. The Minister has not offered a reason for the delay except to point at various complications. Perhaps I should remind him that the takaful version of the Help to Buy mortgage system was introduced from a standing start in six months. This has taken nearly seven years, and we have not got there yet. I simply do not understand why this is going to be prolonged and why the Minister cannot give us any assurance about a firm date for the introduction of a sharia-compliant student product.
I also do not understand—I never did—why the Augar review is at all relevant; perhaps the Minister can explain why at some other point. However, I understand that the Muslim community continues to suffer a direct disadvantage without any good reason or plausible excuse. The Government are acting in a completely mean-spirited and heartless way. They are failing in their moral duty, failing to fulfil their explicit promises and failing to provide any real comfort that they might eventually do what they should have done long ago. They are behaving neglectfully and really rather disgracefully. We will return to this issue later.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Does the Minister wish to speak further? No? Does the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, wish to withdraw his amendment?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 86.
Amendment 86
Lord Blackwell
“PRA and FCA joint coordination committee
(1) The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3F (with-profits insurance policies) insert—3FA PRA and FCA joint coordination committee(1) In exercising their general duties and their duty to exercise coordinated exercise of functions, the PRA and FCA must establish and maintain a joint regulatory coordination committee to ensure their activities are consistent and proportionate in meeting their respective general duties and objectives.(2) The committee membership shall be—(a) the Governor of the Bank of England as Chair,(b) the Chief Executives of the PRA and FCA, and(c) two independent non-executive directors of each of the PRA and FCA.(3) The committee must review—(a) how their combined exercise of functions accords with each organisation’s individual duties and objectives, and with the memorandum of understanding between the FCA and the Bank of England; (b) their combined supervisory agenda for each of the five largest banks and five largest insurance companies they regulate; and(c) their combined supervisory agenda for any other dual-regulated entities they identify as systemically important;in order to ensure consistent priorities and proportionate impact.(4) Where the committee concludes that the combined exercise of functions by the PRA and FCA is not consistent and proportionate it must report that to the PRA and FCA boards, which must consider what changes might be made to address the concern.(5) The committee shall meet at least once every year.””
Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]
My Lords, once again I draw the Committee’s attention to my current and recent interests as set out in the register.
The purpose of this amendment is to place an obligation on the two regulators—the PRA and the FCA —to co-ordinate their agendas and priorities to ensure that their combined activities are consistent and proportionate in meeting their respective duties and objectives in terms of the burden of regulation on the industry in general and, in particular, the regulatory burden that they place on major financial institutions.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the motivation for this amendment concerning co-ordination of regulators and combined regulatory agendas. Of course, there is already an MoU between the PRA and the FCA about modes of co-operation, who leads on which issues, and how to escalate to the two CEOs to resolve. I took the opportunity to remind myself of it; it is only an agreement to consult on deliberations that are equally relevant to both regulators’ objectives or which might have a material effect on the others’ objectives. Senior executives have discussions every quarter and report to their respective boards. It is perhaps disappointing that it does not contain more. It reminded me that it can be hard to force independent regulators to co-operate, especially at the moment that they are created. They fiercely guard their independence, not just wanting to do things their own way but vehement that they are obliged to do so.
In the EU, my committee insisted that there be a joint committee of the three regulators; we got it into legislation, albeit in a very sketchy form, with the intention that they got together to thrash out different positions. However, in that, they stayed as equals and there was no overarching power, rather as it is in the MoU between the PRA and the FCA. I can tell you that the regulators did not like the idea. When they came to committee hearings, we had to keep asking whether they had met yet. The answer was that they were concentrating on their own set-up and procedures first. Eventually, there came to be a few problems and, as happened back then in the EU, the Parliament was seen as part of the solution. So, they came to me, discovered that I knew all about this since industry had alerted me as well, and, after a chat and—perhaps—a bit of pressure, I remember saying that that was why we had invented the joint committee and kept asking about it. Slowly, they started to use it, then decided it was quite a good thing and, finally, wondered how they could ever have done without it; maybe they were also a little afraid of what Parliament might say if they did not make it work.
I have thought about that experience and whether the UK is better off with the MoU—which actually has more definition in it—or worse off because, in the end, it reinforces territories rather than being a less formal get-together. There is a problem with the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, in that it is formalised with the Governor of the Bank of England as chair. I am not sure that establishing a pecking order as it does is the right thing, even if it does end up going back to the two CEOs, which, of course, is where the MoU takes it all to anyway. I certainly do not like it as a step towards abandoning the “twin peaks” idea.
The present Governor also has FCA experience but, in the circumstances, that might complicate matters. One thing the amendment proposes is for the joint committee to check that the MoU is working. That check is important; it will surprise nobody that, in my view, if the MoU is not working, that is just the sort of matter that Parliament should get involved with to see if it can catalyse some action. The rest of the amendment also seems to be on things Parliament should be asking about and could ask to have reports about. Although I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has directed attention towards the right body, he highlights some issues on which the regulators should be quizzed.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blackwell’s Amendment 86 identifies a very real problem that has existed since the Government decided to abolish the Financial Services Authority and split responsibility for conduct and prudential regulation.
I was never in favour of splitting the FSA. It had certainly failed as a regulator, as the financial crisis laid bare, although it must be said that other regulators around the world, whether combined or separate, fared no better. The FSA had not managed to get the balance right between conduct and prudential regulation; it had an obsession with conduct matters and treating customers fairly, which often dominated its thinking, while banks in particular were allowed to run on wafer-thin capital ratios. It needed reform rather than a wrecking ball.
When they were separated by the Financial Services Act 2012, many concerns were expressed about the possibility of a lack of co-operation. As has been said, a number of mechanisms were put in place, including the statutory duty to co-operate, the memorandum of understanding and cross-membership of the boards of the PRA and the FCA. However, as my noble friend Lord Blackwell explained, it has not always worked well in practice. There are problems of overlap and overload. Some issues, such as cybersecurity, are of interest to both the PRA and the FCA. Such an overlap comes with the split between the two regulatory peaks, but often they focus on the issues in different ways, on different timescales and with different objectives. This is often inefficient from the perspective of regulated firms.
The cumulative impact of the requirements of the PRA and the FCA can lead to significant overload. There is no real prioritisation mechanism. Regulated firms can be bombarded by each regulator and, even if the individual regulator prioritises its own demands, which is not always the case, there is no real mechanism for the competing demands of the FCA and the PRA. For example, I recall in the middle of stress testing, which is led by the PRA and tends to absorb the resources of subject matter experts specialising in credit risk, the FCA produced big data demands in exactly the same area and requiring exactly the same subject matter experts. It would not have occurred to either regulator to see regulatory demands from the other regulator as more important than its own.
I support the aims of this amendment. Whether another committee would have any impact is another matter, especially if it met only once a year. We must remember that the tripartite arrangements that failed during the financial crisis looked good on paper. It was just that they were never taken seriously and were allowed to fall into disuse. The same could happen to a committee.
My noble friend might want to look at how his amendment could be improved by incorporating an element of reporting to Parliament. On the first day of Committee, we debated parliamentary accountability more widely in the context of the new rule-making powers that are being transferred to the FCA and the PRA. The new accountability arrangements, which some of us advocated, could include examining how well the regulators are working together and co-ordinating their activities; that should be strongly considered if my noble friend chooses to bring this issue back on Report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am looking closely at Amendment 86, introduced so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Blackwell, and asking myself why it would be needed in view of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
These are both deemed to be independent bodies. While my noble friend Lord Blackwell has rightly identified a number of shortcomings, I do not really understand why a joint co-ordinating committee, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out and as it says in proposed new subsection (5), would meet only at least once every year—I presume it could meet more often.
In any event, I imagine that these issues are dealt with to some degree by the Treasury Select Committee in the other place. My noble friend Lord Blackwell probably has identified issues but there are very good reasons—he set out the background to this—why the PRA and the FCA replaced the FSA. Each should be able to enjoy a degree of independence in its operation. My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly identified a number of areas of overlap and overload, but I think that this can be addressed through the functioning of the memorandum of understanding. I struggle to see why this amendment is required.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is sitting today in front of a superb backdrop of the Houses of Parliament—in my opinion, one of the best views in Europe. I await my noble friend the Deputy Leader’s comments with great interest.
I have great respect for my noble friend Lord Blackwell and for all he has achieved. However, I have some doubts about this proposal, not least the amendment’s apparent focus on bigger operators. For me, the second-class treatment of small operators in the financial services sector as a result of regulation by two regulators is the bigger issue. It is there that the pressure on investment funds and on capital, the prioritisation of IT resources and the lack of management capacity—described so well by my noble friend Lord Blackwell—is at its most apparent. Smaller firms also suffer from the overlap and overload mentioned by my very experienced and expert noble friend Lady Noakes. I should say that I speak as a non-executive director of Secure Trust Bank, which is a smaller bank.
I was pleased to see the Chancellor focus on smaller businesses in last week’s Budget—for the first time, I felt—although I am not sure how much that will help in the financial services context.
In conclusion, is this amendment necessary, or can we tackle the issues rightly raised by my noble friend in another way?
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blackwell’s amendment is an interesting idea and deserves serious consideration. It requires the establishment of a new joint co-ordination committee, comprising delegates of both regulators under the chairmanship of the Governor of the Bank of England. As long as we retain a “twin peaks” regulatory structure, it is clearly right that both regulators carry out their duties in a co-ordinated manner, ensuring that their activities are consistent and proportionate in meeting their respective general duties and objectives.
At the time of the introduction of the “twin peaks” system, we were told that it was necessary because there was a conflict between the interests of the consumer and those of the Government in maintaining financial stability. However, the FCA is responsible for both consumer protection and the prudential regulation of all regulated companies except very large ones that are considered systemically important. Might not the best way to be sure that the regulators’ actions are consistent and proportionate be to merge them into a single regulator—the FSA—but leave the Bank responsible for macroprudential regulation?
As I failed to add my name to the speakers’ list for the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 2, debated on 22 February, I was able to speak only briefly after the Minister. My noble friend’s amendment deals with much the same ground, which gives me an opportunity, with the Committee’s leave, to make some of the points that I had wanted to make on the first day.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to ensure consistent priorities between the two regulators. This is hard to do if the objectives confer conflicting priorities on the two regulators. Indeed, it can be argued that being dual regulated at all is time-consuming, expensive and unattractive. However, I strongly believe that we must move quickly to maximise the attractiveness of London’s markets in order to be assured that the City, including our wider financial services industry, will remain one of the two truly leading global financial centres, with all that that means for our prosperity as a nation.
In 1999, I was privileged to serve on the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, during my first incarnation in your Lordships’ House. At that time, we considered arguments that the FSA should be given a competition objective as a fifth objective. This was supported by the BBA and the ABI, but the Government argued, and the committee ultimately decided, to put competition and competitiveness among the principles rather than the statutory objectives. Two arguments that led us so to decide were that ensuring competition was the primary task of the OFT, not the FSA, and that making competitiveness of UK financial services an objective could damage the FSA’s relations with overseas regulators. Our report at that time noted that some members of the committee would have preferred competition and competitiveness to feature among the FSA’s statutory objectives.
Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1999. Following the financial crisis of 2008, the FSA was split into two regulators, and we adopted the “twin peaks” model that had first been introduced by Australia. On 22 February, my noble friend Lord Howe said that discussions about the balance of the regulator’s objectives
“are not arguments for today. The Government’s future regulatory framework review is considering how the UK’s financial services regulatory framework must adapt to reflect our future outside of the EU. That has to be the right place to consider issues such as the regulators’ objectives”.—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. GC 142.]
The Minister’s response was disappointing. Does he not agree that our departure from the EU and freedom to adopt an entirely different, principles-based, outcomes-oriented regulatory model suggests that the Government should look seriously at this question as soon as possible?
Some encouraging proposals are included in the phase 2 framework consultation, such as the introduction of “activity-specific regulatory principles”, described in section 2.38. However, it seems that the Government do not plan wholesale changes. They conclude in section 2.46 that these regulatory principles could bring about
“enhanced regulator focus on … competitiveness, without needing to change the regulators’ overarching objectives”.
Such an approach is dangerously complacent. Can the Minister confirm that the Government agree with Andrew Bailey that it would be unrealistic and dangerous to stick to EU banking rules in the future? Surely, in financial services, where we enjoy the advantages of scale and can influence the emergence of global consensus around principles-based regulations that support innovation, we should move quickly to establish the right regulatory framework to do that.
Co-ordination between our two regulators has served us fairly well to date, but it is likely that the regulators will continue to face difficulties inherent in a multi-agency regulatory structure where the performance of one regulator is often dependent on that of the other. There is also a challenge in establishing the borders of financial regulation for allocating functions between the FCA and the PRA. In particular, the increased focus on systemic stability and macroprudential regulations has resulted in overlap between the two regulators. The FCA has responsibility for the prudential regulation of more than 24,000 firms in the UK, whereas the PRA is responsible only for the prudential regulation of some 1,500 systemically important banks and investment firms. Further, the “twin peaks” system is inherently anti-competitive for dual-regulated banks and investment companies, which have to report a large amount of monthly data in two different formats to two different regulators.
The PRA’s secondary competition objective is, by definition, subordinate to its other two objectives. In effect, it is simply a principle to which the PRA should have regard. Many countries have financial regulators that incorporate some kind of competition objective among their statutory objectives, and I do not think that there is any evidence that this has damaged their relationships with either the PRA or the FCA.
Furthermore, in his recent report on competition and markets, John Penrose found that
“our independent competition and consumer regulation regime currently has a good reputation, but not a great one. International rankings put our major competition institutions behind USA, France, Germany, EU and Australia. We have stopped making progress on cutting the costs of red tape and, in recent years, have gone backwards”.
This is largely as a result of a constantly increasing number of sectors, including many in financial services, being caught by the tentacles of the very cumbersome, expensive and complicated system of regulation that has been increasingly pushed by the Commission in the interests of harmonisation.
We have prospered and succeeded as a global financial centre not because of our EU regulatory framework but in spite of it. We may have devised much of the financial regulation ourselves and may even have gold-plated some of it, but we did not choose to work within the codified structures on which European law is based. Besides, our regulators are not that different from anyone else’s: they like to make rules, and gold-plating has been the only way that they could do that in recent years.
As Barnabas Reynolds explains well in his recent paper, published by Politeia and entitled Restoring UK Law: Freeing the UK’s Global Financial Market, common law is
“pivotal to the success of a global financial centre … A key element of London's attractiveness to investors is its legal framework, which underpins a flourishing commercial environment with the rule of law”.
I worry that the Government do not yet recognise that we have to replace the entire directives-based, cumbersome, EU-derived financial services rulebook and go back to something more like how we used to regulate: based on common law principles and outcomes. There is huge resistance to change among trade associations and larger financial services groups because the present system helps the strong incumbent against the innovator and the challenger—and is, in fact, a form of protectionism.
I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister intends to do to move in the direction in which we need to go. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment may provide a first step on that journey.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I for one would be very reluctant to go back to the pre-2008 principles-based approach to regulation that led us into a long, slow crash that, frankly, seriously undermined the financial stability of the UK and caused years of austerity. I do not think that is a good example to hold up of the world that we want to return to.
When the FCA and PRA were created—at that point the latter had a degree of independence from the Bank of England, although I think the Governor was always going to be its chair—one of the reasons that it was important to keep some distinct separation was to prevent the groupthink that had been fundamental to the failures that led to 2007-08. Those were failures to identify systemic risk, to ask questions, to create challenge and to recognise that conduct and prudential regulation are equally important in keeping a system as complex and difficult to regulate as the financial services industry on some kind of transparent and rational platform.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, those of us who were involved in the discussions on the Financial Services Act 2012 will no doubt remember the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, then speaking for the Government, revealed that the principals of the tripartite committee—the noble Lord, Lord King, Gordon Brown and Howard Davies—had never met. He then revealed that the committee had slowly moved down in terms of the seniority of the officials who attended, and it was basically steadily downgraded into complete irrelevance. It was a co-ordinating committee between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury, and it did not meet. What this suggests to me is that an effective committee to deal with some of the issues of co-ordination, which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, in moving his amendment, must have an organic purpose identified and shared by the participants. There must be, if you like, some enthusiasm about the operations of the committee which encourages everyone to participate fully.
In the discussion we have had on this amendment, I have been struck by the nostalgia for the FSA. I shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the feeling that breaking up the FSA was unnecessary. Indeed, I think it was mainly done to show that something was being done rather than having to face up to the intellectual, analytical and groupthink failures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred. However, if there is the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has identified, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has once again come up with the right answer, which is that there would be an organic interest of both to work together if they had to report to a suitably well-resourced and tough parliamentary committee which then ensured not only that the conditions of the MoU were being followed but that other identified overlaps were being dealt with in a productive way. So I think we come back once again to the debate we had concerning parliamentary scrutiny and identify, yet again, a positive role for Parliament in this respect.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this debate has taken us back to a number of the issues that were brought sharply into focus during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2012. It has been useful. I therefore begin by assuring the Committee that the Government agree that we now have an important opportunity, not least in the wake of our exit from the EU, to review our regulatory framework and ensure that it is high-quality, agile and fit for the future. I assure my noble friend Lord Trenchard in particular that we will progress the future regulatory framework review as a priority and take specific action in high-priority areas, as I have set out in previous debates. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not rehearse the remarks that I made in our earlier debate on competitiveness—a subject to which we will return, I am sure.
Amendment 86 seeks to establish a new joint co-ordination committee for the PRA and FCA to ensure that their activities are consistent and proportionate. Of course, the Government agree that it is important that the PRA and FCA work closely together and take a co-ordinated approach to the regulation and supervision of firms. However, I respectfully submit that this amendment is not necessary to ensure that that is the case. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell noted, the PRA and the FCA have different statutory objectives, which will naturally—and, on occasion, rightly—lead to differing priorities as these objectives are pursued.
I note the reservations expressed by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard. However, this model was agreed by Parliament in the Financial Services Act 2012 as part of the post-crisis reforms, and the Government and regulators have taken a number of actions to support and improve co-ordination between the institutions while they carry out their different objectives. I believe that this addresses in a very real way the issue that my noble friend Lord Blackwell seeks to highlight through his amendment.
As mentioned in the amendment itself, there is already a memorandum of understanding between the FCA and the PRA, as set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act as amended. The MoU sets the framework for co-operation on a number of issues, particularly dual-regulated entities. In April 2020, the regulators introduced the new Regulatory Initiatives Grid, supported by a senior co-ordinating forum. The grid’s purpose is to increase co-ordination across the regulatory landscape. It provides a user-friendly overview of upcoming changes to allow the sector to plan for the future more effectively.
The senior co-ordinating forum is chaired jointly by the chief executive of the FCA and the chief executive of the PRA. It discusses the combined impact of regulatory initiatives across the financial services sector, and seeks to allow the Government and regulators to identify and address any peaks in regulatory demands on firms. The forum also provides a clearer picture of upcoming initiatives so that firms are better placed to plan for them, supporting the regulatory principles of proportionality and transparency.
I hope that those remarks are helpful in providing the background to the co-ordination that we have seen put in place and that, therefore, my noble friend Lord Blackwell will feel sufficiently reassured to be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blackwell (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very helpful discussion. In moving this amendment, I was not advocating recreating the FSA; there may be a debate about that at some point in time. My point was that, having split out these separate objectives, there are points at which there are conflicts and that does not remove the need to resolve those conflicts or to have a mechanism to do that.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. Her experience with the EU is clearly very relevant. I have, of course, studied the memorandum of understanding between the two regulators, but my reading is that it is much more about setting out the clarity of their individual roles and their rules of engagement, including such things as exchange of information. It does not require them to resolve issues of conflict or set priorities. It is a much lower-level setting out of the boundaries and how they should operate across them. The simple fact is that I think practitioners would say that it has not led to those issues being dealt with.
My noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about reporting to Parliament. Clearly, that is a major area, which we have discussed and will discuss further, and it may be helpful here. However, I find it difficult to believe that a parliamentary committee—particularly the Treasury Select Committee but maybe we can move to some other form of committee —would get into the level of detail of the regulatory load on institutions and those priorities. It may be able to check whether meetings are happening and the agenda is being followed, but I do not think that it can resolve the issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says, if there is such a committee, there has to be a purpose. One of my reasons for specifying looking at the load on the major institutions is that it is only when you get down to the granularity of how the different agendas are loading up on specific institutions that you can have a meaningful discussion about where the conflicts arise. I am not wedded to this particular mechanism or this particular committee. I am not even sure that legislation is needed. As the Minister said, it is an issue I have raised with the chief executives of the PRA and the FCA. There is nothing to stop them doing this of their own volition. I would perhaps encourage the Minister to sound out with those chief executives how they view this and what they might consider doing to help ensure that the priorities are properly addressed. There is a consultation he has under way. He may take a view on whether this kind of legislation or some amendment along these lines would be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Equivalence
The Treasury may not make an equivalence decision unless it has determined that a third country has equivalent legal and supervisory standards, and it may not make a determination based only on agreement to make reciprocal determinations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment in order to discuss equivalence determinations and processes and the role of reciprocity.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall make comments that reflect in part on EU relations and therefore on the other two amendments in this group.
As the explanatory statement says, this is a probing amendment in order to discuss equivalence determinations and processes and the role of reciprocity. The amendment states:
“The Treasury may not make an equivalence decision unless it has determined that a third country has equivalent legal and supervisory standards, and it may not make a determination based only on agreement to make reciprocal determinations.”
Broadly speaking, the first part of the amendment restates the usual equivalence requirement, and in the second part I am hoping that the Minister can explain how equivalence through trade agreements or reciprocal equivalence agreements will work. Will those mechanisms be allowed to dilute the standard set through the usual requirement?
We have heard a lot about trying to get equivalence with the EU. My position has always been that it was a remote possibility without rule taking, or dynamic alignment as it has become called. It also seems to me that the way in which the UK wants to operate, with the regulator making rules that can be flexible, makes it more difficult, or even impossible, for the EU, and maybe some other jurisdictions, to agree equivalence. That is because it ends up not being about rules—because in the UK they will be able to flex and vary—but about supervisory equivalence, or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, called it, the outcomes. That is more subjective, a matter of opinion and confidence in supervisors rather than an objective analysis of rules.
This reasoning also lies behind what some noble Lords may see as my obsession with getting more information out of supervisors and for regular independent reviews. How else are we, let alone another jurisdiction, going to know what really goes on? Even less demanding jurisdictions than the EU, such as Australia, once they have set up independent scrutiny of their own regulators, may begin to wonder what they know about ours.
Our regulators will say that they have good and friendly relationships with other regulators and that they are respected and so on—all the presentations that they have repeatedly given to committees about why there would be equivalence with the EU in the end. They have been wrong so far, and I am not holding my breath. The statutory instruments currently underpinning legislation will be progressively taken away. I am sure that the EU will read these debates where the Minister has repeatedly stated how FSMA will enable rules to change quickly and be made bespoke and that is why Parliament cannot be let in too much. One hopes that means that rules will change to close gaps and adapt to new types of business, but there is nothing anywhere that says that. It can easily be interpreted as an intention to ease here and there, just like the tailor if we eat a little too much.
I am not trying to be awkward. I have sat in discussions with the European Commission at a time when my committee was concerned that the EU was being too rigid on equivalence. I have had to explain that equivalence was sometimes—in fact, quite often—of mutual benefit. That instinct to have things fixed and controlled between member states ran through every piece of legislation in one never-ending grind, as elaborated correctly by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the previous amendment, although we may come from opposite positions. Such an instinct is stronger in financial services than in any other sector because of the philosophical commitment to the euro, whether or not that is relevant. Yet, somehow, it is still hoped that the EU can work out how to deal with this squidgy balloon that defines UK financial services rules. All I am saying is that we have to recognise that if we want the squidgy balloon way and the outcomes way, there are consequences when it comes to equivalence decisions.
That is looking at it from the outside. The other side of it is the inside. What are our rules and supervisory standards that other countries will have to be equivalent to? How is that judgment to be made? Will it be a rule book by rule book comparison or will it really be mutual recognition of supervisors, and if so, based on what? How will that assessment be done? Will HMT agree reciprocal equivalence with anyone when it sees an opportunity for export of financial services and assumes that not much will be incoming back to the UK, or will UK standards be lowered to match those of incoming equivalent businesses from the third country? Will UK firms be allowed to drop standards when operating overseas? To come back to my amendment, will the Government allow weaker standards, through trade agreements and reciprocal equivalence agreements, and how will consumers and financial stability be protected?
The example of software being allowed for capital is a convenient one, although there are probably bigger things. I kept that out of EU legislation but the UK could not hold the line on that this time round. The US has also allowed it. Where does that put banking equivalence for us in relation to the US and, should it ever be on offer, the EU? What top-up supervision or other requirements will go on?
It will be clear that I am less obsessed by getting reports on the EU situation as required by Amendments 100 and 105—although I will happily read them and wonder what is new. I am more obsessed with what standard is really being required by the UK of other jurisdictions to permit equivalence by any route and, in turn, how that will reflect back into our own supervisory standards. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have Amendment 105 in this group, which is also a probing amendment, and seeks to insert a new clause in the Bill about regulatory co-operation with the EU. In her Amendment 90 the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, called for actions. Amendment 105, as the explanatory statement makes clear, is a reporting mechanism to report on progress towards or completion of an MoU with the EU on regular co-operation measures, which were envisaged under the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU as regards financial services. The amendment flows from my chairmanship of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Last autumn, the committee considered a number of statutory instruments, which have granted equivalence to oversight and regulatory arrangements in the EU in the area of financial services. Mostly they were laid by the Treasury but some were laid by another departments. It was not clear to our committee whether the SIs were all part of a potential agreement with the EU or whether they were unilateral individual decisions. We wrote to John Glen, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, as follows:
“Equivalence in relation to the regulation of financial services is an important aspect of our future relationship with the EU. In several of the instruments that we have considered, the UK appears to have granted equivalence indefinitely, while the EU has not yet completed its assessment of the UK’s equivalence (for example in relation to the regulatory regime for auditors) or has granted only time-limited equivalence (for example limited to 18 months in the case of the supervisory arrangements for central counterparties).”
Against this background, we asked for further and better particulars on three points:
“A list of the equivalence decisions made by the UK Government in the different areas of financial services regulation. Whether the EU has reciprocated and granted equivalence to the UK and its regulatory arrangements in these areas. Whether equivalence by the UK and EU has been granted indefinitely or is time limited.”
The reply on 7 January, which I referred to in my speech at Second Reading, was not a model of clarity and precision. Phrases like
“a package of equivalence decisions”
and “the majority of decisions” do not help critical analysis. The correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Agnew at Second Reading, which followed this and circulated among all who participated in that debate, seemed to follow the same generalist approach.
However, John Glen’s letter did make one thing clear, that
“there are no decisions made by the EU that have not been reciprocated by the UK.”
As such, to date, it has been a one-way street. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but Parliament and the country are entitled to, and should, know about the development of our relationship with this most significant and geographically proximate market in a sector of particular importance to the United Kingdom—hence my tabling this amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, and I thank him and the other authors of the amendments in this group.
This is a particularly appropriate moment to state that “taking back control” has possibly worked less successfully in the financial services sector than in any other since we left the European Union, with Amsterdam having overtaken us as the largest share-trading centre. There are generally understood to be four options for trade in financial services with the EU. First, there is passporting, which we enjoyed and was very beneficial not just to the London Stock Exchange but, I venture to add, other centres, such as Edinburgh, Leeds and other financial centres in the United Kingdom; it was the most seamless form of trade in financial services. Secondly, there is trade on World Trade Organization terms and, thirdly, free trade agreements, such as that agreed between the EU and Canada, although I am not convinced that it covers financial services or services as a whole. Finally, there is equivalence. If we are not able to revert to passporting, and I understand that we are not, that would be a good way forward. My understanding is that equivalence is where a decision is made by one state to recognise another state’s legal requirements for regulating a service, even though they may not be the same—so, clearly, it is not as good as passporting.
I very much enjoyed the introductory remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and I support each of the amendments in this group for differing reasons. Obviously we will not have the chance to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, until he speaks to his amendment, but all three of the amendments in this group would, I believe, further the case for equivalence with the European Union.
Time marches on, and we obviously realise that the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union left out this major sector of financial services. So I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister to say, in summing up this debate, precisely where we are with the negotiations and whether we have any chance of reaching an agreement on equivalence under the circumstances and the further particulars as set out by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I find it deeply regrettable when our own Minister cannot answer three very simple questions in a letter so that our understanding is better. However, with those few remarks, I am minded to support Amendments 90, 100 and 105 for the reasons given.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, all three amendments in this group would increase the importance of equivalence determinations, which might ultimately be counterproductive.
Amendment 90 seeks to prevent the Treasury making equivalence decisions for reciprocal reasons alone. I cannot see a shred of evidence that the Treasury might do that. When my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Katharine Braddick, director-general for financial services, gave evidence to the EU Services Sub-Committee, they made it very clear that, although they would have preferred a comprehensive set of equivalence determinations, the EU declined to grant any, besides two time-limited determinations for the central counterparties, such as LCH, which clear derivatives transactions. It is good news that the Government decided to make their equivalence determinations unilaterally, based on economics and efficiency of markets, and have no intention of making equivalence determinations for political or reciprocal reasons. I suggest that the noble Baroness’s amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 100 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, is clearly fighting yesterday’s battle. It presumes that the memorandum of understanding now under negotiation with the EU on future regulatory co-operation is likely to lead to the granting by the EU of a number of positive equivalence determinations. This would indeed provide much-needed clarity in the short term but would also make divergence more difficult. Furthermore, the EU has been unwilling to make equivalence determinations on the basis of equivalence of outcomes. Rather, it has made it clear that it expects the UK to copy its rules exactly, line by line, as the price for equivalence determinations.
The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, has said we will not become a “rule-taker” from the EU. He said that, just as we will not diverge for divergence’s sake, we will not align for alignment’s sake. It is unrealistic to think the EU will grant any significant equivalence assessments to the UK in areas where it thinks we may diverge from its cumbersome and expensive regulations. The majority of the financial services industry, rather than looking for equivalence determinations, which can be withdrawn unilaterally on 30 days’ notice, is now looking to the Government to adopt a new and different pro-innovation, pro-competition, common law-based regulatory regime. That is the way to retain and further enhance the position of our financial services industry and our leadership role in developing proportionate, sound regulation at the global level.
Furthermore, the explanatory notes prepared by the noble Lord are puzzling. The decision of the EU not to grant equivalence determinations to the UK has no effect on UK retail investors, because we have granted equivalence to EU firms in many areas to continue to offer their services and products in the UK. I can see that it may well disadvantage EU retail investors, who will be denied access to products and services produced by UK financial services firms, so I do not think this amendment is helpful under any circumstances.
Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts would require a report on the progress towards agreeing the MoU with the EU on regulatory co-operation. This report will be due within two months of the passage of this Bill. However, the TCA requires this MoU to be entered into by the end of March. It seems unlikely that this Bill will even be enacted by then.
Can the Minister tell the Committee when he expects the MoU to be agreed, when a draft will be available and the Government’s expectations as to its content? I usually find common cause with my noble friend but, in relation to his amendment, I believe the retention of freedom to diverge from EU regulations in order to adopt a better regulatory regime in a particular area, ensuring or enhancing the city’s continuing leading role in that area, is more important than slavish alignment to EU rules to beg or ask for the grant of equivalence determinations which could be unilaterally withdrawn at any time. I therefore doubt whether his amendment is necessary but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard who, as usual, speaks good sense on this matter. While these are clearly probing amendments designed to get the Government to say how they see the future of various aspects of financial services, it seems to me that, as regards equivalence with the EU, they are rooted in the language of the past. It has been clear for a long time that the EU sees equivalence either as a route to dictate how the UK’s financial services sector is regulated or as a weapon to be used against the UK as a competitor. The Governor of the Bank of England has spoken strongly against the EU’s apparent positioning on equivalence. He said that either it was trying to say that our rules should never change, which he described as dangerous, or that our rules should change whenever the EU changed its rules, which was “not acceptable”.
There is no doubt that the EU sees the UK as a threat to its way of doing things. It no longer has a leading financial centre within the EU and will struggle to create one, especially if its only weapon is protectionism. We have long been one of the leading financial markets in the world and I hope that we get our number one slot back now that we are unshackled from the EU. That may well take us into new areas of financial services; it should certainly lead to the dismantling of some elements of the EU’s rules that we never liked. The alternative investment funds directive is one clear example; Solvency II and MiFID are others. They never reflected what we regarded as important, and introduced rules which we regarded as unnecessary and cumbersome.
It would have been very easy for the EU to have granted us equivalence at the end of the transition period; we were completely aligned. However, there is a misguided belief in the EU that they can create a rival to the UK and that the best way of doing that is to make it difficult for UK firms to operate in the EU. My own view is that we should abandon any interest in equivalence. Even if we were to get a favourable decision, the EU has retained the right to remove any such decision at short notice. We know that decisions on granting or removing equivalence will not be made on technical merit. They will be political decisions designed to advance the EU’s financial services industry at the expense of the UK. I do not believe that a UK-based financial services operator could ever build a viable business model on the shifting sands of equivalence as determined by a body—the EU—which does not wish us well.
In addition, I do not think that it matters very much. We may find that some areas of our financial services as currently operated will become less profitable—for example, if the EU cuts off its nose to spite its face and denies Euro-denominated derivatives the advantages of London’s liquidity via UK clearing exchanges. Many UK banks and other financial institutions have already set up EU-based subsidiaries to carry out the business that was previously carried out under passporting. That is now water under the bridge—those subsidiary structures will carry on while the business is profitable and cease if it is not.
For these reasons, I believe that the amendments in this group are looking in the rear-view mirror. Of much greater importance is what plans the Government have to support and promote the future—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for five minutes.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
As I was saying, my Lords, of much greater importance are the plans that the Government have to support and promote the future growth of our financial services sector. The amendments on international competitiveness debated on our first day in Committee are far more important than EU equivalence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes. Like her, I was struck by the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England, and I feel she has given us a welcome dose of reality this evening.
I speak as a member of the EU Committee and its Services Sub-Committee. We have wrestled long and hard on the vexed question of the granting of equivalence by the EU, including the important issue of reciprocity, highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I want to make three points and ask one question.
First, once one has decided to leave the EU, it makes little sense to be tied to its rules and regulations—in effect, as the Governor of the Bank of England has said recently, thereby becoming a rule taker without being able to make any input to the new rules. So we will have to plough our own furrow on financial services. But that does not stop us agreeing equivalence arrangements in areas where there is strong mutual interest such as central counterparties, known as CCPs, already temporarily approved, and perhaps insurance. We have granted equivalence to European banks and other bodies, as has been said, and the prospect of maintaining that equivalence gives us some leverage.
Secondly, I do not see why we should necessarily refuse equivalence to third countries which do not have similar legal and supervisory standards. Flexibility is important if we are to welcome investors here, and they may have different yet adequate regimes, bringing in innovation and diversity of offer, which could be valuable in the UK. Trade in services is absolutely vital to the future of this country.
Thirdly, I can see the value of some form of reporting to Parliament, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in Amendment 100 and my noble friend Lord Hodgson in Amendment 105—although in different ways. Even on the EU Committee, we have had the greatest difficulty extracting information on the progress of negotiations on financial services, partly because this is in the hands of the Treasury and its officials, while the main spokesman has been my noble friend Lord Frost, who has led our negotiations across the board with such tenacity.
My question is this. How does my noble friend the Deputy Leader feel about the balance between UK-owned banks and financial service operators and their EU competitors now that we have granted equivalence and the EU, in the main, has not? Am I right in thinking that a German bank such as Deutsche Bank, a Dutch bank such as Rabobank or a French asset management firm such as Amundi is regulated in its own country and less subject to UK regulator bureaucracy and aggressive enforcement of something like MiFID than its UK counterparts? Is there any sense in which it is privileged, and is this true also of smaller operators? Does this matter to UK plc?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall begin by addressing Amendments 100 and 105, which would require reports that would be both useful and interesting. However, I want to pick up the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who essentially took the position—I understand its logic—“Why bother to seek equivalence from the EU?” I think she said, “They wish us ill and see a competitive advantage in not offering equivalence.” However, I do not think she listened carefully to my noble friend Lady Bowles, who comes with a great deal of experience from the EU. The point my noble friend made is that in the EU, which is a rules-based organisation —that is its absolutely core fundamental structure—it is quite hard to offer equivalence to a financial centre where those who are regulating it make it very clear that they want great flexibility to be able to make change very easily and with very little process. That is what we are doing with this Bill.
Essentially, we are removing the normal parliamentary processes that would have been engaged in the process of changing regulation and leaving it in the hands of the regulator, with, as we have all discussed, virtually no accountability to Parliament. It seems from what we read that a 12-week consultation would be about all that is required for a regulator to change the rules, compared with the process in the EU, which people may regard as cumbersome but which has with it extensive consultation, engagement and oversight, and which flushes out exactly what is associated with, what is involved with and what the consequences are of that rule change. We will now have light-touch rule change—that would be an accurate way to describe it. In an atmosphere where there is very little trust—the language certainly has not been that which would develop and promote trust—I can certainly see why the EU would be uncomfortable with the idea of offering equivalence in those circumstances. Therefore, it is not a determination to do us ill but, to a significant degree, some shock that change will happen so often that it will have very little idea of the rule base that applies in the UK and certainly will not understand its various ramifications.
However, in a sense it really does not matter. I find it quite shattering that we have a Government—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seems to be aligned with them—who say, “We are really not interested in being able to sell our services into the second-largest economy on the globe”—whether measured by population or in terms of GDP. That is a huge and significant market. We have never been successful at selling financial services into the United States, partly because it has its own, very stalwart financial services sector. I suggest that selling financial services into China will be exceedingly difficult over many years. China will wish to develop its own financial centre; it has Hong Kong. We begin then to look at countries across Asia and in South America. However, I think we will find very shortly that they intend to develop their own financial centres. When I have talked to people in India, they would be willing to do some work here with people in the UK but they want to develop Mumbai. We are seeing a regionalisation of economic blocs, which will lead to a rise of significant financial centres in other locations across the globe. There is a real danger in dismissing with a wave of the hand the customers who sit on our doorstep, who have traditionally been our core customers, and saying, in essence, “It really doesn’t matter whether we are able to sell them services. Let’s look elsewhere.” I am not sure that “elsewhere” looks quite so promising.
What I found most interesting in this whole debate was a very different set of questions raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles. To me they were, if you like, the financial services equivalent of the chlorinated chicken question. As we go out and seek to sell our financial services more broadly, presumably, many of those locations will turn to us and say, “You can sell to us provided we can sell to you. We’re developing our financial sector and we would like to have access to your markets.” My noble friend was asking: what standards will we be using to determine that reciprocity? As I say, it is the chlorinated chicken question. We have not heard much—or anything, frankly—from the Government about what standards we will apply under those circumstances.
It seems to me that, when we assert that we can find markets all over the globe that will take the place of the EU—and that this can be done rapidly and very easily—we have to answer that question. Are we going to have to pay the price of providing reciprocity to financial centres whose standards do not meet our own? What are the consequences of that if those entities are then freely able to enter the UK market? We have a long history of concern about money laundering and market abuse. There are very serious questions associated with that; I would like to begin to hear some answers.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I have been very struck by this particular debate and the positions taken by Members of the Grand Committee. I approach this question of our future financial services relationship with the European Union with a sort of historical perspective. In a way, the financial services industry in this country is unique in the history of financial centres in that it is a financial centre without any significant savings or economic hinterland. The great financial centres of history—be it Venice, Amsterdam, 19th-century London or 20th/21st-century New York—have thrived on a powerful flow of domestic and imperial savings, and have tended to fade when that flow has dried up.
The fact that the City of London has continued to thrive even as Britain has lost its Empire and the UK economy has lost its dominant position is no doubt due to a remarkable concentration of talent and entrepreneurship; to the remarkable luck of widespread access to financial markets around the world; and to becoming, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out, the financial centre of the European Union. The international liberalisation of the 1980s and the creation of the European single market gave the City access to that economic hinterland and the opportunity to provide financial services throughout an open market.
As we know, the openness of the European market for financial services to the UK is now in question. As this Bill makes clear, access that was previously open is now potentially closed and hanging on this delicate thread of equivalence. It is interesting to see that the Bill is nervous about equivalence. On page 65, we read that
“the FCA must consider, and consult the Treasury about, the likely effect of the rules on relevant equivalence decisions.”
On page 82, we read that
“the PRA must consider, and consult the Treasury about, the likely effect of the rules on relevant equivalence decisions.”
That nervousness is well founded. I agree with the noble Lords who have been critical of the European Union that the likelihood of equivalence being the foundation of successful financial activities for the City’s continuing growth in Europe is at least in great doubt. Indeed, just imagine the chief executive of a big international bank or an asset manager with a large number of employees in London telling the board of directors that they are planning their long-term investments on the shaky foundations of a political equivalence ruling by Brussels.
At the moment, the only thread that seems to be at least holding and maintaining the potential of access to a market of 500 million people is the memorandum of understanding, which was due in June but is still apparently debated. However, a draft that was leaked to the Politico website
“states categorically that equivalence findings remain unilateral decisions, meaning the U.K. would have no recourse if the EU opted to withdraw it.”
The draft does propose the creation of an EU-UK financial regulatory forum but this resembles the arrangement with the United States that is defined as “strictly informal”. I think that access will be diminished, perhaps significantly. That is the only certain conclusion we can make. Perhaps the Minister will tell us more about the progress of the memorandum of understanding when he sums up.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has taken us into an interesting topic area: regulatory equivalence.
The UK has long been a global leader in financial services. As we adapt to our new position outside the EU, it is essential that we continue to support a stable, innovative and world-leading sector. We have already considered the UK’s international standing in another debate. With these amendments, we are considering equivalence and the UK’s relationship with the EU in relation to financial services. I know that there is a lot of interest in this issue, so I will take this opportunity to provide an update on where we are, to the extent that I am able to do so at this point in time. Perhaps, though, I could begin by saying something about our approach to making these decisions.
Amendment 90 seeks to impose an obligation on the Government to make an equivalence determination only where they have determined that the relevant overseas jurisdiction has legal and supervisory standards equivalent to those of the UK. It also seeks to prohibit the Government granting an equivalence determination based only on an agreement to make determinations on a reciprocal basis.
I am happy to confirm that the Government are already committed to conducting their equivalence assessments of overseas jurisdictions on the basis that the relevant legal and supervisory framework of that jurisdiction provides equivalent outcomes to the UK’s. This is outlined in the guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework which was published in November 2020.
In addition, an example of the legislative requirement for granting equivalence can be seen on page 35 of the Bill. It amends the money market funds regulation to allow the Treasury to make equivalence determinations and states:
“The Treasury may not make regulations under paragraph 1 unless satisfied that the law and practice of the country or territory imposes requirements on MMFs which have equivalent effect to the requirements imposed by this Regulation.”
There is a key point for me to make here. This is not a so-called “line-by-line approach”, where we require a country to have identical rules. We believe that compliance with internationally agreed standards and equivalent regulatory outcomes in different countries can be achieved in different ways and through different legal frameworks.
In that context, there is a further important point that I invite noble Lords to note: granting equivalence is a decision we make independently with no reciprocity requirement. The UK would not grant equivalence just on the basis of reciprocity but would always carry out an assessment to ensure that the other jurisdiction is equivalent. The Government must lay a statutory instrument in Parliament to make an equivalence decision. This will give all noble Lords the opportunity to consider and scrutinise Her Majesty’s Treasury’s decisions as part of the normal legislative process.
I turn to consider our relationship with the EU. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that there is no question of us dismissing this relationship with a wave of the hand or otherwise. Amendments 100 and 105 seek to impose obligations on the Government to report on the status of the EU’s considerations about UK equivalence and on the status of negotiations on the regulatory co-operation memorandum of understanding between the UK and EU. I have already said that the granting of equivalence is an autonomous matter for the UK, and this is equally true for the EU, so the Government are not in a position to report on what the EU may or may not be thinking at a given point in time, even if we wanted to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, characterised the UK regulatory system as a squidgy balloon and hence difficult for the EU to grapple with but, as I have previously set out, the EU is well used to assessing regulator rules and practice as part of its equivalence assessments, and we see no reason why it would not be able to assess the UK in the same way if the will is there.
However, I can provide an update on our own actions. In November, the Chancellor announced a package of equivalence decisions for the EU and EEA member states. We did this to provide clarity and stability for industry. My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked me a number of factual questions about the existing equivalence decisions between the UK and the EU. If he will allow, to ensure a full and accurate response, I am happy to write to him on those questions.
We are not ruling out further equivalence decisions for the EU in the future, and we continue to believe that comprehensive mutual findings of equivalence between the UK and EU are in the best interests of both parties. The Government remain ready and willing to work with the EU to achieve this. For their part, the EU has granted only minimal decisions for the UK. As per our joint declaration with the EU on financial services, which was agreed alongside the trade and co-operation agreement, we have agreed to establish structured regulatory co-operation on financial services by the end of this month. My noble friend Lord Trenchard will be glad to note that we believe we are on track to do that.
This co-operation will support engagement on issues of mutual interest, including facilitating transparency and dialogue around the process of adopting, suspending and withdrawing equivalence decisions, but I should be clear that it is not envisaged, in the joint statement or elsewhere, that the agreement of the MoU on regulatory co-operation will directly entail any new equivalence decisions. This MoU will be publicly available to Parliament after the conclusion of negotiations. I reiterate that the Government are committed to operating an open and transparent approach to equivalence with the EU, but I am afraid that the Government cannot provide updates on this discussion in real time.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe expressed concerns that we may have given EU firms some kind of advantage over UK firms. In the absence of clarity from the EU, the UK has acted to provide clarity and stability to industry, supporting the openness of the sector, and to deliver our goal of open, well-regulated markets, but these decisions should not be seen simply as altruistic. They will allow firms to pool and manage their risks effectively and to support clients on both sides of the channel in accessing our world-leading financial services and highly liquid markets, so there are benefits for the UK as well as for the EU.
Finally, Amendment 100 also seeks to impose a legal obligation on the Government to publish a strategy to provide security to UK retail investors in the event of equivalence being withdrawn. I reassure noble Lords that, as set out in the guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework, the Treasury will seek to ensure that withdrawal of equivalence is undertaken in line with the principle of transparency. That means that the Treasury will endeavour to engage with interested parties as part of the process and will seek to provide Parliament with appropriate scrutiny. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I recognise the importance of clarity and stability regarding the potential withdrawal of equivalence. When withdrawing an equivalence determination, it will be undertaken in an orderly and controlled manner to ensure that investors are protected.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made clear a similar concern in relation to the overseas funds regime, given that the provisions of the Bill also create a new equivalence regime there. I assure him that we do not envisage that in the event of equivalence being withdrawn investors would be forced to divest their investments in the fund, but instead that the fund should continue to service them. The Bill also includes a power so that the Treasury may take steps to smooth the transition for funds if equivalence has been withdrawn.
I realise that noble Lords might have wished for a slightly fuller account of our discussions with the EU on the MoU and equivalence issues, but I trust that the reasons for me being constrained on those matters are clear. I hope nevertheless that I have provided the Committee with a sufficient update on this topic and ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, since we are already diverging from the EU—for instance, with regard to lightening new share-listing rules—does the Minister believe that equivalence does not really matter because Her Majesty’s Government believe that the UK will make up the lost revenue from the passporting system in this and other financial areas?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my response to this debate has indicated that, of course, we regard mutual determinations of equivalence as desirable. However, I have also made it clear that there is advantage to both the UK and the EU in our adopting an autonomous position to take decisions for ourselves in this area. Of course, I am hopeful that our discussions with the EU will progress in a helpful way, and I assure my noble friend that, as soon as I have news that I can vouchsafe to him and other noble Lords, I shall certainly do so.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for what has turned out to be a very interesting debate. For once, the crafting of my probing amendment produced exactly the responses that I was hoping to obtain. Here is the thing: in many respects, I can agree with everybody, even though noble Lords were obviously coming from different positions.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, think that we just have to get on and plough our own furrow. The Minister has said that that is essentially what we are doing, but we are maintaining the hope or ambition that the EU will, one day, come round and finally realise that there is mutual advantage in equivalence decisions or whatever one wants to call them. In my opening speech, I said that I had sometimes failed to persuade it of that, and, ultimately, we already see the pattern: once it realises it needs it, we will get it, but not before. It will not concede a general mutual benefit, which is one of the big differences between the UK and the EU. I fully support the line that the UK is taking, which is to be open and to show that openness works. There lies the power of London—and common law has a hand in it as well.
The Minister has been clear. On the adoption of the squidgy balloon, as I termed it, I did not mean that in a disrespectful way; I was just trying to say that the EU looks for something concrete, and we have a squidgy balloon, although the outcome might end up being around the same. It has difficulty with that, but we are proceeding with the squidgy balloon, and, therefore, we will have to take in our stride whether we get equivalence or not. I think that that is what the Minister has said, quite fairly and clearly.
However, he has confirmed that standards will be maintained. I knew that I was broadly quoting from guidelines in the first part of my amendment; that was not a happy accident. However, there was confirmation that there will always be this looking at the outcomes and what is supporting that, which applies no matter the route we take to equivalence or whatever else it is called—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, explained, there are various routes to achieving the mutual recognition, however it comes about.
From my perspective, this has ended up being quite a satisfactory debate—probably nobody is happy, but we are where we are. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. As always, I remind Members to sanitise desks and chairs.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Udny-Lister
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Pension Credit
(3 years, 1 month 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 are taking to increase the take up of Pension Credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The DWP continues to use available channels to promote pension credit and reach potential recipients, their families and friends. This includes using proactive press activity and social media posts to encourage older people to check whether they are eligible. The department is currently writing to over 11 million pensioners in Great Britain about the increase in their state pension from April. The accompanying leaflet highlights that an award of pension credit can provide access to other benefits, such as housing benefit or a free over-75 TV licence.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but does she recall that when we met her and the Pensions Minister last November they promised much more action on pension take-up? We still have nearly 1 million people who are entitled to pension credit but not claiming. They are now losing the TV licence as well. Please will the Minister meet again the Peers who met her before, with the BBC, Age UK and Independent Age, so that we can plan a new more dynamic and innovative take-up campaign?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I understand the noble Lord’s desire to move speedily on this and I share that desire. Following our engagement session in November, policy officials met the BBC and the director of policy then had a meeting on 17 December. This was followed by a working-level meeting with the DWP and BBC on 11 February. On 29 March, the Minister for Pensions and I will meet the BBC director-general. Of course we will meet Peers again. We are open to dialogue and, in early May, there will be a stakeholders’ meeting including people from other industries.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that the numbers in pensioner poverty have risen. Benefit take-up rates by poor pensioners are low—37%, or 1 million, do not claim the credit. They are now being billed for a TV licence that they should not have to pay for and that they cannot afford, and they will get even poorer. The Government handed over policy on pensioners and the licence fee to the BBC, but they did not hand over their responsibility for the poorest pensioners. I put again the question asked by my noble friend: will the Minister give a backstop date by which there will be a meeting of the Peers with the voluntary bodies involved with the pensioners, the BBC and DWP, so that all the parties in the room can look at this challenge that we need to face? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that she will consider innovative changes to get that take-up rate increased, such as auto-enrolling the poorest pensioners?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are committed to action that helps to alleviate levels of pensioner poverty. I regret that I cannot confirm a backstop date, but I can confirm that we will meet Peers and that we will use all the tools available to us for innovation to try to help this group access pension credit.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, this is not a new phenomenon. While the Question specifically refers to pension credit, we know that successive Governments have not been able to achieve adequate take-up of benefits generally. Will my noble friend suggest to her colleagues that a fundamental review of how benefits are rolled out needs to take place, because public policy is defeated if there is not adequate take-up? Secondly, will she tell the House whether her department takes into account non-take-up amounts in the budget, so that there is a regular build-in of non-take-up by her department?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will certainly take the suggestion of a review of benefits back to the department. I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord about the issue of non-take-up as far as the budget is concerned.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have included information about pension credit when writing to pensioners about their state pension increases. Will my noble friend tell the House whether that includes mention of the entitlement to all the other benefits that are passported to by pension credit? Will she confirm, if necessary in writing, whether my estimate of around a further £8,000 a year is potentially available to pensioners on pension credit—they may be getting very little of that benefit—in council tax, housing benefit and, indeed, £140 off their electricity bill in warm home discounts, which also suggests that the electricity companies may have some obligation to help on pension credit take-up?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
On the last point that the noble Baroness raises, I am happy to go back and find out the information. I will write to her and place a copy of my letter in the Library. I emphasise that our meeting with stakeholders in early May will include energy companies. I will certainly take her idea back to the department.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
Does the Minister believe that take-up campaigns fully involve local agencies, such as the charitable and voluntary sector and more particularly local government, which provide many essential services for older people? What plans are there for further involvement of such local agencies in future take-up campaigns?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I reiterate that we continue to make best use of all the available channels to make sure that we can reach those people and confirm to them their eligibility, particularly family and friends. I am not aware at the moment of anybody making a suggestion about local agencies, but through our stakeholder engagement we have certainly raised this point. I will take back the local government issue to the department.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
Many elderly people who may well be eligible for pension credit find that applying online and even by telephone daunting. Will my noble friend explain why there is no automatic awarding of pension credit?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Whether a person is eligible for pension credit and how much they can get is, as with other means-tested benefits, determined by their financial and personal circumstances, which can be complex. The noble Baroness’s point about technology and vulnerable and elderly pensioners is well made. We try to encourage stakeholders who represent this group, family and friends to do it on their behalf. They can also use the government telephone number.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, would it not make more sense for the Government to use state resources to support increasing the take-up of pension credit, rather than continuing the policy of the triple lock on state pensions, given that so many people over state pension age continue to work full time or have other incomes? Would taxpayer funds not be better spent promoting pension credit widely, which would increase state assistance for older people in financial need?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness has obviously had a great career supporting, promoting and championing pensioners in need. On the use of taxpayers’ money, I am not aware of any plans to do as the noble Baroness suggests.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
On International Women’s Day, we should note that women pensioners are more likely to be poor than men. A DWP official told the Scottish Social Security Committee that if all poor pensioners claimed pension credit, housing benefit and the council tax reduction, pensioner poverty would reduce to almost zero. The DWP take-up campaign last year has not worked. Peers keep asking Ministers to meet with us, together with charities, because we need more energy and creativity behind a campaign. I do not understand why the Minister keeps side-stepping that request. Can she explain that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am really not aware that I or any of my colleagues have side-stepped meeting with Peers to talk about creativity, and I do not agree with the noble Baroness on that point. There will be a meeting where people will have the opportunity to discuss and put forward their ideas. I am sure that the department will consider them carefully.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allotted to that Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Care System
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of provision for teenagers in the care system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, throughout the Covid-19 crisis, the Government have worked closely with local authorities to help ensure that they continue to meet their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people in care, with particular regard to their education, health and well-being. Some £4.6 billion of funding has been made available to support councils, with a further £1.55 billion announced as part of the spending review.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer and for the good work that has been done. However, I am concerned that Barnardo’s declared a state of emergency in June last year as a result of a 44% increase in the number of children needing foster care referred to it. According to one investigation, more than 8,300 children were placed in unregulated, semi-independent accommodation last year. Many of those—more than one-third—were outside their local authority area. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that teenagers and older children in care are offered family-based provision, where they are more likely to thrive?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government have announced that the use of unregulated accommodation for under-16s will be banned as of September this year. However, there are examples of those aged 16 and over for whom a semi-supported or independent living arrangement is the best placement. Local authorities make individual decisions but, for instance, many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who come to this country at age 16 may state a preference—which is taken into account—to be in semi-supported or independent accommodation.
Baroness Fall (Con) [V]
My Lords, years ago the Government published a Green Paper in response to the worrying surge of mental health issues in children and young people and those in care. Today, a year after lockdown, that surge shows no sign of abating: quite the opposite. On this International Women’s Day, I draw attention to the very worrying rise of anorexia nervosa. Those who need help are often languishing on waiting lists. Has progress been made on establishing a new national waiting time and, if so, what is it?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government are indeed concerned about the reported rise in eating disorders during the lockdown period. Only last Friday, we announced a further £79 million of funding to expand mental health support for children and young people. We have announced an early intervention service in 18 sites for those aged 16 to 25, meaning that people coming forward should be contacted within 48 hours and treated within two weeks.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, bearing in mind the number of young people in the care system who end up in the criminal justice system, can the Minister please tell the House whether the Government are concerned about the impact of the pandemic on their education and training?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government are indeed concerned about those who end up in the youth justice system and their education. The noble Lord will be aware of the provision in secure children’s homes, where young people are placed by the local authority or through the criminal justice system. He will be pleased to hear that when Ofsted recently inspected some of those homes, it commented positively about the provision of education for that cohort of vulnerable young people.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner reported in 2019 that teenagers in care are significantly more vulnerable than younger children to issues such as child sexual exploitation, gangs and trafficking. She also called for a ban on any child under the age of 18 being placed in an unregulated setting. Last week, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House expressed concern about older teenagers being left exposed in such settings. Teenagers in care are more likely to have complex needs and therefore require care rather than just support. Can the Minister say why unregulated accommodation is unregulated? Why do the Government believe that it can ever be appropriate for vulnerable young people to be placed in such accommodation?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, forgive me if I stated this incorrectly: it is going to be banned for those aged 16 and under but still used, when assessed as appropriate by the local authority, for those aged over 16. There will, however, be national minimum standards for that provision, which is currently unregulated, to ensure that the standard is appropriate. Those with complex needs were, as vulnerable children and young people, offered a school place throughout the pandemic. We are looking to increase Ofsted’s enforcement powers in relation to unregistered children’s homes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, teenagers with learning disabilities in residential care homes have not had as much focus as older people. It was months before these homes received enough PPE, and testing was very slow. There was no comprehensive programme for their care and education. What measures are now in place to ensure equality of care and resources between younger people and older people in care homes?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the children’s homes that young people are placed in have now been encouraged to register for the national portal for Covid testing, so they should have that available. As I said, those young people have been offered a school place during this time and have also had access to the remote educational provision of laptops, so that they can keep in touch with social workers.
Baroness Rawlings (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is good that schools have returned today, but can HMG make certain that more—preferably outdoor—sports are part of the £6 billion which she mentioned is being provided for teenagers in the care system? This is vital, especially after the impact of Covid-19.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it was indeed a wonderful sight this morning to come into work and see children walking down the road to go to school. I can assure noble Lords that all the activities outside of school, such as sport and PE, are back for our young people, and all those children who are looked after have an education plan which includes out-of-school setting sport and other enrichment activities.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that teenagers in care need appropriate help at key stages of transition and yet, all too often, children and young people are experiencing barriers to learning, especially as we emerge from Covid? This is particularly true if they do not receive opportunities to participate in art, sport and cultural activities, thereby falling behind and becoming increasingly disaffected. Does my noble friend agree that we should be prioritising these activities so that young people in care can be provided with the necessary tools for as happy and healthy a lifestyle as possible?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I cannot but agree with my noble friend that the return to school enables all those activities, within certain PHE guidance, to be continued. Many of the specific outreach programmes, such as the music hubs, are weighted towards disadvantaged students. The Government have thought about transition points and are trying to avoid them; my noble friend will be aware of the Staying Put programme which allows 18-year-olds in foster care to stay where they are, and the foster care placements are funded to provide that ongoing provision. That has been a growing success year on year.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness will agree that teenagers in unregulated care are very vulnerable, and proper placement, with regular contact and management of care provision, is crucial. Has the lockdown had any effect on this? She will also be aware of county lines gangs deliberately targeting young people in care, so is she satisfied that supervision and contact with the youngsters in such accommodation is sufficient in all cases?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am not able to give that kind of guarantee, but from the information I have, around seven in 10 of looked-after children were in regular touch—meaning every four weeks—with their social workers. As the noble Lord will be aware, there are specific programmes, including an investment of £70 million by the Home Office in violence reduction units. We are aware that all children are vulnerable, but that is why this particular cohort has always had a school place offered to them—that is their biggest protective factor.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that teenagers in the care system have supportive relationships during this time of restriction, especially if they are in unregulated accommodation? What is being done to ensure that they are staying in good health, by eating well and getting exercise, which are so vital for well-being? In other words, what is being done to ensure that these young people have a sense that someone actually cares for them?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, for young people in children’s homes and similar accommodation, keeping in touch with a social worker is important, but they are expected to attend school, because that continuity of relationship is very important. I am pleased to say the holiday activities funds, which are important to that cohort of children and young people, will be available in every local authority area now.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Covid-19: Working Mothers
Baroness Donaghy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the TUC Working mums: Paying the price, published on 14 January.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government are sympathetic to the challenges working parents have faced during the pandemic and note the content of this excellent TUC report. The coronavirus job retention scheme was introduced to ensure that firms could keep millions of people in employment. Whether to use the CJRS remains a business decision for employers to take in consultation with their employees. It is not for the Government to decide whether an individual firm should furlough its staff.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
It is right that we should celebrate International Women’s Day today and celebrate women’s achievements, although some might think we have gone back to the 1950s. Low pay, job insecurity and an unequal society predate the pandemic but are exacerbated by it. Seven out of 10 women being rejected for furlough is one example. The TUC report received 50,000 responses, covering mental health, fear of being selected for redundancy and paid leave for carers. The Government should be producing a gender impact assessment on all their policies but rarely do so. How will the Minister make sure that this happens in future?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point out a number of very shocking statistics in the TUC report. We continue to actively monitor the impact of Covid-19 on the labour market, particularly on women. All departments ensure that equality considerations are at the heart of their decision-making. This is key to the Government’s commitment to delivering equality of opportunity for all as well as to complying with legal requirements under the public sector equality duty. The Government Equality Office, based in the Cabinet Office, runs a number of targeted programmes for women to support returners to work and others with protected characteristics, including minority groups.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree there is an urgent need for legislation to create a comprehensive scheme for working parents which, in addition to properly paid maternity and paternity leave, provides for shared paid leave and flexible work arrangements in relation to childcare, care for family members and family emergencies, requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for non-disabling, non-permanent conditions, such as menopause, and gives adequate protection against dismissal or detriment for seeking to enjoy these rights?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord makes some interesting points. The shared parental leave and pay scheme already gives working families choice and flexibility on who cares for their children, at least in the first year. Following consultation, we are evaluating the views from over 3,000 parents, and our analysis will be published. There are protections against detriment, and parents on shared parental leave are protected against unfair dismissal. I note his comments about requiring legislation, and this will be part of the considerations in the consultation.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that unless findings are presented so the general public can look at them, you are not going to get the best out of them regarding pressure brought to bear so that they are fitted into any new legislation? Can the Minister give us any reassurance that whatever is found out when we look back at this experience will be brought forward in a way the public can access easily?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the sorts of lesson we ought to be able to focus on in this report, which had such an enormous response. It is personally frustrating that we do not seem to have moved far from the conclusion reached by the Women in Work Commission in 2004. Both reports call for greater flexibility in working practices, so the 2019 manifesto to encourage flexible working and consult on making it the default, unless employers have good reason not to do so, should be welcome. This adds to the rights of employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service, who can already ask for flexible working, which is one of the keys to encouraging women in the workplace.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, on this International Woman’s Day, there were an awful lot of exhausted-looking mums on my first school run back this morning—there were some dads, but it was mainly mums. We need to tackle the structural as well as the cultural barriers that mean that men are less likely to take parental leave or request flexible working. The Government are working with a range of employers; the Minister has spoken about employer-led initiatives, including the Build Back Better Council to drive economic recovery for all. Can my noble friend say how this will include helping working families to achieve a better balance?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My noble friend is right; having already mentioned the call in the manifesto for greater flexibility in working practices, the Build Back Better Council is bringing together a broad range of business leaders who will work with the Government to boost job creation generally. Investing in skills is the single most effective way of driving productivity. Employers know that if they fail to support working mothers, they lose a talented and experienced workforce. To ensure that equality continues to be central to all policy-making, an integrated, joined-up equality hub is being is being created in the Cabinet Office, at the very heart of government.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, the words “women”, “mothers” and “children” were not mentioned in the Budget. I suspect that the men making the decisions that affect women workers during lockdown have non-working wives at home and/or nannies. Will the Minister take steps to ensure fairness for self-employed women on maternity leave? If they take maternity leave, this cuts down the assessment of their average profits over three years, so that the 75,000 women who take maternity leave have lost a proportion. They have to be taken into account.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The Government pay careful and due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and advance equality of opportunity through our policies, including the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. We have made changes to that scheme, so that if a woman had a child in 2020 which meant that they did not return a 2020 tax return, they are now carved into, I believe, the fourth SEIS scheme. We continue to actively monitor the impact of the pandemic on all women and have taken action to avoid negative impacts. For example, we passed legislation ensuring that mothers are not financially disadvantaged when starting their maternity leave while on furlough.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is timely that we debate the TUC’s excellent report today, on International Women’s Day and as children return to school. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, said, mums are exhausted after weeks of balancing home-schooling and work. It is clear that women have been disproportionately hit by the pandemic, taking on more childcare and seeing their mental health suffer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, in the Budget, these everywhere heroes did not even rate a mention. How will the Government ensure that working mums and women in general will share the benefits of the recovery? Do the Government have a plan?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have laid out a number of schemes, and I believe that we have rolled out unprecedented levels of economic support to those who need it most, regardless of gender. That includes sectors that employ very large numbers of women, such as retail and hospitality. The Government are continually reviewing the effectiveness of the support, and departments carefully consider the impact of their decisions on those sharing protected characteristics. This is in line both with their legal obligations and with the Government’s strong commitment to promoting fairness. Of course, men are impacted too; indeed, the latest figures show a higher redundancy rate for men. That is why we are committed to ensuring a fair recovery for all.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as noble Lords have detailed, statistics are unequally regressive. It is well known by the Government, and corroborated by the TUC, Mumsnet, a Muslim Women Connect report and surveys, that all women—and particularly those of minority heritage—are facing adverse challenges in the workforce and are being forced out or leaving the workforce and going into traditional roles. This is not only due to historical neglect and barriers to progress but often due to children, childcare responsibilities and discrimination compounded by the lockdown period. As we mark another year of commending women’s progress, what action will the Government commit to take in undertaking a gendered approach in their economic recovery plan to foster and promote opportunities for all women, regardless of barriers of race, colour, faith and abilities, and pledge to realise their fullest potential within their choice of career or family?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness raised a number of important issues. I spent a lot of the weekend trawling through the Mumsnet findings, which showed that school closures have made balancing work and childcare particularly challenging for all working mothers. As for support for Muslim women, the Government Equalities Office has awarded grants to a number of organisations in the private sector. Over 25 returner programmes have been launched, and those with protected characteristics—such as women and black and ethnic minorities—have benefited from these programmes.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Women in Elected Office
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the number of women holding elected office in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we have more women MPs than ever before, making up 34% of the other place, and 35% of local councillors are women. But we must ensure that women have an equal voice in the decisions that affect them. The Government cannot mandate who political parties select as candidates, and it is for them to ensure that their selection processes are responsive to known barriers and lead the way in improving women’s representation—especially today, on International Women’s Day.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree with me that the barriers which prevent women seeking elected office include abuse and discrimination, as well as elected institutions being seen as unfriendly to women? Will she commit to doing all she can to ensure that the sunset clause of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, allowing an all-women shortlist, is extended beyond 2030, and that Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 is implemented? This would go some way to ensuring that our elected institutions look like the people they represent.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government keep all the uncommenced sections of the Equality Act under review, and in the run up to 2030, I am sure that there will be a review of whether to extend that. We all have a role to play when disagreement between elected representatives goes from disagreement to abuse and discrimination. We all have a role to speak out to defend our colleagues of whatever political persuasion.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, as we celebrate International Women’s Day, we acknowledge that progress has been made in this area—but there is still much more to be done. Many women are put off coming forward by the tone of British politics and the hostility that women politicians receive. What more can be done to make national politics less aggressive and more inclusive?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I can state only that during this pandemic, when we have used a remote Parliament, it seems that our tone of engagement here—and perhaps in the other place—has changed. But I reiterate that we all have a role to play, as elected or appointed representatives, when we see colleagues being abused or mistreated, whether it is in person or on Twitter. In a way, we must put aside our party-political allegiances and defend each other, otherwise women and others may not come forward for election.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, for 20 years I had the honour of representing Birmingham Edgbaston, which has an unbroken record of being represented by a woman MP since 1953. I was succeeded by the first woman Sikh MP, Preet Gill. Standing for elected office is a habit that should be encouraged as early as possible. Will the Minister therefore undertake to ensure that every school, including primary schools, is expected to have an elected school council?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it has been excellent to see the development of school councils over recent years. It is not something that the Government would mandate but they do want to see it encouraged. Many schools and colleges run mock general elections, and it has been encouraging, in normal times, to see the number of schoolchildren who come to visit Parliament and are subsidised to do so.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
Last Friday, the WLGA council recognised the outcomes of the cross-party working group on diversity in democracy that I set up as leader, in 2018. The council agreed to encourage all political parties to commit to proactive and co-ordinated activities to improve diversity in local government democracy. It further agreed a declaration by July 2021 from councils in Wales to become diverse councils, providing a public commitment to improve diversity and agree an action plan ahead of the 2022 local elections. This work by local government in Wales is an excellent example of proactively engaging women to hold elected office. Would the Minister recommend that the LGA take a similar approach in England? I have the full report, which I can send to the Minister.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is pleasing to note that nearly half of the members of the Senedd are women, and we support and encourage the LGA, which is leading a Be a Councillor campaign. During the pandemic, I think that even the parish council in Handforth in Cheshire has inadvertently done its role in encouraging many people to get involved in very local politics.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
It is very well documented and has been said that one of the main issues for women when they eventually get to this place is the culture. As the Minister herself just said, challenging it is very important. I welcomed the Valuing Everyone training. I found it eye-opening and very challenging—quite rightly so. But could the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to encourage and enable those who have not yet attended to do so and, indeed, confirm whether it is a breach of the Code of Conduct to refuse to do so?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I enjoy standing here at the Dispatch Box answering on behalf of the Government, but I am careful not to tread on the sovereignty of Parliament as it agrees its procedures here. I will say that I personally did the Valuing Everyone training and learned much through it.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
I ask the Minister to go to the Prime Minister because, during his tenure, women have been overlooked greatly, including in the Cabinet. We should ask the Prime Minister to have an equal 50:50 Cabinet and for his party to have all-women shortlists—as we have asked for a number of times—as the other two main parties have.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, with the recent appointment of my noble friend Lord Frost, 22% of Cabinet Ministers are women. The previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, holds the record as 40% of her appointments were women. I believe the current Prime Minister is on 32% and I hope that will be a rising trajectory.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
I echo what other noble Lords have said about the climate of abuse being one of the main reasons why women do not come forward, particularly to local councillor positions. “I would not do it to my family” is a very common remark. Is there anything the Government can do to help to enable us to know what is going on and to see the abuse that is happening? I think that, if it were more visible, there would be more action against it.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have mentioned, much of the abuse is online. The Government have committed to introducing the online harms Bill, which will provide the framework around which those platforms will be regulated. There is also a DCMS-led review conducted by the Law Commission looking at how we need to potentially update legislation to tackle abusive behaviours online. The Government have also committed to introducing a new electoral sanction against intimidation. But, as I say, I hope that the legislative framework around online harms will affect the culture of how people engage with one another online.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, shamefully a recent survey of MSPs revealed that 46% of women had received death threats, 29% threats of sexual violence and 75% threats to themselves, their family or staff. Women disproportionately are targeted and are the sole victims of threats of sexual violence. Social media, the source of much abuse, could deploy algorithms to reduce this content but does not. Last week we heard that operators are frustrating the efforts of police to prosecute racist abuse. Will the online harms Bill include provisions to deal with their failures and provide agents?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the online harms Bill is designed to look at those platforms and ensure that they have a duty of care placed on them—that is the current proposal. However, the behaviours that the noble Lord outlined are mostly criminal and therefore can currently be dealt with. We know that many police forces have been more engaged in helping elected representatives, their families and their staff when they receive those kinds of threats.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, when first elected to local government, I was one of several women with school-age children. We were a tough bunch and needed to be. However, others were not coming on behind us. The times of the meetings, the lack of adequate financial recompense and the cost of child or adult care all militate against women taking part. It is time for positive discrimination to ensure that women have parity of representation at all levels. What are the Government doing to ensure that this happens?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that having a diverse group of elected representatives in our country is important, but the political parties have a key role to play here to ensure that candidates who are selected are able to deal with the particular barriers that they face. There has been a particular emphasis on a fund called EnAble, which was announced to allow disabled people to stand. So institutions need to look at their working practices, as the other place has done over the last 10 years or so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Hong Kong: Democracy Movement
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the government of Hong Kong regarding the mass arrests of leaders of the Hong Kong democracy movement.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interests as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and as a patron of Hong Kong Watch.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in a Statement on 1 March, the decision to charge 47 politicians and activists under the national security law is another deeply disturbing step. It demonstrates in the starkest way that the law is being used to stifle political dissent rather than restore security, which China claimed was the law’s intended purpose. Officials in Hong Kong raised our concerns with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 March, and with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 5 March.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The 47 which he has just referred to brings to more than 100 the arrests now made under the Chinese Communist Party’s draconian national security law, and all of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy leaders are either in jail, in exile or on trial. Does he agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who said that this wave of mass arrests is
“a continuing and brutal danger to all who believe in free and open speech”,
and will he relay to the Foreign Secretary that this House wants sanctions imposed on those responsible, whether Magnitsky-style sanctions or a bespoke regime such as that developed for Myanmar, even before the military coup there? The time for words is over; the time is now surely for action.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, let me assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is very much aware of the strong sentiments and views of your Lordships’ House. I update my colleagues in the FCDO regularly on our debates and discussions, not just on this issue but on every issue. Specific to the noble Lord’s point about sanctions, he will of course know that I cannot comment on future designations. But we have taken specific steps on the situation in Hong Kong, as I am sure he will note, including the provision, which I believe was first proposed in your Lordships’ House, on the important issue of BNOs.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, British judges have continued to sit as non-permanent judges in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal as recently as January of this year, and the Chinese Government continue to point to them as proof that the Hong Kong legal system is fair and independent. In view of increasingly repressive legislation and arrests under it, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s present view of the appropriateness of our judges continuing to sit in that court?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness acknowledges, British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary over many years, and we hope that this can continue. However, as she also rightly points out—and I agree—the national security law now poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. It is therefore right that the Supreme Court continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong, and it is doing so in direct discussion with the Government.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, when he says:
“This completely destroys the pledge of one-country, two-systems”?
Will the Government now consider offering a bespoke scheme for young human rights activists from Hong Kong who are not covered by the BNO scheme?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, irrespective of where we sit in your Lordships’ House, I believe we all acknowledge the immense insight and expertise of my noble friend Lord Patten on matters pertaining to Hong Kong. On the noble Baroness’s proposal, we are currently focused on the important issue of BNOs. That scheme has started and is running well. On the broader issue, we call out for the continued freedoms of all citizens in Hong Kong.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Government have, in the past month, announced asset freezes and travel bans on 19 senior military and government figures in Myanmar, following the military coup earlier last month. Why are we not doing at least as much in response to the human rights and rule of law abuses by China in Hong Kong? Sanctions will and must come, and when they do, does my noble friend agree that it will not be a moment too early?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the issue of sanctions more generally, I am pleased that we have moved forward on the important issue of not just transferring the sanctions regimes after we left the European Union but the global human rights sanctions regimes that we have brought forward. Those have been focused on those who commit abuses of human rights being held to account—individuals, organisations and institutions. As I have already said, I cannot speculate on any future designation, but I share my noble and learned friend’s view that sanctions are an important tool.
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he list those of our allies which he believes will publicly support us when we are defending the right of people to leave Hong Kong to come to freedom in the West?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord himself has insights into the number of our key partners who have already indicated through international fora their support for the position of the United Kingdom and for the human rights situation of everyone in Hong Kong. They continue to be supportive of various schemes, including our current one around BNOs.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the last point made by the Minister. I have previously asked about a co-ordinated response and, from the comments of the Five Eyes leaders, our allies are determined to act. Can the Minister advise us on what action the United Kingdom is now taking to co-ordinate a Five Eyes alliance response to the latest arrests?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that our partnerships are important. As I have said, the Five Eyes partnership on issues of security is particularly key. On 18 November, we worked with our Five Eyes partners to issue a statement, and of course we are looking at the situation, in particular the recent announcements, although they are in draft and have not yet been published, about the decisions of the China national congress on the future legislative body in Hong Kong. We will be co-ordinating our response, including that with our key partners.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, what is the Minister’s assessment of the implications of national security education in Hong Kong schools for children as young as six? There are widespread concerns that this is indoctrination of Chinese communist propaganda at the heart of the curriculum. What steps have been or are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to respond to these very serious concerns?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised another important point about education and teaching in the various institutions in Hong Kong. Of course, we take this very seriously and we continue to implore not only the Hong Kong special administrative region authority but also the Government of China themselves to ensure an inclusive educational curriculum for all in Hong Kong.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the plans announced last week to extend Beijing’s power of appointment to the Hong Kong parliament and be granted a veto over all of the candidates? This could prevent democracy activists standing in elections and has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, as
“the biggest step so far to obliterate Hong Kong’s freedoms and aspirations for greater democracy under the rule of law.”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the recent announcement made by the National People’s Congress of China, to which I have already referred. Following the current session, we expect the deliberations and debates to finish around 11 March. The next step will be for the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress to formally enact the changes at a subsequent meeting. While there has been media reporting, no specific details have yet been put forward. These proposals are in draft and, while no decisions are being taken, we are monitoring the situation closely.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu to her question in relation to our judges and their participation in the highest court in Hong Kong. Are the Government aware of the recent decision in the case of Jimmy Lai, where his refusal for bail went all the way to the highest court, and a decision was made that no law in Hong Kong has more meaning than the Chinese national security law which has been passed? The national security law is superior to any law, be it common law or international law, in Hong Kong. Should this not be the turning point in urging our judiciary to think again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness speaks with great insight about the law and she is right to point out the statements that were made in the appeal case on this issue, and indeed what we have seen on the bail hearings for the 47 individuals currently being held. As I have said, we are in direct discussions with the Supreme Court and the Government on the issue of judges in Hong Kong.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, while in complete agreement with the Government’s actions, I want to highlight the length of British involvement in Hong Kong and our close connections with its political and business leaders, many of whom were educated in this country. In order to fulfil our responsibilities and maintain our valuable friendship, has the time come to invite an official delegation from Hong Kong to this country both to express our concerns and to hear from them how they see the future and how we can establish a sensible relationship that benefits both sides going forward?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, but from what we have seen of the National People’s Congress about future legislative control within Hong Kong, and indeed the actions that have been taken recently, I wonder how much leverage we would gain from such an interaction. However, I have noted carefully what the noble Lord has said and I will certainly consider it with colleagues in the FCDO.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, just referred to business leaders. My question notes the behaviour of a number of financial institutions that are either based in the UK or with very close links here that are essentially backing unconditionally the illegal behaviour of the Chinese Government, notably HSBC. What steps are the Government taking to consider the impact on our own financial stake in Hong Kong and the damage to their reputation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, let me assure the noble Baroness that we are in close contact with a wide range of businesses in Hong Kong, but as I have said before, it is for businesses to make their own judgment calls. However, we are concerned that a number of recent decisions taken by the authorities in Hong Kong are further evidence of their determined campaign to stifle opposition and silence dissent. We will certainly continue to pursue an approach in Hong Kong that is rooted in our values and defends our rights, and we will continue to advise on and discuss with business the current serious situation in Hong Kong that we have been seeing in recent days.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, we have heard comparisons being made with Myanmar and other unhappy positions where people’s rights are being affected. However, surely the fact that China’s actions in Hong Kong are in clear contravention of the Sino-British joint declaration makes this particular case unique. How can we trust our future negotiations with a country which has actually broken its word? Does this not add to the demands made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for further action?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s first point. We continue to engage with China on a raft of different issues, including the environment and climate change. However, it is important that the statements of trust which are made by the Chinese authorities are ones that can stand scrutiny. From what we have seen in Hong Kong, that is not the case.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, those Hong Kongers who hold BNO status and are veterans of Her Majesty’s Hong Kong Military Service Corps have long pressed for grant of full British citizenship, which was given to a large number of their colleagues before 1997. Does the Minister agree that in view of the current developments, the time is right for their applications to be decided, having been under active consideration by the Government for over six years?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the focus of the noble and gallant Lord on this campaign, which he has again drawn to the attention of your Lordships’ House and the Government. As we look at BNO status and its application, I will certainly take back once again the long-standing position on this issue of the noble and gallant Lord and I will write to him.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
We come to Report stage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. Any Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. A participant who wishes to press an amendment, other than the lead amendment in a group, to a Division must give notice in 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.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, given the large number of speakers and the large number of amendments we need to cover, I remind noble Lords of the rules of debate on Report as listed in the Companion, particularly at paragraph 8.138: arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 8th March 2021
(3 years, 1 month 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 171-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (8 Mar 2021)
18:54 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 234 - Amendment 4 agreed.
Baroness Altmann
“(f) unreasonable prevention or threat of prevention of dissolution of a religious Jewish marriage via a religious bill of divorce (a “get”);”Member’s explanatory statement
This specifically itemises one spouse unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage with a “get” as being within the scope of the Bill by bringing it under the definition of abusive behaviour.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer. I am grateful for their cross-party support.
These amendments relate to a particular form of abuse which has long been of concern to me as a British citizen of Jewish faith, whereby a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably prevents the dissolution of his Jewish religious marriage and denies his wife the freedom to move on with her life. We seek to ensure that such behaviour is recognised as a defined form of abuse under this Bill, so that the wife can receive the support and help provided for victims.
I should stress that the majority of Jewish divorces proceed in accordance with religious laws, especially once the civil divorce settlement is agreed, but there are instances in which a husband deliberately refuses. Sometimes this is to extort money from the wife or her family; sometimes it is to wield power and control out of bitterness or spite; sometimes it is out of a vengeful desire to inflict long-term suffering on the ex-wife. The objective here is to support the victim, who is being treated as a chattel rather than as a person and denied her basic rights. There are cases where a woman has been civilly divorced from her husband for more than 20 years, yet the husband has consistently refused to engage with the religious authorities and to grant her a get. She is unable to remarry or to have further children. She is a prisoner in the marriage.
There is no intention here to undermine the role of the Jewish courts, which govern Jewish religious laws and which require the husband to voluntarily sign an official Jewish bill of divorce document, called a get. This can only be initiated by the husband in order to dissolve their Jewish marriage.
There is an entire legal framework governing all aspects of Jewish life, dating back to Biblical times. Although the present-day Jewish courts, known as batte din, and the judges, or dayanim, have been seeking ways to facilitate a process that can free the woman by means of persuasion or negotiation, this process is clearly open to abuse. The wife remains chained in the marriage and, if she wishes to stand by her faith, she cannot date or remarry another man unless she has been given the get. If she were to do so, any children would be considered illegitimate and would not be fully accepted under Jewish religious law.
We hope that these changes will assist rabbinic courts, so that fewer men will play these kinds of cruel games. Sadly, these have been used by men as leverage to control their ex-wives or demand a ransom for their freedom. We recognise that civil divorce is not a substitute for a get, without which, no matter how long the couple have been separated, they are still not considered religiously divorced. This legislation hopes to provide—and these amendments seek to achieve—a wake-up call for Jewish husbands, so that they recognise that it is socially unacceptable to refuse to religiously divorce their wives. Extortionate demands are not acceptable. It should be done in a timely way. It should be as inappropriate in this day and age for a Jewish man to refuse his wife a get as it is for a man to inappropriately fondle a woman or make lewd comments about her looks. We are seeking mindset change.
I hugely regret that this remains an issue for the rabbinic authorities, who have been unable sufficiently to overcome the problem that this causes for women. I understand and fully respect that these are difficult points of Torah, Talmudic and Mishnaic law, which I do not claim to have detailed legal knowledge of. I bow to the legislators in this country on Jewish matters, but I believe that we have a duty to ensure that these Jewish women are protected. They are entitled to the same protections as other victims of abuse.
Fantastic charities such as Jewish Women’s Aid and GETToutUK have been helpful, and many legal and other experts have pleaded for change. I hope that these amendments will further encourage recalcitrant husbands to free their former wives and that society will recognise their victimhood. Such behaviour is not only unreasonable and abusive; it is immoral. These amendments seek to establish that decent behaviour cannot encompass this type of abuse. Legislation cannot force a man to give a get. The religious courts want men voluntarily to attend and grant it. We are sensitive to concerns that a coerced get may be considered invalid, leaving the wife permanently held hostage in the unwanted marriage. We hope that this mindset change in the national community will be forthcoming as we move forward with this legislation.
The later amendments in this group, Amendments 74, 79 and 80, are designed to clarify that the Serious Crime Act 2015 definition of controlling or coercive behaviour covers a situation where a Jewish couple is separated or divorced under secular law and no longer cohabiting, but the religious marriage is not yet dissolved and the husband persistently refuses to give a get. The amendments seek to confirm the previous belief, not yet tested in court, that such a husband could be prosecuted for the crime of controlling or coercive behaviour and face criminal sanctions, even if the couple are no longer living together. However, I am pleased to tell the House that I will not need to move these amendments as Amendment 45 in a later group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has the support of the Minister and of my noble friends Lady Bertin and Lady Sanderson. That amendment would explicitly establish that post-separation abuse is covered by the 2015 Act, and that an unreasonable get refusal would potentially be a serious crime.
Since this issue was raised in Committee, I have been hugely grateful to my noble friends the Ministers who have continued to engage with us. I thank them and their departmental officials, and also the domestic abuse commissioner and her team, who have been so supportive and understanding of this situation. Indeed, perhaps I may put on record how grateful I am to be living in a country where issues of this nature, which affect a particular religion, can be engaged with so seriously and sensitively by our Government, the Civil Service and other officials.
The domestic abuse commissioner has stated that she welcomes these proposed amendments to the Bill and that she recognises that this would be a form of coercive behaviour on the grounds of psychological or economic abuse or coercion. She has requested and recommended that this issue be included in statutory guidance under the heading of “wider spiritual abuse”.
Since this issue was raised in Committee, we have listened carefully to the debate and we would like to thank again the domestic abuse commissioner and the Ministers. Although I stressed clearly that these amendments are designed to relate solely to Jewish religious divorces, with no intention to impact on any other religious groups, we understand that there were concerns of a read-across to other religions.
Having listened carefully to the debate in Committee, I have also been grateful for ministerial assurances that unreasonable and persistent refusal to give a wife a get is already covered by the broad definitions of abuse in the Bill, and I have received assurances that this will be explicitly mentioned in the statutory guidance. I would be grateful if my noble friend would confirm this and, on that basis, I would therefore accept that this issue need not be in the Bill and I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to move Amendment 1.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have signed all the amendments in this group, which have been signed by noble Lords from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and the Cross Benches—not very usual. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said so very clearly, all these amendments relate to a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage.
My thanks go to Government Ministers for engaging with us and for seeking a UK legal solution to this medieval enigma. I would have preferred for these amendments, clear as they are, to be in the Bill. However, I have to accept, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the moment, that the problem lies with current interpretations of the rules of Jewish marriage, and not with a parliamentary solution. There is no doubt that chained women and their children, after a civil divorce, are being unreasonably discriminated against for life. I accept that the Government have been sympathetic and have sought by practical means of guidance issued to help those affected, such as with Amendment 45, which I understand will be supported by the Government.
I am grateful for this assistance, but it is not enough. Even if we do not vote on these amendments today, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I will continue to call for a more sympathetic approach from the Beth Din religious authorities. They rely on the Catch-22 absurdity that a Jewish divorce is not recognised if the recalcitrant husband is seen to be “coerced” into giving a get, resulting in the divorce not being recognised in Jewish law. Thus the agunah, or chained woman, is prohibited from having intimate relations with a man other than her husband and cannot remarry in an orthodox ceremony. In a really unacceptable denial of rights, the children will have severe restrictions placed upon them. Children should not suffer in this way, whatever the reason. This is unacceptable in 2021.
However, these same restrictions on coercion do not stop coercion of the wife being blackmailed, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, into giving a get, be it by payment of money, loss of family home or access to the children of the marriage. All the amendments in this group seek to provide a remedy and I welcome the moves in the Bill and in the guidance. However, what we do not want is to worsen the situation by creating the very perceived coercion which these despicable men rely on.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first came across the problem with which Amendment 1 deals when I was promoting the divorce Act in 1996 and I was assisted in great measure by my late friend Lord Jakobovits, who was then the Chief Rabbi.
The problem arises, as has been explained, for a person of the Jewish faith who is married and then decides to seek divorce. If she is female, she may get a decree of divorce in the English courts, but the Jewish law to which she feels bound requires that she cannot be divorced under that law without the agreement of her husband. Some husbands who have been divorced by the English courts decline to agree that the wife should be allowed to divorce under the Jewish law which they have both agreed to follow. In that situation, the husband is able to hold the wife into the marriage which she has made clear she wishes to leave.
The exercise of power by the husband is a controlling or coercive power within the meaning of Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Since they are both over the age of 16 and have been personally connected within the meaning of Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill, it is clear that the husband is showing what under the Bill is described—and this will shortly become law—as domestic abuse towards the wife and therefore is subject to the remedies for her provided in the Bill. No distinct amendment is required in order to bring the wife into the situation where she can receive the help that the Bill will provide when it becomes an Act.
I agree that there is a problem which cannot be solved by us about a get having to be voluntary. The use of one of the remedies may be easier than another in that situation, but one thing I am sure of is that it does not do any good to alter the provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill by these amendments, at least in respect of everything except the Serious Crime Act—but I do not think it requires anything to be done in that place, either. Adding things such as “reasonable” and “unreasonable” and so on is a mistake and the proper thing to do is to leave Clause 1 as it is, because it undoubtedly carries with it the implication that the refusal of a get is domestic abuse.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Ministers involved have done a great service by listening to the Members who have put forward these amendments. I am pleased to support all the amendments in this group, to which I have put my name.
By accepting the need to stigmatise husbands who behave unreasonably in not giving a get, the Government are sending a signal to spiteful men and to fossilised religious authorities that compassion and secular standards have to prevail. I support the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in all that he has said about this. The ability to refuse a religious divorce provides abusive husbands with power to control and to subvert conditions relating to the divorce, by, for example, demanding that the divorce settlement be repaid. The refusal can have a grievous effect on a woman’s entire life. She may be prevented from remarrying while still of childbearing age and there is concern for the status of children that she may have in future.
I am not defending the religious law underlying this, and it is not confined to Judaism. Nevertheless, it is accepted by some women here, and by millions around the world, but it is time for the secular law principles to prevail, all the more so since from this autumn, we will have no-fault divorce, a system which does not allow the unwilling spouse to defend a divorce at all—it must be accepted. The guidance, which I hope will contain these provisions, is a good example of how British law manages to encompass a diversity of views within its system. A man who refuses a get unreasonably in the future may even be found guilty of a criminal offence of coercive and controlling behaviour, under the Serious Crime Act 2015, because this Bill clarifies that domestic abuse provisions apply to former couples, even after separation. Nevertheless, this provision would work more effectively as a threat than an actual imprisonment, because the get must be granted by the husband without direct coercion. The clarification in the statutory guidance which we hope for will mean that this is a good day for women and a step closer to equality in religious law.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak personally in this debate. It is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, because I remember 1996. I was in the Chamber as a newly appointed Peer and remember very well Lord Jakobovits, who was quite a close friend.
I come from an orthodox Jewish family and I am an orthodox Jew. My grandfather was an orthodox rabbi. He taught me Hebrew and Aramaic from the age of six or seven, and his wife, my maternal grandmother, was very concerned about the problem of get. She used to try persuading the rabbinical authorities, including my grandfather, who was not a dayan—a judge—of the rightness of the cause. She remained, throughout her life, from the First World War onwards, an activist on this. My grandfather supported her with a smile, but he recognised that the Jewish courts were rather reluctant to move forward.
My mother travelled around the world trying to persuade the rabbis of the problem faced by the agunah. She spoke to American, Israeli and Australian rabbis—for example, the Chief Rabbi of Israel—and those in parts of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who will be speaking in this debate, can testify to how frightening my mother was. Unquestionably, many strictly orthodox rabbis appeared to be persuaded. She was always greeted with polite acquiescence, but nothing has happened, and one of the problems is that there are many different courts, so-called batte din, around the world. There is more than one in this country and they have been reluctant to work collectively in any way.
Another reason for being personally interested in this debate is that this is the week of my 48th wedding anniversary. My wife is not listening to what I am saying about divorce, by the way. Judaism differs from many other faiths because religious law is based on Talmud, which dates back to the Mishnah from the second century and the fifth century. It is a huge and remarkable compilation of discussions by the rabbis, who, of course, disagree with each other. Jews always disagree, and the Talmud is one of the few books of law of any kind which is almost entirely a matter of questions. One rabbi asks a question and another group of rabbis answers with a question. That is how the Talmud has built up. It has left Judaism almost unique in its religious format. It is not pyramidal—there is no one central authority. There is no supreme court in Judaism. I suspect that a supreme court would be in the world to come, not in this world. That has been a major problem for a few issues, particularly this issue of the chained woman.
It is embarrassing for someone such as myself to try persuading an English Parliament, to which I am absolutely committed, to help with Jewish law. I would also say that these instances of irreligious men hiding behind their religious cloak is much rarer than one might think, but none the less, there is this very important case for a few people where the future happiness of a woman, her freedom and, to some extent, the possibility of her having children is so important to her and to the community. It would at least prevent this shocking instance, so I am delighted that the Government are minded in some way to help us. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, feels that the amendment to follow, to which I will listen with great care, will help to sort this matter out. I congratulate her on bringing forward this important matter, which affects a number of Jewish families.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I am not Jewish, but as a woman of faith I appreciate the complexities detailed in the amendments. I am grateful to all organisations which have kept us fully briefed throughout the passage of this Bill. I salute them today, for many have spent a lifetime advocating for victims and survivors. As we approach the end, I have drawn on their experience, sentiments, and many of their expressions and words, to speak today, and I stand in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and other noble Lords who have spoken.
Violence and abuse often beget another generation of violence, not in all families, but some are so scathed by the pain, humiliation and loss of hope, respect and self-esteem, and mental and physical well-being, that this impacts all aspects of their lives. Women have achieved significant positions in society and throughout the globe, yet perpetrators— mostly men—have, as has been said, continued to feel entitlement to an inalienable right to batter and abuse their wives and partners, sometimes using religious references. Throughout the years, many in families and communities and, shockingly, lawmakers and law enforcers, have often been bystanders, designating the degradation of women as “domestic”. Women have tolerated millennia of violence and persecution sanctioned by family, society, and worst of all, the state, and sometimes even religion. This Bill is our pledge that we will uphold a society which liberates victims and survivors to live free of the fear of violence and abuse and, more importantly, institutionalise justice, freedom and liberty from aggressors and their assailants.
Laws, while a cornerstone, will not on their own aid the victims, the survivors, and their families to rebuild their lives. They will continue to require proper and adequate financial assistance and structural support to protect them until they are strong enough in transit from victim to survivor. Therefore, at the outset it is crucial that the gendered context of abuse is recognised on the face of the Bill. We live in an unequal world, where women are often at the margin or society, no matter what advances we have made in some aspects of our society. All victims of domestic abuse need support, but how we respond to men and women will inevitably be different, as has been stated, and therefore their experiences and needs require appropriate responses. To deny a gendered approach is to persist in repudiating the experiences of the vast majority of victims and survivors of violence and abuse, who are women in our country and throughout all parts of our world.
The Istanbul convention also requires states to take a gendered approach, taking on board women’s faiths when implementing laws and policies on domestic abuse. This Bill cannot deny the reality, thus ignoring well-established evidence that women escaping and recovering from violence and abuse will require women-only services.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is now speaking to the amendment that comes in the next group. If she would constrain her remarks to the amendments in the first group, that would be appreciated.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
Later in this Bill, we will be discussing the role of Cafcass and the family court in instructing contact with children, which calibrates comprehensive briefing, and must always ensure that the protection and well-being of children are at the forefront of any discussions. Although I recognise the important and useful role of Cafcass and the family court system, I suggest it is far from resilient in its effectiveness and application, due to insufficient understanding of the impact of violence and abuse.
I wish to address the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and her call for get refusal to be recognised as a form of domestic abuse within the statutory definition to ensure that Jewish women are protected and can access a DAPO on the grounds that a get is being withheld by an abuser.
I appreciate that this amendment specifically addresses get. I am in awe of the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in getting us to this point. If husbands who refuse wives religious divorce are likely to be prosecuted, it would be a godsend, not just for Jewish women, as it would give hope to other women of faith, including Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus—many of whom often discover, when there is a violent incident or separation, that their religious ceremonies are not recognised by the laws of our country. This blights the lives of countless women and families who have no recourse to the laws. The Register Our Marriage campaign and other leading women’s organisations welcome these proposed changes on get, as do I. It raises hope for others seeking state recognition for their plight in relation to religious ceremonies.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I take part briefly in this debate because I was moved by what my noble friend Lady Altmann said in Committee. I go by one abiding conviction: we are all equal under the law and every subject of Her Majesty the Queen deserves the same consideration, the same protection and the same advancement as any other. As a great admirer of the Jewish community and what it has contributed to our national life over many centuries, I believe that what my noble friend is arguing for today is something that we should all recognise as a legitimate request. I was delighted to hear her comments that she believes that this will be covered, even though her own amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
I have tried to help a little in the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has done for Muslim women in the context of sharia law. Again, it is important that everyone in this country—every woman—has the same benefits as every other. The rule of law is what makes this a civilised country.
I sincerely hope that we will go forward from Report to see this important landmark Bill on the statute book very soon, and that it will indeed give true and equal protection to all those who suffer or who are in fear of domestic abuse. I am glad to support this amendment.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of this group of amendments, which I have signed. I associate myself with the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my colleagues. I also thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the officials of the domestic abuse commissioner for their engagements on these amendments.
There is indeed progress. As my noble friends have said, there are some clear indications for some modest but significant improvements as outlined. Crucially, I hope we will hear some reassurance, building on what was said in Committee, that statutory guidance, as provided for in Clause 73, will take into account the measures proposed in the amendments.
It is also important to note that there is a host of additional elements throughout this Bill which support the plight of victims and will provide new opportunities for assistance and help, including DAPOs, the role of the domestic abuse commissioner and many others. There is no doubt that more will be done over time. At its very heart, this is a form of gender discrimination that we really cannot accept.
The Government have made a number of arguments as to why they could not go further or place these matters on the face of the Bill. Indeed, there is a reasonable point that the Government have not had enough time to tease through all the different implications for all faiths on this matter. There is a less persuasive point about drafting preferences.
There are two arguments, however, that are surely utterly wrong and incompatible with the underlying intentions behind this Bill: namely, that this is only domestic abuse in certain circumstances and that English law alone cannot solve this matter. A plainly gender-specific arrangement which places women where they have less rights and power in courts, which are exclusively run by the decisions of men, is wrong. This is not a situation we should accept, nor is it an arrangement we should settle for, even under any calculation of what religious freedoms should be accorded to faith communities in our country.
In Holland, the courts have been making rulings which have included fines and even imprisonment of husbands unwilling to deliver gets, with all the support of the rabbinate and the religious courts. In fact, under Dutch jurisprudence since 2002, which was strengthened in specific legislation just a couple of years ago—and which has been accessed by Jewish women across Europe, including, previously, some from the UK who, unfortunately, can no longer access it now—the secular courts are able to unchain Jewish women in these circumstances. The distinguished Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the head of the conference of European orthodox rabbis, supports this measure, as does rabbi Aryeh Ralbag, the former chief rabbi of Amsterdam, who now works in the orthodox courts in New York to bring reform and change. They support the Dutch judiciary’s proactive approach and recognise that, over 2,000 years, the role of the religious courts and the nature of Jewish communities in modern times is different. In response to the opposition of those who resist any notion that secular values or laws should ever interfere in how the Jewish law operates in liberal democracies. Rabbi Ralbag has powerfully said:
“Am I concerned that this is creating a precedent for interference? In some places, yes, I am. But I and every rabbi need to measure this against the pain and suffering that is being visited on Jewish women right now. And right now, this is what we can do to help”.
Regrettably, we are a long way from that here in the UK, but this is something that I think should inspire us that more can and must be done through this Bill—and indeed after it. I have been truly shocked and humbled over the issues presented by these amendments. I have been contacted by tens of women in this situation since I first spoke out. I have heard the most traumatic stories, including with people I knew, and in some cases people I have socialised with. How true it is that you never know what is going on, even with people you think you know well. The private torments, appalling behaviour, abuse and control—it has been utterly shocking. How important it is that there are excellent organisations such as the Jewish Women’s Aid and GETTout UK. I have been shocked at how some members of the legal profession have been providing the use of the get as a bargaining chip to ensure that women cannot receive what the law is clear and firm they are fully entitled to.
These issues go much deeper than the granting of the get and involve many cases that do not even touch the sides of the religious courts, where they are prepared to intervene. So while I am grateful to the Government for the progress that I hope the Minister will confirm during his speech, we cannot be satisfied with where we are. There is a huge duty on leaders in the Jewish community to face up to this dark side. While thus far it does not do what the Dutch have done, I hope the Bill will make them think and come round to proposing more legislative interventions themselves. I hope Jewish women will find comfort in the support that the Bill will give them in their struggles ahead, and for that we must be grateful.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to and follow my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the other sponsors of these amendments.
I wish to make two brief points. The first is that whenever there is an unequivocal imbalance in power relations, that affects behaviour. The behaviour relayed to me in the context of these amendments particularly concerns women who remain in abusive relationships precisely because, in any definition of “negotiation”, the odds of getting out are stacked against them. One cannot go fairly into a separation negotiation if the other side has additional cards that are greater than the ones you possess. That imbalance affects ongoing behaviour; it will be affecting people’s behaviour now, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn rightly pointed out, in cases where perhaps no one will know anything at all other than the woman directly affected. There is a responsibility on the Government to listen acutely to the expertise being brought.
That brings me to my second point—and it is an apposite time to be making it in the context of Lord Speaker elections and people thinking about the size of the House—about the diversity of this place. There is no purpose in having an unelected Second Chamber if it does not represent the diversity of the communities out there. With these amendments and the Government’s arguments against them, we see a juxtaposition of the best and the not so good. Here we see a community effectively represented, by Members from across the range of the political spectrum knowledgably putting forward their expertise to the Government and to the House. But if we are to have a purpose here and carry out the precise role that an unelected Chamber needs to, we need to be far more inclusive of all communities across the country. The amendments, as clearly as any that I have ever seen, absolutely demonstrate the strengths of this House but also, in a sense—and I anticipate that this will be the Government’s response—part of its ongoing weaknesses, in that we are not inclusive enough of all communities.
I congratulate those who have brought forward their expertise from their community for the rest of us. With such cross-party wisdom, it would be foolish of us to ignore that expertise.
Lord Polak (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who, as a non-Jew, has done, and continues to do, so much in the fight against anti-Semitism.
The well-informed debate in Committee was a good one and today’s debate has been just as important and impressive. I am delighted to confirm the assertions by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about his mother, the late Ruth Winston-Fox; she was a force to be reckoned with but also a wonderfully warm, creative and successful campaigner. She clearly produced quite an impressive son, too.
The Bill, which is welcomed across the House and beyond, is about helping as many people who need it as possible. That is why I support my noble friend Lady Altmann’s amendments; as always, she made the case strongly and eloquently. I too am grateful to the Government, specifically on the Front Bench, my noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Wolfson. There can be no doubt in my mind that withholding a get is abusive behaviour. I also pay tribute to the inspiring work of Jewish Women’s Aid.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak to show support from these Benches for the amendments. They relate to Jewish law but there are many women who, for many reasons, are effectively prevented from leaving a failed marriage because their spouse unreasonably decides to prevent them moving on with their lives. Just one example might be where a wife is subject to abuse but the husband threatens to cut her off without a penny if she leaves the relationship. Whether or not the threat could be carried out is not the point if the threat is believed. In the case of the amendments, the husband has to consent to the divorce in Jewish law, and so the threat is real.
It is a privilege to be able to speak on this Bill on International Women’s Day. Any woman should be free to leave any relationship if she so chooses, and that includes relationships covered by these amendments. In 2021 there should be no chained women.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Labour is happy to support this group of amendments but recognises the realities of abuse that different communities face. We must ensure that what is in the Bill works in practice for victims of all backgrounds in the UK.
The technical aspects of the amendments have been described powerfully and in detail by other noble Lords. When I came to review them in preparation for today, I was struck by the complexity of the situation surrounding victims caught in these particular circumstances due to religious faith, and the clarity with which these amendments have been written in order to ameliorate the effects and consequences of that faith while unlocking the rights of the woman in that situation and disallowing perpetrators from using the get negotiations as an abusive bargaining chip.
I pay tribute to the noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments for the experienced and knowledgeable way in which they have highlighted this problem, and I am glad of the support across all areas of the House for the amendments, on the grounds of domestic abuse by way of controlling and coercive behaviour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke of in her detailed opening speech, this is a defined form of abuse where the victim is treated as chattel. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Winston’s insights into the uniqueness of Judaism in not having one central authority, as well as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn’s powerful and cogent arguments about what must be done, and the insight that he showed in his comment about not knowing what is actually going on with people who you think you know.
Inclusion in the Bill provides the opportunity to ensure that its provisions and protections are applicable to all. It specifically recognises the plight of these women by removing the shadow of abuse and control, restoring their right to exercise their faith through their ability to remarry and have children within their faith. The recognition would also offer these women other protections under the Act, once it is passed, if they are specifically included. It is in line with a key objective of the Bill: to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. Key is the ability of women to bring a case where they retain control of the process as the victims, rather than as a witness in a prosecution, having criminal sanctions as a civil party. It also clarifies that unreasonably preventing the obtaining of a get can include the imposition of unfair conditions, calibrated by reference to being substantially less favourable terms than the civil courts have ordered.
In conclusion, on International Women’s Day, this group highlights what so many noble Lords have said. The Bill needs to work for all victims and to do that it needs to grapple with the reality of how domestic abuse is experienced, in all the different ways that it is, by all of our communities across the UK—whatever their faith or ethnicity—by those living with it and trying to escape it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling these amendments. As a number of speakers have said, it is particularly apt that we are debating this on International Women’s Day. The quality of speeches in this debate is a testament to the strength of feeling across the House. Indeed, the standard of speeches has set a very high bar for the rest of Report.
I hope the House will forgive me if I depart from my prepared text to pick up two comments by my noble friend Lord Cormack. He first said that all were equal under the law. I respectfully agree entirely. Towards the end of his short but powerful contribution, he also said, if I took it down correctly, “The rule of law is what makes this a civilised country.” Again, I respectfully agree, and those two propositions guide not only the work of my department but my approach to this matter.
Amendments 1 and 3 would add a sixth limb to the list of behaviours in Clause 1(3) which count as abusive; namely, the unreasonable refusal to agree to the granting of a religious bill of divorce, or get, which is necessary to dissolve a Jewish religious marriage. The threat of such a refusal would also be caught by the amendment. It is undeniable that women who are refused a get by their husbands suffer long-lasting and significant consequences. A woman who has not received a get is regarded in the eyes of Jewish religious law as still married. She is therefore unable to remarry, but that is not the only disability which she suffers. Perhaps more importantly, if she does not remarry but has further children with another Jewish partner, those children will be severely restricted as a matter of Jewish law as to whom they are later able to marry.
The term applied in Jewish law to a woman whose husband refuses to give her a get, being an “agunah” or “chained”, is thus apt and tragic. I know that Jewish religious authorities are concerned about the problem but have not, so far, found a solution to it within Jewish religious law. That is a source of regret to many, but not something which English law alone can solve. While I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, put it, that this issue goes back to medieval times and may go back further—it is certainly of long standing—it is a matter which ultimately, so far as Jewish law is concerned, the Jewish religious authorities themselves have to deal with. If the undoubted abilities of the mother of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, were insufficient to resolve this problem—I pass on congratulations from the Front Bench to him on his wedding anniversary—and she did not succeed with all her talents, one wonders where the solution will come from.
While English law cannot solve this problem, there is something which English law can and should deal with. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, reminded the House, this is not the first time English law has engaged itself in this area. He reminded the House of the significant work done by the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, of blessed memory, which led up to the legislation at the start of this century. English law can recognise that the refusal to grant a religious dissolution is all too often about the exertion of control by one spouse over the other—almost invariably, in the context of a get, by the husband over the wife—and, as such, may be considered a form of domestic abuse in certain circumstances
However, as my noble friend Lady Williams outlined in her response in Committee, we consider that this would sit better in the statutory guidance on domestic abuse provided for in Clause 73, rather than in the Bill. Again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, identified, that is because the list of abusive behaviours included in the definition is purposefully drafted to be high level. That definition is therefore to be applied by the courts and other agencies on a case-by-case, fact-specific basis. Including specific circumstances in the Bill, such as a refusal to grant a get, may lead to calls for inclusion of other examples which would have two adverse consequences. First, as a matter of drafting, it would make the definition unwieldy. Secondly, we do not want to give the impression by including specific examples that there is a hierarchy of abuse. We are concerned to capture and prevent all forms of domestic abuse.
Before I provide further reassurance on the matter of statutory guidance, which a number of noble Lords have referred to, it would make sense to respond to Amendment 79 first. That amendment seeks to ensure that both the guidance I have just referred to and the statutory guidance issued under Section 77 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 include the unreasonable refusal to grant a get within their discussion of controlling or coercive behaviour. While we would not want to prescribe in statute what statutory guidance must contain, the House will have heard my own and my noble friend Lady Williams’ previous commitments during Committee and subsequent discussions to address this issue in the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 73.
I am pleased to have met with my noble friend Lady Altmann, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer, recently to discuss this matter and share our progress on including the issue within the statutory guidance. Home Office officials have been working closely with my noble friend Lady Altmann, with Jewish Women’s Aid and others to shape the reference to this issue in the statutory guidance. I was particularly pleased to hear my noble friend refer to the work done by my department’s officials in this regard as well.
I am pleased that we have now included specific reference to refusal to grant a get within the draft guidance. We have also included a specific case study on get refusal, provided by Jewish Women’s Aid—to whom I pay tribute, as my noble friend Lord Polak did—to bring the issue to life for those reading that guidance. Let me say this clearly and unambiguously: there are, and no doubt will be, cases in which the refusal to give a get may be considered a form of domestic abuse. As my noble friend Lady Deech reminded the House, that is especially the case if refusal to grant a get is used as a method to undermine a financial settlement imposed by the civil court. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, reminded the House, the issue here is that that power affects all the negotiations which surround the issue of separation.
Turning back to the statutory guidance, we have also added a new section on spiritual abuse, a particular form of abuse where perpetrators use the victim’s faith or other belief system to control them. We have worked closely in this regard with the Faith and Violence Against Women and Girls Coalition, drawing on its expertise. The new section is now comprehensive and takes up a few pages within the guidance.
I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, that this applies to all faiths. Spiritual abuse is not faith specific, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the Government’s approach is to be absolutely inclusive of all communities within our country. We will continue to work closely with the experts as we develop the guidance, and we will be publishing an updated version of the draft guidance shortly after Royal Assent for a formal consultation, where there will be a further opportunity for interested parties to contribute. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, because what we are dealing with here are ultimately issues of power and control, I hope that that will enhance the nature and quality of the consultation.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks, and am truly humbled by the widespread support across the House for the sentiments and intent of these amendments. Every noble Lord who spoke supported this group of amendments. I hope that, on International Women’s Day, this will help promote a mindset change among Jewish men, or men of any faith, that the position of power they may find themselves in should not be exercised against the interests of their wives. I accept that the broad definitions do cover get refusal, and I appreciate my noble friend’s unambiguous statements to that effect. On the basis of the assurances that I have most gratefully received, I will not be moving my Amendments 3, 74, 79 and 80, and I thank my noble friend and the department for all their engagement. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 1.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 2
Baroness Meyer
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in my name and kindly supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which I very much hope the Government will consider positively.
The reason I was sent to this House was my 19 years of work on family and children’s issues. Every day for nearly two decades I stepped through the wreckage of relationships destroyed by one parent poisoning the mind of a child against the other parent. Sometimes the abuser was a man, sometimes a woman. The gender was irrelevant. The horrific irony is that all parties—the abuser, the abused and the child—end up victims in their different ways, with lives wrecked and psychological damage beyond measure. For some the only way out is suicide. The Government say that there is no need to include an amendment as this form of abuse is already covered by implication in the Bill. But why should it be covered by implication and not explicitly?
In Clause 1(4) there is already detailed reference to “economic abuse”, by which one partner or spouse seeks to use money to coerce and control the other. How can economic abuse merit mention when the weaponising of children for the purpose of coercion and control by one parent over the other goes unmentioned? No one has put it better than the distinguished family court judge, His Honour Judge Stephen Wildblood QC, who said
“The problem with Parental Alienation is that it’s not about the child at all. It is about the adults … It’s using children as an instrument of that parent’s skewed emotions.”
In my book, there are few forms of domestic abuse more callous and damaging than that. Are we to draw the conclusion that money matters more than the lives and souls of the victims of domestic abuse—men, women and children? That surely cannot be the case.
This has nothing to do with creating a hierarchy of behaviours, as the Government fear. It is to ensure that through an Act of Parliament the issue of children as the victims of domestic abuse is not buried under a barrage of gender politics and misinformation. This debate needs to be broadened, not narrowed. There is a crying need for the justice system to be better equipped to distinguish between false and authentic accusations of alienation: between children who for good reason do not want to see one parent, and children who have been indoctrinated to say so. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put it in our previous debate:
“A little more time might be spent teaching magistrates, district judges and circuit judges a little more about it”.—[Official Report, 25/1/21; col. 1403]
“It”, of course, is parental alienation.
There is the rub: the dreaded words “parental alienation”. I regret to say that rational debate around this term has been made well-nigh impossible by the controversy and emotion that it attracts. That is why my amendment, instead of using the term, in effect describes what my supporters and I mean by it—that is,
“a parent’s behaviour deliberately designed to damage the relationship between a child of the parent and the other parent.”
Seen in that light, I cannot believe that any reasonable person can object to our amendment.
Of course I have every sympathy for women who fear that men will use parental alienation as a defence against well-founded claims of abuse. The last thing that I want to do is to make life easier for an abusive and dishonest man—to the contrary: I believe that our amendment, far from disarming women victims, will strengthen their defences. But it is plain wrong to assert that so-called parental alienation is a stratagem used exclusively by men against women. For example, Judge Wildblood was reported as saying in 2019 in an alienation case that the children would suffer “significant and long-term” emotional damage, adding that
“the cause of that harm lies squarely with this mother”.
Alienation exists; to deny it would be to deny that the earth is round. More to the point, noble Lords have all seen the petition signed within a matter of weeks by over 1,400 fathers, mothers and grandparents, begging the Government to hear their voices and to include in the Bill a reference to this vile form of abuse. Every day I receive emails asking for that. If that is not persuasive enough, I have an abundance of proof in hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers and scholarly articles, to be found in the written evidence that I have circulated. This body of work comprehensively refutes the so-called expert advice submitted to the Ministry of Justice—advice that says on the one hand that there is no such thing as parental alienation and on the other that it benefits men only.
This is a Bill that, if it becomes law, will deeply determine the well-being and mental health of families across the land for years to come. It is therefore vital that we have complete clarity about its intent and reach. Can my noble friend the Minister agree that the family courts would benefit enormously from having parental alienation defined in law? Can she further agree that the use of children as a weapon in adult conflicts is a form of child abuse and that this matter should fly above all politics and issues of gender, since it equally affects men and women, their children and their wider families? Lastly, can she confirm that parental alienation will remain in the final version of the guidance to the Bill and that Cafcass—that is to say, the experts and not the ideologues—will play a central role in advising the committee that will examine the guidance? I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek once again to put parental alienation both in capitals and in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has again outlined her reasons for this. However, I do not hear any difference in objective from the amendments tabled in Committee. Those of us who oppose the amendments believe that adding parental alienation to the Bill is redundant because the alienating behaviours that she referred to are already caught in the definitions of coercive control. Further, the Government have agreed to add a phrase about alienating behaviours to the statutory guidance, which will sit alongside some of the other patterns of behaviour in domestic abuse.
As was mentioned in Committee, there are already problems in our family courts with one parent—often but absolutely not always the father of the child or children—alleging such behaviour. Unfortunately, as outlined in the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel report, fear of false allegations of parental alienation means that survivors and children of abusive and coercive relationships are suppressing evidence for fear that the charge of alienation will be made against them. Indeed, it is becoming such a worry in the family courts that even their solicitors are advising them against such evidence. There can be a history of abusive behaviour, especially coercive control, that is not presented formally to the family courts. This can include violence, restraining orders, criminal convictions and long-term patterns of such behaviour. Perpetrators of such fixated behaviour can often sound convincing and their ex-partners are often terrified of their behaviour, even in a court hearing.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and I went through some of the history of the development of parental alienation syndrome, which I will not repeat today, since we are now on Report, other than to say that there is evidence from the family courts of some abuse of a parental alienation defence. There are also some questions to be asked about the role of so-called experts in this area. Practice direction 25B, on the duties of an expert, the expert’s report and arrangements for an expert to attend court, is very clear on the requirements, including registration with a UK statutory body or having appropriate academic qualifications. The expert must also have completed the training. There are concerns from contested cases that some experts in this area might not have met this high bar, so I ask the Minister what checks there are to ensure that all expert witnesses meet practice direction 25B.
That is also why the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Marks have tabled Amendment 44. We need to ensure that the courts are aware of the implications of a whole range of behaviours, especially in some of these egregious cases where there might have been some controlling, abusive, coercive and even alienating behaviour. The definition of coercive control—after many years of campaigning by organisations such as Women’s Aid and others, it is thankfully now a crime—is
“an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten”
the victim. That seems to fit very well the definition that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has been seeking. I hope that, on this basis, she will withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Winston. No? We shall move on, then, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have supported this amendment on the basis that it shows what the general definitions reveal and include. I do not think that it will be necessary to pursue it, if we have a clear understanding that the sort of behaviour that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has described is covered by the phrase “controlling or coercive behaviour”.
There is another important definition that deals with children being used as weapons against their parents. It points out that activity towards a child may well be against the parent. Clause 1(5) says:
“For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour ‘towards’ B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).”
I am certain that there are a large number of cases in which one parent, using his or her relationship with the child, seeks to damage that child’s relationship with the other parent. It is a natural weaponising in a conflict, which is apt to come forward in this sort of fighting between parents. When they are antagonistic towards each other, they are apt to try to bring children to their side of the dispute, which strikes me as extremely dangerous.
I believe that the attempt to use one parent’s relationship to damage the children’s relationship with the other parent is an obnoxious type of controlling or coercive behaviour. I verily believe that, if allowed to persist until the end, you will get parental alienation, because the operation of trying to damage the child’s relationship with that parent ultimately succeeds. That is what alienation is: by that means, the child has been successfully cut off from the other parent’s company, love and support. As we show, the law as it stands includes that.
The reason for the amendment is to illustrate that that is so, simply to make it possible to have this debate on Report. There was a tremendous amount of debate in Committee suggesting that parental alienation should not be contemplated. Sadly, I fear that, if the conduct that we have described succeeds, it will continue to happen. The Bill already, properly, includes a definition that deals with the kind of behaviour that underlies attempts to alienate the other parent from their child.
I strongly believe that this broad definition should not be restricted. I felt that the addition of qualifications in other amendments restricted the wide definition presently in the Bill. That is important, because domestic abuse is a large area and the definition manages to encompass it with great success. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is to illustrate that the conduct in question is included in the definition. Once that is accepted, as I hope it will be, the amendment will not be unnecessary.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, as one would expect, that was a fascinating contribution. In some ways, it answers a lot of my questions. I am completely behind the purpose of this amendment. To my mind, as someone who is experienced but not expert, there is nothing about the phrases in Clause 1(3)(c) and Clause 1(3)(e) that naturally covers alienation behaviour. If one were to describe this in plain English, neither of those concepts would comfortably accommodate controlling behaviour which by its nature takes place remotely. Once you have got into the business of alienation, the two parents, typically, are not together. It is difficult to see what element of control or coercion can be exercised by alienation or how, in the context of domestic abuse, the wide phrasing of
“psychological, emotional or other abuse”
could certainly be construed as covering alienation. I hope that the Government will make it clear to me and the public in general, by what they say and do outside the Bill, that alienation absolutely is covered. But I need to see that in clear and unambiguous terms.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, my support for this amendment comes without the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, or the legal expertise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Like him, I hope that this amendment is unnecessary in reality. I cannot proceed without paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her unstinting efforts to ensure that alienation of children by one parent against another is accorded its proper place in discussion of the Bill. Her efforts and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have been inspirational.
My concern throughout is for the protection of children and intervention in abusive situations at as early a stage as possible to ensure that their life chances are best fostered. It is well understood by psychologists that perpetrators of controlling and coercive behaviour will often try to separate their victim from outside contact—from friends, family, religious or social groups and even by preventing the means of communication necessary to seek help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, perpetrators are often the most confident, plausible and convincing of people. Their victims, by comparison, are often confused, anxious and timid. Both may have deeper attachment issues.
Here we are concerned with a different direction of travel, namely conscripting the innocent as proxies to alienation as part of a contest with a partner. There are doubtless many versions of this, commonly using a weak or compliant adult proxy, but there is one type that warrants special attention and that is the deliberate enmeshing of the children of a relationship by one party as a tool or lever against the other. No other identifiable category so conveniently presents itself as a vehicle for this leverage; no other proxy is so trustingly vulnerable to exploitation or so readily damaged, both in the short and long terms, by such actions.
It may be a self-justification of the perpetrator that it is for the better protection of the children from the other partner, and it merely invites retaliation by precisely the same means. I have mentioned before the perils of a wholly adversarial and corrosive no-holds-barred approach to sorting out these domestic contests. The resident parent is clearly in a strong position to influence, and issues such as access to children and much else may hang on this. The very presence of children may, paradoxically, prevent the sort of clean break that some might wish for. Typically, the children are and remain the biological offspring of both partners. What they receive from ancestors may influence what they pass down to their own offspring in turn. The toxic adversarial circumstances of a relationship breakdown of adults seems capable of rendering them particular harm. Children, as minors, are entitled to the protection of their parents and, where that fails, to the protection of society. In my opinion, society is bound to take note of those impacts on them that might lead to perpetuation of abuse in future generations.
I have been surprised by the degree of antipathy that I have experienced following the parental alienation amendment in Committee. I did not think that this was in the least bit controversial, nor worthy of such sustained criticism. But I have been heartened by the comments of many others—from male and female viewpoints—and I thank them all for the trouble they have taken to write to me.
The first criticism is that parental alienation is not defined, but it is accepted that alienating activity does exist and has long been recognised, so I take it that the use of children as proxies in the process suffers, in this instance, from a liability to multiple interpretations.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Government’s decision to keep a broad definition of domestic abuse. I believe that the coercive nature of alienation is covered in the Bill, so I am afraid that I do not consider this amendment necessary. However, having not spoken on this issue in Committee, I would like to speak briefly to say that, although the amendment is not needed, the issue is real.
I understand the concerns about the way alienation is used by perpetrators, but that does not negate the incalculable harm that was done to my noble friend Lady Meyer and her family and to the many other parents, grandparents and children who have found themselves in a similar position. Her determination to bring a greater understanding and awareness is impressive. It took great courage to stand up in this Chamber and share what is ultimately a very private, very painful experience. That experience should not simply be dismissed and I welcome the fact that work is ongoing in this area, so that we may properly understand this complicated, often devastating problem.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak against Amendment 2 as I did against the comparable amendment in Committee. I also express my opposition to the inclusion of alienating behaviour in the statutory guidance.
In Committee, having begun examining the issue of claims of parental alienation with an open mind, I focused particularly on the research and expert evidence, including a complete issue of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. Today, I will reflect on what came next. As I expected, having spoken in your Lordships’ House, written an accompanying op-ed and shared both outputs on social media, I got a significant response.
A lot of that response was emotional and angry. That did not surprise me, since we are talking about the most intimate of personal relationships, and I was more tolerant of aggressive tones than I would have been on other topics. But something struck me in many of the responses that I received. It was the use of the word “right”, as in “my right to see my children”, “parents’ rights”, “my right to direct my children’s future”. That crystalised some of the unease that I had felt in reading the academic claims backing a so-called syndrome of parental alienation—explicitly or implicitly, that was where they were coming from.
We live, of course, in what continues to be a patriarchy. Claims laid down for millennia that the father is the head of the household, that, as in ancient Rome—the classical world that some of our current Government seem to so admire—he had the right even to kill any member of it without the law offering any legal protection at all, are extremely hard to wipe away.
Under British law, until 1839 every father had the absolute right to keep control of his children should their mother leave. Even after 1839, only women who had the means to petition the Court of Chancery had a chance of keeping what we would now call custody, and then only if they could demonstrate an absolute moral clean sheet. The father’s morals were irrelevant. If your Lordships want to see how there is nothing new about coercive control, the life of Caroline Norton, whose brave, landmark campaigning won that change in the law, will demonstrate that. The global pervasiveness of this patriarchal ideology was referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said in opening this group that the Bill should not be caught up in gender politics. This issue—the entire Bill—is deeply, inevitably gendered, however much the Government might try to deny it. The struggle to get to the situation we are apparently in now, where the wellbeing of the child is predominant in decisions made about that child, was one long struggle against a society run by men in their own interests. But now we are faced with renewed efforts, a fightback for a “presumption of contact”—an assumption that if a child says they do not want to spend time with a parent, the other parent must be turning the child against them.
After entering the debate publicly in Committee, I was contacted by women who told me what presumption of contact and a fear of an accusation of parental alienation had done to them. I want to give them voice, so I will report one such case. I will call her Camilla, although that is not her name. Her account was of seven years of hellish coercive control and physical assault. She remained, at least in part, because the partner concerned told her that he would claim parental alienation if she left and did not allow wide access to the children. She was concerned about what would happen during that access.
After Camilla had left the relationship, she went through court case after court case as he claimed rights to parental access, while not paying the child maintenance that he could have afforded, and alleging that the children’s expressions of a desire not to spend time with him were a result of so-called parental alienation. Such offenders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, can be extremely convincing in a public space and in contact with professionals.
For fear of not being believed, Camilla told her child that should anything bad happen when they were with their father, the child should not tell her, but should instead tell an official authority figure. So, that upper primary school age child declared, in front of many peers and school officials at a school gathering, that their father was physically abusing his new girlfriend in front of them. Then, happily, safeguarding apparatuses kicked in, as they should have. A few weeks later that child disclosed, again to people outside the family, that they had been sexually abused by an individual that the father had left them with. It is a horrendous account and one that I will long remember, and I think of the difficulties and pressures on that child.
This brings me to my final point, one that I do not think our debate in Committee really brought out. It is about the impact on a child of being told that they are deluded, or that their mother or father is leading them astray, or lying to them, and that their own impressions, feelings, desires and beliefs about not being with a parent are some kind of false consciousness. When a child says that they do not want contact, they need to be given—no doubt for their own well-being—the chance to explore that with trained professionals and given the time to explain, to discuss and to vent their feelings.
Above all, children need to be listened to. Imagine what it feels like to have stated very clearly to officialdom that you do not want to spend time with a parent, that you have seen them doing things that are illegal or vicious or clearly damaging to other human beings, then being forced by a court to spend time with them anyway.
I was talking about these issues with a friend of mine who is over the age of 80. I was fascinated when she explained how, not through the agency of the court but through community and social pressure, she had been forced to spend teenage weekend days with her father who had separated from her mother years before. She felt that her father did not really want to be there, and she certainly did not want to be there as a teenager, but she did not have agency or control. More than 60 years later those weekends clearly still had an impact on her. We know that agency and control of one’s own self, being listened to and believed, are crucial for well-being.
It would appear that this amendment is not going to be pushed to a Division, so on one level this is academic. That is narrowly true in terms of the progress of this Bill, but in terms of defending a hard-won, long-fought-for principle of children’s interests being paramount in the official approach to custody and access, against the weight of those millennia when the father’s control was absolute or near absolute, this is an important debate. Let us keep the well-being of children as the sole goal—a very recent goal that is both a moral right and one that will give us the healthiest possible society.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, that was a very powerful speech in favour of the aims of the amendment. At the end of the last debate in Committee when I spoke I said that I was somewhat ambivalent, although I totally supported what my noble friend Lady Meyer was seeking to do. That remains my position to a large degree, although I have come down—if it were a case of this amendment going to the vote, which I hope it will not—of probably being on the side of my noble friend. There is nothing more admirable in life than somebody who dedicates himself or herself to trying to ensure that others do not suffer as he or she has done. The noble Baroness’s campaign, over 20 years or more now, to ensure that other women and men should not have to tread the road she was obliged to tread is wholly admirable and commendable. There is nothing more wicked—and I chose my words with some care—than seeking to corrupt the mind of a child, particularly so that that child is turned against either their father or, more often, sadly, their birth mother.
We have devoted time recently to debating the importance of motherhood—there is nothing more important in the world. My noble friend Lady Meyer has clearly suffered greatly. She does not want others to suffer greatly in the same way, nor do any of us. It is a question of how we achieve her aim without making this Bill more difficult. As I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I thought that between them they had got it right. They both signed this amendment but they do not really want it to be necessary.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, who is next on the list, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I thank her for all the work she has done to try to minimise the amount of involvement in the Bill necessary to make us all aware of this important issue. The amendment is designed to explicitly ensure that parental alienation is properly defined in the Bill. We have, of course, had indications today that it may be in statutory guidance, and that may be sufficient to ensure that the rights of children to see parents when it is appropriate to do so are adhered to. The amendment is not gender biased. It recognises that either parent, mother or father, may deliberately behave in such a way as to damage the relationship between a child and the other parent.
Parental Alienation UK has outlined a range of behaviours from one parent to another and I want to focus on one: when a parent makes false allegations of abuse, fitness to parent, substance abuse or mental health problems. I have worked with people with severe, enduring mental health problems where, when they have been severely ill and psychotic, it has been inappropriate for them to see their children. However, it is absolutely clear that, with modern treatment and access to supervised contact, most parents at some point should be able to see their children. That is not because of the rights of the parents. It is about the child’s right to know that the parent loves them and wants to see them, even if they are not in a position to look after them on a permanent basis. I believe that, as soon as is practicable, supervised access should be organised for children if they want to see the parent—the one they do not live with—if that parent is well enough to see them.
It is important that children know that both their parents want to stay in contact. If this is the case, the child is in a position, when they become an adult, to decide for themselves how much contact to maintain with each parent. I have heard other noble Lords oppose the amendment and I equally believe that no child should be made to see a parent without supervision if the court has decided that this would be inappropriate. I completely agree that we should recognise the vital role of Cafcass in this situation, but it is demeaning if the other parent of your child destroys letters, mementoes and gifts that you have sent, perhaps while you are too ill to see the child. These kinds of behaviour should be deliberately excluded and parents should be encouraged to try to work together through mediation. It should obviously be for the courts to decide and to determine whether parental alienation is occurring and to make decisions for access between a child and a parent, based always on the best interests of the child.
I believe that those who do not agree with this amendment have the same focus as I and others who are supporting it: to try to ensure that children grow up knowing that they have been loved, where this is so, and that they have been able, where it is safe to do so, to be in contact with both parents. I understand that the amendment may be better written within the statutory guidance and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s opinion on this matter.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for the work that she has done and, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, the effort that she has put in to trying to make sure that the suffering that she has been through is not repeated or, should it be, that the victims have proper protection under the law.
I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asserted: that the deliberately broad definitions in the Bill, which I know my noble friend has explained to the House, are ground-breaking and deliberately so and provide the widest possible access to justice for victims by having broad definitions under which others can fall. Will “controlling or coercive behaviour” in Clause 1(3)(c),
“psychological, emotional or other abuse”
in Clause 1(3)(e), and “conduct directed” at their child in Clause 1(5) cover situations where a parent deliberately damages the relationship between their child and the other parent in order to alienate that child?
For example, a father of African origin wrote to me about his partner, who had been turning their four year-old child against him since they had decided to divorce. The child, previously loving, suddenly did not wish to spend time with him. He said: “My ex made several unfounded allegations of domestic abuse to stop me from seeing my child. Not a single allegation was proven, or true, but she constantly and unjustifiably obstructed my contact with my child. I recall that a year ago my child refused to have a bath that I had run for him. He said his mother told him, ‘Daddy puts witchcraft in the tub’.” He said that the alienation built up over time so that the child now refuses to see him. Can my noble friend confirm that that father would have protection under the Bill?
I have personal experience of other situations where parents were cut out from the lives of their children. The children were being manipulated or weaponised and the wider family cut off from grandchildren and nieces and nephews. I would never want a child to be forced to be with an abusive parent. However, the ex-partner of a friend of mine, who met a new partner from Australia and wanted to move there, decided to try to break the children away from their parent. In that instance, they were told: “Daddy does not love you, because you look like me and Daddy hates me. If you see Daddy, I will get sad. If you see Daddy, he will kidnap you, because he does not want me to be with you any more. If you say that you hate Daddy and you don’t want to see him, I will buy you a bike or take you on holiday.” This is something that has really happened. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that victims of such alienation will automatically be covered under the broad definitions, so that we will not need to press this amendment to a vote.
I hope that the controversy that seems to have been caused by the term “parental alienation”, which has driven the different wording of this amendment, can be settled by being tested in court. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she says that the child needs to be listened to and assessed by professionals. The key is for the courts to be aware that alienation such as in these examples may happen and, sadly, is not a rare occurrence. As my noble friend Lady Meyer said, we have had well over a thousand signatures in a short space of time from parents who themselves have suffered this form of abuse. If the courts are looking for this situation and can bring in experts to assess whether what the child is saying has been driven by fear instilled in them by the other parent unnecessarily, unreasonably, or deliberately to rupture the relationship with that parent, the justice system will be able to differentiate between the genuine cases, where a domestic abuser or abuser of children should not have unsupervised contact with their own child, and cases such as have been described.
Cases have been clearly identified in academic studies and evidence where parents who would otherwise be able to enjoy a relationship with their child are denied that opportunity and the child is denied access to that parent and their family. That can cause lifelong mental and emotional damage to the child and, indeed, to the parent. In some cases, the distress of being broken away from one’s children or grandchildren has caused suicide. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that this is indeed covered by the Bill and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. That speech was so well articulated, passionate and thought-provoking. I also echo and “Hear, hear” her comments on the exemplary work of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on this issue.
I have previously expressed concern that the Bill expands the definition of domestic abuse too widely because I worry that some categorisations of abuse, such as emotional and psychological, are too subjective and broad to guarantee justice. Every time I look, a new category of abuse has been added. We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, that we now have “spiritual” abuse. Even the focus on domestic abuse is endangered as we stretch what constitutes “domestic” far wider than I think is helpful. My concern is that too much is being thrown at the Bill, meaning agencies and the police will not be able to see the wood for the trees.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is next on this list, is unable to take part in this debate, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to say it is beyond argument that this is an important Bill. In my professional career, I dealt with many cases of child abuse. I practised at the criminal Bar, not the family Bar. Fortunately, sitting as a recorder, I did not have to try or sentence anyone convicted of child abuse.
It is important to get the legislation right. At my first reading, I thought the Bill was sufficiently comprehensive to deal with any wrongdoing. The steps in the ladder are clear: first, the relationship is set out in Clause 1(2); then we go on to the type of relationship, supplemented in subsections (3) and (4); then subsection (5) deals with indirect behaviour. The amendment’s supporters seek to redefine this, by adding words to give an example of behaviour which is reprehensible. I understand the aims of the proposers and their real concerns. We have listened to the passionate speeches made today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has added his name to the amendment. From long experience, I would listen to his words, and the House always does with very great respect.
My fear is that this amendment is over-prescriptive. Putting this into the Bill might limit the generality of the encompassing nature of subsection (5). At the moment, I have serious doubts about whether the amendment is needed at all, as such particularising may limit the thrust of the subsection so far as other conduct is concerned. In these circumstances, having heard all the arguments, I would recommend its rejection by your Lordships.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Meyer on her courage and resilience in tabling this amendment again today. I first had the privilege of meeting her and hearing her story many years ago, and since then she has been a tireless campaigner on this issue despite, as we have seen both today and in Committee, often intense and personal challenge.
As we have heard, parental alienation is a devastating form of abuse that can extend for decades and have deeply traumatic effects on both the children and the excluded parent. There has, however, been strong resistance to recognising this as a form of abuse. Those who oppose it argue that abusive parents may themselves use the defence of parental alienation to continue their abuse. Surely, though, this is precisely why we have judges. We must have confidence in our courts and our police to make these judgments, just as they have to make countless others every day of the week.
The amendment seeks insert into the legislation the line
“such as a parent’s behaviour deliberately designed to damage the relationship between a child of the parent and the other parent”.
I am hopeful that the Government should be able to confirm that this is indeed included in the definition of coercion, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my noble friend Lady Meyer have requested. This addition would specifically draw attention to parental alienation while simultaneously giving the family courts a sound basis on which to better distinguish between genuine and false allegations of parental alienation. The amendment identifies parental alienation and protects those who are vulnerable from exploitation of the law.
The dynamics expressed in the amendment are important for a number of reasons. Alienation adversely affects the psychological development of a child in that it prevents a natural, healthy bond and relationship with a parent. A child needs to be nurtured and protected by its mother. Erica Komisar, a leading expert in attachment theory and the neuroscience of motherhood, highlights that children are at a higher risk of social, emotional and developmental issues when the essential presence of a mother is missing. But it is equally important that the child should have a relationship with their father. In a major study by the Journal of Applied Economics entitled The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency, it was found that when the interactions between a parent and a child diminish, such as in the case of parental alienation, the child perceives a decline in that parent’s benevolence. If the decline is sufficient, the child will accept its implications and move to feelings of abandonment, alienation and a lack of trust. Both the parent and the child are worse off.
Research from the Institute for Family Studies has also found that, controlling for race and parental income, boys raised without their father are much more likely to use drugs, engage in violent or criminal activity and drop out of school, while girls are more likely to engage in early sexual activity or have a child out of wedlock. The consequences of parental alienation can be deep and severe on the next generation.
There can be no doubt that judicial decisions in cases involving children must take account of all aspects of the family dynamic, including all types of abuse. There is a need for qualified professionals to assist the court in assessing whether there is abuse and, if so, its severity and how it should affect child/parent residence and contact arrangements. But the need for expertise in handling these delicate situations should not dissuade us from addressing this often hidden but deeply damaging form of abuse.
The Bill is strengthened if it captures all forms of domestic abuse and improves outcomes for those who are vulnerable to experiencing it, and we look to the Minister today to confirm that the concept of alienation is included within the definition of domestic abuse.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for her two decades of campaigning after a horrific experience that most people would not be able to turn into such a positive contribution. I wish her, the co-signatories to the amendment and all Members of your Lordships’ House a happy International Women’s Day. It is a celebratory moment, as well as a moment of remembrance which was started over 100 years ago by radical working women.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for doing something that seems all too rare in our polarised and sometimes even toxic public discourse. She has listened. I did not participate in this part of the debate in Committee, but I was struck by her speech and by the contributions that were informed by the work of various women’s organisations, and survivor organisations in particular, about the contested or loaded nature of the term “parental alienation”. I am not a psychologist, a social worker or an expert on this topic, but I was moved by contributions from those who are, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
It seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has indeed listened and has attempted in her reformulation to address behaviour rather than syndromes in a precise way that is more appropriate to legislation on difficult issues. I have no doubt that many abusive men will seek to use the term “alienation” as a stick with which to beat the surviving former partner, but, equally, I have no doubt that men and women are capable of weaponising their children during terrible relationship breakdown. I also have no doubt that this is a gendered world and a very unequal one, whether we like it or not, and that this inequality affects women, but also men and boys. It is a very vicious spiral indeed.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the purpose of this amendment, and in doing so I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on this matter. She has been consistent in her determined efforts to ensure that the impact on children is not forgotten in debates on the Bill and that parental alienation is much better defined than is the case at present. I believe that the Bill would benefit from greater clarification.
It is vital that, among the many difficult and complex issues within the Bill, we consider the impact that parental behaviour can have on their children. Sadly, there are times when the actions of one parent can, over time, damage and diminish the child’s relationship with the other parent.
I decided to participate in this debate because I have witnessed this behaviour and the devastating impact it can have, through manipulation, the loss of self-esteem and confidence, the fear of even correcting a child for misbehaviour in case it results in reporting back to the other parent and, in doing so, perpetuating the abuse and alienation. This can obviously have lasting emotional and psychological effects on the parent but also, importantly, on the child.
As has been stated a number of times, these are complex and sensitive issues, and such instances must be handled with extreme care, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of each individual case. However, when a child is forced into choosing sides in an argument, when the emotional stability and authority of one parent is consistently undermined by the other, this puts the child or children in a potentially traumatic situation. This should be considered a form of abuse and included within the scope of the Bill.
The consequences can include insomnia, depression, lack of confidence as well as long-term difficulties in rebuilding relationships and in relationships with others. This amendment makes it clear that damaging the relationship between a child and a parent is abusive behaviour. By extension, this makes the Bill more thorough in the abuse it identifies and seeks to prevent. I acknowledge the wise advice from noble and learned Lords during this debate, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to this discussion.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in support of my noble friend Lady Meyer’s amendment in Committee and do so again. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cormack, for I agreed with his every word.
I continue to read, and I continue to listen. The arguments have been well made, and again I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer for her courage and resilience. It is clear to me that there are difficulties, opinions and alternative views—all that is legitimate. What is not legitimate is that the experiences and feelings of those who have suffered from alienation are either denied a voice or told that this does not happen. It plainly does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a sensible point about the danger of creating a hierarchy of abuse, which I agree with. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the genuine and real cases of parental alienation—of which, sadly, there are many—must be heard? It could be a severe form of abuse if mention of parental alienation is not made within the guidance.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have no hesitation in supporting the aims of this amendment standing in the name of my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, and others. I feel very strongly that we will listen—I certainly will—to what the Minister is going to say, because there are difficulties. I have listened to some of the opposition to the amendment, although there seems to be a very general agreement on the principles. It has now become a very wide-ranging Domestic Abuse Bill, so I really need to be satisfied that the aims and principles of what we are trying to do in this amendment, and what the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, is trying to do, will actually be satisfied without the amendment.
I believe that we should use the Bill to protect children and their victim mothers or fathers from psychological abusive and coercive control. During my 30 years as a Member of Parliament, I had many cases of parents, male and female, coming to see me and telling me in harrowing tones what was happening. They did not use the words “parental alienation”—it is a very Americanised term, which I personally do not like. But I listened to the some of the ways in which they talked, very simply—[Inaudible.]
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I think we might have lost the connection to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, so we will go to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I understand and sympathise with those who have been the victims of a spouse or partner who has turned the children of their family against them—of course it takes place. It is an intensely sad situation, deeply unfair to the children as well as to the victim parent.
As a family judge, I tried a number of such cases, and I have to tell noble Lords that I very nearly wept in court when all efforts to change the children’s attitude had failed. I remain with a vivid recollection of some of those cases. But we need to recognise that there are two different situations: there are the children who witness the abuse of a parent against the other parent or have suffered from hearing it, and there are the children who suffer from the parent who is alienating them from the other parent. That is the background, and it is important that judges understand the context and can differentiate between the absent parent, who by his or her actions has forfeited the right to have a proper relationship with the children, and those who have been wrongly and unjustly deprived of such a relationship.
As I said in Committee, this requires judicial training. I have reflected since Committee on what the training should be and the extent to which it is already carried out, and I have done a little research. In my view, it is already very well provided by the Judicial College, which is chaired by a Court of Appeal judge. It is divided into different committees, and one such committee deals exclusively with family issues.
When I was a High Court judge, I was for several years the chairman of the family committee of the predecessor of the college. Newly appointed judges have mandatory training before they can try family cases, and there is regular, continuing training for family judges and magistrates.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am terribly sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Baroness, but I think she may be speaking to a later amendment, which we will reach in the ninth group. We are currently speaking to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on parental alienation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
Although I have the deepest sympathy for those who have suffered this unjust behaviour from the other spousal partner, I do not believe that the amendment, for all its good intentions, should be part of the Bill or should be set in primary legislation. It is telling the judges to do what they do already and will not change the situations on the ground. I do not believe the moral or psychological effect of primary legislation will have any effect on those who behave in such a way, nor help the sufferers of this serious, unfair behaviour. Consequently, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the family courts would benefit. On the contrary, it would give them no support at all. I also disagree with the view of Cafcass and, for these reasons, I do not support the amendment.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was very distressed during Committee on the Bill at the way the House has become so polarised over this amendment. I believe a way can and should be found to do justice to both sides of the argument, for both raise real and serious concerns.
Clearly the term “parental alienation” has become controversial, coming as it does from the United States, where it has been so closely linked with gender politics, so I welcome the rewording of the amendment, where what we are dealing with is clearly defined.
Parental alienation was referred to in earlier debates as a “concept”, or even prefaced, as in the debate this afternoon, sadly, by the qualification “so-called”. But the concept arose on the basis of experience. The fact is that very many people, both men and women, have been alienated from their children as a result of the unacceptable behaviour of their partner or former partner. That it exists I have absolutely no doubt. Do the opponents of this amendment really doubt this?
At the same time, it is clear, particularly from the evidence of Women’s Aid, that some people use the concept of parental alienation to cover up child abuse. I am sure this happens, and I can believe that the greatest number of perpetrators are men.
So we are dealing with two realities, both of which have to be taken into account. In any given case, the evidence has to be heard and assessed and judgment given. This is what courts are for. This is what Cafcass is for. They know what it is and can recognise it for what it is. They have developed the child impact assessment framework to
“identify how children are experiencing parental separation and to assess the impact of different case factors on them, including parental alienation.”
At the same time, they will be well aware that there are cases where this is a cover for child abuse. This, too, they can recognise for what it is.
These are very difficult decisions. I would not like to have to make them myself. But the point is that there are people who are trained to make such decisions, and the courts use them. So I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment, or at least, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested, that the wording proposed in the amendment is clearly understood to be an example of coercion, and that this is set out equally clearly in statutory guidance.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend Lady Meyer and to those who support the amendment. I recognise their sincerity and good intentions and their desire to do the right thing for the victims of abuse and, above all, for children. But I am afraid I continue to have very serious concerns about the amendment and the ideas it seeks to introduce into the Bill. I do not think it is required to help those victims whom noble Lords wish to help. In fact, I fear that it will do the opposite; it will empower abusers. I am concerned that, despite the change in language, the amendment still rests on the idea of parental alienation and serves as a means of embedding that concept, so open to misuse as a means of covering up domestic abuse, in law. Parental alienation is a flawed model for addressing the experiences of the parents and children the amendment seeks to help.
I agree that parental behaviour
“deliberately designed to damage the relationship between a child of the parent and the other parent”,
in the words of the amendment, is unacceptable, but the concept of parental alienation is so open to misuse in a way that is deeply harmful to children who are victims of domestic violence that we must be extremely cautious. Its lack of rigorous scientific foundation or clear definition means that it does not in assist in addressing abuse. Rather, it has become a vehicle for minimising and evading legitimate allegations of domestic abuse and child abuse by suggesting that child victims, often suffering serious medical trauma and with valid reasons for resisting contact with the abusive parent, have been manipulated by the so-called alienating parent. In the United States, where the concept originated, when a parent claims alienation, courts are more than twice as likely to disbelieve evidence of any type of abuse and almost four times less likely to believe a protective parent’s claims of child abuse. The result is that children are often forced to live with their abuser and are at risk of serious harm, lifelong trauma and even death.
We do not need this imported into our law. I do not wish to diminish or ignore the experiences of those not feel that their relationships with their children have been undermined and damaged by a protective parent. They are victims too, and we must hear their voices. I am also open to being told that I am wrong, and I have sought additional clarification from experts on domestic abuse. They tell me that this behaviour is an example of coercive control. We already have the legal means to tackle it under existing laws on coercive control. The recognition of children as victims in the Bill should strengthen that, as should the very welcome government amendment on post-separation abuse.
A clause to tackle this behaviour already exists, and there can be no case for us introducing any concepts or amendments which come with so many proven risks to children attached. However, there is a strong case, as I shall argue later in my speech on my amendment on training, for the training of judges. Children must have contact with both parents, but not at any price. We cannot dismiss a child’s voice when they disclose abuse.
Before I close, I believe it is important to make one final point. This is not aimed at anyone in your Lordships’ House, but it is necessary as a matter of basic principle. I think it serves to confirm some of what I have said about the dangers of the concept of parental alienation that the behaviour of some of its proponents is aggressive, bullying and abusive. They attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with them. People who have dared challenge parental alienation have faced vitriolic attacks and regular attempts to undermine their career and even see them sacked from their job. Respected experts have been called fraudulent, corrupt, lying and biased. People who have devoted their career to tackling abuse have been described as child abusers.
We cannot ignore those attacks. Since we began to debate the Bill, they have increased. One person who has faced a great deal of harassment tells me that it has significantly escalated and continued on an almost daily basis since the Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House.
I have spent most of my career working in foreign policy. I have never witnessed behaviour such as this until I became involved in these debates. Many supporters of parental alienation outside this House seek to use abusive behaviour to silence their critics and, in doing so, they serve only to remind us why we have such serious concerns about this concept and why it is imperative that we do not allow it into our laws.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the House for its indulgence. I apologise, because my internet connection collapsed completely during the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I missed a great deal of what she said.
Parental divorce or separation is the second most prevalent adverse event during childhood. There is plenty of evidence that most children who experience parental divorce do not develop long-lasting problems. Many studies show that children are remarkably resilient. Long-term studies of children in Romania after Ceausescu’s regime, for example, showed that, provided they were adopted into loving, caring families, they returned to an almost normal existence.
Even so, there are certain times when biology conflicts with resilience—for example, when children are first socialising, with puberty, with adolescence and with certain mental conditions. Nor can we ignore good follow-up studies of all ages which report problems. They confirm that, compared with children who remained in two-parent families, young people who experience parental divorce are at increased risk of a whole host of difficulties. These include depression later in life and may involve poor social values and behaviour, lack of empathy and various psychopathological disorders, substance abuse and academic underachievement.
These children and adolescents are much more vulnerable to various pressures, particularly when one divorced or separated parent deliberately attempts to undermine his or her offspring’s relationship with the other parent. This may not always be deliberate and, when it is, it may be difficult to prove in court. There are examples where this is clear cut, with substantial evidence of this kind of damaging behaviour.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, firmly said in her speech, this amendment is unquestionably about child abuse. Research clearly shows that this can have long-term effects on children as they become adults. Moreover, it is possible—although this is more difficult to show in long-term studies—that traits which a child may develop in consequence of this kind of behaviour may be passed on. The child’s own offspring—the grandchildren of the fractured experience—may be affected. There is, incidentally, increasing evidence of a biological mechanism for such inherited behaviour. There is a significant indication that this may be epigenetic—a chemical alteration which influences the way in which the genes function. Evidence is growing that it may be true for one particular set of conditions which are of growing interest in human development.
Autism spectrum disorder—so-called ASD—is a group of neurodevelopmental disorders in which multiple genetic and epigenetic factors definitely play a role. As long ago as 1991, the famous expert, Professor Rutter, pointed out mistaken stereotypes in psychiatric and behavioural genetics. He was decrying the idea that strong effects might mean that environmental influences must be unimportant. In America, Judith Kroll has pointed out that parental behaviour is critical in enhancing or reducing the negative effects on autistic children. This is often a particular problem with one or other, or both parents. Her study is a useful marker to consider.
I want briefly to mention Karey O’Hara’s remarkable follow-up study from Arizona, looking at 240 children over six to eight years. The study showed very clearly quite subtle changes in these children’s relationship with one or the other parent. Mental health problems, drug abuse and risky sexual behaviour were all common. She and her colleagues concluded that children in families with high levels of post-divorce conflict, which could certainly include the sorts of behaviour to which the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, referred, are an appropriate target group for preventive interventions. We know that these interventions work; they must surely be better than recourse to law. None the less, it is an important kind of child abuse because it can occasionally be hidden and difficult to see.
This is a vital discussion on an important amendment, and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has seen fit to introduce it on Report.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Committee, we heard the very moving testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, whose children were abducted by their father and kept in Germany with very little contact between them and their mother. It appears that, during that separation, the father turned the children against her. It is a shocking and upsetting case of parental abduction. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning work on parental abduction. A friend of mine in Oslo, who has shared custody, is having the relationship between him and his son poisoned by the mother.
As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, such behaviour is already covered by Clause 1(3)(c) and (e) and subsection (5) of the Bill as it stands in a way that economic abuse is not. Parental alienation amounts to controlling or coercive behaviour and psychological or emotional abuse. It includes, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said, conduct directed at another person—for example, the victim’s child.
As the noble Baroness said in Committee, using children as weapons in a war by one parent against the other can equally apply to mothers seeking to alienate fathers as to fathers seeking to alienate mothers. It can inflict damage on both parent and child. I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that this a gendered issue.
In Committee, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who has a wealth of experience, said that it is important to leave discretion over contact and parental alienation to the judges. She reinforced that this afternoon. As she said, there are two types of case: one where a child witnesses abuse and turns against the perpetrator, and the other, where there is a malicious attempt to turn a child against a parent. Abusive behaviour turns children against abusers.
As with many areas of domestic abuse, the issues here are complex, and there are both advantages and disadvantages to the noble Baroness’s amendment. In Committee, my noble friend Lady Brinton quoted from a Ministry of Justice report which cites:
“Fears of false allegations of parental alienation are clearly a barrier to victims of abuse telling the courts about their experiences.”
The domestic abuse commissioner-designate has talked about
“the potential for the idea of ‘parental alienation’ to be weaponised by perpetrators of domestic abuse to silence their victims within the Family Court.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, said that the justice system needs to be better equipped to deal with these issues. As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, the House will consider in Amendment 44 whether there should be mandatory training, so that magistrates and judges at all levels might be better trained in this and other areas of domestic abuse. I accept that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, thinks that the existing training is adequate but, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, we believe that there should be changes to the training of the judiciary, rather than
“behaviour deliberately designed to damage the relationship of a child of the parent and the other parent”
being listed as part of the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill. For these reasons, we do not support the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House that I sit as a family magistrate in central London and regularly deal with these types of cases. I have to say that this has been a better debate than the one we had in Committee. The reason is that many of the speakers showed a greater appreciation of the complexity of these types of cases, which we hear in court. A number of speakers, including those who put their names to this amendment, stated that if the Minister were to make it crystal clear that the term “parental alienation” will be dealt with fully outside of the Bill, then they would think that a good solution to the issue in the amendment. We have also had a number of very eminent lawyers—the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Morris, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—clearly say their view is that the amendment is not necessary, as long as the issue itself is addressed elsewhere.
We have had a lot of contributions and I will not go through all the speeches. However, I want to pick up a couple of points noble Lords have made, in particular a contribution by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He spoke about the distressing and polarising effects of the issue being debated in Committee; I think we have all received a huge amount of lobbying material since then. He also said that he had no doubt that parental alienation exists and that professional organisations such as Cafcass, through its child impact assessment, and the court system try to address the whole range of domestic abuse, including parental alienation.
I want to make one point, which has not been made by any other speaker, and stems from that made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. She summarised it, in a typically succinct way, by saying that the effects on the child are twofold: first, the witnessing, either directly or indirectly, of domestic abuse, which is clearly extremely bad for the child; and secondly, the malicious attempt by a parent to turn the child against the other parent. She has characterised that issue accurately, but I have been sitting as a family magistrate for about eight years now and have seen many cases where a parent has admitted, perhaps through a conviction, that their behaviour means they have committed such abuse. I have seen that many times but never seen a parent admit trying maliciously to alienate the child from the other parent. I have simply never seen a parent acknowledge that they have indulged in such a course of action. The court is of course in a very difficult position, so we move on to the possible use of experts, training for the judiciary and the life experience of magistrates and judges who are dealing with these cases.
I come back to where I opened: there has been a greater acknowledgement by the contributors to today’s debate of the difficulty in making these decisions. Of course, I am in favour of more training—magistrates, lawyers and judges are trained in any event, but more training would be welcome. I hope that the Minister will manage to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that it is not necessary to press her amendment. I personally believe that the issues she has raised and the intensity of the speeches she has given can be properly met through regulations under the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, on this International Women’s Day, I pay tribute to the courage of and thank my noble friend Lady Meyer, and other noble Lords, for their continued engagement on this issue. As pointed out by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, parental alienation clearly proved to be one of the most polarising issues in Committee. He challenged us to focus on the areas of agreement and I will try to do that. It was apposite that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord and said that we had a better debate today than we did in Committee. I agree. We are beginning to develop a shared understanding on where we are trying to get to on this, and to understand what points the amendment is driving at.
My noble friend Lady Meyer has lived experience of this very difficult, deeply distressing and personal issue, and 19 years of campaigning experience to boot in the area of alienating behaviours. I pay tribute to her; in no way do I seek to deny or to minimise the devastating impact that alienating behaviours can have on family life. But we must carefully consider the suggestion that legislation in the form of my noble friend’s amendment is the appropriate response here, and I hope that I can give her comfort on that. I will now outline the aspect of things that I think go to the heart of the Bill and the nub of the point that she is trying to make.
Our approach in Clause 1 is to define domestic abuse by reference to types of abusive behaviours, as pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—although he agrees with the amendment—and not by reference to the form in which those behaviours may be manifested. We are fearful of creating a hierarchy of behaviours by appearing to give more weight to one manifestation than another, and do not—as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said—wish to inadvertently narrow the Clause 1 definition by giving specific examples such as that proposed by my noble friend in her amendment to Clause 1(5), as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out. The behaviours to which my noble friend Lady Altmann referred would be in scope; whether the examples she cites would be covered would clearly be a matter for the courts to decide.
As I indicated in Committee, I accept that there are circumstances where alienating behaviours indicate a wider pattern of emotional or psychological abuse. However, where this is the case the definition of domestic abuse in Clause 1—subsections (3)(e) and (5) are particularly relevant, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Brinton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said—already applies and, as such, does not need to be further expanded.
To answer the question about statutory guidance asked by my noble friend Lady Meyer, and almost all noble Lords who spoke in this debate, the draft statutory guidance covers alienating behaviours. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have already shared their views on the guidance and we welcome further feedback and suggestions for improvement. There will then be a further opportunity to comment on the guidance when we formally consult following Royal Assent.
One of the strengths of the Bill is that it recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children, considering them as victims in their own right. From the perspective of risk of harm to the child, the relevant legal framework is provided for in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, together with the definition of harm in that Act. My noble friend Lady Meyer and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referenced the Cafcass definition of parental alienation. Although that definition supports our shared understanding of the impact of alienating behaviours on the child, it is an important point of clarification that the Cafcass definition is not one of domestic abuse—we need to be clear about that. Cafcass is clear that there are a number of reasons why a child might resist time with, or be hostile towards, one parent following separation or other breakdown of a parental relationship.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, first, I would like to thank those who put their names to my amendment: my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I also thank everybody who spoke today, particularly those who spoke in favour of the amendment. It has been a very interesting debate and I thank everybody for participating.
In the light of the conclusions reached, I now realise that my job has not been done whatsoever. There is still a huge misunderstanding about the point of my amendment and what parental alienation—call it what you like—is about. We are talking not about false allegations but real allegations. We are talking about parents who have been abused by the other parent using the child; this is a terrible form of abuse.
Listen to the London Victims’ Commissioner, who has actually been attacking all the mothers and fathers talking about parental alienation; look at the Twitter war that has been going on; it has been very ugly. I am really hurt that people say that you have to listen to the victims, but they are choosing which types of victims. Hordes of parents, some of whom are probably listening now, have been emailing me and signing letters saying, “Please stand for us”. Their voices are not heard.
I am really disappointed that the Government have not listened and understood what I was trying to do. I understand that some mothers are worried that this could be used against them, but, as everybody has said, the courts could make a decision. The courts obviously need a bit more training but because this issue is so complicated, we also need to involve psychiatrists.
There is a deep misunderstanding about what constitutes an alienated—or whatever term you use—child. Usually, those children have been separated from and have no access whatsoever to one of their parents, and their parent is constantly telling them that the other parent does not love them. Some have even been told that their other parent is dead. In my submission I had letters about people who committed suicide and letters from parents of children who committed suicide.
I hope that, as a minimum, the Minister can guarantee that this issue is going to be addressed in the guidance. More debate and conversations need to take place, because it needs to be understood better. In the light of the evidence before me, I will withdraw my amendment, but I very much hope that something will be done. I will probably come back to this issue because I have fought for it for 19 years and I have still not communicated what it is really about. I think I still have a war ahead of me. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 2: Definition of “personally connected”
Amendment 4
“( ) A is a carer for B who is a disabled person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 2, lines 34 and 37, in the name of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, would bring the relationship between a disabled person and their carer within the definition of “personally connected”.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 to Clause 2 I will also speak to my Amendments 5 and 6. These amendments would bring the abuse of disabled people by carers within the scope of domestic abuse under Clause 2. I should mention that I have also tabled Amendments 46 and 47, which would make identical changes in relation to controlling or coercive behaviour under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. They will be discussed on another day.
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her officials for our recent meeting, which was very helpful in clarifying our mutual concerns, which I will refer to in a moment. Sadly, I have heard nothing further since, so I assume that the Government are not yet convinced that the Bill should include disabled people and carers. I hope that, after hearing today’s contributions, the noble Lord the Minister will commit to return at Third Reading with an alternative clear offer, otherwise I am afraid that I will have no other option than to divide the House.
Amendment 4 has cross-party support. I am grateful to all co-signatories for their advice and backing on this issue, and to many other Members across the House who also wished to be co-signatories. Since Committee I have given the issue a lot of attention, consulting, among others, organisations dealing with disabled victims of domestic abuse. I also sought a legal opinion from lawyers specialising in social care and disability discrimination.
The vast majority of carers are caring, compassionate and utterly loyal. We owe our lives to them—I know I do—but in a small number of cases this is not so. Domestic abuse is not limited to family members or sexual partners. That is what we used to understand by the term; today, we know better. Disabled people of any age can be abused by those on whose care they rely. These relationships often involve an imbalance of power and are just as susceptible to abuse as those between family members or partners. Disabled people may be wholly dependent on another to live an independent and active life, 24 hours a day. That dependency and the trust that it requires makes them an easy target to exploit or abuse.
The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recognised that abuse by carers “mirrors” abuse
“seen in the other relationships covered by this Bill”,
and, importantly, occurs in a domestic setting. It recommended amending Clause 2 to include all disabled people and their carers, paid or unpaid.
Some of our closest and most intimate personal relationships are with those who care for us. Many carers see us naked in the shower, have access to our bank accounts and observe us at our weakest, physically, mentally or emotionally. This can make us feel very vulnerable. They are often privy to things that we do not share even with our family or partners.
I speak from 30 years of personal experience, but not only from that: I am also as a former CEO of the National Centre for Independent Living, working with thousands of disabled people who managed their carers, often termed personal assistants. I remember one haunting example of abuse of a severely disabled man without speech who came to me. He had a communication board that was regularly removed from reach so that his carer was not interrupted. He was too afraid to complain because, as he put it, of the “likely consequences”. Evidence from Stay Safe East and other organisations clearly demonstrates that such abuse continues today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and to support her in her wish to include carers within the scope of the Bill. As she said, this set of amendments would bring the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, whether paid or unpaid, within the definition of “personally connected”.
As the noble Baroness has said, the Joint Committee on the Bill recommended that carers should be included, after receiving significant evidence from the charity Stay Safe about the level of abuse within these highly personal and close relationships. I remain puzzled as to why the Government are not agreeing to do this. As the noble Baroness said, part of the reason is that the Government believe the group covered by these amendments is fully protected by existing legislation, primarily within social care Act safeguarding measures. However, I challenge that. As Stay Safe East has said, disabled women are three times as likely to experience domestic abuse, and four times as likely to report abuse from multiple perpetrators, as non-disabled women. It does not look as though the safeguarding measures are preventing that. Disabled women are also up to three times as likely to experience domestic abuse at the hands of family members, some of whom will also be their carers. We also know that disabled people also experience abuse from paid and unpaid carers or personal assistants.
The noble Baroness has also referred to the opinion from Bindmans LLP. The summary of their opinion is very clear:
“a. The relationship between disabled people and their carers is analogous to the other relationships which fall within the definition of ‘personally connected’ for the purposes of clause 2(1) of the DA Bill.
b. None of the existing legislation identified by Government provides equivalent protection against domestic abuse for disabled people so as to make it unnecessary for the relationship between disabled people and their carers to be brought within the scope of clause 2(1), and thereby the substantive provisions of the DA Bill.
c. Failing to bring the relationship between disabled people and their carers within the scope of clause 2(1), and thereby the substantive provisions of the DA Bill, is likely to result in unlawful discrimination against disabled people contrary to Article 14 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)”.
If the Minister is relying on existing legislation and safeguarding measures, I am afraid that the evidence is that this is not sufficient. That is the reason why the noble Baroness has argued so persuasively for this amendment, and I very much hope that she presses it to a Division.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, for tabling these amendments, and am grateful for the earlier work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.
I will start by commenting on the relationship between a disabled person and their carer. It is difficult for someone who is not disabled to understand the intimate nature of that care which has to be given, and the relationship which inevitably builds up, whether the carer is paid or unpaid. The language talks about a “lived experience”, which trots glibly off the tongue, but it is not easy. At best, it is a relationship of trust, where the carer supports and enables the person being cared for to live the life that the disabled person wants to live themselves. But there are some cases where the behaviours of the carer are not beneficial, but are controlling, coercive or physically abuse, yet they fall outside the domestic abuse definition. That is why it is so important that the definition of “personally connected” is recognised. It is such a neat solution, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has pointed out, it is vital that the definition is similar to the definition in the Serious Crime Act. She is right: they are complementary and will provide consistency and coherence between the Bill and the 2015 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his excellent speech just now, referred to the excellent work of Stay Safe East. One of the women helped by Stay Safe East said:
“They think just because I’ve got a learning disability, I don’t know it’s wrong to treat me like that. I just want to be safe and live my life.”
Mencap points out that people with learning disabilities can be abused by any type of personal carer, not just in establishments such as Winterbourne View. The problem with private care at home is that often it is not visible at all. That is why these amendments are so important. The Bill needs to understand that the relationship between disabled people and their personal carers is akin to the familial and relationship definitions used elsewhere in domestic abuse legislation.
I hope the Minister will take on board the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the large number of disabled Peers speaking to her amendments, and the wider community of disabled people who need this protection.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As International Women’s Day draws to a close, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, for introducing what is surely a practical, common sense set of amendments. She has identified a significant gap in protections for victims of domestic abuse. To her credit, through these amendments, she has also identified an expert and eminently sensible solution. I suggest that we are in her debt for her wisdom, her fortitude and her foresight.
I say that because this is as much about us here today in your Lordships’ House, and those noble Lords watching this debate and contributing to it virtually, as it is about anyone. One has only to consider the average age of noble Lords—well over 50% are aged 70 and above—to realise that we are in fact among those who most urgently need this reform. Lest we are inclined to tell ourselves that this is about “them”, “the other”, “over there”, those whom non-disabled people so often describe as “the disabled”, we should consider these simple facts. According to the World Health Organization, 15 million people have strokes each year worldwide. Of these, 5 million die and another 5 million are permanently disabled. According to the Stroke Association, here in the UK 100,000 people have strokes each year. Stroke strikes every five minutes. In other words, acquiring a severe, incapacitating disability can happen to any of us.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate on these amendments so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and subsequent speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
I feel in many respects vastly underqualified to speak on these amendments. Reading the Committee stage debates, I understood the idea of whether we wanted to extend “personally connected”—I had been putting down something about domestic servants in this regard. However, from listening to the speeches that we have all been privileged to hear, it is apparent that the relationship between a carer and the person for whom they are caring is extremely special and, in many instances, very intimate. It must come under the domestic category. In many cases, probably all cases, it will be happening inside the home, which is the definition of domestic.
The Government may well say that there is sufficient protection elsewhere in the law, but victims of domestic abuse find it difficult to escape, in every sense of the word, from their abusers. Surely for people with disabilities it is impossible to escape. They are often at the mercy of a carer if that carer is abusing. I will listen carefully to the rest of the speeches and of course to my noble friend the Minister, but I find it difficult to understand why these amendments cannot be accepted. I hope that if not now, then by Third Reading, something along the lines of these amendments can be put into the Bill.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to which my name is also attached. I, too, thank Stay Safe for its support in getting the experiences of disabled women into public view. My noble friend and other noble Lords have described the need for the amendments in this group. However, I will reiterate a few points, because there has been much discussion about whether the Domestic Abuse Bill is the correct vehicle to protect disabled people who are victims of domestic abuse. It is a very simple yes.
To say that either the Care Act 2014 or the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 adequately cover disabled people is fundamentally to misunderstand the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, as my noble friend Lady Campbell has movingly explained. It can be a complicated relationship, but that does not give any excuse or reason not to better understand it. I am pleased that there is far more understanding about coercive and controlling relationships, but we need to understand how these relationships affect everyone, including disabled people.
I see this in quite a simple way. Domestic abuse legislation is the correct vehicle because abuse takes place in a domestic setting and the relationship is very definitely intimate—just talk to any disabled person who receives care. Including this here will help with the wider understanding of the scale of the abuse against disabled people, but it is also important for the individuals who are experiencing it, if and when they seek support. I worry that, if disabled people are not included in this legislation, they will fall through the net of reporting and of subsequent support and it will push them into greater peril.
Some might believe that social care provision will protect disabled people through safeguarding procedures. Many disabled people who employ personal assistants or carers do not engage with social services or their safeguarding procedures. There are many reasons for this. Disabled people want independence and choice, but there can be a real fear that, if they go through this process, the assumption is that they will not be able to run their own care package and the direct payments and control may be taken back.
I was trying to think of another comparator. This is not a perfect one, but it could be understood more widely, perhaps, if one thinks of a single mother avoiding social service help because she fears that her children might be taken away or that she might lose personal control of her situation. There is a different debate to be held about the regulation of carers, but the unique situation and the specialised or individualised nature of the support that a disabled person requires mean that carers do not necessarily come into the role regulated, well trained and managed.
The view that disabled people should not be treated differently from non-disabled people is admirable and in most cases I would strongly support it, but we have to recognise that the lived daily experience of disabled people is not equal in our society and there are significant amounts of discrimination. We are a long way from equality. Equity would be ensuring that disabled people were not left behind by this legislation.
I am concerned that the views of disabled people have not been adequately sought in this legislation. I ask the Minister which groups of disabled women have been consulted during this process. Given the significant number of disabled people impacted by domestic abuse, it is imperative that the amendment be accepted.
I am very much looking forward to the new government strategy for disabled people, which I understand is due shortly. If the Government are serious about protecting and supporting disabled people, they should accept the amendment or produce their own version of it. I would be delighted to speak further with the Minister and the Bill team, but if my noble friend decides to test the opinion of the House at any stage, not only will she have significant support but I will metaphorically follow her through the Lobby.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have rarely heard a series of more moving speeches, beginning with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton; she always speaks with authority but today she exceeded herself. I was moved too by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, whom I have the privilege of following, and by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, who spoke with a quiet, intense passion. I hope the Minister will be able to give encouragement.
I have often referred to this Bill, and I have done so again today, as a landmark Bill. If it is to be truly a landmark Bill, it has to be all-embracing. There can be no more sensitive relationship of a domestic nature than that between a disabled person, particularly if we are dealing with a severely disabled person, and those who care for her or him. I feel very strongly that the Bill should include what, in a sense, is the most domestic of all relationships. I have no personal experience but I have vicarious experience: my mother in her last years depended very much upon carers, and so did my wife’s mother in her last years. One sees how that relationship is fundamental to the comfort, indeed the very survival, of those being cared for.
It really is the most appalling abuse of all if a vulnerable disabled person is abused by their carer. We all know that it happens because we have seen instances of relatives having to install video cameras in care homes. We have seen some terrible examples of people in their own homes being abused and taken financial advantage of, and indeed every other sort of advantage, by those upon whom they depend for their very existence.
I very much hope it will not be necessary to divide the House on this issue because I hope the Minister will be able to tell us, if she cannot accept these amendments, that she will come back with her own at Third Reading. There are many honourable precedents for that in our legislation and our legislative process, and it would be sad if the House were divided on a subject on which I am sure we are all fundamentally united: that disabled persons deserve respect, care and consideration and to be protected from any who might transgress in looking after them.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow so many eminent speakers. I support these amendments, which have been carefully designed and described by my noble friends Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson, together with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
We have heard three moving and compelling speeches from experts with lived experience. I thank my noble friend Lady Campbell for the bundle of information she sent ahead of this debate, for her rigour in representing the interests of disabled people and for highlighting that their relationships with non-family caregivers are analogous to the other relationships that fall within the definition of “personally connected” for the purposes of Clause 2(1) of the Bill.
Legal advice has suggested that a failure to bring the relationship between disabled people and their carers within the scope of Clause 2(1) could result in unlawful discrimination against disabled people, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights when read with Articles 3 and 8. Could the Minister address that point when summing up? I am certain that all Members of the House would wish any anticipated discrimination to be avoided in the drafting of the Bill.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins. I declare an interest as vice-president of Livability.
I very much support the intent in this group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who presented the case so ably at the beginning of this debate. As the parent of a child with a severe learning and physical disability, I know from personal experience the potential risks associated with those who are responsible for the care of disabled persons. In addition, having established a charity responsible for providing care for adults with learning disabilities in the north-east of England called At Home in the Community, I know how sensitive and tense the relationships can be between parents and a disabled son or daughter, between carers and the disabled person and between carers and parents. The frustrations of providing care for a disabled person whose behaviour can be immensely challenging and demanding can boil over, no matter how much they are loved. They can become the innocent third party in abusive relationships and suffer abuse themselves as a consequence.
Sadly, multiple reports over the years have shown that disabled people are much more likely to suffer abuse for longer periods of time. Many individuals are unable to communicate verbally, so identifying abuse can be difficult. Often unable to protect themselves, they can become very isolated and introverted. The vulnerability of their situation can lead to reliance and dependency on the very person being abusive. We had a case within a managed care home of abuse by a hitherto trusted member of staff who manipulated residents over a number of months before detection.
For many residents of care homes, the home they live in is their home. We had cases of individuals whose parents had both sadly died, so their carers and fellow residents were their family. Support in the care sector, whether in a family home or residential care home, relies on the dedication and integrity of mostly—one has to say sadly—low-paid care staff, most of whom are brilliant and support their vulnerable people marvellously. Sadly, however, some do abuse. Drawing attention to this and making provision for it in the Bill is an important step in mitigating it and preventing it from continuing. I hope that the Minister supports this amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Shinkwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who have spoken in favour of these amendments. They seek to ensure that domestic abuse, as defined in Clause 2(1), covers those people who are disabled—and often, perhaps, elderly—as well as all other groups.
Such citizens can be in a deeply intimate yet non-sexual relationship, due to their need for someone to care for them, perhaps in their home. They need someone to care for them just to survive, and so that they can live their life as independently as possible. If these people are abused by someone who helps them in their own home, why would they not be covered in exactly the same way as other groups, including spouses, friends, partners and their children, who currently meet the definition in the Bill?
In this country, there is sometimes a cultural disinclination to talk about or engage closely with the issue of people who need care or who live with disabilities. This may even explain why social care reform is constantly pushed into the proverbial long grass. Yes, this can be a complex subject, and not everybody wants to discuss it, but why would someone who is cared for by another, who may be paid or unpaid, not be entitled to the same protection as a spouse who is abused by their partner? If the Government wish to support people who live in their own home, especially as we have an ageing population, and to be in the community, which disabled or elderly people usually want, developing a strong system of protection for cases of abuse is essential. This landmark Bill is an ideal place to start.
The vast majority of carers are angels. They are heroes, who carry out their demanding and often draining role with compassion, dedication and sensitivity. However, as other noble Lords have explained, there are distressing examples of when they have abused highly vulnerable adults in their care.
I support the rights of disabled people, as I know the Minister does. I know that she cares passionately about this group of wonderful individuals in our society, but I find it difficult to understand why the Government are resisting the inclusion of disabled people within the protections of a Domestic Abuse Bill. Such situations should be placed squarely in the remit covered by this ground-breaking Bill. Is it not time to tackle all cultures of domestic abuse and offer widespread remedies to all citizens? Surely this group should be part of that.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, I know from my personal family and professional experience of people with learning disabilities that domestic violence can involve both paid and informal carers, including family members. I will not repeat the excellent points made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am very pleased to support my noble friend Lady Campbell and to follow such powerful speeches.
The weakness in the Government’s position is that it underestimates the important similarities between carer relationships and those already in the Bill. It perhaps assumes that local authorities or the CQC will have sight of all carer arrangements, particularly for informal care, but this is just not true. I quote the January Stay Safe East report on discrimination, which says:
“The current definition of domestic abuse has a discriminatory impact on disabled victims of domestic abuse by non-family carers, who have no access to an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser, refuges or other domestic abuse services or to the network of therapeutic and other services open to other domestic abuse victims.”
The exclusion of carers from the definition of “personally connected” not only is blind to the reality of the closeness and complexity of carer relationships but would be discriminatory to disabled people on the receiving end of domestic abuse from carers, because they would be excluded from services. The exclusion fails to recognise that the significant relationships of disabled people may be different from those of non-disabled people. This also applies to people with learning disabilities.
My remaining point has already been made, so I will not take up time with it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the speeches already given, because these important amendments close a loophole in our current framework. They do not criminalise carers; let us be clear about that. They simply recognise the reality that, when a person is living in their own home with others coming in to assist with activities of daily living, including the most intimate of care, that person is potentially vulnerable to exploitation. People also need help with indirect activities for daily living as, without this assistance, the person’s environment would rapidly deteriorate. Carers can be closer to and have more power over a person than a person’s family.
The Care Act 2014 Section 10(3) states:
“‘Carer’ means an adult who provides or intends to provide care for another adult (an ‘adult needing care’); but see subsections (9) and (10).”
Then subsection (9) states:
“An adult is not to be regarded as a carer if the adult provides or intends to provide care … (a) under or by virtue of a contract, or … (b) as voluntary work.”
The issue is that those employed, under direct payments or privately, or who exploit a vulnerable person with offers of help and support, are not known to the local authority and it has no authority over them. Even if the local authority becomes aware, Section 42 of the Care Act did not create any new powers to act to protect disabled people from abuse and neglect, merely a duty to make inquiries and to consider exercising existing powers.
This amendment recognises the power differential between the person who is vulnerable and the person coming into their home, on whom they depend and by whom they are being emotionally, psychologically or physically harmed. The person may be frightened and intimidated, not knowing who to turn to, and frightened by threats of all kinds. This is not just mild bullying or cajoling. This is serious, and there needs to be a way to ensure that those who have close and intimate access to the person cannot continue their exploits of mal-intent without serious consequences in law. There is no reason to discriminate against those who are disabled and cannot escape their situation, enduring abuse in their own homes, by leaving them without the adequate protection that this important landmark Bill aims to provide.
As I said, these amendments do not criminalise carers; they criminalise behaviours of mal-intent that cause serious harm—behaviours which are completely unjustified. They are behaviours of abuse behind closed doors in a person’s home by someone on whom they are dependent and personally connected and who has access to the most personal and often intimate aspects of their body and life. Without these amendments, we leave a loophole in protecting those with disability, as so clearly laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and others. I hope the Government will simply accept these amendments as they are, but otherwise I will support a Division.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments seek to bring the relationship between a disabled person and their carer within the definition of “personally connected” for the purposes of the Bill, and we support them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, explained so clearly, as someone who is supported by personal care assistants 24/7, carers often have a close personal connection to the person they are supporting. Although some might find it difficult to imagine that someone would take advantage of someone’s disability, the noble Baroness referred in Committee to the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2018-19, which found that people with long-term illnesses or disability were more likely to experience domestic abuse than those without.
The noble Baroness went on to describe that, in the absence of any close family or friends, carers are considered as welcome substitutes by disabled people who are isolated and feel lonely and anxious. While mostly this is a mutually kind and equitable relationship, on occasions the situation is exploited by the carer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, makes a compelling case. The relationship between some disabled people and their carers can in some ways be even more “personally connected” than that between family members, when one considers the level of personal care provided and the level of intimacy that this involves. She has demonstrated that disabled abuse is a very real issue. She has also explained that she has sought legal advice which confirms that there are legislative gaps that need to be filled. These amendments address those inadequacies and we strongly support them. If the noble Baroness divides the House, we will vote with her.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of this group of amendments. It is humbling to add my name and be among such a campaigning and dynamic group of Peers. The clause as amended would bring the relationship between a disabled person and their carer within the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, in line with the amendments to the definition in Clause 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton—who has so powerfully lobbied for this amendment—so that controlling or coercive behaviour by carers is covered by the Section 76 offence.
On the definition of “personally connected”, at Report we continue to believe that the Bill should reflect the realities of all domestic abuse victims who need to be able to access services, justice and support and that no victim should be left behind. These amendments would ensure that “personally connected” also covered a person’s relationship with their carer, whether paid or unpaid.
I spoke of this in Committee and, despite frank and helpful discussions with the Minister and her officials, I remain convinced that these are necessary amendments. They reflect the lived experiences of disabled victims of domestic abuse, where a significant personal relationship in their life is with a person who provides care.
This is a Bill for all victims, and we believe that these amendments would help to ensure that disabled victims are represented in the legislation. We have heard the Government say that the abuse of disabled people by their carers is already covered by existing legislation—Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 places such a duty on local authorities. However, the Bill is flagship legislation—we hear the term time and again—and it should not be the case that disabled victims have to be provided for elsewhere. The unamended clause does not recognise disabled victims of domestic abuse, who are among the most vulnerable.
This type of abuse often goes unnoticed. Disabled victims are more likely to experience domestic abuse for a longer period of time, and the Bill should make it easier for such victims to be recognised. There has to be an understanding and an acceptance of the reality of disabled lives. Significant relationships can be different from those of a non-disabled person with an unpaid carer. This close relationship has the ability to become a difficult relationship that is the same as family or partner violence. Trusting someone enough to let them provide either personal care or support with day-to-day tasks or communication is in itself an emotionally intimate act that creates a close bond but also runs the risk of abuse. It is not infrequent for abusers to target the disabled person and befriend them, and persuade them that this is done from an altruistic motivation, while at the same time exploiting and abusing the disabled person. Unfortunately, the news racks are full of such stories. The victim will experience the same ambiguity about power and control versus emotional attachment as any other victim of domestic abuse.
My noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned the organisation Stay Safe East in his authoritative speech. Ruth Bashall, chief executive of that organisation, said of this Bill:
“If this landmark piece of legislation is to protect disabled victims as well as non-disabled victims, we must ensure that abusers are not provided with a cause to claim ‘best interests’ as justification for abusing us … Every year, disabled people are victims of abuse by paid and unpaid carers or personal assistants with whom they have a close relationship but are not family members, and there is very little legislation to protect us.”
I welcome the important issues raised by noble Lords in this group of amendments. I urge the Government to listen to the lived testimony expressed throughout this debate. I support the amendments for inclusion in the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Grey-Thompson, for introducing these amendments that seek to expand the definition of “personally connected” in Clause 2. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to meet them ahead of Report to discuss their amendments.
To answer the question that a number of noble Lords have asked: 3,200 responses were received to the consultation on the Bill and 85% of those responses agreed to our definition in the Bill. We consulted a wide variety of focus groups, which included disability groups; I do not have the list today, but I can try to get it.
These amendments seek to bring all carers under the definition of “personally connected” in the Domestic Abuse Bill. This would include carers who are unpaid, such as neighbours and friends, as well as paid carers and people in a position of trust who care for disabled people.
Let me be absolutely clear: the Government fully recognise that abuse can be perpetrated by carers on the people they care for and that these victims can be especially vulnerable. However, extending the definition of “personally connected” in the context of domestic abuse would have detrimental effects on the overall understanding of domestic abuse and the complexities of the familial and intimate partner relationships that domestic abuse is understood to encompass, where the affectionate emotional bond between the victim and the perpetrator plays a very important role in the power dynamics. By extending the definition to include carers, we would be broadening the definition of “personally connected” to include a much wider range of connections within health and social care settings, which are covered by other legislation, and would confuse the meaning of domestic abuse.
Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and other proponents of these amendments argue that the relationship between the carer and the person being cared for is an intimate relationship because of the often intimate nature of caring. However, it is important to recognise that different degrees of care are required by different individuals and that not all care relationships can be classed as intimate. Additionally, many care relationships are affected by different power dynamics due to the paid nature of the work that many regulated carers undertake. This would make it inappropriate to class these relationships as domestic abuse, where the emotional interdependency and sometimes financial dependence make it very difficult for a victim to leave a domestic abuse situation.
This would be detrimental to one of the Bill’s overarching aims, namely to raise awareness and understanding of the devastating impact of domestic abuse on victims and their families. This is a domestic abuse Bill and should not be confused with a Bill on abuse in general, or abuse that takes place in a domestic setting. The explanatory report to the Istanbul convention makes clear what is intended by domestic violence or abuse. In its commentary on the term “domestic violence” it says:
“Domestic violence includes mainly two types of violence: intimate-partner violence between current or former spouses or partners and inter-generational violence which typically occurs between parents and children.”
What is proposed by these amendments—however worthy their intent—would mark a fundamental shift away from the objectives of this Bill, necessarily diluting and stretching the focus of the domestic abuse commissioner. We would also have to reset and reassess much of the work we are doing to prepare for implementing the Bill and developing a new domestic abuse strategy. By fundamentally expanding the concept of domestic abuse as used in the Bill we risk a significant delay in its implementation, and I am sure that is not what the House would want.
The Government recognise abuse of disabled and elderly people by their carers. This type of abuse should be called out and tackled, and existing legislation covers it. The Health Survey for England 2019—Providing Care for Family and Friends, which has been mentioned, shows that most unpaid carers were caring for family members. As such, a wide portion of informal care is already covered by the Bill and by Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, where the abuse amounts to domestic abuse.
The Care Act 2014 placed adult safeguarding on a statutory footing for the first time. Under Section 42, local authorities have a duty to carry out safeguarding inquiries if they have reason to suspect that an adult in their area with care and support needs is at risk of abuse or neglect. Importantly, this is the case irrespective of whether that individual’s needs are being met by the local authority.
The care and statutory support guidance defines the different types and patterns of abuse and neglect and the different circumstances in which they might take place. The list provided is not exhaustive but is an illustrative guide to the sort of behaviour that could give rise to a safeguarding concern, such as physical abuse, including domestic violence, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, financial or material abuse, modern slavery and discriminatory abuse.
In the almost six years since the Care Act was introduced, we have seen a steady increase in the number of concerns raised, as well as the number of inquiries made under Section 42. This demonstrates that the legislation is having an impact. Data from 2019-20 covering concluded Section 42 inquiries where a risk was identified showed that, in nearly 90% of cases, the outcome was reported to have either removed or reduced the risk to the individual.
Additionally, the Government have made clear in the accompanying statutory guidance that, under the Care Act regarding the duty on local authorities, they must ensure that the services they commission are safe, effective and of high quality. All relevant professions are subject to employer checks and controls, and employers in the health and care sector must satisfy themselves regarding the skills and competence of their staff. Furthermore, the Care Quality Commission plays a key role, ensuring that care providers have effective systems to keep adults safe and ensure that they are free from abuse and neglect. They have a duty to act promptly whenever safeguarding issues are discovered during inspections, raising them with the provider and, if necessary, referring safeguarding issues to the local authority and the police. Lastly, safeguarding adults boards provide assurance that local safeguarding arrangements and partners, including police, councils and the NHS, are acting to help and protect adults who may be at risk of abuse or neglect.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her reply, although I am deeply disappointed. I thank all noble Lords for their support and their powerful application of the issues I tried to address in my contribution, which explained the aims of this amendment. I have been on a long journey of learning and studying since Committee. I have talked to lawyers, disabled people and many Members across the House.
Support for disabled people in the UK has rightly evolved over the years from a “carer knows best” approach to supporting individuals to take control of their lives in the community. This means that some disabled people now feel more able to speak out about some of the horrendous abuses they have suffered at the hands of their carers within the domestic home. This was ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and others. It is not comfortable to acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, acknowledges. It is not comfortable to think about the domestic abuse of disabled people within the intimate setting of the home—but it takes place. Acknowledge it we must, and we must develop a solid way to address it.
The Bill is perfectly placed to acknowledge this kind of domestic abuse. It is a landmark Bill that would not put disabled people in the ghetto of social care. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Randall, now understands more about why I pressed for the inclusion of disabled people and carers in the Bill, and I am glad he has changed his mind somewhat. I had wished the same from the Government today, but the reply indicates to me that they simply do not understand the nature of domestic abuse experienced by disabled people, which fits classically within the definition of this Bill.
I do not want to rehearse my replies to the Government, because that would take up too much valuable time, but, in answer to the accusation that the amendment would dilute the focus of the Bill and the work of the commissioner, I will say that that argument is very spurious. It will not dilute this Bill; it will strengthen it, because it will include those who are, at this moment in time, being domestically abused because they rely on another human being for their care. We rely totally on carers, as we would on a mother, a father or a partner.
So I do feel I need to test the opinion of the House, because I do not agree with the excuses given tonight. The answers I have given throughout my amendment speech, and the other speeches this evening, show why it is perfectly adequate and practical to have this included in the Bill. It would not dilute the focus or understanding of the Bill: no, it would enrich them. So I would like to test the opinion of the House.
““carer” means an adult who provides care, whether paid or unpaid;” Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 2, line 29 in the name of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton.
““disabled person” means a person who has a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (disability);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Campbell of Surbiton at page 2, line 29.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 3: Children as victims of domestic abuse
Amendment 7
Baroness Stroud
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 and the corresponding group in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their support for these amendments.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her time since we last debated these amendments in Committee. As we spoke, I was encouraged by her deep commitment to ensure that the Bill provides protection for all children—whether they be in utero, newly born or on the cusp of adulthood. I am hopeful today to receive assurance that guidance will protect these children. I thank all noble Lords who offered their support and feedback on our initial amendments as we worked towards finding a nuanced pathway that would ensure that the Bill does in fact protect all children but does not open up a legal minefield.
Why are these amendments needed? We know that around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during pregnancy. These are horrific statistics. Alongside this, we know that the first 1,001 days, from conception to age two, is a period of uniquely rapid development when babies are particularly susceptible to their environment, so here we see high vulnerability to abuse and violence coupled with essential days for child development colliding and creating a unique environment that needs protection.
Domestic abuse in pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. A mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development by altering the environment in the womb, and ongoing stressors such as domestic abuse can disrupt babies neuro-development. This can affect children’s cognitive functioning and emotional regulation, shaping behavioural and emotional outcomes for years to come. We also know that the sad truth is that the single best predictor of children becoming either perpetrators or victims of domestic violence later in life is whether they grew up in a home where there was domestic violence. These amendments seek to break this cycle and allow for early intervention, which can have life-changing outcomes for victims.
So what needs to happen and what can these amendments do? The amendment to Clause 3 would ensure that professionals take in utero exposure into account when identifying children as victims of domestic abuse. The amendment to Clause 7 relates to the general functions of the commissioner and would ensure that identifying children affected by domestic abuse also includes babies in utero. The addition of a new clause after Clause 72 would require the Secretary of State to
“make provision for publicly-funded traumainformed and attachment-focussed therapeutic work to be made available to all expectant parents and parents of children aged under two years old where those children are victims of or otherwise affected by domestic abuse.”
The amendment to Clause 73 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the effects of domestic abuse on babies who were in utero at the time of the abuse and on babies and young children under the age of two.
These amendments and what they represent are crucial. As the Bill stands, there is a requirement that the commissioner must “encourage good practice” in identifying people who carry out domestic abuse, victims of domestic abuse and children affected by domestic abuse. My amendment would mean that encouraging good practice in identifying children affected by domestic abuse must include the unborn child by reaching out to pregnant women to offer support relating to domestic abuse, and by being alert to the need to offer support and safeguarding to the child post birth if necessary.
The addition of a new clause focused on trauma-informed support is about access to support for parents. The Bill will be ineffective if there is no provision for people to get the help they want and need. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a step change in our response to domestic abuse. The reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. It is therefore essential that they have access to support that can actually change behaviour.
An evaluation of the For Baby’s Sake programme, which provides trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic support for parents, led by King’s College London, found that support at this time can harness parents’ motivation and empower them to make changes for their babies and themselves. A SafeLives report highlights that 80% of victims have told us that they think that interventions for perpetrators are a good idea. A main conclusion from Breaking Down the Barriers, the findings of the National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage, was the call from survivors for trauma-informed support to break traumatic cycles. It is essential that we make this provision.
As the Bill stands, there is a requirement that the Secretary of State issues guidance about the effects of domestic abuse on children. The amendment to Clause 73 would ensure that the unborn child is included in that guidance to make sure that they are visible.
The protections that would be created by these amendments are needed because we know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are an opportune time for intervention and the best time for breaking the cycle. Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many mothers and fathers and a time when there is the most motivation to change.
Although this is not a gendered issue, the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London, in conjunction with For Baby’s Sake, found that intervening in the perinatal period may prevent early childhood trauma and its consequences. New fatherhood is a motivator for change in men who use violence in their relationships. Therefore, intervening in the perinatal period and including a focus on parenting may improve engagement in programmes to reduce violence.
There is much that is good in this Bill and much that we can be proud of that has already been done to increase the protections for many. However, we have an opportunity to go just that bit further and to be crystal clear that it is our intention to protect all children, including those aged under two and during pregnancy. It is essential that we get this right. I understand that legislation may not be required to achieve this goal and hope to receive assurances from my noble friend the Minister of what may be achieved through guidance. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for leading on this important aspect of domestic abuse, clearly laying out the high incidence of abuse when a woman is pregnant and the many harms associated with it. I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. Some 25% to 50% of domestic abuse offences are fuelled by alcohol. The Good Childhood Report in 2017 found that 39% of children living with a parent or carer with problematic alcohol use were also living in households where there had been domestic violence in the past five years. That is almost three times the comparable rate in the rest of the sample.
Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder—FASD—describes the permanent impact on the brains and bodies of individuals prenatally exposed to alcohol. This can result in physical, emotional, behavioural and neurological characteristics that are all related to prenatal—interuterine—exposure to alcohol. At least 7,000 babies are born every year in the UK with FASD, although recent research suggests that the true incidence may be sixfold to 17-fold higher. Misdiagnosis as attachment disorders or autism is frequent.
Alcohol is a teratogen which can cause any type of physical malformation and learning and behavioural challenges. These children often need support with motor skills, physical health, learning, memory, attention, emotional regulation and social skills as well as the management of any congenital abnormalities. More than 70% of children with FASD are known to care services, often raised by foster or adoptive parents or kinship carers. The true cost of abuse is paid by the child lifelong and by society, not by the abuser.
This condition is preventable only when there is no prenatal alcohol exposure. That is why, in 2016, the Chief Medical Officer recommended that no alcohol be consumed in pregnancy and when planning one. After birth, the abuse of alcohol is associated with parental neglect and ongoing abuse in the home. When I was a GP, I worked with Strathclyde on the medical screening of children at the time of admission to care. Many of these children had been damaged before their lives had started and were further damaged from day one.
We know that, during the pandemic, domestic abuse has increased and domestic alcohol consumption has increased. Are we sitting on another epidemic that is about to emerge—that of FASD in a generation who are soon to be born? We cannot protect from FASD those who have already been born, but we can lessen the chance of further damage and protect those who come after them. That is the aim of these amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7, 8, 9, 78 and 90, which I support. Naming babies and the unborn in the Bill should lead parents to get the help that they need at a crucial time; otherwise they are in danger of remaining invisible when it comes to public policy. In the lockdown, as has been said, the hidden harms experienced by those under two years were sadly extensive. It should be stated that the definition of children does not recognise the unborn as victims. The amendment to Clause 3 is necessary to have in the Bill that a victim of domestic abuse includes a child who experiences the effects of the abuse, including in utero exposure, as there is good evidence for this latter harm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, mentioned. The amendment to Clause 7 is important to stipulate comprehensively the duties of the commissioner to avoid any doubt whatever. The new clause after Clause 72 is required to ensure provision for all expectant parents and parents of children under two years where those children are victims of domestic abuse.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for leading on these amendments, with the aim of highlighting the impact of domestic abuse on babies, including exposure in utero, and to meet the needs of babies and parents in the first 1,001 days before babies reach the age of two. We know that domestic abuse often starts or escalates during or soon after pregnancy and that it is correlated with other risk factors for babies and their families. Domestic abuse during pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes and is a strong risk factor for ante-natal and post-natal depression. We now know that a mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development. I remember being shocked the first time that I saw the brain scans of such children, only visible to us as researchers in the last 20 years. The ongoing stress of domestic abuse can disrupt babies’ neurodevelopment, which in turn can adversely affect behaviours and emotional outcomes.
My noble friend Lady Finlay has outlined the issues relating to alcohol and domestic abuse so ably that I will not repeat her arguments, but I declare my support for her analysis. Early intervention is crucial for babies born into such circumstances, to support and work with families to break traumatic development cycles. The Institute of Health Visiting is strongly supportive of these amendments, to safeguard against, prevent and address the traumatic impact of domestic abuse on babies.
My noble friend Lord Bird often reminds us that investment of the public pound early in any abused child’s development is a far better investment than significant input in later life. These amendments are designed to address what has been described as the “baby blind spot”. I urge the Minister to seriously consider these amendments and support their incorporation into the Bill. They are designed to safeguard the early development of all babies and to provide therapeutic intervention to empower parents who have experienced abuse themselves to break the cycles of domestic abuse, surely something that we would all support.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 7, 8 and 9, tabled by my noble friend Lady Stroud. Why? Because unborn children and small babies are as much at risk of domestic abuse as any other child, yet they have been largely excluded from this Bill. There seems to be no specific reference to them.
A very recent research paper published by the First 1001 Days Movement highlighted the fact that there are “baby blind-spots” in policy, planning and funding, where protections for children often do not work for babies. As my noble friend Lady Stroud mentioned, 30% of domestic abuse cases begin during pregnancy. That is a big number, but it is hardly surprising.
The prospect of having a child radically changes the dynamic in a relationship. The partner is suddenly faced with new responsibilities, both financial and emotional. Maybe the pregnancy was never discussed and comes as a complete surprise. The partner may feel duped or resentful, trapped in a relationship he never intended.
As we have heard throughout these debates, domestic abuse can take many forms. But just imagine how it feels when, at your weakest and most vulnerable point—which is how most women feel when pregnant—you are confronted by a partner intent on abusing you. When I was pregnant with my sons, I remember worrying that somebody would bump into me on the tube or I would fall and somehow injure that little being growing inside of me. I used to walk with my arms in front of me, shielding my stomach and my unborn child; it is a mother’s natural instinct. Imagine how frightened and helpless a mother must feel if her partner is a constant threat, not only to her but to her baby.
I remember my mother telling me when I was pregnant that I should only read happy stories, watch cheerful movies and listen to soft music. She strongly believed that the child absorbed everything its mother experienced and that this would affect the child’s development. Today it is an established fact that a baby’s development is as much affected by the mother’s emotional state as by what she eats and drinks, as we heard earlier.
As the First 1001 Days Movement attests, these are decisive moments in the life of a baby. Emotional abuse of the mother can damage the mental or physical health of the child, while physical or sexual abuse can lead to miscarriage. These soon-to-be-born human beings cannot be consigned to the category of “out of sight, out of mind”. If this is to be a piece of landmark legislation, our duty is that much greater to ensure that it recognises babies, the very young and the unborn. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I declare my interests as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Conception to Age Two, and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, I have the privilege of being a member of Andrea Leadsom’s taskforce. We will be producing our findings imminently. I did not speak in Committee because, frankly, I thought I would leave it to people who know rather more about it than myself, including many contributors who have given birth. While I am capable of many things, that is one thing I am not capable of.
I studied the Minister’s answer in Committee very carefully and was not hugely impressed, so I was intending to stand up this afternoon and be slightly critical. However, I have had a quiet word beforehand with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and in the Chamber one has a great advantage: I was able to see the body language of the Minister when the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was making some comments, and it was extremely positive. I do not think those of us in the virtual world can see that—one of the benefits and privileges of being in the Chamber. Having studied the answer very carefully, I thought that what came out of it was something that concerns me and is worth flagging up.
The Minister tried to reassure us that all children will benefit from the Bill and that new guidance, which may be issued by the Secretary of State—it does not have to be—will cover all children, including those in utero. She then talked about the existing guidance which has been in place for some time. The Working Together to Safeguard Children initiative makes it clear that local authorities must have protocols in place to assess the needs of children in utero. She also specifically mentioned Section 47 inquiries under the Children Act 2004, which allow for a child protection conference if there are concerns for an unborn child.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Stroud, because I fully support the essence of what she is trying to do.
This is supposed to be a landmark Bill and hopefully by the end of all the proceedings we will have one. But there are still some gaps within it, which a lot of noble Lords have already spoken about; I do not want to duplicate what they have said in the interest of time.
Many people I have seen, including domestic abuse survivors and their families, have talked about pregnancy and what happens when they are in a domestic abuse environment. It seems shameful, in a sense, to be talking about the unborn child in a way that has to justify a life that is going to be born, which we all wish was going to be in a healthy, happy environment.
For any relationship, having children is a very pressurised situation—it is the unknown. To be in a relationship and to be pregnant where there is more and more domestic abuse must be even more horrendous for a mother, taking each blow and each verbal insult. The unborn baby does hear what is going on in its surroundings. As my noble friend Lady Meyer has already mentioned, playing music to an unborn baby has an impact when the baby is born, so we have to understand what that child is listening to before it is born.
I am very grateful for the For Baby’s Sake briefing, The First 1001 Days, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. I hope that the Minister will reflect again. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, suggested looking at the guidance. As a former Victims’ Commissioner, I struggle with guidance, because it impacts on the delivery of a good service to protect the unborn child and its future life.
Exposure to domestic abuse in the first 1,001 days of life is associated with adverse outcomes, including poor mental and physical health, lower academic achievement and impaired social development. Although we know that this is a significant risk to the safeguarding of a child, we seem to wait and address the root cause only when they go into criminality. If these amendments are agreed or if we can have functional guidance, that young person will have a better, more protective and healthier environment, and at a lower cost to the state.
Domestic abuse can affect a parent’s ability to provide consistent, sensitive caregiving. It is particularly relevant for parents who themselves did not receive this level of caregiving. In fact, I am concerned that we are not seeing enough health visitors visiting families who so desperately need help and support once the baby is born. What is happening before that baby is born?
I will pose a scenario that was in one of the reports. There is a baby blind spot in what we are trying to do for the unborn child and, previously, to help the parents. Being a baby or a toddler was a lockdown risk factor in its own terms. Those who were exposed to other risk factors in addition could be considered as being subject to double jeopardy.
I am not sure there has been any thinking about the baby’s needs. As the report highlighted, we hear a lot about school age children—thankfully, today marks the first day of them going back to some kind of pattern—and parents working from home. But it is so sad that little has been said about babies’ needs. That is a quote from a practitioner. Families will be going out today, hoping to function and to create a safe environment.
So will the Minister please reflect and look at this to ensure that we have rigorous guidance, that we close the gaps and that we listen to the Children’s Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner? Let us make this a landmark Bill to protect both adults and the unborn child, so that we can create a healthy environment in which they can go on to lead healthier lives.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has summarised some of the extensive research which associates abuse—including emotional abuse—of mothers during pregnancy with resulting poor outcomes for the child. What happens to children in utero may affect them for the rest of their lives and cause longer-term developmental delays and both mental and physical health problems, and may even lead to criminality.
My noble friend Lady Finlay has also pointed, quite rightly, to the role of alcohol. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, suggested, opposition to Amendments 7, 8, 9 and 90 may be because the unborn child is not afforded the same rights as a newborn child. Indeed, an unborn child is bestowed with few rights, so it does not seem to make sense to include them in this Bill. Or, if the mother is the victim of domestic abuse, she will be in scope of the provisions of the Bill in any case, therefore the amendments would have little effect because the child affected by domestic abuse during pregnancy is not perceived as a victim.
It is important that we recognise the effects of domestic abuse on children, in order that we can intervene at a young age and act to mitigate some of the harms that will flow from domestic abuse. The Government’s amendments recognising this are welcome. However, in the same spirit and in the spirit of consistency, the scope of this Bill should include children in utero, because the rationale is much the same as for other children and it would be a significant blind spot to exclude them.
I turn now to Amendment 78 and the duty to provide therapy for new parents. I consulted my daughter, who is a psychiatrist specialising in parent/infant mental health. We know a great deal about the importance of early caregiver relationships on a child’s developmental trajectory, attachments and physical health. This amendment is about targeted early intervention and the mitigation of domestic abuse-associated future harms. All children need sensitive and responsive parents who are emotionally available and can help them feel safe and understood.
The priority for treatment is to treat, reduce and prevent parental conflict with accessible therapeutic interventions and practical support for families. Therapies and couple interventions to consider include video interaction guidance, child/parent psychotherapy, Hold Me Tight and OnePlusOne and, in complex situations, the NSPCC’s UK programmes, LIFT and GIFT. Family-based therapy with children should always be considered, when possible, although it is no replacement for other kinds of general parenting support. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, mentioned the importance of health visiting. This seems to be much less available today than it was when I had my children many years ago.
I strongly support all the amendments in this group and hope that they will bring new opportunities to really respect the Conception to Age 2 manifesto and work, and all the other initiatives concerned with the health and well-being of babies in utero and infants.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 7, 8, 9, 78 and 90. We have heard the very informed opinions of my brethren, including the ladies, about the dangers that exist at the beginning of life, including the time that a child is in utero, from the effects of domestic abuse surrounding them.
It is very important to remember that the idea of putting something in guidance depends on whether it is already included in the statute. Guidance cannot extend the scope of the statute and I think that these amendments are really concerned with the legal necessity of having these beginning-of-life children in the statute. Therefore, I support them very strongly because I think it is generally assumed that they need to be looked after and that looking after them involves a degree of involvement that is essential for success.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am going to be very disciplined in this Bill—some people may say that that is a bit unusual for me—and speak only to those things that are not part of the criminal justice system. I am concerned that overall the Bill has been dominated by the criminal justice system, and most of the women I have worked with for many years want problems to be sorted before it is necessary to go to court, because things really have failed once it gets that far. That is why I was really pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in these amendments, because they are about early intervention and, in terms of domestic abuse, about how we prevent it and how we break that cycle.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and other noble Lords who have spoken so knowledgeably, as probably became apparent in Committee, children and babies are not my area of expertise, apart from being a mother and a grandmother myself—so that is one small qualification greater than the noble Lord, Lord Russell. In Committee, I learned a lot of shocking facts about the damage that babies can suffer even before birth as a result of domestic abuse. I was shocked to learn that nearly a quarter of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the role of foetal alcohol disorder: another issue that can just make the situation even more terrible.
Pregnancy can bring a great strain into a relationship for many reasons—financial strain for one and impending change for another. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, gave several examples of such strains. Much attention is, deservedly, given to the mother during and after pregnancy, but, until recently, the father had been regarded as more peripheral, less involved, a bit of a spare part. This has changed in recent years, I know, but there is still plenty of opportunity for resentment to develop.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, new fatherhood can be a great motivator for change. That is why this time would be an ideal opportunity to lavish some attention on the father and big up his role and importance. It is an ideal time for perpetrator strategies to be put in place. Can the Minister update the House on how this opportunity to implement perpetrator strategies could be exploited within the existing remit of the health service?
I am not sure we need to change the law for that—and for the other good practice mentioned in this suite of amendments—to happen, although the noble Lord, Lord McColl, believes that a baby in utero does not qualify as a victim. Can the Minister confirm exactly what the Government’s view is?
Amendment 78 requires the Secretary of State to supply the funding for trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work for the parents of all little victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, emphasised the importance of early intervention.
Amendments 8 and 9 seek to ensure that babies in utero will be covered in the Bill’s provisions. The amendments’ supporters made a strong case for that in Committee, citing harrowing examples of the potentially lifelong damage which can be done before a child is even born. I would welcome the Minister’s assurances that these victims—in utero as well as post birth—will be covered by the Bill’s provisions. Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about the baby blind spot. We must consider the baby’s needs, and I hope that the baby blind spot does not apply to this Government.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble friend Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, these issues were debated in Committee, the Government argued that the need for statutory agencies to recognise and respond to the impact of domestic abuse on children of all ages is already embedded in the Bill and the associated statutory guidance. The Government said that they recognised that pregnancy can be a trigger for domestic abuse and that existing abuse may get worse during pregnancy or after giving birth.
The Government went on to say in Committee that the statutory guidance made clear that local authorities, with their partners, had a responsibility to develop clear local protocols for assessment, and that these protocols should reflect where assessments require particular care and include unborn children where there are concerns. Further, the Government said that if there are concerns relating to an unborn child, consideration should be given to whether to hold a child protection conference prior to that child’s birth, with decisions regarding the child’s future safety, health and development made at that conference.
The Government concluded their response in Committee by saying they were committed to protecting all children, including the very youngest, from the heinous crime of domestic abuse. There have since been further discussions. We agree that pregnant women, unborn children and young children need access to support and protection. I look forward to the Government, in their response, giving further meaningful assurances that this will be the case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Stroud for affording us the further opportunity to debate the impact of domestic abuse on very young children and unborn babies. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made an important point about alcohol as a trigger for domestic abuse and the effect of alcohol on an unborn child, which is part and parcel of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, made a point about preventive measures being so important in our aim of protecting victims or potential victims of domestic abuse.
Amendment 7 to Clause 3 seeks to recognise unborn babies exposed to domestic abuse in utero as victims of domestic abuse. Amendments 8 and 9 to Clause 7 seek to explicitly provide for the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice and provide protection and support to children under the age of two, including unborn babies, affected by domestic abuse. Amendment 78 seeks to make provision for publicly funded therapeutic services for expectant parents and parents of children under the age of two who are victims of domestic abuse. Finally, Amendment 90 seeks to make explicit reference to unborn babies and children under two in the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 73.
Under Clause 3, children of all ages, from birth to the day that they turn 18, are considered victims of domestic abuse in their own right if they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related either to the targeted victim of the abuse or to the perpetrator. As such, all children will benefit from the provisions in the Bill. For example, Part 2 expressly recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children in the statutory functions of the domestic abuse commissioner. Part 4 of the Bill places a new duty on tier 1 local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children within safe accommodation. This would include the kind of support referred to in Amendment 78. In addition, Clause 73(2) provides that the Secretary of State must issue guidance on the
“kinds of behaviour that amount to domestic abuse”
and on the effect of domestic abuse on all children.
Separate to the provisions in the Bill, there are important existing measures in the Children Act 1989 to protect children at risk of harm. These include Section 8 of that Act, which makes provisions for child arrangement orders regulating arrangements relating to when a child is to live, spend time with or otherwise have contact with any other person, and whom. Section 17 sets out the provision of services for children in need, their families and others. Part V sets out measures for the protection of children, including in Section 43 on child assessment orders; Section 44 on orders for the emergency protection of children; and Section 47, which sets out the local authority’s duty to investigate when it suspects that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment, but especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their contributions. Their contributions were moving, constructive and hugely valuable. For me too, hearing the cross-party nature of the support for the very youngest right the way through to the age of two was a special moment in this House. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the way she has listened and sought to ensure that all children, including babies in utero, are recognised as potential victims of domestic abuse. The assurance that all babies in utero are to be recognised in guidance is very precious. I thank her and her officials for responding so fulsomely. I am so grateful to her for her work in ensuring that the draft guidance will recognise that pregnancy is a specific risk factor that can make victims more vulnerable. This is hugely important because pregnancy, as we have heard during this debate, can be a trigger for domestic abuse. Existing abuse can get worse as well during pregnancy.
I am delighted too that guidance recognises that domestic abuse experienced during pregnancy and in the earliest years is harmful to birth outcomes and babies’ early development, and that trauma-informed support will be available for these families. This is crucial because a mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence, as my noble friend the Minister said, on foetal development and on-going stresses, such as domestic abuse, can disrupt babies’ neural development.
Finally, I am delighted that guidance will recognise that while pregnancy may increase risk of abuse, the interaction with health professionals provides an opportunity for women to seek support, as well as for professionals to reach out to women who may be experiencing domestic abuse. This is a moment for us not to miss. These women are already in the system and standing in front of a professional. We can harness this moment of opportunity to ensure protection for these very vulnerable babies.
I am mindful of the words of warning of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the need to remain vigilant on the effectiveness of guidance. I am sure that Ministers who have spoken in this debate will join us in remaining vigilant so that these protections become a reality. There is clearly strong cross-party support to recognise babies and the unborn as potential victims of domestic abuse, and to seize the moment to intervene. at a crucial juncture for parents. I thank the Government for the steps they have taken and given assurances that they will take.
I finally thank the more than 70 experts, doctors and charities of early childhood and domestic abuse who put their names behind this amendment. An extraordinary number of organisations and professionals have backed this, including Amanda McIntyre of For Baby’s Sake, Alison Morton of the Institute of Health Visiting, and Sally Hogg from the First 1001 Days movement. Their work on the frontline is what makes all the difference. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we still have another nine groups of amendments to cover if we are to hit today’s target for the first day of Report. Given that we will need to sit late in order to try and do that, I suggest that now might be an appropriate time for a short break.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 8: Reports
Amendment 10
“(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a report under this section, which—(a) investigates the impact of Universal Credit single household payments on victims of domestic abuse; and(b) investigates and presents alternative options for the payment of Universal Credit single household payments that protect victims of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a legal duty on the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to investigate the payment of Universal Credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report to Parliament.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 10 heads up a group of amendments on social security which I will introduce, focusing on those in my name.
When I originally tabled them in Committee, I wanted to draw attention to the myriad ways in which the social security system undermines this Bill, particularly its very welcome inclusion of economic abuse. I and other noble Lords gave examples of how the social security system is letting down victims and survivors at every stage of the domestic abuse journey. I had hoped in response for some recognition from the Government of the tensions that exist between social security and domestic abuse policy, but no, so in light of this and the disappointment voiced by Refuge and Women’s Aid, to whom I pay tribute for their work and thank for their help, I decided that there was a case for revisiting these issues on Report. I am grateful to noble Lords who have signed the amendment.
I will not repeat the general case for why it is so important that social security policy supports rather than undermines domestic abuse policy, which underpins Amendment 68. This would require an impact assessment of any future social security reforms on domestic abuse victims and has been welcomed by the domestic abuse commissioner designate. In response to the amendment in Committee, the Minister pointed out that:
“The DWP is already obliged to consider the impacts of its policies through equality assessments, in accordance with the public sector equality duty.” —[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1703]
However, as this was the response given in the Commons, I had already explained that DWP equality impact assessments are very limited from a gender perspective and do nothing to assess, for instance, the impact on who in a couple controls resources, on the financial security and autonomy each enjoys, or on the ability to escape an abusive relationship. If the Government are serious about treating domestic abuse as a
“whole of government issue and response”, —[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1700]
as the Minister claimed, then it surely makes sense to carry out such an impact assessment at the design stage of social security reform.
Two other issues that I raised in this context were the training of jobcentre staff and the treatment of panic rooms in sanctuary schemes. On training, I very much appreciate the Minister’s helpful letter. I have shared it with Women’s Aid, which was involved in the early stages of the training and is very positive about aspects of it. However, there remain unresolved concerns and I would be grateful if the Minister could ask that the appropriate DWP Minister meet with Women’s Aid to discuss them.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 and the consequential Amendment 102 in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I speak for the three of us and I also thank the Chartered Institute of Housing for expert technical advice.
Amendment 72 calls for a period of grace from the imposition of the cap on the benefits of those escaping domestic abuse. In Committee, we noted that the benefit cap is a particular problem for those desperate to leave their current accommodation, both those victims of abuse who move out into a rented home and those who flee first to a refuge or temporary accommodation but need to move on into rented housing. The cap on benefits means that someone suffering from abuse may simply be unable to leave their abuser because this would mean that their income, after paying the rent, would not be enough to live on. The cap is likely to cut the benefit that they would otherwise receive by over £50 per week outside London and well over £100 per week in London. The benefit cap, therefore, traps them where they are.
There are other, special, unfairnesses caused by the benefit cap in domestic abuse cases. If an abused woman had been working and was forced to move out and start claiming benefits, she would be allowed a period of grace from the benefit cap, but not so if she was not in work. Yet as the debates on this Bill have illustrated, not working may have been the result of coercive control where the abuser has prevented the survivor from working. Even more unfairly, the imposition of the cap because the survivor has a third child may mean penalising someone for being the victim of non-consensual conception—the so-called rape clause.
Our solution is the simple one of exempting from the benefit cap for a year all those forced to claim benefits because of domestic abuse to give them the breathing space to shop around for more affordable accommodation or, where appropriate, to get a job. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman- Scott, the appropriate Lords Minister, who met with the three of us, introduced us to Mims Davies, the DWP Minister, and subsequently ensured that we received a full explanation of her department’s position.
It appeared to us that there is not an objection in principle to supporting victims of domestic abuse who could be greatly disadvantaged by the benefit cap, nor that there were difficulties in defining and identifying those who would be covered by the period of grace. However, because of administrative difficulties, the department’s preferred approach is for those facing this hazard to apply to the local authority for help in the form of a discretionary housing payment to assist with their rent.
I am bound to say that this alternative to allowing a straightforward, automatic period of grace is not very helpful. It represents a somewhat cumbersome and certainly insecure basis for overcoming the problem. Will the local authority be able to offer a discretionary housing payment to the abuse victim in these circumstances? DHPs must fund so many other cases—for example, relieving the hardship created for thousands by that notorious bedroom tax. The £180 million per annum set aside for DHPs is spread across all local councils. Moreover, DHPs are very often awarded for only a short period, such as three months. A woman who is desperate to get out of an abusive relationship but is trapped by knowing her capped benefits will not cover the basic necessities for life for herself and her children cannot risk moving out.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was going to pass a short comment on each of the amendments because I agree with them all, but I will confine myself to Amendment 10.
I hope the Minister has taken on board the central point that my noble friend Lady Lister made: the social security system is undermining the processes and procedures in the Bill. We do not have joined-up government. It is terrible, really, because I have come across this several times. In 2001 I moved, after two years at the DSS, to the Home Office. It did not take me long, bearing in mind my responsibilities at the Home Office, to work out that we were not really joined-up at all. That was 20 years ago, and the situation does not seem to have improved at all. It is the problem of working in silos and allowing the DSS—or the DWP, as it is now—to use the administrative route out that is causing a problem, and there is no doubt that there is a solution.
The fact is that research from Refuge has shown that—I have to say I am astonished at this figure— 1.6 million adults have seen their experience of economic abuse start during the pandemic. We need some serious amendments to the universal benefits system; that is the priority.
The single payments are clearly open to abuse by perpetrators. As my noble friend said, it would not take long for a person to work out why their money had gone down: they would know that their partner’s had gone up and they would start to ask about the reasons. I understand that, some two years ago, the DWP said that it would encourage joint claimants to nominate a bank account for the main carer of the children in the house. But, while I am nowhere near an expert, I have seen no evidence that that advice has been followed, let alone effective. I simply do not believe that separate payments are impractical. It is all very well to claim that many couples manage their finances jointly, but that is not the case. We all know that it is not the case for millions of women who are experiencing economic abuse.
Amendment 10 is very reasonable, although I note that the Local Government Association wants a parliamentary inquiry. I do not think that that is the route here. On balance, I would favour the route set out in the amendment through the commissioner, with resources; it is more precise and it has a time limit, and it would not be side-tracked by other pressures on elected Members in the Select Committees. There is an argument there, but I do not accept the LGA view. This route would be a much better one.
As I said, I agree with the other amendments and do not propose to say again what I said in Committee. While it is not for me, and probably not for my noble friend, to say, frankly, there should be a vote on one or more of these amendments on Report to buttress the pressure and the force that the Minister could take back to the department—or even better, take back to the Government—to seek a joined-up solution. If it is just a question of the House having a little debate but there is no pressure, I fear that very little will happen.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with these amendments and in particular with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. However, I want to concentrate on Amendment 68, and I declare an interest as the chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. I am not asking for comments on forced marriage to be put into the Bill on Report, but I want to see it in the statutory guidance. When looking at Amendment 68, I think it is very important that an assessment should be made of the impact of social security reforms by the relevant government department. There is a group of young people whose needs must be assessed in the social security reforms: those who are being forced into marriage—they are usually coerced. They include, in particular—this is what I am concerned about—those who are aged under 18. I hope that they can be taken into account when the impact of these policies is taken into account.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 10, and I am afraid I am going to make the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not want to hear again today. I will speak to Amendment 17 later in the debate, but, in the main, I do not think that the exception should prove the rule. I am not sure that it is right to demand a report on such a specific issue on the face of the Bill, nor do I think it is right to demand that it is done within a year of the passing of this legislation. While the commissioner-designate has said that she is happy to do the work, she has indicated that she would need additional resources and support to do so.
I am not making any comments on the value or otherwise of the work itself, but I believe that it is for the commissioner’s office to decide priorities within the budget allocated to her, rather than it being the role of legislation. She is the “independent” domestic abuse commissioner and it is not for us to dictate in such fine detail what she should and should not be doing.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging my noble friend Lady Lister and her heroic persistence in seeking welfare reform. The staggering statistics which have just been shared by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, are shocking. In that light, I would argue that economic abuse is an integral part of coercive control that has been experienced by survivors. The Government’s recognition and inclusion of economic abuse in the new statutory definition of domestic violence is therefore welcome.
As has been said by all noble Lords, we know that financial control is a barrier to escaping violence and abuse, and therefore immediate access to financial assistance through welfare benefits is a lynchpin for women survivors if they choose or are forced to flee their homes. I am particularly concerned about women without secure immigration status, including those whose marriages have not been registered, and, of course, migrant women who find it impossible to access refuge accommodation and other welfare support, making it impossible for them to escape abuse.
Refuge and Women’s Aid, among other leading organisations, are seriously concerned about and are seeking changes to welfare benefits as regards all survivors of domestic violence, without which women will not be in a position to leave their abusive perpetrators. The single payment of universal credit, the five-week wait for payment, the two-child tax credit limit and the benefit cap all disproportionately impact single women and children. We are all too aware that the law detrimentally impacts them and other welfare support hinders women’s choices and decisions.
I therefore ask the Minister—I am sure these points have been made, but I want to reinforce them—if the Government will heed the call of women’s organisations and place a duty on the Government to assess all welfare reforms for their impact on women’s ability to escape abuse. Will the Government deliver separate payments of universal credit and ensure that they are safe for survivors of domestic abuse? Will they end the benefit cap for victims and survivors of violence and abuse which deters survivors from finding safe and secure homes as well as preventing some from being able to move on from secure refuge space?
I am very thankful to have been able to speak to these amendments, specifically highlighting Amendment 10. All noble Lords have spoken with a great deal of expertise, of which I profess I have none, so I am very grateful. I just wanted to stand in support of these amendments.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 10, 68 and 69, to which I have added my name. I also support the other amendments in this group, although I will not speak to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has, as always, introduced her amendments with great thoroughness and therefore I will try not to take too much of your Lordships’ time, although I do want to speak a little more on Amendment 10 than on the other two.
The proposed new subsection (7)(a) in Amendment 10 makes very good sense, requiring as it does that the commissioner within a year publishes a report on the impact of these universal credit single payments on victims of domestic abuse. Whether or not the amendment is accepted, I certainly hope that the commissioner will seek the resources from the Government to enable her to implement this recommendation.
Paragraph (b) is absolutely vital because, as organisations such as Refuge know perfectly well, action is urgently needed to resolve the problem for domestic abuse victims of the default position that universal credit is paid into a single bank account on behalf of a household. I applaud the announcement from the Department for Work and Pensions that it will “encourage” joint claimants to nominate the bank account of the main carer of any children in the household, but that simply does not go far enough at all. Too often, the abusing partner will make sure that the money goes into their account. The main carer of the children is then exposed to the perpetrator using money in a coercive and controlling way, adding economic abuse to any other forms used.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, a victim can ask for payments to be split between the two partners, but that is a dangerous thing to do when your partner is abusing you and is perhaps dangerous to be with. The ideal is the policy adopted in Scotland, where separate payments are the default. However, I remember the UK Government arguing strongly against such a policy when the universal credit legislation was being debated in this House all that time ago. To introduce it as the default option now would be a sharp change of direction but, in the domestic abuse context, I hope that the Minister is sympathetic.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I was very pleased to be able to attach my name to Amendments 10, 68 and 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Burt of Solihull. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her tireless work in these areas. I also express the Green group’s support for the cross-party backed Amendments 72 and 102—linked amendments which I would have signed had I recognised that there was a space.
I begin with Amendment 68, which gives the Government a duty to assess the impact of social security forms on victims or potential victims of domestic abuse. I go back to 2010, when the Fawcett Society—I had better declare an historic interest as a former member of the board—took the Government to court for a judicial review over their failure to conduct a gender assessment of the impacts of the Budget. It was one of those cases where the society lost the case but won the argument. The Government conceded that the gender impact assessments did apply to the Budget and should have been carried out in two key areas. The challenge also led to an investigation of gender assessments by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also referred to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2019 that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminated against vulnerable victims of domestic violence living in sanctuary schemes. If an assessment had been made, victims of domestic abuse would have been exempt in the first place and—of far less concern to me personally, but none the less possibly of interest to the Government—embarrassment to the Government would have been avoided. I suggest that the Government, by either accepting this amendment or introducing something similar of their own, would be avoiding similar events in future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, suggested that we should not be telling the commissioner designate what to do, but I think that requesting and providing the requisite resources—a small sum in the overall context of the government budget—is entirely appropriate when the Bill becomes an Act and is implemented and enforced.
As a noble Baroness said on one of the previous groups, so much of our debate on the Bill has focused on the criminal justice system, but we know that that is not the only place or, for many victims, the primary place where their problems lie. In our Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, acknowledged with admirable frankness that earlier legislation passed on his watch had been inadequate: it was inadequate when it was passed and it has been exposed since. I would say to the Ministers working on the Bill for the Government, “You do not want to be in that position in a decade’s time”. Ensuring that an assessment is made will ensure that the appropriate actions can be taken as they are needed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, current assessments are not taking account of the impact of government policies on victims and potential victims of domestic abuse.
Finally, to conclude on Amendment 68, I note that an amendment that might have been here is not. There has been strong pressure on Bills across this House to deal with the disastrous impact of the immigration status of no recourse to public funds. Victims of domestic abuse who have that status are the most vulnerable victims explicitly pushed away from the benefit system. I noted that in Committee the Government said, “Oh, exceptions are made”, but being an exception is not a comfortable, safe or certain place. Only by abolishing the entire status of no recourse to public funds could we ensure that no victim or potential victim of domestic abuse was left, all too literally, out in the cold. I would ask for a change in policy, but an impact assessment would be a start to expose what is happening.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. I note that the Women’s Aid briefing for this stage, which says that it is essential that the Bill delivers reforms beyond the criminal justice system alone if it is truly to make a difference to women and children experiencing domestic abuse. The lack of funding, the inadequacy of our support system, is a fundamental barrier to escaping. Over half of the survivors surveyed by Women’s Aid and the TUC could not afford to leave an abuser. Amendment 10, providing separate payments as standard, has been extensively covered. All I would say in addition is that we do not have to look just at the situation of abuse to consider the damage that single payments of universal credit are doing. I should like to add to my argument on the second group that, even where a relationship does not fit a definition of abuse, the gendered nature of power relationships in our society is still marked by years of male breadwinners, unequal pay and discrimination, particularly against mothers in the workforce.
I recommend that anyone who has not encountered the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed look it up and consider how reports we have heard about the likelihood of abuse starting in pregnancy fit with the level of pregnancy discrimination experienced in the workplace.
Amendment 69 is about the argument that, when you have just taken the brave, frightening and dangerous step of leaving an abusive relationship, it is unarguably damaging and wrong to take on the weight of a loan; that should be changed.
Finally, on Amendments 72 and 102 on the benefit cap, this is a heartless, disastrous and damaging policy that explicitly and by design throws children into poverty. I note the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Best, made about the Government suggesting that this could be covered by discretionary housing payments from local councils. Here I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Local councils are seeing enormous pressures, with continuing austerity in the supply of funds from Westminster. We have heard from Ministers that they want to make this Bill the best it can be. A postcode lottery in the ability to escape from abusive relationships, due to the benefits cap, is not the best this Bill can be.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, back in the days of the joint consultative committee on this Bill, on which I sat, we identified that
“access to money is one of the main barriers to ending an abusive relationship”,
for all the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. This is why she returns to this theme today, and I am delighted to continue my support.
We have long discussed single universal credit payments as a major tool of the perpetrator of economic coercive control—a tool handed to him by the Government. Amendment 10 requires the domestic abuse commissioner to look at this and to report to Parliament.
In her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said that she believed this is not appropriate or realistically achievable in one year, and that it is for the commissioner to decide what investigations she makes. She has a point. Frankly, I for one do not understand why a review should be necessary at all. For me, the case has already been made several times over.
Maybe those who design the payment systems would prefer to consign the work to enable split payments to the “too difficult” box, but, if they can design a mostly working model to incorporate six benefits into one payment that fluctuates with income—universal credit—I do not see why split payments should not be a doddle.
Amendment 10 is a very moderate amendment that calls for the facts to be laid bare so that the Government can be absolutely sure they will achieve the effect of greater economic independence, not just for the victims of domestic abuse but to generate greater economic independence for women receiving universal credit in all circumstances. Split payments reflect modern-day life. If we purport to see the independence of women in an equal society as a desirable thing, for so many reasons, why hand financial control in the vast majority of cases to the man?
Amendment 68 does the same thing as Amendment 10 from the perspective of relevant government departments, getting everyone involved in implementation looking at the issue from the perspective of what they can do. Amendment 69 takes the strain and worry of having to pay back benefit advances from victims who have received them. As I said in Committee, if the benefit system is not up to helping victims under great duress in a timely manner, those victims should not be made to suffer the worry of where to find the money to repay all the additional expenses they have incurred because of government tardiness.
This is a time of extreme vulnerability, as many noble Lords have said, not only for the victim but, potentially, for her children. Changes in the light of these amendments could make the difference between a decision to escape or to stay and face the misery and danger of remaining with an abuser.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for her superb introduction and to all noble Lords who have spoken.
Amendment 10 relates to single payments of universal credit. The case has been made overwhelmingly clearly that the system of single payments facilitates financial abuse by allowing perpetrators to control the entire household income. Ministers only seem to have three arguments against acting on this: first, that claimants can ask for split payments, although, as my noble friend pointed out, that just puts survivors at risk; secondly, that most couples keep and manage their finances together, although, as Refuge points out, the finances of those experiencing economic abuse are not managed jointly but controlled by their abuser; and thirdly, that it would undermine the nature of universal credit and be a bit difficult. These are pretty weak arguments. All this amendment does is say that the commissioner will look into the matter further and report to Parliament. If the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the Government do not want the commissioner to look into it, can I suggest that they simply sort it out themselves? That would save our having to do so.
Amendment 69 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from repaying benefit advances made to mitigate the five-week wait. There is a real risk that survivors wanting to flee will be deterred because they know it is five weeks until they get paid—many are already in debt and do not want to take on more—and if they take an advance on, their monthly income falls below survival level, yet they have other debts to service. Does the Minister accept that this is a genuine barrier? I would be really interested to know the answer.
Amendment 72 would disapply the benefit cap for 12 months for survivors who fled and claimed universal credit. I am not going to repeat the devastating critique made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I do think Ministers owe it to this House and to survivors to engage with those arguments properly. Normally, Ministers argue that people can escape the cap by moving to cheaper housing or by getting a job, but those are not practical for someone fleeing abuse. There are already exemptions for those in refuges, so why not for those in any accommodation? There is already an exemption from the work requirement of universal credit for someone who has fled abuse in the previous six months, but what use is that exemption if survivors cannot afford to take advantage of it because they would still be hit by the benefit cap and so could not afford to pay their rent?
These issues are all examples of social security policy or practice which have a differential impact on survivors of domestic abuse. If Amendment 68 were accepted, government departments would have to assess the impact of any social security reforms on victims or potential victims of domestic abuse before making changes, rather than afterwards. It would stop us being here over and over again, trying to point out the problems of systems already changed, by trying to address them beforehand. Had that been done before creating universal credit or imposing the benefit cap or the bedroom tax, these problems could have been designed out at an earlier stage.
The survivor quoted by my noble friend Lady Lister was right: you need money to escape. Our social security system should enable survivors to flee abuse, but it does not. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, this is a failure of joined-up government. The sad reality is that problems do join up, and at the level of the individual survivor, but the Government response fails to address that. There is no point in the Government legislating to support survivors of domestic abuse while steadfastly ignoring problems in their own systems, which risks exacerbating or even enabling abuse and making it hard or sometimes impossible for survivors to flee and rebuild their lives. I say to the Minister, whom I know cares about these issues, a lot of work has gone into researching, evidencing, and debating the issues, and the fact that the noble Baroness is a Home Office Minister is not a reason not to engage with them. The House, the country and survivors deserve to have these arguments taken seriously. I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, for explaining their amendments, which relate to the operation of the welfare system, including universal credit and the benefit cap, and their impact on victims of domestic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is absolutely right: just because I am a Home Officer Minister does not mean that I should not and do not engage on these matters.
Amendment 10 seeks to place a duty on the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate universal credit single household payments and lay a report before Parliament within a year of Royal Assent. As I indicated in Committee, and as my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, as an independent officeholder, it should be for the commissioner to set her own priorities as set out in her strategy plan, as provided for in Clause 13. I understand that the commissioner has no current plans to examine this issue in the next year. If this amendment were to be made it would necessarily mean that other issues which she might have regarded as more pressing would fall by the wayside. Moreover, the way the amendment is drafted arguably prejudices the conclusions of the commissioner’s report and makes it difficult or impossible for her to comply with the duty if those conclusions do not then come to pass. If the aim of this amendment is to secure a particular preordained outcome, I see no benefit in asking the independent commissioner to investigate the matter. She has already embarked on the mapping exercise in relation to community-based services, so there is no contradiction between government Amendment 17 and the concerns we have about Amendment 10.
DWP is committed to doing all it can to support victims of domestic and economic abuse, including giving split payments when requested, easements to benefit conditionality and referrals to local specialist support. However, by default, a core principle of universal credit is that it is a single household payment. Where a claimant is part of a couple and living in the same household, they will need to make a joint claim for universal credit. Many legacy benefits, including housing benefit, child benefit and child tax credit, already make payment to one member of the household, so the way universal credit is paid is not a new concept. Instead, we believe that this reflects the way that most couples can and want to manage their finances—jointly and without state intervention. We have therefore taken a proportionate response, ensuring that universal credit meets both the needs of the many and the most disadvantaged, including victims of domestic abuse.
Recognising that there are circumstances in which split payments are appropriate, we have made them available on request to anyone at risk of domestic abuse. As part of that, it is important that we allow the individual who is experiencing domestic abuse to decide whether they think that split payments will help their individual circumstances. Once that choice is made, the request for such payment can be made in whatever way works best for the claimant, including during a face-to-face meeting or a phone call. Once paid, the larger percentage of a split payment will be allocated to the person with primary caring responsibilities, such as childcare. This is to ensure the health and well-being of the majority of the household. We can also arrange for any rent to be paid directly to the landlord to protect the family tenancy. No information relating to why a split payment has been requested or granted will be notified to the claimant’s partner. In addition to the right to split payment on request, we have also taken measures to encourage payment to the main carer in the family. Evidence suggests that 60% of universal credit payments are made to women, who are usually the main carer. Given this, we have changed the claimant messaging on the service to encourage claimants in joint claims to nominate the bank account of the main carer to receive their universal credit payment.
I hope that noble Lords will see that, although universal credit’s single household payment mirrors the model of the legacy benefits it replaces, much has been done to offer alternative payment arrangements to victims of domestic abuse. However, universal credit cannot solve all the problems of domestic abuse and split payment is not a panacea. It is crucial to acknowledge that abusive partners may still take money from their victims, whether that is payment of universal credit or any other source of income, including through intimidation, coercion and physical force. Payment to the victim’s individual bank account is no guarantee, with such people capable of learning passwords and taking control of bank cards.
The Government therefore view calls for split payments to all couples claiming universal credit as disproportionate. This would be a fundamental change to the payment structure of universal credit, from a single household payment made to one individual of the benefit unit to payments split between joint claimants by default, rather than made available to those who need this method of payment. It would add very significant cost and complexity. For example, split payments are currently a manual process. To introduce them by default they would have to be automated, at considerable cost and disruption. This would also deflect limited resource from the improvements already prioritised for the universal credit system. Such fundamental change from a single to a multiple-payment model for all, regardless of need, may also put the stability of the system at risk for all 6 million current universal credit claimants, and at a time when numbers have grown significantly in response to the pandemic.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, advocated split payment by default, pointing to the Scottish Government’s wish to adopt this method of payment. For the reasons I have set out, that is not the Government’s position. It is also noticeable that the Scottish Government are yet to come forward with firm proposals. I say this not to criticise, but merely to illustrate to the House that this is a complex area in which to design a workable policy. Nevertheless, we will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to establish the practicalities of delivering split payments in Scotland. Should they come up with a policy capable of being implemented, we will observe their implementation to further understand the impacts, any potential advantages and disadvantages. We would ask advocates of split payment by default to do the same, in a “test and learn” approach, so that future debate on this may be based on practical evidence.
Amendment 68 would require the DWP to assess the impact of welfare reform on victims, and potential victims, of domestic abuse. The DWP already does this, in accordance with the public sector equality duty. An equality impact assessment to support the introduction of universal credit was published in November 2011, and an impact assessment was published in December 2012. Equality impacts have been further considered in developing subsequent plans surrounding the implementation of universal credit. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention in proposing the amendment, but I do not think that the additional duty is required.
Finally, Amendment 69 seeks to make victims of domestic abuse exempt from repaying universal credit advances. It is important to note that there can be no such thing as an advance that is never intended to be recovered. Advances are simply an advance of a claimant’s benefit, paid early, resulting in the same amount of universal credit being spread across more payments. It is, therefore, more appropriate to say that this amendment would effectively create grants or additional entitlement to universal credit solely for victims of domestic abuse. While the Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting victims of domestic abuse by introducing additional benefit entitlement, we would effectively be unfairly discriminating against all other vulnerable cohort groups who may be facing substantial challenges.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister and ask a short question of elucidation. I call the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this group of amendments, in particular to Amendments 72 and 102, to which I have added my name. I also thank her for her reassurance that local authorities will be given clear encouragement to prioritise the needs of domestic abuse victims, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, requested. Can she ensure that national statistics on the number of such cases accepted and rejected in each year will be counted and made public? Visible success for the Government’s preferred approach may serve as encouragement to those facing the unenviable decision of whether they can afford to flee their abuser’s home.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes, I can certainly request that on behalf of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and also the Minister. Noble Lords have enriched the arguments but, given the time, I will not go over what they said. I will not try to come back on the Minister’s arguments because it feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I am disappointed, however, that the noble Baroness did not acknowledge the point that I and my noble friend Lord Rooker underlined, as did others: there is a real tension between social security policy and domestic abuse policy. The policies that she is so committed to in this Bill will be undermined by DWP policies. I hope that at the very least she will take back to the DWP the concerns that have been raised today.
I thank the Minister for saying she will try to arrange for Women’s Aid to meet the DWP Minister to talk about training. As for panic rooms, will the noble Baroness have words with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about what has happened and why no action has been taken in response to that judgment? Time is ticking past—we really should have action by now.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock asked a couple of very specific questions about the Minister’s position, and I wonder whether she could write in response. I think I will leave it at that.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Rooker that it would have been good to have been able to vote on this issue. However, there are so many amendments that noble colleagues want to vote on that I realise it was not possible. That should not mean that Ministers think we do not attach great importance to the arguments that have been made today. I just hope that the Minister will take those arguments to the DWP and see, behind the scenes, if something can be done. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 11. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make it clear during the course of the debate.
Clause 12: Advisory Board
Amendment 11
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the upper limit for members of the Commissioner’s advisory board.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I feel a sense of frustration. There are so many issues that one wants to pursue, but it is not the first Bill where we will experience that. In Committee, we had a series of amendments regarding the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. Almost all of them were concerned with ensuring that the job is not so constructed as to preclude the commissioner making her own decisions on how to go about her work. I put it that way to distinguish it from the content of the work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it very succinctly. He said that the whole thrust of certain clauses is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. Our debates largely boiled down to the commissioner’s autonomy. I did not entirely follow the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; he said that our amendments focused on independence but then set about how the commissioner should fulfil the role. Independence was a particular focus on this part of the Bill, although naturally noble Lords had been keen to draw attention to a variety of issues. That tension has been a bit of an issue today, of course, but that is perhaps by the by.
Independence is a hugely important component of the role. The Government have been arguing today that that is so in resisting some amendments; they certainly did that in Committee. It is a component, as far as possible, given that the commissioner’s position is that of a statutory officeholder funded by the Secretary of State with no separate legal persona. The framework agreement between the commissioner and the Secretary of State will be very important in this regard.
As well as the commissioner’s freedom to select her own staff—following due process, of course—in Committee we had quite extensive debate about the advisory board. Different noble Lords argued for members of the board with particular backgrounds and experience. The Bill provides for at least six members and spells out whom each of the six is to represent. I have to say that the term “represent” still troubles me. I think there is a danger of muddling representation and advice. The maximum under the Bill is 10 members. Why? Clearly, there is a huge range of problems and situations relevant to domestic abuse and so a range of individuals and organisations with a range of experience and expertise, including experience of the whole sector and its interconnecting parts, is needed.
In our view, the commissioner should have the scope —and this is a matter of her autonomy—to appoint such a board to advise her, or, in the future, him, as she considers appropriate. At this stage, I am not arguing with the interests that the six are to represent under the Bill, although I remain concerned that they will be the Secretary of State’s pick, but if the commissioner wishes to bring in more than four further people in the capacity of advisory board members she should be able to do so. There seems no good reason to impose the restriction on numbers.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this was
“to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]
That is what we all want, but efficiency and effectiveness is about more than numbers. It is about what each member contributes and how the board as a whole operates and that should be a matter for the commissioner. The commissioner can and may well seek advice from elsewhere. I dare say she can bring people into board meetings as a one-off. I am not sure whether she can co-opt—I cannot see that there is a restriction on that. However, those individuals should be afforded the respect of a permanent role if that is warranted and not be limited as the board proposes. This issue encapsulates our concerns about the commissioner’s autonomy and independence and that is why we have chosen it as the one to pursue at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has brought this matter back to the attention of your Lordships on Report. Clearly, the idea of an advisory board is welcome and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have no objection to the range of interests which the Bill specifies must be represented on the board itself.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although it is not the subject of the amendment, I am still very surprised by the term “representative”. I know that this is an advisory board, rather than a governance board, but having the notion of representatives is very bad corporate governance. People should be appointed for what they can contribute, not for whom they represent. I hope that that does not make it more difficult to have an effective advisory board.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the numbers to be appointed. I accept that 10 is a reasonable figure, but there may be circumstances where the commissioner would want to go above that. I fail to see why we cannot leave it to her good sense to be able to do so, if she wants to. I hope the Government will accept this very sensible and modest amendment.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the role of the commissioner. Making sure it is autonomous and has some independence in decision-making with regards to the team and staff in management positions will enable her to be more effective, given the diversity of those in the women’s sector who undertake these very important areas of work.
I want to support this because the advisory board, management team and other decision-making structures must consider it necessary to embed diversity to strengthen their standing and credibility. More importantly, the presence of a diverse group of experts—and I use this word very carefully; it is not necessarily about representation, and should not suggest that people from diverse backgrounds are not going to be able to provide expertise—will, at all levels of decision-making, convey a very powerful message that the commissioner is committed to safeguarding the services for all survivors with the relevant expertise of different organisations. However she chooses to do that, it is important that she has diverse and meaningful experts who can inform and instruct the work of the commissioner.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has outlined, this is a modest amendment which gives the commissioner a bit more leeway when it comes to appointments to the advisory board. More than this, it reflects the autonomy that we feel she should have. That is why we have picked this particular amendment as something that represents that.
Circumstances will change, as will the person who inhabits the role of commissioner. New disciplines and new ways of tackling the scourge of domestic abuse will emerge. In the Bill, the commissioner has some discretion on whom she appoints to her advisory board, which must have
“not fewer than six and not more than ten members”.
But what if she—or, in the future he—discovers someone else who could make an invaluable contribution but she already has the maximum number of 10 specified in the Bill? Does she take them on in different ways or co-opt them? Are they representatives? As several noble Lords have said, it is not necessarily a representative role that she needs; it is advice. She is there to advise, so why would we hamper her in that way?
I hope the Minister can explain the logic behind what seems to many noble Lords to be an arbitrary figure. If he cannot, can he please accede to this modest amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Amendment 11 would remove the upper limit of “not more than ten” for members of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked
“why put an upper limit in legislation?”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1706.]
This question was supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who clearly also felt that a domestic abuse commissioner should be sufficiently trusted to decide for her or himself how many people they need on their own advisory board over the lower limit of six provided for in the Bill.
Although it was a straightforward question, reading in Hansard the Government’s response in Committee still leaves one unclear as to the answer. We were told by the Government that no more than 10 members would
“ensure that the board remains focused and provides clear advice to the commissioner.”
What is the Government’s evidence that 11 or 12 members, for example, would lead to an advisory board that is unfocused and provides confusing advice to the commissioner? No evidence at all was provided.
The Government then told us that a maximum membership of 10 was
“appropriate to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”
Once again, not one piece of evidence was advanced as to why 11 or 12 would result in an advisory board that did not operate effectively or efficiently.
Unless it is a government desire to control as much as possible from the centre, what is the reason for the Government pulling the purely arbitrary figure of a maximum of 10 out of the hat, with the consequence that the limit on the size of the domestic abuse commissioner’s advisory board is a fixed, rigid and permanent number, laid down in law with not even an iota of flexibility?
Later on in their response, the Government said that they could
“leave it to the good judgement of the commissioner to appoint suitably qualified individuals”.
So the Government have confidence in the commissioner appointing suitably qualified individuals to her own advisory board, but not the confidence to let the commissioner decide how many such suitably qualified individuals she needs on her advisory board, over and above the minimum of six.
The Government also told us that they needed to
“avoid creating an unwieldy board which cannot then provide effective support to the commissioner.”
So the Government have so little confidence in the domestic abuse commissioner that they think that she, or a successor, would otherwise create an unwieldy advisory board unable to provide them with effective support.
However, the Government’s argument in Committee then did a complete U-turn. Having told us that there must be a rigid and fixed maximum number on the advisory board laid down by law, they then told us that the maximum membership of 10
“does not preclude the commissioner from also seeking advice from other sources”,
that
“the commissioner will be required to establish a victims and survivors advisory group to ensure that it engages directly with victims and survivors in its work”,
and, finally, that the commissioner
“may also establish any other groups as she sees fit.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]
So while the Government cannot trust the commissioner not to overdo it on the maximum membership of her own advisory board, they presumably trust the commissioner not to overdo seeking advice from other sources, not to overdo establishing a victims and survivors advisory group, and not to overdo establishing however many other groups she sees fit. The necessity for a fixed, rigid, permanent, statutory, government-determined maximum number, to be imposed on the commissioner for her and her successors’ own advisory board, just does not add up. That is why the Government could give no coherent, credible, evidence-backed explanation in Committee of the need for a statutory maximum, or why that maximum should be 10. The Government really ought to have a rethink on this issue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for setting out why she has tabled this amendment again, which would remove the upper limit of 10 advisory board members to be appointed by the domestic abuse commissioner. It is certainly important that the advisory board should be representative of a broad range of different groups and experts who have responsibilities for responding to domestic abuse. However, the Government submit that we need to limit the numbers of the board, not because we want to fetter the discretion of the commissioner but to ensure that the board is sufficiently large to be representative but not so large that it becomes unwieldy.
We consider that the maximum membership of 10 is the right number to ensure that the board can discharge its functions efficiently and effectively. I appreciate the acknowledgement by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that 10 is a reasonable number, even if he supports the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This upper limit does not, of course, stop the commissioner from also seeking advice from other experts, but the advisory board itself needs to be of a manageable size and small enough to provide focused support to her. To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, others could of course attend the advisory board meetings if the commissioner so wished, even if they were not members of it.
As I indicated in Committee, a member of the advisory board could represent the interests of more than one group, ensuring an even wider range of representation. For example, she or he could represent the interests of victims of domestic abuse while also representing the interests of specialist charities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, noted, in addition to the board, the commissioner will be required through her terms and conditions of employment to establish a victims and survivors advisory group to engage directly with victims and survivors in its work. I hope noble Lords will appreciate the importance of putting victims and survivors at the centre of that work. The commissioner may also establish any other groups as she sees fit, so could—as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asks—seek additional advice if she wanted to do so.
So the Government remain of the view that Clause 12 strikes the right balance between setting out certain minimum requirements regarding the membership of the advisory board while affording sufficient latitude to the commissioner to appoint one which can support her in the exercise of her functions. However, we would certainly be happy to keep this under review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported this amendment. As my noble friend described, circumstances can change. She put the position very clearly.
The noble Lord has just said that the matter will be kept “under review”. I realised as this short debate went on that this was one of the very rare occasions when I wished that the matter was dealt with in regulations rather than in primary legislation, because it would have been so much easier to change the numbers through secondary legislation.
Despite comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and by me, the Minister used the terms “representative” and “represent” throughout his response. This is precisely something that continues to concern me—and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as he said. The Minister said that the Government do not want to fetter the commissioner’s discretion, but, of course, that is exactly what the clause does.
The dynamics of groups is something which interests me—how a group develops ways of working and works most creatively. Other experts who may be asked to give advice would not be part of a cohesive unit. I think that a cohesive unit where members are able to spark off one another and bring to the table various parts of experience—including of life, as well as of the direct subject matter—makes for the most effectiveness. Sometimes disagreeing makes for effectiveness, too. Of course, a huge group will function in a different way. I am not anticipating a very big group. I have chaired for quite a long time a group of 25; that was too many, but it was too many for the particular task rather than too many, period.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
For the benefit of other noble Lords as well, I am happy to provide a quick response. We will certainly take that point away and discuss it further. The noble Baroness is right that as it is in primary legislation then primary legislation would be needed. The Government submit that the number we are putting forward is reasonable. If the experience of this and future commissioners suggests that it is not then we would of course discuss that with them, and it would be a matter for Parliament to change the primary legislation if it so wished. Still, for the reasons that I set out, the Government consider that the number that we are putting forward, 10, will not bring about the problems that noble Lords have anticipated.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that. I hope we do not feel an urgent need to review this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 15: Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
Amendment 12
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“(r) the Independent Office for Police Conduct;(s) the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the list of public authorities which have a duty to co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to include the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, government Amendment 14 is very welcome. Clearly the call for the commissioner to have powers to collect information on domestic homicide through reviews of such homicides has been heeded. Domestic homicide reviews will give the commissioner a hugely valuable picture of deaths occurring as a result of domestic violence. They bring together the statutory and non-statutory partners to learn lessons and, hopefully, prevent deaths in future.
However, as the commissioner-designate says, actions can drift over time, and there is little accountability for implementation. Although statutory guidance says that a copy of each domestic homicide report should be lodged with the Home Office, it is often omitted because there is no legislative backing to the guidance. Someone needs to grasp that issue firmly, put all this disparate information together and drive the changes that are needed from the lessons learned.
Thanks to government Amendment 14, all domestic homicide reports must now be sent to the commissioner. As well as domestic homicide reports, though, there are other valuable sources of information into homicides and suicides—other reviews that hold vital lessons. Amendment 16 would spread the information net wider to incorporate reviews or investigations into deaths where domestic abuse had been identified as a contributory factor. Such reviews could come from any number of sources: safeguarding adult reviews, serious case reviews, NHS serious investigations, misconduct where a death was involved and so on.
Prevention of future deaths reports, issued by the coroner’s office, are hugely important in building up a picture of how things have gone wrong and can be improved in the future. Although this information resides on the coroner’s website, there is no systematic way to interrogate it. While recommendations are made, reports to the commissioner would enable her to correlate them and guide future best practice. The commissioner is anxious to preserve the independence of the Chief Coroner, which has been removed from the list of proposed public authorities required to co-operate with the commissioner, so that judicial independence is not compromised in any way. This is why proposed new subsection (3) requires copies of the coroner’s prevention of future deaths reports to be lodged with the Secretary of State and commissioner. Any public authority specified in Clause 15(3) would be covered; this is the subject of my Amendment 12.
During Committee, we proposed in Amendment 51 that Her Majesty’s Prison Service and the National Probation Service be added to the list of organisations with a duty to co-operate with the commissioner. It was subsequently confirmed that they already fall under this duty, as part of the Ministry of Justice, but there are a couple of authorities that the commissioner would find particularly useful to have added to the list. The Independent Office for Police Conduct will occasionally look at allegations of misconduct in relation to a death where domestic abuse has been a factor, while the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will deal with deaths in prison or after release, when a victim or perpetrator of domestic abuse has been involved. These are two poignant examples of where the death of a victim can point to how such a tragedy can be avoided and circumstances can be better handled in future.
It is important to note that there is no intention of creating a blame culture here, but instead to learn lessons by producing thematic reviews that inform policy and practice. Every amendment in the group will strengthen the arm of the Secretary of State and the commissioner to do their job and design better systems to prevent systematic failure in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of Amendments 12 and 16, to which I have added my name. In Committee, the Minister was constructive and sympathetic, as she invariably is when considering improvements to the quality, accuracy and timeliness of data, so we are grateful for government Amendment 14. She has followed through, as she promised she would in Committee, and we thank her for it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has explained clearly what is behind Amendments 12 and 16, so I do not need to go into more detail. It is also clear that the commissioner herself has requested these additions and she is in the business of trying to pull together multiple strands of information, in a way that has not been done before. She is not learning on the job, but to some extent learning as she settles into the job, about the greater complexity that there is and the different strands of information that she will need to make informed decisions and give the Government good advice. It is a direct request from her to fill what she feels are some important gaps in the data that she requires.
The two key benefits are fairly self-evident. The first is to ensure that all these recommendations are recorded and assessed, in particular to see if the recommended follow-up actions are being taken. The second is to draw out the key themes and lessons being learned in order to have a proactive, preventive, joined-up approach, which we clearly do not have at the moment. That is a large part of the genesis of this Bill. The commissioner’s request is extremely simple: please support and accept these amendments, and act. She will then move swiftly to build a more informed, accurate and insightful understanding, which will enable her to do her job as well as we all want her to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, on average, two women a week are killed in the UK by a current or former partner. While the figures have dropped slightly over the past decade, they remain unacceptably high. I am pleased that the Government have given their support to my amendment to create a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, as we will see later on on Report. This is truly a lifesaving change which I hope will prevent many victims losing their lives as a result of domestic abuse.
Each one of these deaths is an absolute tragedy, and perhaps even more tragic is the fact that we are failing to learn the vital lessons needed to prevent other victims losing their lives. We owe it to all the families who have lost a loved one to ensure that at the very least, their experience will help to prevent future deaths. That is why I support Amendments 12 and 16 to extend the powers of the independent domestic abuse commissioner to create a new oversight mechanism for domestic homicide and suicide, and I call on other Peers to do the same. The oversight mechanism will bring together all the reports and reviews that take place after someone has been murdered or takes their own life as a result of domestic abuse into one central place in a more systematic way. Right now, a huge number of reports are made, ranging from domestic homicide reviews, coroners’ prevention of future death reports and safeguarding adult reviews, but there is no means of bringing them all together in one place. It would also provide a much more robust accountability framework to ensure that individual recommendations are acted on. In too many instances, no processes are in place to ensure that once a report is produced, its recommendations are followed up. The new mechanism would enable the commissioner to identify key themes across investigations to help target the key policy changes needed to prevent future deaths.
I want to tell noble Lords about Anne-Marie Nield, whose death has helped to drive through the campaign for a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation. What happened after her death makes a powerful case for why a stronger oversight mechanism that would bring together the lessons from a range of reports, not just the domestic homicide reviews, is needed to prevent future deaths. Anne-Marie died in 2016 during a sustained assault by her partner, who had previously subjected her to non-fatal strangulation. The officers who dealt with the previous incidents failed to appreciate the significance of strangulation as a risk factor. No support was offered to her and no referral was made to MARAC. The DHR carried out after her death identified a significant number of errors and omissions by the police. The recommendations then made were accepted in their entirety by Greater Manchester Police.
However, in 2019 the coroner noted in her prevention of future deaths report that not all of those recommendations had been implemented. That was more than two years later. The DHR did not address the issue of non-fatal strangulation, but the coroner did. An examination of this in detail, when it was raised by the family at the inquest, resulted in the officers who dealt with Anne-Marie being questioned about their understanding of the matter. The coroner noted that no reference was made to non-fatal strangulation in the GMP domestic abuse policy and that the police officers involved with Anne-Marie failed to appreciate its significance as a specific risk for domestic homicide. In 2019, the response to the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report stated that the force’s domestic abuse policy needed to be updated and would include non-fatal strangulation as a heightened risk factor. It is not known whether this has been done. Later that year, the Centre for Women’s Justice requested sight of the GMP domestic abuse policy under the Freedom of Information Act, but approximately 90% of it was redacted.
This clearly shows the huge gaps between different reviews and why it is important for us to go well beyond the lessons provided in DHRs and, crucially, arm the new domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, with the powers needed to create the new mechanism, to provide oversight to ensure that key recommendations and lessons are taken forward. For the sake of the families, it is so important that these amendments to give the duty to the domestic abuse commissioner are made to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to and speak in support of Amendment 12, which would extend the list of public authorities with a duty to co-operate with the domestic abuse commissioner. Amendment 14 would place a new duty on public authorities that carry out reviews and investigations into deaths in which domestic abuse has been identified as a contributory factor to notify the Secretary of State for the Home Office and the office of the domestic abuse commissioner upon completion and to provide them with a copy of their findings.
This oversight by the domestic abuse commissioner is intended to ensure a more systematic collection of investigations into suicides and homicides in which domestic abuse is identified as a contributory factor, together with a robust accountability framework to ensure that individual recommendations are acted upon and key themes across investigations are identified to help target the key policy changes needed to prevent future deaths.
The pandemic has created so many problems for our society, notwithstanding the area of domestic abuse. Coronavirus may exacerbate triggers and lockdown may restrict access to support or escape; it may even curtail measures some people take to keep their own violence under control.
In 2011 domestic homicide reviews were established on a statutory basis under Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. It was one of the most difficult and disturbing aspects of my role as a councillor when I had to take part in such a review following the death of one of my constituents. It was a devastating time for the community and left long-running consequences as we searched our souls to see what more anyone could have done to prevent such a tragedy. In hard terms, what can be done by agreeing these amendments is to establish a clear oversight and accountability mechanism, led by the independent domestic abuse commissioner, which would help to drive effective implementation and share lessons nationally in the long as well as the short term.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we return now to the debate we had in Committee about the role of the domestic abuse commissioner in helping all relevant agencies to learn the lessons from domestic abuse-related homicides and suicides so that we can avoid such deaths in future.
In Committee I undertook to consider further amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. We agree that the commissioner has an important oversight role to play in this area, and government Amendment 14 will support it by placing a duty on those responsible for carrying out a domestic homicide review under Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to send a copy of the report of the review to the commissioner.
As I indicated in Committee, we are not persuaded that it is necessary to extend this requirement to the other homicide reviews listed in Amendment 16. Given that the bodies involved are required to engage and feed into domestic homicide reviews, we think the lessons will be captured through this process. Where necessary, the commissioner can also use her powers under Clause 15 to request relevant information from the public authorities subject to the duty to co-operate.
Amendment 12 seeks to add to the list of public authorities subject to the duty to co-operate. We agree in principle that the IOPC, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, should be added to the list. Clause 15(4) includes a power to add to the list of specified public authorities by regulations, and we propose to exercise this power in relation to the IOPC. The IOPC has come late to the party, as it were, so we consider it preferable to use the regulation-making route to allow time for the IOPC and the commissioner’s office to work through the implications for the IOPC of adding it to the list of specified public authorities.
As for the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, I must point out that it is not a statutory agency, and therefore there are difficulties with referring to it in statute. On a more practical level, the ombudsman routinely publishes its fatal incident investigation reports, so they are accessible to the commissioner and others. That said, there is scope for discussions between the commissioner and the ombudsman about how the flow of relevant information might be improved.
As I indicated at the start of my remarks, we consider tackling domestic homicides a top priority and we intend to work closely with the commissioner on this issue. The changes being made through Amendment 14 and our commitment to add the IOPC to the list of relevant public authorities by regulations are only part of the wider programme of work taking place to tackle domestic homicides. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, would agree that these are important advances and that accordingly she would be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Wilcox, for their very knowledgeable contributions, particularly the poignant case of Anne-Marie Nield, provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, which just illustrates how important it is that we learn the lessons.
I am very grateful to the Minister—she is clearly a Minister who listens and works out what is logically possible and what is not. It perhaps would not have been realistic for her to say, “Oh yes, we’ll do all of that, that’s no problem at all”, but what she has said is extremely encouraging, particularly regarding the IOPC. I am very grateful to her particularly for the way that she has gone more than half way, and her actions, I am sure, will make a very big difference to the ability of the domestic abuse commissioner to do her job—and, indeed, to the Secretary of State. I have great hopes for what the commissioner is going to achieve with all of this. We have certainly loaded on her enough information, so I hope that it is not going to overwhelm her, but I really feel heartened that she is going to have the tools to do the job, and I am very grateful. I respectfully wish to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 13. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 13
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Duty to co-operate: children awaiting NHS treatment
(1) The Commissioner must within 6 months after section 15 comes into force issue a request under that section to the NHS bodies in England mentioned in subsection (2) to co-operate with the Commissioner to secure that the objectives set out in subsection (3) are met within 12 months after that section comes into force and continue to be met.(2) The bodies are—(a) every clinical commissioning group established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006, and(b) every other NHS body in England (as defined in section 15(7)) whose co-operation the Commissioner thinks is necessary to secure that the objective set out in subsection (3) is met. (3) The objectives are that—(a) where a child who has been referred for NHS care ortreatment in the area (“Area A”) of a clinical commissioning group moves, as a result of being affected by domestic abuse, to the area (“Area B”) of another clinical commissioning group, the child receives, so far as possible, that care or treatment no later than it would have been received in Area A, and(b) where a child who has been referred for NHS care or treatment in the area of a clinical commissioning group (“Area A”) moves, as a result of being affected by domestic abuse, to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, the NHS bodies in question take the necessary steps (including co-operating with bodies exercising health functions for the area to which the child has moved) to secure, so far as possible, that the child receives that care or treatment no later than it would have been received in Area A.”
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this small group brings together two amendments that I raised in Committee, both relating to the interests of children in circumstances where they flee domestic abuse with a parent or guardian to a new area. Amendment 13 tackles access to NHS treatment and Amendment 76 concerns access to school places.
On Amendment 13, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the issue of health being a devolved matter. What happens, he asked, when a child flees from England to Wales or vice versa? Hestia lawyers, who have been very helpful in this whole process, have redrafted this amendment to tackle this point, so I hope that this is now satisfactory in legal terms. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will probably have more to say on this point.
As always seems to be the case in this place, extremely knowledgeable Members of your Lordships’ House enhanced the debate with their experience and knowledge in Committee. My noble friend Lady Brinton gave a harrowing real-life example of a family forced to flee, and persistent problems of the children with medical complaints going to the back of the queue each time they were forced to move again by the perpetrator. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about how medical and mental problems seemingly unrelated to the stress of living in a household where abuse was going on arose. The Minister talked about the duties and responsibilities of the NHS to treat people in priority need, but, frankly, that is no consolation if your need is not ostensibly a top priority and you never stay on a waiting list long enough to get seen—or even, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to get a diagnosis.
Another point raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton in Committee was to inform the House that the Armed Forces covenant already allowed for this prioritisation to happen for Armed Forces families required to move. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will have looked into this and can tell the House, if it is not practically possible to do the same thing for children fleeing abuse, why it is not. As your Lordships know, where there is a will, there is a way.
Amendment 76 has not changed, and the need for priority admission for children forced to flee to a new area to get schooling has not changed either. Amendment 76 amends the schools’ admissions codes in England and Wales to ensure that children fleeing abuse get the same priority as looked-after children in getting a school place. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, revealed that it takes on average six to eight months for a child to find a new school place on moving area. In his response, the Minister talked about a consultation on the schools’ admissions code to improve the in-year admissions process and fair access protocols for vulnerable children moving in-year. I appreciate that the Government want to get this right and to make it fair for all. Those of us with local government backgrounds or who have been MPs will know just what lengths some parents are prepared to go to secure a place for their child at what they perceive as a good school.
In his remarks in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked also about food parcels and the double disadvantage faced by children without a registered school place. From this week, most children will be back at school, so I presume that food parcels will cease, though that does beg the question about children who test positive and are required to self-isolate. Will they get food parcels if they qualify for free school meals? I do not expect the Minister to know the answer to this off the cuff—though I would be impressed if he did—so perhaps he would be so kind as to write to me. But these vulnerable children with no school place will not qualify for free school meals or for anything else. I ask the Minister: how fast can this be sorted out? When will this new code be implemented, and what is the Secretary of State prepared to do as an interim measure to negate the extra disadvantages these children face on a daily basis? I beg to move.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate the time, but I am passionate about Amendment 13, hence my name being on it alongside that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt, Lady Brinton and Lady Meacher.
The reason why I am so intrigued by how we treat children suffering from domestic abuse and the effects of having to move around in terms of getting healthcare goes back to when I lost my husband in 2007 and my three daughters were witnesses to that horrific crime. I remember trying to get my daughters some health support from my local commissioner and, failing that, to try to get my youngest daughter to see a therapist due to lack of sleep as a result of the trauma that she suffered. At that time, the response was that nobody could be fast-tracked and that everybody went through the same door. The knowledge of how difficult it is to cope with trauma has never left me—and I did not have to cope with domestic abuse. I was not living in a refuge. I was just trying to do my best to protect my three daughters, who still suffer to this day.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I whole-heartedly support Amendments 13 and 76, to which I have added my name. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for tabling these amendments and speaking so powerfully to them.
The key point about Amendment 13 is that a child in need of NHS care really must have that treatment in a timely way, even if the family have had to move to a different NHS trust area. Having worked in mental health for many years, I refer to the point made so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If a child needs psychological help—in this case because of the domestic abuse which they have witnessed or experienced—then the timeliness of that therapy is absolutely vital if the child is not to develop serious mental health problems that are going to be very difficult to remediate later on. I am focusing on mental health issues, but long delays are incredibly serious for a child in need of help with their physical health.
Amendment 13 is not onerous for the Government. It simply places a responsibility on the commissioner, within six months of the implementation of the Bill, to work with clinical commissioning groups and other NHS bodies to resolve the problem of rapid access to NHS treatment for these children. That is all the amendment is asking for. I hope that the Minister can accept the aims of the amendment; I am sure that she will. Maybe she can indicate how the Government plan to meet those aims if not by this amendment, although I hope that they will do so by accepting it.
On Amendment 76, to which I have added my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has cogently argued the case for it, so I shall be brief. I hope that the Minister will take note of the support of the commissioner for the amendment or similar actions to provide
“equivalent priority access to education for children who are victims of domestic abuse.”
While Amendment 13 relates to health, this amendment relates to education. Our aim here is to ensure that these seriously disadvantaged children, having experienced domestic abuse, do not have their disadvantage exaggerated through enforced non-attendance at school. My goodness, we have heard so much about the importance of children attending school when it comes to Covid, but it is even more important, I suggest, for children who have been affected by domestic abuse.
This modest amendment could transform the lives of those children, yet it would surely not impose unreasonable demands on schools. No doubt the commissioner will want to look at the impact on schools to make sure that there was not a problem, but the amendment leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide how the school admissions code should be amended to ensure that those vulnerable children can attend school. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to Amendment 76.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as outlined in the register. I am pleased to follow other noble Lords who have made such cogent cases for both amendments in this group. They are designed to ensure that children who move home, away from their current school and health service area because of domestic abuse are not disadvantaged in access to relevant schooling close to their new residence and, as far as is practicable, receive NHS treatment no later than they would have done had they remained at their previous address. This is not about queue jumping, it is about staying at the same level in the queue when you move.
It is intended that there will be a new health and social care Act this year. Is it feasible not only to enshrine Amendment 13 in this Bill but to reflect the principle in the revised health and social care Act? This would enable the Secretary of State for Health to request that all NHS providers aim to meet standards of fair access for children who move home if they have suffered abuse.
With regard to schooling, it is very hard for children to move out of the area to a new school, losing their previous friends, as a result of abuse. If they then have to travel long distances from their new home to a new school, it makes it very difficult to attend after-school clubs and make local friends if their neighbours are attending more local schools. I have seen this happen all over the country.
For this reason, I support Amendment 76 unreservedly. It is essential that children make new friends and study locally to their home to promote social interaction with other local children and access to clubs and out-of-hours activities associated with schools. These networks are essential to promote children’s mental health, particularly those who have suffered abuse.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Burt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove, Lady Meacher and Lady Watkins, for their careful and thoughtful introduction to, and support for, both the amendments. I also thank the Minister for his comments at the end of Committee on the Bill, but, as others have said, it is certainly easier for the Government to work with Amendment 13, because the responsibility falls on the commissioner to work with the NHS—whether it is CCGs or hospital trusts.
The key point for me is that there is already the ability to choose your hospital, which we do through NHS e-referral services. For these children, fleeing domestic abuse and probably being moved on at extremely short notice, the real crisis is that they will plummet to the bottom of a long waiting list at exactly the crisis moment when they will need support.
I urge the Minister to consider that particular problem. I appreciate all the arrangements that the Government have made. We shall see what is in the NHS Bill, as and when this is published, but this very small, particular group of children need very particular support. This is absolutely the case for children applying to child and adolescent mental health services, where we know that there is already an extreme shortage of access to these services. The one thing that is true about children fleeing domestic abuse is that they are likely to be traumatised. Delaying their treatment further will give them very serious problems.
On the schools issue, I think it is an excellent notion to use the same duties as for looked-after children. I also want to make the point that I made about NHS services in Committee. Military children should also be prioritised for school places when they move. This should apply also to children fleeing domestic abuse.
In certain areas where schools are full, a six to eight-month gap to find a school place is not uncommon. This exacerbates the problem of the children not getting any part of their lives back to normal. I appreciate that processes and protocols take time, but there must be some interim measures to help these children. There is no doubt that this Government understand the importance of getting children back into school. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said, the impact of Covid and the pressure on schools to reopen as quickly as is safe is completely understandable. These children’s lives are being traumatised by the pandemic—although perhaps not as severely as those of elderly adults. They need a transformation. They need access to school and medical services.
So I urge the Minister to agree to these amendments and ensure that the processes which need to be set up behind the scenes between the commissioner, NHS services and the DfE can happen.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 13, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require NHS bodies to co-operate to allow children who have had to move due to domestic abuse to receive any NHS treatment for which they had been referred no later than if they had not moved. Amendment 76 would extend the duty on local authorities to provide school places for looked-after children to children who are forced to change schools as a result of domestic abuse.
In Committee, the Government’s response to Amendment 13 was the same as it had been in the Commons: namely, that access to the NHS is based on clinical priority and that a child’s need to access and receive health services is assessed and services provided according to clinical need. The response overlooked the point that, in the case of children forced to relocate because of domestic abuse, if the forced move is from an area where the wait following referral could be 18 months to two years to another area where the wait is for a similar period, a clinician might not see that vulnerable child for a lengthy period—literally years—and that any decisions would not be being made by clinicians.
Nor was there any response to another point made in the debate in Committee: namely, that, since the Armed Forces covenant protects service people’s waiting list position if they are redeployed and the family moves home to a new area, why could a similar principle not be applied to children who have to move home to another area due to domestic abuse?
In Committee in this House the Government said:
“When patients move home and change hospitals, the NHS should take previous waiting time into account and ensure, wherever possible, that these patients are not put at a disadvantage as a result … Where the systems or processes of the NHS are an impediment to equitable treatment for this group, it will be important for the NHS to work to ensure that such impediments are removed, and we will support and encourage that.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; cols. 1727-28.]
In Committee, the Government made no attempt to say whether they either agreed or disagreed that there was a problem of extended delays in waiting times, or whether vulnerable children who had to be relocated due to domestic abuse do or do not receive NHS treatment for which they have been referred no later than if they had not moved.
Could the Minister, in his response today, give us the figures setting out the extent to which children having to relocate due to domestic abuse do or do not receive NHS treatment for which they have been referred no later than if they had not moved? Presumably the Government would not have rejected this amendment in Committee without knowing what the figures were, and thus the extent of the problem and its consequences for the vulnerable children concerned.
Likewise, on the issue of the provision of school places for children who are forced to move location and change their school as a result of domestic abuse, can the Government, if they are not prepared to act on this amendment, provide figures showing the extent to which they consider that there is or is not a problem in respect of the provision of school place for these vulnerable children who need all the support they can get? Like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I look forward to the Government’s response and hope that it will be a positive one.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, that we share her objective that children should not be put at a disadvantage if they are compelled to move home as a result of domestic abuse. It is, of course, right that they should be able to access the medical attention that they need and to secure a new school place quickly, and that any gaps in their education must be kept to an absolute minimum.
In relation to Amendment 11, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, it is a key principle of the National Health Service that access to healthcare is on the basis of clinical need. When patients move home and between hospitals, the NHS should take previous waiting time into account and ensure, wherever possible, that these patients are not disadvantaged as a result. Clinicians have the training and expertise to make decisions about clinical prioritisation so that patients who require urgent treatment can expect to be seen more quickly. Of course, waiting times may vary across the country and between services. Different services experience different challenges in local demand, which can affect waiting times, and it is important that there is local flexibility to manage this. However, regardless of circumstance, clinical commissioning groups and providers have a duty to provide services within the maximum waiting times set out in the NHS constitution, as I set out in Committee and as has been noted again today.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Brinton, asked about the Armed Forces covenant. The framework of the Armed Forces covenant sets out society’s obligation to members of our Armed Forces and their families, with an aim to prevent disadvantages that they face due to the unique nature of service in our Armed Forces. As part of this promise, families of serving personnel
“should retain their relative position on any NHS waiting list, if moved around the UK due to the service person being posted.”
As I set out earlier, the decision still rests with the clinician to make decisions about their clinical priority in relation to the local population and services available. That is the core principle throughout NHS services.
Local healthcare services are commissioned based on an assessment of the needs of the population they serve, and tackling health inequalities is a core part of those considerations. It will be important for the NHS to learn from experience, including the concerning accounts that have been highlighted by noble Lords both in Committee and this evening, so that barriers to accessing services are removed. We will certainly support and encourage that.
I should say at this point that NHS England is developing an action plan to tackle domestic abuse that will raise awareness among NHS staff. I am sure that staff have the skills to identify and refer and, indeed, to address the issue of NHS staff who are themselves victims or perpetrators. One of the tenets of the action plan will be that any and all victims and survivors of domestic abuse and their children will not be unduly disadvantaged in accessing physical and mental health services when they are forced to move to new accommodation in a different area.
Moreover, at a national level, the NHS long-term plan sets out a number of measures to improve access to services, about which I spoke in Committee, such as extra GP appointments, and new waiting time standards for children and young people for eating disorders and for those experiencing a first episode of psychosis. On top to this, at least 345,000 additional children and young people aged up to 25 will be able to access support via NHS-funded mental health services and school or college-based mental health support teams by 2023-24.
Furthermore, at the spending review in December, the Government announced £1 billion of public money to address backlogs and tackle long waiting lists by facilitating up to a million extra checks, scans and operations. On Friday, the Government announced how millions more children and young people will have access to significantly expanded mental health services, backed by £79 million of public money. This announcement means that nearly 3 million children in England will be supported by mental health support teams in schools, around 22,500 more children and young people will be able to access community mental health services, and 2,000 more children and young people will have access to eating disorder services.
Unlike Amendment 11, Amendment 76 seeks to make provision for both England and Wales, and as education is a devolved matter in Wales, we should not be legislating in your Lordships’ House without the consent of the Senedd. My comments therefore address Amendment 76 as it applies to England only.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has again eloquently explained how children fleeing with a parent from their abuser should not be put at a disadvantage and should not have to wait a long time for a new school place. We agree, which is why the Government are embarking on reform of the English School Admissions Code, which makes better provision for in-year applications and introduces new requirements, including mandatory deadlines for decision-making in relation to in-year admissions and in respect of local authorities’ fair access protocols, helping to ensure that vulnerable school children are allocated a school place as soon as possible. Under the revised code, children fleeing domestic abuse will be eligible to be placed in a school through the fair access protocol if they are struggling to find a school place via the in-year admissions system. These changes should make this process faster and more transparent, and provide a safety net for the most vulnerable children moving school in-year. The Department for Education also proposes to publish new guidance on fair access protocols in England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked when the changes to the School Admissions Code will come into force. They are subject to a full public consultation and, of course, to parliamentary approval, but, subject to that approval, we expect the changes to come into force later this year.
The noble Baroness also asked about the numbers affected on free school meals, and I will take up her offer to write with that information.
The noble Baroness suggested the School Admissions Code should change to give children fleeing domestic abuse, or who have had to move home because of domestic abuse, the same priority as looked-after children when there is a waiting list for school places. This proposal and Amendment 76 focus on the application process for a school place in the normal admissions round—that is, at the start of reception or year 7—rather than in the in-year process, which is when children fleeing domestic abuse are more likely to apply. So this amendment would perhaps not help all the people the noble Baroness and all noble Lords, I am sure, have at the forefront of their minds. Although all mainstream state-funded schools in England must maintain a waiting list, they are required to maintain that list only until the end of the first term of the academic year of admission for the school.
We believe that the changes I have outlined to reform the English School Admissions Code to support in-year admissions will have the greatest impact in ensuring that all vulnerable children are able to access a school place as quickly as possible, including those who are affected by domestic abuse. I hope that the changes I have outlined, and the other positive steps to which I have referred, reassure the noble Baroness and, on that basis, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and indeed to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, gave us another real-life example, this time a personal one. It highlights so clearly the importance of the work that we are doing in this place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, talked about mental health issues and long delays. Think about the life of a child; 12 months in the life of a five year-old seems a lot longer and more important than 12 months to an adult. It is really helpful that the Minister has elaborated on the additional mental health help that is being planned for young people. Particularly with Covid, it will be greatly needed. I just worry whether we have got the resources and the clinicians to be able to populate the services that we are planning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, talked about the health and social care Bill this year and whether we might be able to incorporate some of the health amendments into that. This is something the Minister did not refer to. Perhaps he might write to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. She also talked about the importance of school for all kinds of reasons, including building relationships and getting settled after being in a very disturbed and distressing situation.
My noble friend Lady Brinton talked about plummeting to the bottom of waiting lists at the precise moment that children are at their most vulnerable. The Minister gave soothing words that clinicians are required to take these problems into account. But I hope we can get some reassurance—a protocol—that even if you are not desperately ill, those with a mild condition can still get the treatment they need in a reasonable time, given the vulnerability of these young individuals.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gets to the nitty-gritty, as he always does, and the extent of the problem whereby children lose places on NHS lists. I have started to think that maybe I have not been strong enough in these amendments, when I listen to all the valuable knowledge and the examples that we have had.
My noble friend Lady Brinton also talked about the Armed Forces covenant again. I was struck by the Minister saying that we have an obligation as a society to look after the families of the Armed Forces, but surely we have an obligation as a society to look after these very vulnerable and damaged children as well.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the elaboration and the explanations that he has given. It has been extremely helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to send conclusions of domestic homicide review to Commissioner
(1) Section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (establishment and conduct of domestic homicide reviews) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (3A) insert—“(3B) A person or body within subsection (4)(a) that establishes a domestic homicide review (whether or not held pursuant to a direction under subsection (2)) must send a copy of any report setting out the conclusions of the review to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.(3C) The copy must be sent as soon as reasonably practicable after the report is completed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a person or body carrying out a domestic homicide review in England and Wales to send a copy of the report of the review to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 15
“Duties of public authorities in relation to training
(1) Subject to subsection (3), all public authorities specified in section 15(3) must report to the Commissioner such statistics on enquiries or training as the Commissioner deems necessary.(2) If the Commissioner has published guidance on training or reporting under section 7(2)(d), the training or reporting provided by public authorities to their staff must meet standards specified in such guidance, so far as such standards apply to the public authority.(3) The Commissioner must produce an annual report, in accordance with section 14(2)(b).”
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to move this amendment which relates to the training of all front-line workers. We took away the comments and ideas from the Minister in Committee and have brought back a much more modest amendment. It removes the public duty but does lay out a process whereby the commissioner is involved in assessing the training, according to the guidance the Government have published and will, I hope, improve. It also establishes that the commissioner should produce a report each year.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for signing Amendment 44 and for his assistance in drafting it. It is an evolution of the one that I tabled in Committee, which received strong support from your Lordships’ House. It seeks to ensure that high-level training on domestic abuse, developed with experts, is mandatory for all judges and magistrates hearing family cases. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wolfson for meeting with me this morning, and for his acknowledgement that training is a crucial piece of the puzzle in tackling harm and improving family courts. This amendment will be a major contribution to improving the provision and quality of training. That will make our family courts work better and provide the protection, support and justice that victims and their children deserve.
It is a sorry fact that the courts are failing victims. Process and procedure can feel stacked against them. In the worst cases, the courts themselves can be subverted by abusers so that they serve not as a source of justice but as a tool of abuse. For example, one survivor has been taken to the family court by her abuser 27 times since 2015. The court has become the new venue for control.
To give another example, a woman who had been advised to leave her abusive partner by the police, a GP and the independent domestic violence adviser saw her case rushed through and extensive evidence of abuse overlooked by a judge who showed little evidence of awareness of domestic abuse. The words of that survivor should be in all our minds as we consider this Bill:
“We fled to be free from domestic abuse, yet now my ex-husband is allowed to continue his abuse legally through the family court.”
That is a terrible situation. Unfortunately, it is a common one that the Government are all too well aware of, given the harrowing evidence collected during their own harm panel review.
Many provisions in the Bill seek to address this problem. I particularly welcome the excellent progress on post-separation abuse, barring orders and the banning of cross-examination, but we need training to give those provisions practical, tangible value to ensure that they work on the ground to protect survivors and their children. It was a main recommendation of the harm panel, and it is critical to changing cultures and practices within the courts. Without those changes, these new measures will not be enough. They will provide false promises of hope to survivors, and new mechanisms are no help if domestic abuse continues to be overlooked, misunderstood and dismissed.
I know that my noble friend the Minister recognises the importance of training. The Government’s commitment to trialling improved guidance and training across the system is a welcome first step, but it is crucial that this amendment be accepted. Without the statutory imperative and government oversight, we are not providing survivors with any guarantee that work is under way to change the systemic cultural issues that have been identified.
By placing a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish a strategy and timetable for judicial training, we can ensure scrutiny, rigour and effectiveness, and we can guarantee that this is a commitment that outlasts individual Ministers and funding cycles. By specifying some of the material that the training must cover, we can ensure that it gives judges and magistrates a thorough grounding in all the different ways that domestic abuse can influence a court case or should be taken into account when considering child welfare. By involving the domestic abuse commissioner, we can ensure high-quality training, informed by up-to-date expert thinking that equips our judges and magistrates with the skill they need to wrestle with these difficult cases to provide protection and justice to survivors of abuse.
This amendment will strengthen the training provided; crucially, it will also make it mandatory. Over the course of this Bill, one of the things that we have heard is how insidious domestic abuse can be, how it can appear across all aspects of the family courts’ work and how it can be used to subvert them. This is why it is so important that any judge hearing a family case has a good knowledge of domestic abuse and how it can influence a case.
Domestic abuse must be taken into consideration in the course of a trial, when considering appropriate ways to proceed and when reaching a judgment. It is impossible to do that well without regular training that is consistent, comprehensive and created by true experts. If we do not embed these parameters in legislation, I am afraid that we will be here in a decade’s time, discussing the same ongoing issues in the courts. I dread to think how many people will have suffered during this time if we fail to act properly now.
Family cases are perhaps some of the most difficult and complex cases anywhere in our courts. In the great majority, judges act with wisdom, compassion and care. This amendment should not be seen as an attack on them; rather, it is about ensuring that they have the tools and skills that they need to do their job. Just as we expect judges to be versed in the law, so they should be versed in the facts and consequences of domestic abuse. We owe that to victims going through the courts and to the judges and magistrates themselves.
We have listened to the concerns raised by some noble Lords in Committee and adapted the amendment accordingly. It now guarantees a role in designing training for the Judicial College, the President of the Family Division and the chief executive of the Magistrates’ Association. They will play an important role in making sure that training is as effective as it can be. I hope that this more collaborative approach will attract even wider support than the original amendment.
This amendment is only a start; we should be thinking about training for all staff in the courts and all others, such as Cafcass employees and social workers. However, it is a crucial start: it is how we make the excellent provisions in the Bill a reality on the ground. It is how we will be able to tell survivors in full truth that we have taken real steps to protect them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think again and accept this amendment. However, I am prepared to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for putting down and so persuasively opening this debate on Amendment 44, to which I will speak and have added my name. In Committee, we discussed judicial training at some length. It was interesting that there was general agreement that the amendment on judicial training was by far the most important of all the amendments in a raft of suggested measures seeking reform to procedure in the family courts.
I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the Judicial College provides first-class training for judges and magistrates, with its induction courses for those newly appointed or newly authorised to hear family cases and through continuing education, practical workshops and training materials, appraisal and mentoring. Nothing I say should be taken as a criticism of the quality of the work done by that college. However, one thread that ran through the debate in Committee was that, time and again, victims of domestic violence found their experiences of bringing cases in family courts to be somewhere between daunting and terrifying, They often found the courts and judges profoundly out of sympathy with the suffering of abuse victims.
Baroness Newlove (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 44. This vital amendment was put forward by my noble friend Lady Helic—who was brilliant at speaking and introducing this amendment—along with the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Listening just now, I am in admiration of his speech.
As has been discussed, this amendment will introduce mandatory training on domestic abuse for judges and magistrates hearing family cases. I thank my noble friend Lady Helic for her work on this amendment and her commitment to improving the safety of family courts for survivors of domestic abuse.
The case for this amendment is very clear, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Helic. The Government’s own harm panel report collected overwhelming evidence on the systemic failings of our family courts to properly account for and guard against domestic abuse. Government Ministers have stated that they support the aims of this amendment and the principles which sit behind it, so I am left wondering why they will not take this clear and decisive step to improve and modernise the culture in the family courts and place this on the face of the Bill.
Instead of repeating points that have been so eloquently made by others during the passage of the Bill, I want to use my time to share the story of a survivor I met a few months ago. I hope her experience will again serve as a reminder of why we are here and who we are fighting for.
This victim took the courage to leave a violent, abusive relationship shortly after her baby was born a number of years ago. However, she remained controlled, harassed, stalked and humiliated by her abuser, who has been enabled by the family courts. Despite an extensive non-molestation order being in place, this victim has been through four years of family court proceedings and has been to court 17 times, including during the Covid lockdown periods. The abuser in this case has significant financial resources and so has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on his legal team, who rushed her to court multiple times knowing full well that she had no funds to access legal representation and no legal aid.
The court enabled further abuse by allowing him ongoing control and granting supervised contact. Risks to her safety should have been identified as the non-molestation order had been granted on the basis of his violence towards her. Nevertheless, the victim was ordered by the court that she could not take her phone with her during the supervised contact time. She was told that if he hit her or was otherwise violent towards her, she could wait until after the visitation was over to call the police.
The court has reputedly ignored evidence of the abuse against her and her son, who is now living with his violent father. She has lost all contact with her child because a judge declared that her decision to have another baby in a new relationship was a form of parental alienation.
The amendment we are now debating could have helped this survivor and many others I have heard about in a number of ways over a number of years. Mandatory training would have equipped our judges with the knowledge to understand the implications of a non-molestation order and the ongoing risks posed by a violent abuser. It would have supported judges to identify the pattern of aggressive litigation as another manifestation of the abuser’s controlling behaviour, and it would have helped judges to come to safer decisions around child contact arrangements or even to revoke the presumption of parental involvement in the context of a previously violent relationship.
The case I have outlined is particularly shocking because the abuse was easily evidenced and had been confirmed in other areas of the justice system, yet the family courts still failed to protect this survivor and her child. But as we know, other forms of abuse are less overt, more insidious and can be less clearly quantified. What hope do the courts have of identifying abuse when they are not being used legitimately but as a tool to continue control and abuse? Regular mandatory training by experts is required.
I am afraid that we too must consider our responsibilities in cases like this one. As a society and as a Government, we urge survivors to find the courage to leave abuse. We have promoted campaigns which tell survivors, “You are not alone.” But once they do leave, we abandon them at the gates of the family courts where we know that their safety and the safety of their children cannot be guaranteed and the risk of abuse is likely to be overlooked.
For too long, too many of us have turned a blind eye to what is happening in our family courts. We have gathered the evidence and have heard countless stories, so we can no longer claim not to know what is going on. The family courts are failing the survivors of domestic abuse and this landmark legislation will not live up to such a title if it leaves a gaping hole in protection and support by not introducing mandatory training on domestic abuse in family courts. Basically, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
As someone with a background of working in our courts, when I became the other side, the safety net is not as strong and supportive for victims and their families. I therefore urge my noble friend the Minister and the Government to take the necessary action and support this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, although I will speak to Amendment 15, I should say this on Amendment 44: who could not be moved by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove? In many ways the issues that she, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have developed are consistent with those raised by my noble friend Lady Armstrong.
At Second Reading, my noble friend described the challenge of supporting women who are at risk of losing custody of their children, where the main need was identified as domestic abuse. Supporting women who are facing multiple disadvantages requires a workforce with the skills, knowledge, and awareness to understand the range of experiences women have faced. It requires funders, commissioners and policymakers to value the workforce and be prepared to support the development of their expertise. This is particularly so for those who have lived experience—an important point made by my noble friend. Unfortunately, that is not always forthcoming. Many practitioners have reported that the ongoing training and awareness raising needed to support this type of practice was often the first thing to be cut to save money. There are other challenges in the wider workforce; evidence shows that public services are failing to pick up domestic abuse and respond appropriately. This means that many survivors are passed from service to service before finally getting the support they need, causing years of preventable hurt and even putting lives at risk. The need for effective investment in training and support for staff is overwhelming.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the very inspirational speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I am in awe of her championing of these matters.
As a professional social worker for some years—although I am long in the tooth now—I cannot imagine dealing with child protection of any nature without having the confidence of knowing that I am well trained. I therefore welcome Amendment 15, and will also make some comments about Amendment 44. I am deeply indebted to my noble friend Lady Armstrong for her thoughtful contributions from Second Reading onward. Having heard the profoundly persuasive and detailed arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I speak in support of mandatory judicial training. I believe it to be essential to treat survivors’ experience with the required level of due care.
My noble friend Lady Armstrong highlighted the impact of a well-trained workforce, including police and children’s services, as well as the potential positive effect of well-trained jobcentre managers. We cannot hope to change societal attitudes to poor institutional practices unless government is committed to adequately funding and mandating training at all levels of service, including the highest level in the judiciary. If the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, moves her amendment I will definitely support her.
The amendment also asks that front-line public service staff are properly trained and competent and fully equipped to ensure that thorough assessments can be made of survivors’ needs. Although it is correct that individual public services may be best placed to understand the most effective ways to develop training for their staff, as is argued by the Government, it cannot be overstated that our public institutions may not be the first port of call for help for many women of minority heritage. Therefore, specialist organisations would also require support and training to effectively realise those ambitions. I was so moved by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, argued on behalf of the needs of diverse communities that I need not say another word.
Does the Minister agree that we also need to influence our educational curriculum and provide age-appropriate information? We already do this with regard to sexual orientation and Prevent et cetera; we make sure that our children have information on a whole range of issues. Unless and until we take the matter of violence in the home seriously—violence experienced by parents, relatives or whoever—and we give some details of acknowledgement and equip children, they may not know where to go when they witness this.
I do not have the statistics to hand but is the Minister aware of the evidence which indicates that significant numbers of teenage children, as young as 11, 12 and 13, are accepting violence as a norm within their relationships? This is as well as the tragedy of sexual exploitation and abuse of children which continues to grow exponentially and has overwhelmed the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and other leading children’s organisations.
Training resulting in greater awareness may not be the panacea for stopping violence and preventing the murder of women and children in the immediate future, but combined with the force of law and a well-trained front-line workforce, including the judiciary, the financial support and measures proposed in the Bill will certainly go a long way to build in additional safeguards and improve the chances of survivors to survive violence and abuse.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 44. I thank my noble friend Lady Helic and Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner for London, and her team for bringing the issue of training to the forefront of this legislation. The evidence provided by my noble friend Lady Helic and others was harrowing, but hearing it is essential. As they said, too often it seems that our family courts are not the tools of justice they ought to be; instead, they can be used to continue that abuse.
Too often we fail to equip judges and magistrates with the knowledge they need to spot and prevent this reality. In doing so, we are denying many victims justice. We in this House can legislate all we like but if those on the front line are not adequately trained, as we have heard, it risks remaining just words, and, as my noble friend Lady Newlove said, not worth the paper they are written on. I believe we can and must do better than this. We should strive to ensure that our courts are at the cutting edge, and not repeatedly behind the curve.
The Bill introduces a number of excellent progressive measures that have the potential to help the family courts to deliver justice safely. They include recognising post-separation abuse and extending the grounds on which barring orders can be used. For those the Government certainly deserve credit, but the success of such measures and the guarantee that they will be translated into better practice on the ground hinges on this training amendment.
The amendment renders the need for training into clear language, creating an imperative to act. We need accountability and oversight in this area, as many others have said. If the Government resist putting the amendment into the Bill—and I do not really understand why they should—then at least we need to get to a place where the judiciary are being open and transparent about the level and quantity of training that they are receiving. Who is giving the training? Is it quality assured and rigorous enough? These are questions that need to be properly addressed.
We have heard a lot in previous debates about the need for data collection. In many areas across business and public life, it is transparency and good reporting that often create best practice, and it does not seem unreasonable for the public but also for the Government to be privy to such data. That would drive change from the bottom up.
We also need to be sure that training reflects the new provisions in the Bill immediately rather than them filtering into the system over a period of months or, worse still, years. Of course it cannot simply be a tick-box exercise that does not drill into the complexity of the reality on the ground with some of these cases. Post-separation coercive control, for example, is a multifaceted and insidious crime committed by devious and practised individuals. They need to meet their match in the courtroom, from magistrates upwards.
As my noble friend Lady Helic has rightly said, this is not an attack on the wisdom of our lawgivers. It is the opposite: providing them with training would deepen that wisdom and arm them with the means to deal with these complex cases. Doing so would give victims faith and confidence in our justice system and let them know that our courts were with them, not against them. It would also send a strong message to perpetrators that the courts were tools of justice, not another weapon to use against their victim.
I know that my noble friend the Minister is sensitive to these issues, and I am sure her answer will reflect that. As I have said before, I do not understand the resistance to putting this into the Bill, but I will listen carefully to her response. I hope she will come forward with some answers that move towards real progress and an understanding of what needs to be done.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on the important Amendment 44. I wish to speak in particular to Amendment 15 in this group, which would transform and regularise the very disparate current systems by which front-line staff of public authorities inquire into domestic violence and take action.
Since Committee, when we last debated this amendment, my noble friend Lady Armstrong has removed the statutory duty wording in order to see this important provision in the Bill. She and I have also had a helpful meeting with the Minister, whom we thank for her time. The new amendment makes clear that there should still be a transparency mechanism to hold public services to account. It is important to note that the domestic abuse commissioner remains supportive of this new adapted amendment and that, as my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lord Hunt have said, adequate resources are needed to monitor and annually report on statistics on training in such inquiries.
In Committee, the Minister said she did not want sensitive and complex conversations turned into some sort of tick-box exercise. That is understandable, but our response is that the amendment would actually give public services and staff the space and independence to use their professional judgment as long as the context was transparent for monitoring purposes.
In her letter to my noble friend Lady Armstrong following our meeting, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, makes the helpful observation that relevant public authorities, as listed in Clause 15, are subject to the duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and that this would include the provision of statistics and other information specified in subsection (1) of the new clause, as my noble friend said. She also makes it clear that it is open to the commissioner to address matters relating to training and reporting in her duty to produce an annual report. But, while I hear and to some extent understand the Government’s reluctance to give specific direction in primary legislation to the domestic abuse commissioner regarding the need for public authorities to undertake front-line training, the present situation, based as it is on guidance, cannot continue to let down victims as it does. I look forward to the Minister’s response, in which I hope we will hear clearly her agreement with the principle of the amendment and how it can be taken forward.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I think I must be the only person who is opposing Amendment 44. I was president of the Family Division and was previously chairman of the family committee of the predecessor of the Judicial College. I do not accept all the criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and other noble Lords, but I realise that I have not sat as a judge for many years. I was sad to hear the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and what he has said needs to be raised with the president and the chairman of the Judicial College. I of course agree that we will need training in the new Act, but we also need consideration of how some judges have behaved. I have listened with increasing concern to what has been said about the way some people have been treated in the courts; I find that very sad to hear.
I have already said something briefly about the Judicial College on an earlier amendment and shall try not to repeat it, but it is important that it is recognised by the House that the college provides continuing specialist training. Sadly, we all know that domestic abuse has been a serious issue for many years. When I was a family judge, I tried far too many such cases. All family judges and magistrates in the family courts have mandatory, comprehensive, residential training on family issues, which of course includes domestic abuse, which is a core function of judicial family training and is taken extremely seriously. Rape, sexual abuse and domestic abuse are all part of the training. Judges without family training cannot try these cases. The judges and magistrates hear directly from victims, as well as from medical and social work experts. The training is rigorous and the trainers are themselves trained. The college is transparent in what it teaches, and what it trains can be seen.
I can assure noble Lords that the Domestic Abuse Act will be taught to judges and family magistrates and will become a focal point of judicial training. I am sure that judges and family magistrates will be given immediate training of some sort as soon as it becomes law, and the Act will become part of all residential courses. As we have been hearing this evening, judges and magistrates are not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. The Court of Appeal, where I sat for about 10 years, hears a lot of family appeals and does its best to put right what in the first instance has gone wrong.
The Bill is crucial, as we all know, and it is understandable and commendable that noble Lords want judges and magistrates to have the best possible training to implement it, but I really cannot believe it is necessary to have this in primary legislation. The president, the chairman, the director and members of the college who teach judges and magistrates know that the Domestic Abuse Act must be taught as a matter of great importance. I am sure the director of the Judicial College ought to be discussing the Act with the commissioner, and it would be helpful if that took place.
The criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and other noble Lords need to be considered as a matter of urgency by the Judicial College, but I ask the sponsors of this amendment: what more would actually be done by putting into primary legislation that the Act must be taught to judges and magistrates when it will be taught without the introduction of this clause? The very serious criticisms that have been made this evening are also matters that, as I have already said, the president and chairman of the college need to take extremely seriously. I have no doubt that the President of the Family Division will keep a close eye on the content and the way in which the Act will be taught and will look very anxiously at what has already been said. As I have already said, in my view the amendment is not necessary. It unfairly calls into question the valuable work of the Judicial College and the conscientious teaching by the judges who carry out this training, together with many experts. The criticisms must be taken into account and looked at, but to put it into primary legislation will not take this matter any further.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to which I have added my name. My noble friend Lord Marks has already given a very full and knowledgeable explanation of Amendment 44 and its importance. Amendment 15 is a slimmed-down version of Amendment 53, tabled in Committee, which I also supported. This amendment is also less prescriptive than the original: instead of a statutory requirement to train, it now requires only reports to the commissioner on what training is being done. I have seen the letter from the Minister to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and am pleased to hear about the lengths that are being gone to in order to produce the guidance, which has already been drafted, and the comprehensive framework, to be published later this year.
However, guidance frameworks are not a magic wand. They do not make departments implement them. The commissioner needs to know how far the guidance is actually being followed. She still needs the information so that she can analyse what training is being undertaken, build a picture of best, and less good, practice, and share that publicly in her annual report—not to shame, but to show.
In Committee, we discussed extensively the variability in the prevalence and effectiveness of training across different public authorities and different geographical areas. If we learned nothing else, we learned that the problem of domestic abuse is no respecter of circumstances, class, ethnicity or geographical area. We learned that the problem is pervasive, affecting an estimated 1.6 million people in 2019, and we know that it got worse during the pandemic. In her response, the Minister declared the Government to be fully in agreement with the aims of the then amendment, but she said that a statutory duty “risks undermining professional judgment” and that she did not want
“these sensitive and complex conversations to turn into some sort of tick-box exercise.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. GC 1738.]
That is absolutely fair enough, but it is not the issue here. While some have had excellent professional training, others have not and do not have the confidence to even broach that “sensitive and complex” conversation to which the Minister referred. They may not even have a tick box. In Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, about reports from the campaigning group Agenda stating that, although 38% of women with mental health problems had been abused, one-third of mental health trusts did not even have a policy on domestic abuse.
If you look at Clause 15(3) of this Bill, you will see how many specific public authorities are involved with domestic abuse—in my Amendment 12, I have added a few more for good measure. Amendment 15 would enable the commissioner to form a picture of what training is, or is not, happening in all public authorities which have contact with victims. She could use this intelligence to form a picture of where opportunities are being utilised and where they are being missed. She could see where training is effective—and we have heard several examples of that—and where it is not. She could issue guidelines built on knowledge of what works in different circumstances. This modest amendment could have big consequences for the chances of victims—whoever they are and whichever public service they use—to be spotted and helped. Let us give our commissioner the tools she needs to do the job.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am conscious of the time, so the House does not need 15 minutes from me on why we should support these amendments. I will make a few quick points to enable the Minister to respond fully to the debate.
I support both amendments. We have heard some excellent speeches this evening. I hope the Minister can give a detailed response to my noble friend Lady Armstrong. She has amended her amendment to take on board the comments made by the Minister in Committee.
I hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, may divide the House on Amendment 44 when we reach it. I can offer the support of these Benches if she decides to do so. This may focus the minds of some noble Lords in this debate. I shall leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for the parting shot. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and my noble friend Lady Helic for raising the issue of training for front-line professionals in relation to domestic abuse. Quality training is important to equip practitioners with the knowledge and skills they need to protect and support victims of domestic abuse, including children, in an appropriate manner.
We can also agree on another aspect of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt articulated, professionals need to have the skills and confidence to ask the right questions about domestic abuse, and then take the right course of action. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it has served to further highlight the importance of professionals across a wide range of disciplines recognising the signs of domestic abuse and responding accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked about relationship and sex education in schools. Healthy relationships in this area are more important than ever.
In January, we launched “Ask for ANI”, the code word scheme that is now in operation across thousands of pharmacies. The scheme provides a clear process to follow. Working closely with the sector, we have developed bespoke training and guidance to support it to deliver this additional assistance. We have ensured that victims have a means to access potentially life-changing support, and have seen more than 45 uses of the scheme already. This is excellent news.
Those working in vaccination centres are also being provided with bespoke training to ensure that they pick up any signs of domestic abuse and can respond to disclosures should they be made in such safe spaces. I am sure we can all agree that the response and approach to identifying domestic abuse in a pharmacy and in a vaccination centre is very different from how one might respond in a school or a job centre. That is why reporting protocols and training are best developed and delivered by the appropriate responsible agency in each sector. Therein lies the expertise, so we should not adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. The training needs to be tailored to the circumstances of each professional group and will, therefore, take many different forms.
While the domestic abuse commissioner and her office may support organisations in the development of their training, and may deliver some training itself—as Clause 7(2)(d) envisages—it is not appropriate, or indeed realistic, to expect the commissioner to be specifying training or reporting standards for the diverse range of public authorities specified in Clause 15.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part and, given the hour, I will be very brief indeed. Therefore, I will not go through each speech.
I thank the Minister for the work that she has done and her recognition of the importance of training and supporting front-line staff. Of course, I would have liked to have seen this more prominently on the face of the Bill, but I accept that she is committed to this, and I will hold her to continuing to pursue the issue through guidance and through support for the commissioner. My noble friend Lord Hunt and I both emphasised the issue of resource for the commissioner to do that effectively.
The only other issue was that raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt: the basic importance of supporting and training staff. That is one of the most important aspects of how we deal with domestic abuse. As Members across the House and, indeed, the Minister said, our knowledge and understanding of this, given the pandemic and what we have learned from that, should be even greater now. We know that those staff themselves need support and training to deal with the real trauma that they go through when dealing with people who are exhibiting these sorts of problems in front of them.
I will not push the amendment further tonight, but I will keep an eye on it once the Bill is through. I will continue to discuss it with the commissioner and continue to bring it back to the House to make sure that the House and the Government have delivered on the commitments that have been given to train and support front-line workers to ask the right questions, so that they then know the right way to guide and direct people who really need that support.