House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Business before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The best place for vulnerable children and those with special educational needs is at school. That is why we kept schools open throughout the pandemic. The high needs budget has grown by £1.5 billion in two years, and £42 million has been made available for specialist organisations to support children with special educational needs.
Ian Levy [V]
During my campaign in 2019, I became aware that parents of children with special educational needs in Blyth Valley were very concerned about the lack of educational provision for their children. I am delighted that plans are now well under way for the opening of a new special educational needs school in Blyth on the site of the old Princess Louise First School, in an area well known to a lot of my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that this much-needed facility will be available as quickly as possible for these children, who so desperately need the additional support and resources that it will offer?
Gavin Williamson
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the important role of this new free school, led by the Prosper Learning Trust. It will make a real impact on so many children in his constituency, and I look forward to working closely with him and with the new school to ensure that we deliver the very best special educational needs education in his constituency.
Rob Butler [V]
The all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities heard some very moving and sometimes concerning personal experiences from young people about the impact of the pandemic on them. I know that schools and local authorities, including in Buckinghamshire, worked incredibly hard to provide the best services they could, but could my right hon. Friend reassure the House that help and funding will be made available specifically to support the mental health of young people with SEND as part of the recovery from the pandemic?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight some of the challenges that young people suffer, especially in the area of mental health. That is why, just a short while ago, we announced extra provision and extra money and resources to support children in schools and make sure they have the very best mental health, and we are supporting schools in doing that.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Helping pupils to make up learning is vital. That is why this Government have invested £1.7 billion to provide support to help pupils get back on track as they return to school.
Mark Logan [V]
From its birth in Bolton to its national roll-out, Tutor The Nation has connected schools in more challenging areas to carefully vetted volunteers, supported by professional tutors working for free. Unfortunately, Tutor The Nation is unqualified to participate in the national tutoring programme. What support can the Secretary of State’s kind Department provide to Tutor The Nation, to give children across the UK the same opportunities that we are enjoying in Bolton?
Gavin Williamson
The national tutoring programme is making great progress in supporting so many children right around the country. I am certainly happy to look into Tutor The Nation in greater detail, to see whether there is more we can do to work closely with it, to ensure that we are able to continue with the great expansion of the national tutoring programme across all constituencies.
Paul Holmes [V]
As we support vulnerable and disadvantaged children in returning to the classroom, ensuring that they have routines and structures in place to help them reach their potential will be essential. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot overestimate the importance of promoting behaviour and discipline in schools in our ambition to give every child a quality education?
Gavin Williamson
We all know how important it is that we create calm, positive and good environments for children to flourish in, and strong behaviour and discipline policies have been the hallmark of being able to do that. It is particularly important for children from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds to ensure that we create the type of environment in schools that we want and expect to see right across the country.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The national tutoring programme is reaching only one in six pupils on free school meals, and changes to the school census date mean that schools are also losing out on thousands of pounds of pupil premium funding for those students. Will the Secretary of State now come clean and publish his Department’s full financial analysis of the funding lost to schools from this pupil premium stealth cut?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady forever moans and complains about the resources—the extra resources—that we have been putting into schools. Just a short time ago, we unveiled a £14.4 billion expansion of funding into secondary schools.[Official Report, 16 June 2021, Vol. 697, c. 2MC.] On top of that, we have outlined a further £1.7 billion that is going to support schools in helping to ensure that children are able to catch up having been away. We continue to make those investments and to make that difference.
Kate Green
So are headteachers moaning when they say that the pupil premium stealth cut means that they will not be able to pay for speech and language therapy, or a teaching assistant, or additional small group sessions? One head told me that they lose out more on pupil premium cuts than they receive in catch-up funding. This is not a Government that are serious about catch-up. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that no school will be worse off as a result of his changes to the pupil premium?
Gavin Williamson
This Government are delivering real increases for schools right across the board. We are delivering an extra £1.7 billion in support to schools to ensure that they are able to help children to catch up. That is what we are doing. That is the difference we are making through schemes such as the national tutoring programme. This is making a real impact on children’s lives. We are proud of that and we will continue to drive it forward.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
While I strongly support the Government’s summer holiday activities programme, there is a risk that disadvantaged pupils may be less likely to attend. Extending the school day with proper buy-in from parents and pupils makes it easier to engage disadvantaged pupils who are already through the school’s gate. All the evidence suggests that extending the school day has beneficial effects, including increasing educational attainment by an additional two months, and Sheffield Hallam University has said that it generates £4.5 million from improved educational attainment. Will my right hon. Friend support extending the school day, and can he confirm whether the Government have conducted any modelling to calculate the potential cost of an extended school day in England?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that we want to ensure that children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will be among the key beneficiaries of any changes and further interventions we make to ensure that children are able to catch up. One of those areas, which it is right to look at, is an extended school day and how we ensure that children from all backgrounds can benefit from being in school longer. That is why we have asked Sir Kevan Collins to look at this with us. We are doing extensive modelling on this whole area, looking at a whole range of different options, not just on the time in a school day, but targeting schemes such as the National Tutoring Programme as well as supporting teachers in their professional development and continuing to raise the quality of teaching in all our classrooms.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Devolution gives providers an opportunity to work with mayoral combined authorities to shape the ways in which they can contribute to meeting skills needs locally, so that more people of all ages and backgrounds are given the opportunities to develop the skills and experience they need. Devolution is based on the residency of learners, so where learners reside near boundaries, they need to attend a provider with which their funding body contracts. Many providers are funded through a number of areas to overcome this.
Rosie Cooper [V]
Both Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Liverpool city region have been refusing funding for their residents looking to study outside their boundaries. That is severely limiting the choices available to students and has left West Lancashire College in my constituency, near both the Liverpool and Greater Manchester boundaries, with a greatly reduced potential student pool. Liverpool has agreed to stop this but Greater Manchester has not. What advice can the Minister give to local authorities acting in this protectionist way with taxpayers’ funds, to the detriment of places such as West Lancashire College?
Gillian Keegan
We would encourage all mayoral combined authorities always to look at outcomes for learners. We are there to ensure that learners get the best experience and outcomes. The White Paper that we published in January 2021 sets out the Government’s overall objective for the funding system, which is to streamline the system so that there is a simpler allocation approach that will give greater autonomy and flexibility, and we also want an effective approach that improves accountability. We are currently working with the sector to develop and test our proposals ahead of consultation.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister refers to a simpler adult education funding approach, but the decision to increase the adult education clawback threshold from 68% last year to 90% this year, and to impose it at the last minute, will place many colleges in a brutal financial situation. Leicester College, for example, is forecasting that it could be as much as £4 million worse off than expected. The Government can either commit to a skills-based revolution, as they claim they want to do, or endanger the sector by repeatedly cutting its funding; they cannot do both. Why is there such a dangerous discrepancy between what the Government say they want on further education and what they do?
Gillian Keegan
The Government have actually increased funding across the sector quite significantly in many different ways. On the issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to, it is wrong to categorise it as such. We have effectively changed from 97%, which is the clawback this year, down to 90%, thereby giving colleges some leeway. He refers to a previous year, and it is true that we did reduce it to 68%, because that was at the very beginning of the pandemic. We have asked providers to keep provision available, to move online and to give learners that experience, and we have given them time to do so. That is a fair approach.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
Although the Department of Health and Social Care leads on this area, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the University of Central Lancashire for the excellent job it is doing. The Government are committed to supporting the NHS by ensuring that its future workforce needs are met. Over recent years we have created an extra 1,500 medical school places and opened five new medical schools across the country, and as a result we have seen record numbers of medical students in training.
Sir Mark Hendrick [V]
Mr Speaker, as a neighbouring MP to me, you know that the quality of education at the University of Central Lancashire medical school has been independently assessed as excellent. At a time when the health service has been crying out for more doctors during the covid-19 pandemic, can the Minister please provide assurances that, through her discussions with the Department for Health and Social Care, the University of Central Lancashire will be allocated an evidence-based significant increase in its permanent allocation of domestic medical school places, for the benefit of the county of Lancashire and the wider north-west region as a whole?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that Chorley would like to hear the answer.
Michelle Donelan
The cap on medical places was lifted last year, and those medical students who had to defer will not count towards the cap this year. If medical training places are to be permanently raised, there will be a process for medical schools to apply for a proportion of the expansion, just as was the case with the recent uplift of 1,500. I am sure that the hon. Member will be more than happy to meet the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who also looks after workforce matters, and that she would be only too happy to discuss the issue with him.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The Government have invested £165 million to help providers to prepare for and deliver industry placements, building capacity in their relationships with employers. We have invested nearly £7 million so far in direct support for employers, and we are also exploring what short-term funded support may be appropriate to enable employers to offer placements.
Robert Largan [V]
I welcome the Government’s plan for jobs, which rightly prioritises technical education. Does the Education Secretary agree that investing in further education and T-levels in places such as the High Peak is vital for our economic recovery, for improving skills and training, and for increasing opportunity, helping local people of all ages and backgrounds into good-quality jobs?
Gavin Williamson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is so vital that we see the roll-out of T-levels. These qualifications have been designed hand in glove with employers to make sure that they are delivering not only for students, but for the employers themselves. As we roll out our skills accelerators across the country, we are putting in £65 million-worth of further investment to ensure that we start to link up jobs, skills and young people, to ensure that we are getting the workforce right for the future.
Chris Clarkson
Each T-level comes with a 45-day placement in industry, which is a fantastic opportunity for young people to get some real-life experience of their chosen sector. However, owing to competing pressures on business at the moment, some businesses are reluctant to commit to these qualifications, so will my right hon. Friend meet me and the principal of Hopwood Hall College to discuss how we ensure that young people can access these qualifications and that they turn out to be the success that they clearly should be?
Gavin Williamson
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the principal of Hopwood Hall College to discuss that. It is incredibly important to ensure that we get this right and that it works, and for T-levels such an important element of that is the industrial placements that those young people will be able to benefit from. I think that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the importance of getting this right, and I very much hope that we can continue to build on the original consensus about the vital role that T-levels can play in ensuring that our young people have the right level of technical skills to meet our future economic needs.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We have been very clear that speech and language therapists are able to visit educational settings and that ideally they should not be redeployed during the most recent lockdown, although that was not always possible in all parts of the country, so some children will have missed some therapy sessions. However, I met representatives of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists last week to discuss this important issue.
Steve McCabe [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will be aware that reports say that 70% of families do not have access to pre-pandemic levels of speech and language therapies. When does she hope to see this restarted in all schools? What specific steps is she taking to address the educational impact of delays for children who need this particular support?
Vicky Ford
We have been very clear that speech and language therapists are able to attend all educational settings. As we move out of restrictions, more therapists are back in schools delivering face-to-face therapy. Schools can use their catch-up and recovery funding to purchase additional therapies, and we know of examples where that has already happened. For example, my advisers spoke to a special school in Greater Manchester that has done exactly that, and it was very pleased with the services provided. Therapies are really important for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and we want them back as soon as possible. That is why we are investing more of our recovery and catch-up funding in special schools and for those with SEND than we would for others.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
My Department and I regularly discuss research in universities in England with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and with the Minister for science, research and innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway). Overall, Government investment in research and development across the UK is up to £14.9 billion in 2021-22, following four preceding years of significant growth. This shows the clear benefits of the Union in delivering on science and research across the nation.
Kirsten Oswald [V]
The Universities of Glasgow, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Coventry have all been leaders in the global challenges research fund. With the cuts to ODA, they are now having to find additional seven-figure funding to keep life-saving research going. Is this really the Tories’ fabled levelling-up agenda?
Michelle Donelan
The Government recognise the importance of supporting international research partnerships and the UK research sector, especially our universities. Our commitment to research and innovation was clearly demonstrated by the recent Budget announcement that we are increasing investment in research and development to £14.6 billion. International collaboration is central to a healthy and productive R&D sector and, as a result of the policies of this Government, UK scientists will have access to more public funding than ever before.
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
Twelve flagship research hubs were supposed to run projects lasting five to 10 years in support of the sustainable development goals. Some of those projects are midway through clinical trials on humans but, thanks to the recent cuts, might not be able to continue, thereby jeopardising both the research and research jobs. How on earth can the Government justify funding cuts to research projects in the middle of human clinical trials, in clear violation of medical ethics?
Michelle Donelan
The hon. Gentleman might like to take up his question with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is ultimately responsible for research. On 1 April, BEIS set out an additional £250 million of funding for R&D—as a result of which, as I have said, UK scientists will have access to more public funding than ever before—taking the total Government investment in R&D to £14.9 billion in 2021-22, despite what the Opposition would have the public believe.
Alan Brown
Because of the ODA cuts, universities have reported that research contracts have been terminated, sometimes with just a few hours’ notice. This has undermined trust between researchers, universities and UK Research and Innovation, and it also means that research commissioners now require a risk assessment on the UK Government’s ability to honour contracts. Why does the Minister think it is acceptable that the UK Government’s promises mean so little that they need to be risk assessed?
Michelle Donelan
On the actual ODA allocations, BEIS is currently working with UKRI, all global challenge research funds and its Newton fund delivery partners to manage the financial year 2021-22, including by determining which projects will go ahead. Its delivery partners have been communicated with, and award holders will set out the next stages of the review of ODA funding next year and explore the options available for individual programmes.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
The Further Education Commissioner carried out a diagnostic assessment at Northern College in February, and a structure and prospects appraisal started this month, on 21 April. A number of options are being considered to improve the college’s financial position. We will continue to work with Sheffield City Region Mayoral Combined Authority and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, which will provide the majority of the college’s funding from August 2021.
Dan Jarvis [V]
I am grateful the Minister for that response. She will know that Northern College is one of Barnsley’s proudest institutions—it provides an outstanding level of education and reaches disadvantaged learners—but financially it is on the brink. In respect of the Government’s review, will the Minister commit to working closely with local stakeholders, so that together we can do everything we can to ensure that Northern College retains its independence and its residential provision?
Gillian Keegan
I have had many representations from MPs in the hon. Gentleman’s area, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). As I said, the structure and prospects appraisal began on 21 April. Membership of the steering group includes representatives of the college governing body, the interim FE Commissioner, the deputy FE Commissioner, senior officers from the two combined authorities and the Education and Skills Funding Agency. The FE Commissioner’s team has made contact with all local MPs and I have offered a call with all local MPs. We are committed to work in good faith to ensure that we look seriously at the options for Northern College.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
In the absence of statutory assessments, primary schools continue to assess children’s attainment and support the transition to secondary education. Guidance has been published to support secondary schools to determine grades for GCSE, A-levels and AS-levels, as well as vocational and technical qualifications. Students can be assured that grades will be as fair and consistent as possible and that they will be able to move on to the next stage of their education and careers.
Dr Evans [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I met students from years 11 and 10 and the staff from South Charnwood High School near Markfield. They are very concerned about the assessments not only for this year, but for next year as well. What work is going on to look at future assessments to make sure that what happens is fair not only this year, but next year and subsequently, because those pupils are anxious?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We remain clear that exams are the fairest method of assessment. We know that students at South Charnwood High School and elsewhere will be working hard to prepare for exams in 2022. We continue to monitor the impact of the pandemic, and we will announce our plans to ensure that pupils in years 10 and 12 can be awarded grades safely and fairly in 2022.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Like so many other aspects of the Government’s coronavirus response, the Department for Education’s handling of exams has been a total disaster. Schools are currently grappling with a whole series of challenges that could have been easily avoided if only the Department had planned ahead. Can we finally have the triumph of hope over experience, and the Government learn their lessons from last year’s disaster and the unfolding disaster this year and publish plans for next year so that those exams are not a disaster, too?
Nick Gibb
Given the disruption to children’s education over the past year, it would not be fair for exams to go ahead as normal. On 15 January, 11 days after the decision was taken to cancel exams, we consulted Ofqual on the details of alternative arrangements to ensure that students can be awarded a grade and can move on to the next stage of their lives, despite the fact that we have had to cancel exams. That consultation received more than 100,000 responses. This year’s students taking their GCSEs and A-levels and some vocational and technical qualifications will receive grades determined by their teachers based on a range of evidence, including in-class tests, course work and optional exam board-provided sets of questions. Robust internal and external quality assurance processes are in place to ensure fairness and consistency. We will monitor the position regarding 2022 and we will make a statement then.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the Minister that that must have been the longest answer. I am sure that he would like to get some other colleagues in.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The return to school from 8 March has been very successful. Just before Easter, on 25 March, 99.8% of state-funded schools were open. From 15 April, pupil attendance in state-funded schools was at 94%. That is higher than at any point during the autumn term.
Anthony Browne
School funding in South Cambridgeshire has been a particular focus of mine and something that I have raised with the Department before. We have the sixth lowest funding in the country, with £400 per pupil per year less than the national average. The formula means that small village schools are particularly badly affected. Last week, I met one chair of governors of a primary school that has had to make a teacher and an assistant teacher redundant and has now had to merge the years. Will my right hon. Friend consider a change to the system to help small schools that have high fixed costs per capita but that are expected to meet the same standards as larger schools with comparatively higher funding?
Gavin Williamson
We all know the very important role that small schools play in our communities and villages right across the country. That is why we took the decision to increase the funding to support them from £26 million to £42 million in the latest settlement. That is on top of the fact that we are increasing spending on our schools right across the board, and, for this financial year, my hon. Friend’s schools will receive, on average, a 3.8% increase in their funding, which goes to show that we recognise the importance of fair funding right across the country.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I thank the Secretary of State for the work that his Department has done with the Engineering University Technical College in Scunthorpe on its new and exciting health, sciences and social care course. Will he welcome this course and encourage young people in Scunthorpe to look at everything that is on offer, because colleges have not had their usual opportunity to speak to students and visit schools during this unusual year?
Gavin Williamson
I congratulate the Northern Lincolnshire University Technical College. UTCs do an amazing job right around the country, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency. They can be truly transformative to young people’s life chances. I very much look forward to working with her to make sure that that message is put out there. It is also quite right to pay tribute to the amazing work of Lord Baker who has done so much to champion the cause of UTCs, making sure that they opened up opportunities for so many young people in all of our constituencies.
Mrs Murray [V]
An important part of my and my children’s education was visiting places such as our fantastic museums. What work is being undertaken to ensure that those visits can resume safely as our country comes out of lockdown?
Gavin Williamson
We all know that children gain so much from visiting museums and other great cultural institutions right around the country. I was delighted that the latest step out of lockdown taken by this country meant that children were able to go on non-residential visits around the country. Moving into step 3 will be another opportunity—for young people to be able to visit museums. It will be so important for them to have that experience. We look forward to working with schools and encouraging them to make such visits—not least, of course, in my hon. Friend’s part of world in Cornwall.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I always feel nervous to cut off the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) when he is in full flow. Office for National Statistics data for 2020 shows that 29% of those aged 50 to 64 have a degree, and 20% have A-levels or equivalent as their highest qualification. This Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to upskill, including through: the lifetime skills guarantee, which includes free courses for jobs; new skills boot camps, funded by £375 million, made available through the national skills fund; and a new lifelong loan entitlement.
John Spellar
This question is very timely because, in the here and now, today’s report from the Resolution Foundation highlights the difficulties being faced by the over-50s in getting back into work. One of the many obstacles they face is insistence by employers, or their graduate-stuffed HR departments, on A-levels or university degrees, even when those qualifications are not relevant to the job. The Minister will recognise the unfair nature of this for a generation for which, as is shown by the figures, taking such qualifications was much less common. Can we get employers—public and private—to focus on the person, not the piece of paper, and end this wasteful discrimination against older workers?
Gavin Williamson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, as he would often say he always is; he is absolutely right on this issue. It is so important that employers look at the experience—what people have learnt over their careers—and the true value that they are able to bring to that company. We must not be trapped in the situation that so many companies get themselves into, whereby jobs are advertised as “graduate only”, when so many people who could be applying for that job would bring a level and depth of experience unequalled in so many other areas. I would happily work with the right hon. Gentleman to do more to ensure that all employers understand the value of a workforce of all ages.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We are committed to helping all pupils and students, including those with disabilities, to recovery from any lost learning or development. We have already allocated £1.7 billion to support education recovery and have appointed Sir Kevan Collins, who has a wealth of experience on SEND, to lead our work to effectively target resources and support towards those with the greatest need.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
The Disabled Children’s Partnership says that the health of over half of disabled children has deteriorated due to delays and reductions in essential health and therapy appointments. The Government have advised that such appointments should be prioritised, but many families are not being reached. Will the Minister develop a cross-departmental therapies and health catch-up plan for disabled children and families as part of the wider covid-19 plan?
Vicky Ford
We have been very clear that schools and colleges remain open for therapists to attend, but some children will have missed some therapies during the pandemic. Schools can use their catch-up and recovery funding to purchase additional therapies, as I mentioned in my answer to an earlier question. Many schools, especially special schools, have done so already. I advise the hon. Member to ensure that he is in touch with local schools in Bedfordshire. In his own borough, we have increased the high-needs funding budget by 8% for this financial year, on top of an 8% increase last year. The funding should be there; please do get the therapists back into the schools and use that catch-up and recovery funding well.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I will try to be brief, Mr Speaker. In January 2020, the DFE commercial team conducted market research when considering the possibility of undertaking a commercial tender for the provision of solar installations and monitoring in schools. On 14 and 15 January, a two-day supplier surgery was held where officials met a range of organisations, including community energy groups.
Wera Hobhouse [V]
Community energy providers have successfully installed community solar on school roofs for many years, including in my constituency of Bath. This is one of the few remaining community energy models, but the Department’s proposed new framework to centralise procurement threatens to take it away. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the community energy sector to discuss the impact of these proposals, plus a possible way forward?
Nick Gibb
Yes, of course I would be delighted to meet the hon. Member. The DFE is currently reviewing a variety of options for the most appropriate solutions for schools to assess the relevant supply chains for solar installation, and I look forward to having that discussion soon.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The Turing scheme encourages take-up among students from disadvantaged backgrounds, with additional financial support to make this opportunity accessible to all. Disadvantaged students can receive increased grants towards living costs and funding for travel-related costs such as passports, visas and insurance. We have actively targeted and promoted the scheme in areas of disadvantage, helping to level up the country.
Craig Williams
Can I ask my right hon. Friend particularly about agricultural and technical education? Across the United Kingdom, young farmers clubs and our agricultural colleges are doing a terrific job and have built a global network, and have often been let down by previous schemes. What can we do to support the technical and agricultural aspects of this scheme?
Gavin Williamson
I think we all know in this House that my hon. Friend is a great champion of agricultural interests in his Montgomeryshire constituency. He is right. This is an incredibly international business and it is important to learn on an international level, whether it is from our friends in Australia, in New Zealand or in many other countries. I would be happy to meet him to discuss how this could be done more, maybe through the agricultural colleges and universities that serve our agriculture industry so very well.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The Government have stated that they want more disadvantaged students to participate in Turing, so how does the Secretary of State assess the success of this scheme for disadvantaged students, and will he commit to an annual report to Parliament on these figures?
Gavin Williamson
We have already seen a really high level of interest from both institutions and, most importantly, students in the new Turing scheme. They recognise that they want to seize the opportunities on a global scale as against being constrained by the European Union. That is why I have every confidence that we will have such an enormous success with the Turing scheme and it will be truly transformative to young people’s lives.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
This is a Government of illusion. The Prime Minister said that there was no risk to Erasmus, then it was gone, replaced with the Turing scheme, which Ministers said would improve opportunities. But a quick look at the scheme shows that for cost of living, Turing offers just £490 of support—£140 less than Erasmus—while for travel costs, only a fraction of students are now eligible whereas under Erasmus+ all students were eligible for up to £1,300. In tuition fees, there is no support, whereas it was guaranteed under Erasmus for free. Could the Secretary of State just be straight with students and confirm that Turing equals Erasmus minus?
Gavin Williamson
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman obviously is not very familiar with the scheme. Actually, there are a number of slight inaccuracies in what he stated. I would be happy to send him the details so that he can undertake some homework and understand it a little bit better in future.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I have been working closely with my counterparts across Government, including in the Department of Health and Social Care, about how covid-19 policies affect international and domestic students. Immigration concessions allow for the ongoing provision of online learning this academic year, meaning that international students can study remotely from the UK or in their home country. Universities have informed us that a sizeable number have stayed in the UK throughout.
Daniel Zeichner [V]
International students are hugely important to our universities. With India added to the red list, there is real concern that the cost of hotel quarantine will be a deal breaker for some. Can the Minister tell us whether universities will be allowed to manage the quarantine system for themselves, which they are well qualified to do, and how soon could that be resolved? If not, who or what is the obstacle?
Michelle Donelan
International students, including those from India, are indeed a vital and valued part of our higher education sector and communities. The UK was one of the first countries to introduce important visa concessions for international students at the very start of the pandemic. That has been flexible throughout, including extending the deadline for eligibility for the graduate route to 21 June. We continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the UK remains as accessible and welcoming as possible. International students are also eligible for the additional £85 million that we have given universities for support with hardship.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The “Skills for Jobs” White Paper set out the Government’s plans to put employers at the heart of local skills provision. Since January, we have delivered on what we set out by expanding our skills bootcamps, offering free level 3 qualifications to eligible adults from 1 April and opening applications for the skills accelerator. We will continue to build on that over the coming weeks and months.
Geraint Davies [V]
In Wales, the Labour Government are investing heavily in catch-up summer schools, geared in particular to children from poorer backgrounds. We know that 50% of children from poorer backgrounds start school with speech and language difficulties. What is the Education Secretary doing to ensure that these pupils do not suffer disproportionately from cuts in England to the pupil premium, when it is they who are most in need of catch-up after the lockdown?
Gavin Williamson
I am glad to see that the Government in Wales are following the example of what is being done in England. Hopefully they will be able to see an increase in standards in schools in Wales similar to what we have been seeing in England. We continue to ensure that we offer additional support, especially to those schools that are special schools and looking after some of the children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Our interventions, including an additional £1.7 billion, go a long way to ensuring that children, especially those who are most disadvantaged, are properly supported.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
It is absolutely vital, as we make more courses and support available—people may have to look at re-entering the labour market in a different area from the one they previously worked in—that we are matching that up with where the skills needs are. We work very closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Work and Pension, but most importantly, we work with employers on the designation of what courses are available. I would be happy to take any representations from my hon. Friend if there is more work that can be done together to ensure that this process is best honed to ensure people get into work as swiftly as possible.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The Scottish National party has committed in its manifesto to free school breakfasts and lunches for all children in primary school. Can we expect a similar commitment for primary children in England?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
The Department has already been funding breakfast clubs in more than 2,450 schools in disadvantaged areas of the country. We have just announced another £24 million to continue that programme and reach even more children in the two years ahead.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
Gavin Williamson
I think we are all very much looking forward to welcoming all university students back, and we very much expect to be seeing that as part of the next step. I would like to thank universities for the work they have been doing to ensure that universities are covid-secure, including extensive testing of students in universities and the greater availability of the home testing kits that we have been able to deliver on. We will continue to work with Universities UK, the Russell Group and the whole sector to ensure that students are able to return to university safely at the earliest possible moment and that we are able to welcome a new cohort of students in September.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
More and more children are relying on free school meals because of the pandemic. The Government’s holiday activities and food programme tells local councils to provide just 16 days’ worth of food support over a six-week summer holiday period, so could I ask the Minister: what does she expect children to eat the rest of the time?
Vicky Ford
This Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half a century. We have spent almost half a billion pounds on vouchers so that children had access to food when schools were closed during lockdown. We have spent £270 million through local authorities on making sure that children, including pre-school children, could get access to food and essentials. We have this massive holiday activities and food programme running all across the country—not only food, but fun and friendships. I just wish the Labour party would get behind this fantastic initiative, go and see what it is giving our children, see what they get out of it and the benefits of it, and say well done to everybody involved.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Our overriding objective is to keep covid out of the classroom and keep pupils and staff safe. All decisions will be based on that data, and on scientific and medical advice. Whether or not we continue to advise that face coverings should be worn in secondary school classrooms is subject to step 3 of the road map process, which will happen, as my hon. Friend mentioned, no earlier than 17 May.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
Gavin Williamson
We recognise that it is incredibly important that we do everything we can do to support students, which is why we made available £85 million of hardship funding. We also recognise how important it is that we have a really thriving higher education sector. That is why we have maintained investment in research and development, which is the backbone of so many of our universities.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an important issue about mental health and wellbeing. Sometimes, bullying can sadly be exacerbated as a result of such issues, and mobile phones are used to do that. Some 50% of schools have already rolled out phone-free environments, while ensuring that students have access to a mobile phone as they travel to and from school. That delivers benefits for children’s wellbeing and mental health, as well as for how well they do at school. We want such environments to be rolled out, and I assure my hon. Friend that that is what we will do.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Vicky Ford
We have invested record amounts in early years funding over the past few years, with more than £3.5 billion a year for the past three years. We have continued to put unprecedented amounts into that. I confirm that, on the whole, more funding will be going to the pupil premium next year than in previous years. The Schools Minister leads on this matter, and I am sure he would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) [V]
Nick Gibb
On 8 April we announced that we are working with 16 colleges in some of the worst conditions, and we expect to announce the outcome of the first FE capital transformation fund bidding round in October. The condition improvement fund 2021-22 application round for schools closed on 14 January, and outcomes will be announced later in the spring.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) [V]
Gavin Williamson
There is a major expansion in the amount of money we are investing in further education, and the last settlement included a commitment to close to £700 million for that. We are also putting a £1.5 billion capital investment into further education colleges, and colleges in London are able to apply for that.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Vicky Ford
Support for the mental health and wellbeing of our young people is important, and the Government are making a major investment in such support. We recently announced a further £79 million boost for mental health services for children, which will accelerate the provision of mental health support teams in schools and colleges. That is on top of the £2.3 billion a year that we have committed through the NHS long-term plan. Since September, our Wellbeing for Education Return scheme has linked schools with local mental health experts in 90% of local authorities.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
Nick Gibb
The essence of our academies programme is about delivering autonomy for schools, and it is that autonomy—the hon. Lady is quite right—that is driving up standards. We have also, since 2014, been addressing the workload issues of schoolteachers up and down the country, and that has proven successful in reducing the number of hours in addition to teaching time that schoolteachers face.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this issue, and I pay tribute to him for his work on this matter and that of the APPG. We aim to attract and retain high-skilled, talented individuals, including men, into teaching through effective pay structures and financial incentives, and we have set out plans to increase starting salaries nationally to £30,000. We also intend to retain male teachers in primary schools by offering world-class support and development through the early career framework reforms.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Nick Gibb
We have invested £1.7 billion to help pupils get back on track, including through tutoring. We will continue to monitor the impact of the pandemic on all students, including those due to take their exams in 2022, to ensure that students in this cohort can receive a fair grade. We have appointed Sir Kevan Collins as recovery commissioner, and he is advising on further measures to ensure that all students catch up on the education that they have lost.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for three minutes in order to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Ministerial Code
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office to update the House on the ministerial code.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The ministerial code is the responsibility of the Prime Minister of the day. It is customarily updated and issued upon their assuming or returning to office. The code sets out the behaviour expected of all those who serve in government. It provides guidance to Ministers on how they should act and arrange their affairs to uphold those standards. The code exists and should be read alongside the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life.
The current version of the code was issued by the Prime Minister in August 2019 shortly after he assumed office. While the code sets out standards and offers guidance, it is Ministers who are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in light of the code, and, of course, for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and to the public. That is as it should be in a robust democracy such as ours. Ministers are not employees of the Government, but rather office holders who hold their office for as long as they have the confidence of the Prime Minister as the Head of Government. It is always, therefore, the Prime Minister who is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of an individual Minister and of the appropriate consequences were a breach of those standards to occur.
The code also sets out a role for an independent adviser on Ministers’ interests. It is an important role, the principal duty of which is to provide independent advice to Ministers on the arrangement of their private interests. The independent adviser also has a role in investigating alleged breaches of the ministerial code. As the House will be aware, Sir Alex Allan stepped down from his role towards the end of last year. Following the practice of successive Administrations, the Prime Minister will appoint a successor to Sir Alex. The House will understand that the process of identifying the right candidate for such a role can take time. However, an appointment is expected to be announced shortly. The House will be informed in the usual way as soon as that appointment is confirmed. It will clearly be an early priority for the new independent adviser to oversee the publication of an updated list of Ministers’ interests. I expect that will be published shortly after a new independent adviser is appointed.
I can, of course, reassure the House that the process of managing Ministers’ interests has continued in the absence of an independent adviser, in line with the ministerial code, which sets out that the permanent secretary in each Department and the Cabinet Office overall have a role. Ministers remain able to seek advice on their interests from their permanent secretary and from the Cabinet Office. The ministerial code has served successive Administrations well and has been an important tool in upholding standards in public life. It will continue to do so.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to the SNP spokesperson for the urgent question. I call Alison Thewliss. [Interruption.] Order. Can I just say to Members that they should be wearing a mask in the Chamber? For the two Members sat there: please, it is not my decision, but the decision of Public Health England that we should be wearing masks. If you do not wish to, please leave the Chamber.
Mr Speaker
Order. We will have to suspend the sitting if Members do not wear their masks. That is not on my order, but Public Health England’s.
Alison Thewliss
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
In his foreword to the “Ministerial Code”, the Prime Minister says:
“To…win back the trust of the British people, we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety…No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document—integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest—must be honoured at all times”.
Well, this UK Tory Government is failing on all counts. They are riddled with conflicts of interest and allegations of corruption. Indeed, 37% of the public think the Prime Minister is corrupt—53% think that in Scotland—and that is before getting into the latest on what the Prime Minister is alleged to have said, which is that he would rather see bodies pile up in their thousands than order a third lockdown. Despicable, cruel and callous. Comments not befitting the office of Prime Minister.
Transparency International’s “Track and Trace” report raised serious questions on 73 Government contracts worth £3.7 billion. Of those, 24 personal protective equipment contracts, worth £1.6 billion, were handed to those with known political connections, with a further £536 million on testing services. We need to know who has benefited and what their links are to Ministers, especially in the light of the VIP lane that the National Audit Office identified as a risk. People on that list were 10 times more likely to win a contract. Transparency International identified the VIP lane as potentially a
“systemic and partisan bias in the award of PPE contracts.”
Will the Minister stop hiding behind commercial confidentiality and publish in full the details of those VIP contracts, along with who recommended them? It is our money and we have a right to know. Will he also finally publish the updated register of Ministers’ interests?
From the contracts for the Health Secretary’s pub landlord to the cosy chumocracy of the Greensill Capital affair, the casual text messages between the Prime Minister and Sir James Dyson promising to “fix” tax issues, apparently in exchange for ventilators that we never even got, and now questions over the Prime Minister’s funding for feathering his Downing Street nest, does the Minister agree that there is a clear pattern of behaviour and it absolutely stinks? The UK Tory Government are about to prorogue the House to duck further scrutiny. In the absence of an independent adviser to investigate Ministers, we can no longer trust them to investigate themselves; that much is clear. Will the Minister for the Cabinet Office instead instruct a full independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of the sleekit, grubby cabal in charge of the UK?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising a number of issues. She raised the whole question of procurement of PPE. It is a well attested fact that less than 0.5% of the PPE procured did not meet the standards that we had set out. It is a fact that every single recommendation for the procurement of PPE went through an independent eight-stage process verified by independent civil servants. It is the case that the Government, operating at a time when the pandemic was raging, did everything possible—we make no apology for it—to ensure that those at the frontline got the equipment that they deserved. The techniques that we used and the processes that we followed not only stand up to scrutiny; the same techniques and the same processes were used by the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The hon. Lady raises the Greensill question. Of course, the truth is that all the efforts on behalf of that company in order to push the Treasury and others were rejected. She raises the issue of Sir James Dyson. She does not acknowledge the fact that Sir James spent millions of pounds of his own money to try to ensure that we had ventilators to save those on the frontline. She does not mention that the ventilator challenge was investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, which said it was a model of public procurement. She does not mention the fact that the changes to the Prime Minister’s flat were paid for by the Prime Minister himself, and she repeats a line from a newspaper but ignores the fact that the Prime Minister instituted not only a second but a third lockdown to keep us safe.
What the hon. Lady does not mention is that she and other Opposition Members criticised the appointment of a vaccine tsar as cronyism when Kate Bingham has been responsible for saving millions of lives. What she does not say is that Opposition MPs criticised Kate Bingham for spending money on public relations when that money was there to ensure that people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds were able to get the vaccines they required. What she does not acknowledge is the determined effort by public servants in this Government and others to deal with a pandemic and to save lives. Instead, she tries to score political points in a way that, sadly, causes regret.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I commend a great deal of what my right hon. Friend just said, but let us face it: there is not a great deal of public confidence in propriety and ethics in politics in this country, and that is to be laid at the door of all political parties over a long period. What would begin to restore public confidence in such matters is more genuine discussion of principles and values and how conflicts of interests should be better managed, and to have rather less quibbling about whether we are inside or outside certain rules. I feel that accusations should perhaps be less blaming as well.
I commend to my right hon. Friend the letter sent by the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to the Prime Minister last week. It recommended a number of changes to the role—that the chair should be able to initiate his or her own inquiries and to publish a summary of the findings—that the
“Prime Minister should retain the right to decide on any sanction following a breach of the Code”
and that it is “disproportionate” for the Prime Minister always to require a resignation for a breach of the code. The Prime Minister should be able to use a range of sanctions to deal with breaches of the code. Will the Government accept those recommendations?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a characteristically thoughtful series of points. As a former Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and as a current leading Select Committee Chairman in this House, the points that he makes are certainly ones that we should reflect on. It is the case that the process of holding Ministers and others to account is always an evolutionary one. We should look at thoughtful recommendations such as those made by Lord Evans and others and we should consider what more can be done. It is important to stress, however, that the Government have already introduced a series of changes in order to ensure greater transparency in public life. Of course, we always seek to do better.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Mr Speaker:
“There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking…No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
Those words are from the Prime Minister’s foreword to the ministerial code. I do not know whether he believed them when he wrote them, but he is certainly trampling all over them today. The Prime Minister is now corrupting the standards of public life expected in high office as he dodges questions and tries to cover up payments for the luxury refurbishment of his flat, feathering his own nest and possibly breaking the law through undeclared loans.
As for leaks, we are seeing the pipes burst with the sewage of allegations. People say that a fish rots from the head down. There is a reason why there is no independent adviser on ministerial standards and why the Government will not publish the long-overdue list of Ministers’ interests. The reason is that the Prime Minister has not wanted them. This is a Prime Minister who would rather the bodies “pile high” than act on scientific advice, but they are not bodies; they are people, they are loved ones and they are deeply missed.
I ask the Minister to engage with the issues at hand. When will the Government publish that register of Ministers’ financial interests? Who paid the invoices for the Prime Minister’s flat refurbishment in the first place and when were those funds repaid? When will the review by the Cabinet Secretary of this fiasco be complete? When will the vacancy for the independent adviser on ministerial standards be filled, and will the Government give that adviser the powers to trigger independent investigations, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has just said and as recommended by Lord Evans?
Finally, will the Minister apologise for the stomach-churning comments that have come out today and announce an urgent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic? This is all about conduct, character and decency. Frankly, our country deserves an awful lot better than this.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. As ever, she raises a number of significant issues. On the question of the No. 10 Downing Street refurbishment, it is important to stress that previous Prime Ministers have used taxpayers’ money in order to refurbish No. 10 Downing Street. In 1998-99, in real terms, the then Prime Minister spent £73,000 of taxpayers’ money on refurbishing Downing Street; in 2000-01, £55,000; and, again, in 2007-08, £35,000—all taxpayers’ money. This Prime Minister has spent his own money on refurbishing Downing Street. That is a distinction to which the hon. Lady should pay close attention.
The hon. Lady also suggested that the Government did not act on scientific advice in dealing with the pandemic. I hope that she will reflect on those words and recognise that that is completely wrong. This Government, as I pointed out, initiated not just a second but a third lockdown in response to medical and scientific advice, and this Government, working with doctors and scientists, have ensured that we have had the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. We have also developed many of the therapeutics and tools necessary to ensure that those who are suffering and in pain at last receive relief. Of course, the ventilators that this Government took part in procuring are now helping to save lives in India.
The hon. Lady is right to say that we should appoint an independent adviser on ministerial interests as soon as possible, but as I mentioned in my statement, that appointment is due within days and that independent adviser will have the freedom to carry out their role in exactly the way that they should. Scrutiny is always welcome, but it is also the case, as the hon. Lady should recognise, that scrutiny should extend beyond those who are our political opponents to the parties that we ourselves lead or are members of. I can only quote from The Times at the weekend, one of whose columnists wrote:
“our only proper bit of suspected corruption”
in this country
“in Labour-run Liverpool. The allegations have got everything: dubious contracts, records created retrospectively, discarded in skips or destroyed altogether.”
The hon. Lady must look at the beam in her eye before criticising the mote in others’.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
May I pick up on the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Liaison Committee about the powers of the next occupant of the position of the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code and encourage my right hon. Friend to go down that road? The proposals made by the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life exactly match ones that I made to that committee about a month and a half ago. It strikes me that we have now reached the point where we must strengthen the entire system so that it commands cross-party confidence and trust, and these proposals will be very welcome and widely appreciated on all sides if this is a step that we could ultimately take.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and the work he has done to increase standards in public life has been applauded across parties and across this House, and, indeed, outside it. The Government and the new independent adviser on ministerial standards will want to reflect on Lord Evans’s recommendation and other points to make sure that we can have the maximum confidence in our system.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for securing this important urgent question. We have had PPE contracts awarded to donors and cronies without a robust tender process, NHS contracts awarded to a firm partly owned by the Health Secretary, privileged secret communications between an ex-Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and between James Dyson and the current Prime Minister—and I could add a Tory fondness for oligarchs—and the allegation of Tory donors funding the Prime Minister’s home improvements. There is no point in the Minister’s sitting there, part bombast and part Teflon Don, hoping that the stench of cronyism will simply pass. It is far too late for that. When did this Government judge that integrity, probity, transparency and the ministerial code were obstacles to be overcome rather than principles to always be adhered to?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is always a skilled and gifted rhetorician, but as I pointed out in response to his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), if we look at PPE, we see that the processes by which it has been procured by this Government have been independently validated and assured by officials, with an eight-step process to ensure that contracts were awarded only to those who could provide the right equipment. There is no variance in the approach that this Government took and the approach that the Scottish Government or Welsh Government took in the procurement of PPE.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a Tory fondness for oligarchs, and refers to text messages and so on. I can only point out that our mutual friend the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism dined with Mr Lex Greensill and Mr Gupta in one of Glasgow’s finest restaurants. If there is a particular fondness for dining with oligarchs, it is not the preserve of any one individual or party in this House.
As for suggesting that the ministerial code is something to be got round or overlooked and suggesting that propriety might need to be looked at, I would simply refer the right hon. Gentleman to the report of the independent Committee of the Scottish Parliament on the investigation into the former First Minister. If people want to see a story of obstruction, obfuscation, prevarication and a waste of taxpayers’ money, they can find it there.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Constituents are sick and tired of this endless tittle-tattle. They just want their lives to go back normal, which is what this Government are helping them to achieve. They could not care less about the Prime Minister’s cushions or his curtains. When will we have an Opposition who care about the actual priorities and not who the Downing Street decorators are?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It does seem sometimes as though the Opposition and some critics are more concerned about the world of interiors than about the real world in which the rest of us live. The really important thing is that we welcome scrutiny when it is there to ensure that we are serving the public. It is quite right that there should be scrutiny of how we respond to the pandemic; and it is quite right that we should resolve to learn lessons from everything that this Government have done; but it is also right that those in this House who have the opportunity to scrutinise the way in which taxpayers’ money is spent look effectively at the delivery of public policy, rather than necessarily seeking to make partisan points.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
The Minister just said that public scrutiny is always welcome, so does he not agree that instead of all the reports relying on leaks in the newspapers and on accusations in Dominic Cummings’ blog, the best way forward would be to get all the facts straight in an independent public inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic? Will he urge the Prime Minister to go ahead with it without delay?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes the very fair point that we need, in due course, an independent public inquiry into dealing with the pandemic, but I also think it is important that we concentrate now on the successful vaccine roll-out and on making sure that the road map on the lifting of restrictions, to which so many people are quite rightly looking forward, is in place. There will be time for an independent public inquiry and there will be lessons to be learned; mistakes have been made. But I think it is important that we concentrate now on making sure that our economy is restored to health, that public services get back to the level that they should be, and that we deal with the virus once and for all.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
There is no doubt that the allegations made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) are serious, but there is also very little doubt that we work in a profession where often claims and counterclaims are made with scant reliance on evidence. Transparency and openness are vital to retaining the trust of this House and the people who put us here. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm that any donations and benefits given will be returned and made open and transparent through the regular processes?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us have a responsibility to declare political donations, and there is a clear means of doing so. I know that all donations received by all politicians in this House will be declared appropriately.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Government claimed that the Prime Minister funded the up-front costs of decorating the Downing Street flat himself. This afternoon, the Prime Minister did not deny that the up-front costs were met by Conservative party donors. This is not the first but the third time in the space of just one week that the Prime Minister has been caught out. How many more times will Ministers accept that their leader—our Prime Minister—has misled the public, the press and Parliament before they declare him unfit for office?
Michael Gove
I have enormous respect for the right hon. Lady, a brave and courageous fighter for many causes and a very distinguished former Select Committee Chairman, but I think she may wish to reflect on the specific allegation she makes against the Prime Minister. On the broader point of substance she raises, as I pointed out earlier, the Prime Minister paid for the costs of renovation. Declarations are properly made about political donations, and indeed the Cabinet Secretary pointed out, when being questioned by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, that he is making sure that everything done was done in accordance with the rules.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this Conservative Government have taken more steps to reform and regulate lobbying and public procurement than any Labour Government did, and that at the last general election the Labour party said it intended to scrap the same lobbying law that it now wants to strengthen? Does that not show the hypocrisy of Captain Hindsight? [Interruption.]
Michael Gove
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not know why Labour Members were making a noise. It was the case that this Government banned the use of taxpayers’ money for quango lobbying. We banned taxpayers’ money being used in grants for other organisations’ lobbying. We introduced a statutory registrar of lobbyists, and we have introduced transparency measures on Government spending, Government salaries, Government contracts, Government tenders and Government meetings. He is quite right: the Labour party said that it wanted to scrap that legislation. It is for the Labour party to justify to people in Redcar and Hartlepool why it wants to scrap lobbying regulation, and it will be interesting to hear that conversation on the doorsteps.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
At Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, the Prime Minister agreed with me that politicians “must not lie”. That is vital to the credibility of the ministerial code, but a host of recent events, including the Prime Minister’s reported comments regarding lockdowns, raise serious questions about the Government’s adherence to that code. Is the Minister confident that his answers today are sufficiently comprehensive and robust to lay these matters to rest?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I read through the ministerial code this morning; it took me longer than most Members because I am slower. I could see absolutely nothing in there to make me think that the Prime Minister has done anything wrong. Why do we not leave it to the system to investigate this matter, if there is a requirement for it, rather than dance to the tune of a media frenzy?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is an officer and a gentleman, and he puts the point very well. There are tried and tested procedures and principles in order to make sure that Ministers and others in the House behave in an appropriate way. Judgments can be made, of course, by all of us in a democracy. His reading of the ministerial code this morning may be a prelude to his being appointed as a Minister in due course, but I cannot further speculate on these matters.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Contrary to what one Minister said at the weekend, concerns about the Prime Minister and the ministerial code are not “tittle-tattle”. People care deeply about this, which is why Peter Stefanovic’s video on the Prime Minister’s relationship with the truth has been viewed nearly 13 million times on social media. If the ministerial code says that any “inadvertent error” should be corrected at the earliest opportunity, what should be done about systematic deliberate errors? If, as seems to be the case with our archaic and dysfunctional rules, it is the Prime Minister himself who decides whether the ministerial code has been broken, should we really be trusting this one to mark his own homework, or should the whole system not be urgently revised?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a number of important points. She is absolutely right that the public have a right to expect that those who are responsible for discharging Government duties and spending taxpayers’ money do so in a way that is consistent with the public’s values. She also makes a broader point about the need always to review the mechanisms of scrutiny to which Government are subject. As was pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), there is an opportunity, with the appointment of a new independent adviser on ministerial interests, to look again at how that role and, indeed, perhaps other roles can be strengthened if necessary.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) [V]
While these matters should always be open and transparent, one can only muse at what other world leaders think of the UK Prime Minister having to pay for his own refurbishment, additional tax for the benefit in kind and the running costs of the flat that we insist he stays in. Surely my right hon. Friend agrees that the ridiculous situation here is why our Prime Minister should be paying anything at all personally, unlike other world leaders, when it is us—the taxpayer—who demand that they live above the shop.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and existing trusts are responsible for looking after Dorneywood, Chequers and, I believe, Chevening, where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians have used those facilities in order to discharge their duties. Downing Street is a working building, and it is appropriate, as has been the case in the past, as I referred to earlier, that some public money is allocated to ensure that the Prime Minister and others who work in that building can perform their duties as appropriate. Of course, when we are spending taxpayers’ money we must have a care—we must recognise that this money is entrusted to us—but when it comes to Government buildings, particularly Government buildings such as Downing Street, there is a role for public funding in making sure that they function effectively, on behalf of all of us.
Mr Speaker
Let us go to Geraint Davies. Oh, an empty chair. In which case, let us go to Jack Brereton.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Leader of the Opposition was really serious about tackling corruption, he would start by cracking down on the Labour Government in Wales, who handed out NHS contracts worth more than £650,000 to a Labour activist without any kind of competitive tendering process?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that case to my attention. I was not aware of it, but I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition and others will want to make sure that all the correct procedures have been followed.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Whether it is the Prime Minister’s luxury refurbishment of his flat or other things, day after day more sordid, sleazy details are unearthed about this incompetent Conservative Government, who are becoming an embarrassment for our nation, given the billions wasted on crony covid contracts. Tory donors have been profiteering at the British taxpayer’s expense, in the midst of widespread public misery. So will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster inform the House as to why he is delaying the public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic, which would allow us all to ascertain for ourselves how many Ministers have broken the ministerial code by texting or handing out Government contracts to their Tory chums?
Michael Gove
As I pointed out in response to some earlier questions, every PPE contract that was awarded went through an eight-stage process. It was supervised by independent civil servants, and the imputation that lies behind the hon. Gentleman’s comments is unfair to those dedicated public servants, who worked incredibly hard at a difficult time to make sure that those on the frontline received exactly what they needed. Of course, it is the case that there needs to be an inquiry in due course, but that inquiry should cover every aspect of the handling of the pandemic and we should all be suitably humble in recognising that it will necessarily make recommendations that all of us should take account of as we prepare for future health and other challenges.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that all Ministers, both at the Treasury and at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, followed the ministerial code in all of their dealings with Greensill Capital?
Michael Gove
Yes. The point that was made earlier is that when Lex Greensill and others with whom he was working were making representations to Government, those representations were dealt with in an appropriate way, and the critical thing is that the efforts that they were soliciting were rejected—that is quite clear.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Of course attached to the ministerial code are the seven principles of public life, the first of which is “selflessness”, where it states:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
Today, we have had a number of sources state that the Prime Minister shouted in a rage that he would rather see the bodies piled high in their thousands than order a third lockdown. Does the Minister not accept that a Prime Minister who does not put public health first is no Prime Minister at all?
Michael Gove
Let me deal with this. I was in the meeting that afternoon, with the Prime Minister and other Ministers, as we looked at what was happening with the virus and with the pandemic, and we were—[Interruption.] We were dealing with one of the most serious decisions that this Prime Minister and any Government have had to face. People have been pointing out, quite rightly, that tens of thousands of people were dying. The Prime Minister made a decision in that meeting to trigger a second lockdown. He made a subsequent decision to trigger a third lockdown. This is a Prime Minister who was in hospital himself, in intensive care. The idea that he would say any such thing, I find incredible. I was in that room. I never heard language of that kind and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, by seeking to make the points in the way that he does, I think diverts attention from the fact that so many people who have been affected by this pandemic rely on the Government, the NHS and others to strain every sinew. These decisions are never easy, but the Government made the decision, and the Prime Minister made the decision, to have a second and third lockdown, and I think we can see the evidence of the leadership that he showed then, not just in the courage that he showed, but also in the success of the vaccination programme, from which people across this whole United Kingdom have benefited.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that people in glass houses should not throw stones? Does he also agree that there is an election next week and as the Labour party is behind in the polls, Labour Members have chosen to wheel out a mantra from 20 years ago that they thought worked then and perhaps works now? And if we are talking about wheeling out glass houses, may I mention the Member under criminal investigation for fraud, the Liverpool mayor arrested for fraud, and a past Labour Prime Minister who pocketed millions from advising big businesses and foreign Governments?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point—that we all have a responsibility to learn lessons, learn from the past, do our best to make sure that we collectively maintain high standards in public life, acknowledge that there are human frailties in individuals who represent all the parties in this House and do our very best to learn from the past.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Does the Minister know the identity of the person who gave the Prime Minister the money to pay for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat? Either he does not know, in which case he should not be at the Dispatch Box saying there is no problem at all, or he does know, in which case he should just tell us what their name is. Can he do that now, please?
Michael Gove
The person who paid for the renovations in the Downing Street flat was Boris Johnson.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this UK Government are almost painfully transparent by any yardstick, and that while sessions such as this may be an inevitable part of the disinfecting oxygen of publicity, it is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) to raise concerns when the SNP wants the UK to rejoin the EU, a body that has not had its audit signed off for decades?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Governments of all stripes can always do better, but I think it is fair to say that, over generations and across parties, there has been a determined effort by our Prime Ministers to do everything they can to make sure that our democracy stays healthy. Of course, Prime Ministers in the past have made mistakes, but I think it is important that we recognise that, overall, we can have confidence in institutions like this House of Commons to hold them to account.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
The Minister has a specific duty to ensure transparency in Government through the Freedom of Information Act. Is he concerned that Transparency International last year identified nine unremedied breaches of the ministerial code? Why is information withheld in Government FOI responses more often than not? And is he still running his FOI clearing house to delay and filter FOI responses?
Michael Gove
The freedom of information clearing house, sadly, is not mine. It was set up under a Labour Government, so it is a Blairite inheritance. What it exists to do is make sure that freedom of information responses are effectively co-ordinated and that we do everything we can in order to make sure that we comply with the terms of that legislation. But of course one point about the freedom of information legislation is that it needs to be a safe space for frank advice to be offered by officials to Ministers, and it is important for the good conduct of government that that safe space remains.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) [V]
We need to get the system of regulation and accountability right. I echo the point made earlier by the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), that most of all we need a culture of values in public service to run through what Ministers, ex-Ministers and officials do. We will never write rules so perfect that people do not have to make judgments about who they see and what they do, but to shore that up, we really need a culture of transparency, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the independent review into the Greensill affair will have full access to all the documents and all the decision makers involved?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point—two actually— about the importance of culture complementing rules, and also about the review being undertaken by Nigel Boardman, who will be given all the details he needs about any contact between individuals within Government and those acting on behalf of Greensill.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office says that he welcomes this urgent question today, and for once I believe him, because there is nothing he likes more than seeing the remaining shreds of the Prime Minister’s credibility for probity being blown into the wind. We know that he will look forward to an opportunity to finally get his own head down in that lavishly furnished apartment above No. 10 Downing Street, and that when we come to the next Conservative party leadership contest he will once again be persuaded to put his hat in the ring, but is he really saying that the way this Government have operated is acceptable and that this is really the way we should expect a Government to operate?
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In the past 12 months, right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House have stood up and made sure that offers of support from local businesses have reached Ministers at the right time and in the right way, because that is how we have supported people across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring that those offers got to the right place at the right time has been an important part of getting PPE, ventilators and vaccines to people across the United Kingdom when they needed them most?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government were operating—as all Governments were, to be fair—in difficult circumstances and with a clear demand that we do everything possible to source PPE. As has been pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the PPE was sourced in a way that was rigorous, so that the equipment was fit for purpose and those on the frontline could benefit.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I wonder, does the Secretary of State agree that a version of the ministerial code should apply to the leaders of new political parties who might possibly be receiving payments from the arms of overseas Governments who do not hold dear to their heart the best interests of the United Kingdom?
Michael Gove
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman too much by saying that almost every time he asks a question or makes a point in the House of Commons, I think how lucky his constituents are to have him as their Member of Parliament. Even though we disagree on many issues, he puts his finger on an important point of public scrutiny at this time, as people decide how to cast their votes.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is only one party in this House that stands guilty of ignoring votes in a Parliament to which it is responsible, that withholds legal advice, that spends thousands of pounds trying to cover its back in a botched court case, and whose leader had been found guilty by a cross-party Committee of that Parliament of misleading that Parliament? It is not my party but the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who asked this urgent question today: the Scottish National party—the real cosy, sleekit cabal that is running Scotland today.
Michael Gove
I could not put it better myself. The surprising thing is: where are the SNP MPs now? Some people might think that turning up, reading out a question and then leaving before the debate has concluded is the perfect definition of a cynical political stunt, but I will leave that for other people to decide.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Minister is trying to say that there is absolutely nothing to see here over contracts for cronies, shady deals for decorating, text messages for tax breaks and peerages for donations. If that is the case, are not the public entitled to see this examined in a full, independent public inquiry? If not, what is he afraid of?
Michael Gove
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are a number of issues that might appropriately be the subject of a full, independent public inquiry—we can all think of appropriate issues—but I would say that, in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), I ran through the points about PPE and I explained why James Dyson had done so much to ensure that ventilators could be available to all. It is also the case, as I have mentioned to a number of Members, that an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic is of course appropriate, but the important thing is that we should not pre-empt its findings.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
In January 2020, the Government were a party to the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, which restored devolution to Northern Ireland. That agreement included a commitment to a panel of commissioners for ministerial standards. More recently, the Northern Ireland Assembly has given that role to the Assembly’s Commissioner for Standards. Why are the Government prepared to support that much more rigorous approach to ministerial standards in Stormont but not in Whitehall?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I applaud the cross-party working that Stormont has exhibited in ensuring that the Executive and Ministers work well. As I pointed out earlier, we hope that the independent adviser on ministerial standards will be appointed very shortly. There will then be an opportunity, of course—following on from a number of questions put by right hon. and hon. Members—to review what changes, if any, are needed in order to improve that role.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I have spent the last few days knocking on literally hundreds of doors across mid-Cornwall, as I am sure many Members have done in their own constituencies. The residents of St Austell and Newquay raised a number of important issues with me: the roll-out of the vaccine that is protecting them and their loved ones; the economic impact of the pandemic and what the Government are doing to ensure that we recover quickly; and the lifting of restrictions as we follow the road map that will enable them to see their loved ones again and get back to life as normal in the coming weeks. The one thing that nobody raised with me at all was the matter of the arrangements for refurbishing the Prime Minister’s flat. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Prime Minister and the Government will remain focused on the things that really matter to the people of this country, which is getting through the pandemic and getting back to life as normal as quickly as possible?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is spot on. Today I had meetings about the vaccine roll-out; ensuring that our justice system operates more quickly after the pandemic; ensuring that we can deal with the backlogs in the NHS as a result of elective operations having to be put aside because of the pandemic; and ensuring that the educational opportunities of our young people—again, scarred by the pandemic—are restored. I think—others may disagree—that those are all more important issues than curtains and soft furnishings, but I leave it to others to decide.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Cummings has described the Prime Minister’s plans to get Tory donors to pay for the lavish refurbishment of the Downing Street flat as “unethical, foolish and…illegal”. Either the Prime Minister’s former chief adviser is a liar and a fantasist, or the Prime Minister is not being entirely straightforward with the House or the country. Which is it?
Michael Gove
As someone once said in a different context, “recollections may vary”.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The question today relates to the ministerial code and to Government Ministers, but has my right hon. Friend reflected on the fact that while the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) was asking her questions, a number of her own Front-Bench colleagues are under the direct employ of prominent and well-known lobbying companies? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to look at the ministerial code, we should also look at the rules governing shadow spokesmen?
Michael Gove
That seems to be an important point and one for the House to consider.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the Minister made a virtue of the Prime Minister having paid for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. There have been several weeks of speculation about this and it was only last Friday that Downing Street confirmed that he had. Will the Minister clarify whether the Prime Minister paid the original invoices for this work, or did he reimburse the donors who allegedly donated money to this fund or to the Conservative party?
Michael Gove
As I pointed out earlier, the Prime Minister paid for the renovation of the flat. All donations to the Prime Minister, to any other Member of Parliament, or indeed to political parties, will be declared appropriately and properly. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary also made clear in his hearing with the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs the background to this issue.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that the self-same people who are attacking the Government today for the process of procurement were attacking the Government just about a year ago for their slowness in achieving supplies of PPE and other equipment? Is it not right that the Government have moved heaven and earth and that Ministers and civil servants have worked literally through the night often to make sure that we get through this covid pandemic as safely as possible?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. It was the case, entirely legitimately and appropriately, that Opposition Members were criticising us for the slow procurement of PPE, and that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) wrote to me to encourage us to go faster and made a number of suggestions about companies that we should follow up, which we did. Now the allegation is that, when political figures pressed us to procure PPE more quickly for those at the frontline, that was a mistake. Either Labour’s position last spring was wrong, or its position now is wrong; they both cannot be right.
May I conclude by wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday? It is, I understand, a very significant date, but the Official Secrets Act forbids me from revealing how significant.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We all know that the delay in locking down the country in lockdown one, lockdown two and lockdown three led to a higher toll in both lives and livelihoods. What I do not think anyone expected was to read on the front page of the Daily Mail today that the Prime Minister had said:
“Let the bodies pile high in their thousands.”
The claim has been subsequently verified independently by other journalists. The Minister takes statements that he makes at the Dispatch Box more seriously than the Prime Minister does, so may I ask him again to be absolutely categorical that he has never heard the Prime Minister say those words, that the Prime Minister did not say those words, and that, prior to arriving in the House this afternoon, he received assurances from the Prime Minister that he did not use those words? Can he be absolutely clear, straightforward and honest about that?
Michael Gove
Totally. As I pointed out earlier in response to the question from, I think, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), I had been in a meeting in the Cabinet Room with the Prime Minister. I would not ordinarily go into discussions that take place in Cabinet Committees, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will well understand, but I never heard the Prime Minister say any such a thing. We were all wrestling with an incredibly difficult decision—the decision to lock down necessarily imposes costs in other ways, as we are all aware. The Prime Minister concluded at the end of our discussion, which was a sober, serious and detailed discussion, that it was necessary not only to have that second lockdown but, sadly, to have a third lockdown as well.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
According to Opinium for The Observer, 53% of people in Scotland think that the Prime Minister is corrupt. Whether it is covid contracts for his cronies, peerages for his pals, or tax breaks over texts, the Prime Minister is leading a Government who are rotten to the core and fast losing public trust. Any healthy democracy must have leaders with credibility. Will the Minister do the right thing and ensure that a public inquiry happens and recognise that people in Scotland have a right to decide their own future—a future free from Tory sleaze and corruption that they did not vote for?
Michael Gove
I think we are grateful for that party election broadcast. The most important thing to stress is that, on each of the detailed questions raised quite understandably by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), I explained the position and it is not as the SNP would wish it to be.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
We have seen a growing divergence between what Ministers say in public and the true intentions that they share in private. The public deserves to know what the Prime Minister said to Manchester United’s Ed Woodward in a meeting before the European super league was announced, as it seems that the Prime Minister gave the impression that he supported the plans. Without full transparency, questions remain about the Prime Minister’s potential breach of the ministerial code and the Nolan principles. Can the Minister commit the Government to publish all details relating to that meeting?
Michael Gove
It was clear from what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said in the wake of the suggestion that there should be a European super league that they were wholly opposed to that venture. My understanding—I was not there at the time—is that the conversation with Ed Woodward of Manchester United related to the broader opening up of sporting events and what social distancing or other measures might be necessary to allow more of us to go back to football matches.
Mr Speaker
I will now suspend the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
ODA Budget
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on reductions in the overseas development assistance budget.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The pandemic has resulted in the biggest drop in UK economic output in 300 years, and it has had a major impact on public finances; the deficit this year is projected to be double its peak during the financial crisis. That is why we had to take the tough—but, I assure him, temporary—decision at the end of last year to reduce the official development assistance target from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%.
In spite of that, the UK will spend £10 billion on aid in 2021, making us the third largest donor in the G7 as a percentage of our gross national income. Not only that, but we will be the third largest bilateral humanitarian donor, spending at least £906 million this year, and we will invest at least £400 million bilaterally on girls’ education in over 25 countries. We will deliver £534 million of bilateral spend on climate and biodiversity, a doubling of the average spend between 2016 and 2020. We have committed £548 million to COVAX to provide vaccines for poorer countries, and we are multiplying our impact by integrating our aid spend with our diplomatic network, our science and technology expertise and our economic partnerships.
This Government’s commitment to the UK’s being a leader in development has not changed. The integrated review reaffirmed our pledge to fight against global poverty and to achieve the UN sustainable development goals by 2030, and we reiterate our commitment to return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. This week’s new allocations show that we are following through with the vision that the Prime Minister set out in the integrated review. The way the UK applies our world-leading investment and our expertise must be strategic, in line with the approach defined by the integrated review, it must represent best value for taxpayers’ money, and it must deliver results by tackling poverty and improving people’s lives around the world.
To achieve this, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has conducted a thorough review of aid spending to ensure that we target every penny at the highest-priority global challenges. The Foreign Secretary’s written statement to the House last week set out how this sharpened focus of the FCDO’s aid portfolio lies behind seven strategic priorities for poverty reduction. These are: climate and biodiversity, covid-19 and global health security, girls’ education, humanitarian preparedness and response, science and technology, open societies and conflict resolution, and economic development and trade. We believe that this plan will deliver the greatest impact where it matters most.
Mr Mitchell
When Germany will now exceed the 0.7% target, France is now pledged to hit it and the US is increasing aid spending by $15 billion, why is Britain, chair of the G7, breaking its promises to the poorest and the election manifesto commitment on which we were all elected, and which this country previously has so proudly upheld? Do the Government understand that the aid cut to Syria undermines our key ally in the middle east, Jordan, and will increase the flow of refugees into Europe? Do the Government realise that sending 300 troops to Mali while cutting humanitarian aid to the Sahel is a failure of understanding that puts our troops at greater risk? Why are the Government derailing our Prime Minister’s pledge on girls’ education with cuts that will result in 4 million fewer girls going to school while Britain is simultaneously hosting an international replenishment conference asking others to fund this key British objective?
The 0.7% is not just a commitment to the world’s poorest enshrined in law by this House; it is a reflection of the kind of country we aspire to be and the values that we uphold. Ninety-five per cent. of red wall voters approve of life-saving humanitarian aid, but that is exactly what the Treasury is cutting in their name. We are cutting £500 million in humanitarian aid. This will mean that 3 million women and children will not now receive life-saving support. Is it not clear that the original estimate of 100,000 souls who will die as a result is now a tragic understatement? This dreadful political—not economic—decision shames our country and our Government. It should shame us all.
James Cleverly
I completely understand the passion with which my right hon. Friend speaks, but the simple truth is that the UK economy is 11.3% smaller than it was last year and is undergoing the worst economic contraction for 300 years. The coronavirus has put in place a unique set of circumstances to which we are forced to respond. Yet despite these difficulties—despite this economic impact—the UK will remain in both absolute terms and percentage terms one of the largest ODA donor countries in the world, and will remain the third largest ODA donor in the G7.
My right hon. Friend speaks of the areas where the UK wishes to be a force for good in the world. We are still absolutely committed to making sure that we use our ODA spend in areas such as girls’ education, the environment and climate and others, but with our diplomatic efforts as part of the joint Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as a force multiplier to ensure that the money we spend is amplified by our diplomatic efforts both bilaterally and on the world stage. I remind him that when the fiscal circumstances allow, we are committed to returning to the 0.7% of GNI which he, others and indeed this Government are so rightly proud of.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Last week the Foreign Secretary exposed his fear of scrutiny by trying to sneak out a written statement on his callous aid cuts. Today, having been forced to come to face up to his decisions by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), he has once again evaded scrutiny and hidden behind one of his Ministers instead.
Make no mistake, slashing humanitarian support in the middle of a global pandemic is callous and incredibly short-sighted. People will lose their lives as a result of the cuts, and we will all be less safe. As the only G7 nation to cut aid, it is a retreat from our moral duty and will weaken our position on the world stage.
The statement published last week was light on detail, so will the Minister tell us whether ambassadors have been informed of their allocated budgets and the date when all FCDO country office budgets for 2021 will be made public? Will impact assessments be conducted for each country? When will they be forthcoming? Will he explain the Foreign Secretary’s comment:
“Nobody is going hungry because we have not signed cheques”?
Sixteen million Yemenis and 12 million Syrian people are on the brink of famine. How does the Minister think the respective 60% and 30% cuts in aid will impact people in those countries?
The impact of the cuts on the Government’s own stated priorities are stark—from education, which has been cut by 40%, to health programmes such as the International Rescue Committee’s Saving Lives in Sierra Leone, which has helped more than 3 million people and has now been cut by 60%. In a year when Britain will be hosting the G7 and COP26, the cuts are a shameful act and part of a pattern of retreat from the world stage by this Conservative Government. Rather than continuing to treat Parliament with contempt, will the Minister commit to putting the cuts to a vote at the earliest opportunity?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady speaks about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary attempting to avoid scrutiny; that would carry a bit more credibility had it not been for the fact that he specifically put the written ministerial statement in the public domain ahead of his appearance at the International Development Committee so that the Committee could grill him on that statement.
The hon. Lady made a point about our commitment to overseas development and assistance; I remind her of the answer that I gave a few minutes ago: we are facing an unprecedented set of circumstances. I also remind the hon. Lady that this is one of, if not the, most difficult economic years that the country has faced in a number of centuries. Even against that backdrop, we are committed to 2.5% of GNI—a proportion that previous Labour Governments managed to hit only a couple of times in the most benign economic circumstances. I am proud of the fact that this Government remain committed to being one of the most generous aid donors in the world and, as I say, to linking our diplomatic efforts with our development efforts to maximise the force for good in the world that we can bring about.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The British Government first committed to the 0.7% target in the year I first stood for Parliament. They would reach the target when they could; it took 39 years. The Minister’s prepared statement said that the Government intend to get back to 0.7% when circumstances allow. If they said that would be next year, the House would partly understand, but as the Minister has not, we have to assume that it will be more than a year.
A previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), said:
“The UK aid strategy sits firmly in our security and defence strategy. The 0.7% spent on international aid and the 2% commitment to NATO are the 2.7% that we spend, in our international interests, on securing a safer, more stable and more prosperous world.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2016; Vol. 611, c. 297WH.]
Will the Minister say how much would be saved by the reduction in the economy—the 11.2% to which he referred? That would be a big cut, but it is provided for in the legislation. Will he kindly read out the words that the current Prime Minister reinforced in our 2019 manifesto, when he added the word “proudly” to the commitment that repeated what was said by two previous Conservative Prime Ministers?
James Cleverly
I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. No one could have predicted the once-in-a-generation health and economic event that was covid-19 and we have had to take unprecedented action to respond to that. I can personally attest to the passion of both my right hon. Friends—the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—for the priorities that we have set out in response to the urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The reason why we have not set a specific date in respect of the point at which we will get back up to 0.7% is that none of us can predict that—this is a genuinely unprecedented set of circumstances. The quicker we can get the British economy back into shape, the quicker we can get back to committing to development expenditure at the level that we would all want it to be at.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Last week, the Secretary of State admitted not only that 60% cuts would fall on Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, but that no impact assessment had been undertaken. He shamefully hid behind the pitiful excuse of needing to make difficult decisions. Was it a difficult decision to use the money to deliver a windfall for the defence budget and increase spending on nuclear weapons, or was it simply an ideological decision that everyone can see through clearly? The global covid pandemic should not be used as an excuse to cut aid. Indeed, it is our essential duty to increase support to the world’s most vulnerable during this crisis.
While this Government are intent on breaking their manifesto commitment to maintaining the 0.7% target, the SNP has pledged to increase the Scottish Government’s aid budget by 50% if re-elected next week. Indeed, the rest of the G7 have increased their aid spending as a result of covid, and over 200 non-governmental organisations have accused this Government of delivering a “tragic blow” to the world’s poorest people. Does the Minister believe that the G7 and all these NGOs are wrong and that the UK Government are right? Is this not further proof that the reality of global Britain is, indeed, rather little Britain?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the UK remains, in both absolute terms and percentage of GNI terms, one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world. He mentions the impact of coronavirus. The UK has donated over half a billion pounds to support COVAX to help to vaccinate the poorest countries in the world. In addition to that, we have commitments both for science and technology and for health preparedness as priorities. The UK Government have had to make—
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but the simple fact is that the UK Government have had to deal with an unprecedented, once-in-300-year economic as well as health event, and we have to respond, but we do so in a way that maintains our commitment to the poorest in the world.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The integrated review identifies the United Kingdom as a “soft power superpower”, citing as one of the reasons our contribution to international development. Exactly how is that position going to be enhanced by the action of cutting aid to the world’s poorest, including those in slavery? I note that slavery was not even referred to in the written statement issued by the Foreign Secretary last week.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the UK is viewed globally as a soft power superpower. The conversations I have had since the announcements have been made demonstrate that the international community still very much sees the UK as a soft power superpower. Our development expenditure is an important part of that, and that is why we are committed to getting back to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. We will continue to work with partners, and to lobby, co-ordinate and convene our international friends and partners to support the poorest in the world. We will not step back from that just because of the temporary financial situation we find ourselves in. I can assure her that she and I and, as I say, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are as one, in that we aspire to be a global leader in soft power and in development, and we will recover back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
Over the last 12 months, this Government have asset-stripped our foreign aid programme, and along with it done serious damage to the UK’s global standing, security and soft power. All this was done without consultation or scrutiny by this House or the aid sector. To be quite honest, I am staggered that the Secretary of State tries to justify there being scrutiny of this House by sneaking out a statement last Wednesday before my Committee met the following morning. Can the Minister please tell us the date when this House will be told the funding allocation for aid projects by countries, and when will he publish the impact assessment that should have been done alongside the decision?
James Cleverly
The written ministerial statement was put out so that the hon. Lady’s Committee would be able to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary. It is unusual, perhaps even unprecedented, to set out thematic allocations at the beginning of the financial year, as the Foreign Secretary has done via his written ministerial statement last week and in his IDC evidence. Detailed information about how we will spend ODA is usually set out in the “Statistics on International Development” process in the year following the spend, and programme-by-programme information is also published on the Development Tracker. We have tried to be as open and as transparent as we are able to be. Clearly we are still in the process of making detailed decisions. We have informed the House and her Committee of as much detail as we are able to at this point. As we go through country by country and theme by theme, more details will be forthcoming.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
I am intrigued to hear the comment that it is a challenge that we will return to the 0.7% as soon as possible, because the Minister realises, like everybody else in this House, that the rest of the world is not standing still. Others are filling the gaps that we leave, and votes in the United Nations and different support elements are going according to those power dynamics.
Can the Minister assure me that the decisions being taken will be in keeping with the other decisions that the Foreign Office is taking in reinforcing our bilateral interests, defending British people abroad and making sure that things such as covid do not have pools of disease around the world in which they can develop further? Of course, aid spending is not actually about foreigners; it is about us and supporting the world we live in and making sure we are able to communicate, to travel and to operate around the world. Will he assure me that that in that integration, although we are committed legally to multilaterals we will not forget the bilateral commitments we have made, which are so much more easily dropped?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The UK is proud of the role it plays in multilateral forums around the world, and we are a leading player in many of them, but we are very conscious that we have incredibly important long-standing bilateral relationships around the world. I am very proud of the fact that we have maintained not only our commitments to multilaterals, but, through ODA and our diplomatic channels, our very strong set of bilateral relationships. He is right to highlight that both matter. Both are incredibly important to our partners around the world, and also, as he says, to the interests of people here in the UK.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
Announcing these deep, potentially unlawful aid cuts through a written statement was cowardly, but in the context of coronavirus, the cuts are also incredibly short-sighted. Chile, Brazil, India, here—we have seen what happens when new variants emerge and countries become overwhelmed. Every time it happens, the virus then mutates even faster.
Last week, the all-party group on coronavirus heard that the cuts are likely to result in hurting scientists’ ability to catch the new variants abroad—variants that may well threaten our own recovery here. Although £1.3 billion has been allocated to coronavirus and global health, there has been no detail on the country-specific allocations. Can the Minister provide that clarity now? Can he assure the House that he understands that no one is safe until everyone is safe?
James Cleverly
The UK has been a leading country in funding COVAX to ensure that poorer countries in the world have vaccinations as part of their arsenal to defend against coronavirus. We have a globally enviable ability to analyse and sequence mutations—information that we share with the world. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that no one is safe until everyone is safe, and that is why we are so very proud of the research that has happened here in the UK, which is being shared globally through the COVAX and Gavi processes. We are also proud that we are committing to a significant investment in science and technology and research as part of our ODA expenditure, for the very reasons that she outlines.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Could I just put the Minister right? The Foreign Secretary put out the statement at gone 5 o’clock the night before we met at 9 o’clock the following morning, so he did not give much time for anybody to digest what was in it and there was not much in it to start with.
I am deeply saddened and very upset that we are going to be balancing the books in this country on the backs of the poorest in the world. When are the Government going to come clean and be honest about where these cuts to lifesaving humanitarian aid will fall? How many women and children will die as a result? Is it more or is it fewer than the 100,000 estimated by the leading think-tanks and NGOs?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just before the Minister answers the question, I must make a plea. It would be good if I could manage to call everyone who is on the call list for this statement, but I cannot allow it to go on for more than an hour because we have several other pieces of business. It might be helpful for Members to know that, as things stand at the moment, the calculation is that the House will sit till about 1 am or 2 am tomorrow morning. I realise that that will not matter to the people who are sitting comfortably at home, but it does matter to the people who keep this Chamber and this building running. I am not criticising the Minister, who has been giving thorough answers—that is what the Chamber is looking for—but now that he has given thorough answers, perhaps he might be inclined to give shorter ones.
James Cleverly
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is always a balance between the earliest points at which information, and the detail of that information, can be shared. We are not yet in a position where we can share the granularity of either thematic programmes or country programmes. We did not want to delay giving any information to the House in order to do that. That process is going forward, but at the moment it is not possible for either the Government or anyone else to predict with any accuracy the impact that global situations have. However, we are absolutely committed to being and remaining one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be in no doubt whatever where I and others stand on this issue. Indeed, in my own debate at the end of March I flagged the dreadful decision to cut our aid. Will he outline to me and others in this House how we can possibly fulfil our moral obligation to nations who rely on our support, in particular those in the Commonwealth, at a time of the greatest insecurity since the war years? Will he and the Department not rethink this decision, which is tantamount to a death sentence to so many people?
James Cleverly
I completely understand the passion with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. He speaks on international affairs issues with great authority and passion. I remind him that while of course the totality of ODA expenditure matters, this is one of the most difficult economic circumstances that this country has faced in many centuries. Yet even in these circumstances, I assure him that we are still committed to more than has been the historic norm for this country under Governments of other political persuasions. I also assure him that as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will be returning to 0.7%.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The awful scenes we are seeing in India are obviously having a deeply personal and human impact there, but they are for many here too. People are dying right now and, as we know from our experience, rising case numbers can mean only one thing. They cannot breathe. The UK may have committed £330 million per year to Gavi through to 2025, which is good, but it is a drop in the ocean. What more can we do, through the Minister’s good offices, to export our vaccine miracle to our historical good friends in India who really need us right now?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. India remains a long-standing and close friend of the United Kingdom. It has come to our aid in times of difficulty and it is absolutely right that we reciprocate that now. I am very proud of the fact that the UK Government have moved quickly to help to supply oxygen-related technologies. We are also committed to ensuring that the scientific breakthroughs that the teams at Oxford University have created, alongside AstraZeneca, will be shared globally around the world. We are assessing what more we can do to support one of our very longstanding friends around the world.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
The Minister says that Britain has a huge commitment to the poorest around the world. If we do, this is a strange way of showing it: we are cutting aid budgets while at the same time increasing arms expenditure. More than 2 billion people around the world have no access to safe, clean water. Many more have even less access to sewerage or any other kind of facilities. For many around the world, security is something to eat, clean water, a health service and the ability to have their children educated. What kind of message to the world is it that we cut aid expenditure while at the same time we increase the defence budget by £24 billion and massively increase the number of nuclear warheads? Instead, should we not give a message to the covid-dominated world that we are committed to bringing good, decent water and healthcare around the world as our absolute priority to bring about security for the whole planet?
James Cleverly
More often than not, security and the alleviation of pain and suffering go hand in hand. All around the world, the prevention and resolution of conflict is the most significant positive move that could be taken to alleviate pain and suffering. That is exactly why the integrated review looks across the gamut of international affairs, including defence and security, as well as diplomacy and development. It is right that we think of these things hand in hand.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
Is the UK now stopping making overseas aid payments through the EU, given the way it has been spending money on a country such as China, which has $3.2 trillion in reserves? Is this not an opportunity for the UK to express its own moral priorities, and secure better value for money by making more of its own direct choices and payments? Can that include being very generous in response to the current Indian crisis?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes the important point that, having left the European Union, the United Kingdom can now make its own decisions. In many instances—not in all cases—the positions that we take now are similar to those that we took as members of the European Union. He will note that we have significantly—almost completely—reduced our aid support to China; the only expenditure now is in support of human rights and open societies. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will be focused very much on how we can support our friends around the world in their times of need.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have great regard for the Minister. I think he is an honourable man. But I am sorry, the Prime Minister who he has been defending today is a moral vacuum—a “vacuum of integrity”, as one of his colleagues said today. We have a Prime Minister who does not believe at all in international aid. That is the fact of the matter. Friends of mine are working on the frontline in Delhi, in India, and it is a tragedy. It is a tsunami. We should have been at the front with a massive aid package. Please can we have a vote in the House because this was not in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election and I do not think this aid cut would carry a majority?
James Cleverly
I can assure the House that the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to supporting the poor and suffering people around the world. Through the priorities that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined, including climate change, biodiversity and girls’ education—something the Prime Minister is particularly focused on—we have seen that we are absolutely committed to these things. I will say again: the circumstances in which we find ourselves are unique; they are unprecedented: the biggest economic contraction this country has seen in 300 years. It is right that the Government respond to that, but I remind the House that, even in the midst of this response, in percentage and absolute terms, we remain one of the most generous aid donor countries in the world.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the economy will return to pre-pandemic levels of activity in quarter 2 of next year, so why do the Government not commit to returning to 0.7% at that point? It is the fact that they will not do that that makes people worry that this is a conscious political choice, not force of circumstance caused by the pandemic. According to Save the Children, 400,000 children in Yemen will not be fed because of this cut in British aid. I know that the Minister has to defend decisions that he has not personally made, but is this not defending the indefensible?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend knows that we make decisions collectively in Government. I defend the decisions that I am part of making and I am not going to imply that I am passing the buck to anyone else. These are difficult decisions that we had to make. He has sat in that seat and knows how difficult decisions are made—how difficult decisions can be. We all hope that the UK economy will recover as quickly and completely as he suggests. If that is the case, it may well be that we are able to return to 0.7% sooner rather than later, but it would be wrong and foolhardy of me or indeed anyone else at the Dispatch Box to give a date when the circumstances are still so unknown and unpredictable. I can assure him, however, that, as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we will return to 0.7%.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have to say that it is not fair to the Minister if people ask the same question over and again, so he feels obliged to give the same answer again and again. I can now say to the Minister that he has given many answers very strongly and emphatically and he does not have to feel bad about saying to Members now, “I refer them to the answer I gave a few moments ago,” because at this rate not everyone will get in.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Yemen, we believe, will suffer some 60% cuts in our development assistance, yet it is a country where the world’s failure to stop a brutal war means that children are dying of preventable disease and now of starvation. Would the Minister seriously say to a mother or father nursing a dying child that this is all about the economy and the economic recovery of this country?
James Cleverly
The UK remains one of the largest aid donors to Yemen. But alongside that, we are also giving support to Martin Griffiths, the United Nations envoy. We are liaising directly with the Houthis, the Government of Yemen and other parties in the region to try to bring about a resolution to that conflict. The best gift we can give to the people of Yemen is peace and that is what we are pursuing. While pursuing that, we are also maintaining our commitment to support people, feed people and try to keep them alive until peace comes to that country.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]
Instability in Afghanistan and the growing confidence of the Taliban are a threat to international security and will impact us here in the UK. Can the Minister give me some assurance that an assessment has been made of withdrawing support to Afghanistan, especially the impact that will have on Afghan women and girls who rely on us for education and basic healthcare?
James Cleverly
I can assure my hon. Friend that we think carefully about the implications of all the decisions we make and indeed the decisions made by other countries around the world. We remain committed to women, peace and security as an agenda and the education of women and girls in particular. We will absolutely continue to pursue both those agendas.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
We have heard a succession of senior Conservatives condemn this decision as “shameful”. As well as the humanitarian costs, the ODA cuts have a direct impact on UK research and development. The Royal Society tells us that its programmes are being cut by around 70%. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government were aware of those consequences when the decision was made and whether he has seen or carried out any impact assessment?
James Cleverly
It is the normal process of this Department and its predecessor Department to speak regularly with our delivery partners and opinion formers in the sectors with which we work. The decisions we made are difficult, and they are driven by the economic circumstances. As I have said a number of times, we will get back up to the 0.7% to reinforce the sectors that the hon. Member speaks about as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the pivot away from UK taxpayers’ money being used in aid to totalitarian countries such as China towards more open and democratic parts of the world?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The UK is committed to supporting democracy and political stability around the world. He will have seen in the written ministerial statement the commitment that the Foreign Secretary made to reducing our ODA expenditure in China and focusing it exclusively on human rights and open societies.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
To paraphrase the journalist Ben Taub, radicalisation lies in a shallow grave. Can the Minister advise the House how reducing refugee support in Syria from the £137 million pledged last year to £45 million this year will not play a part in resurrecting radicalisation in Syria and the wider middle east?
James Cleverly
We completely understand that instability and failed economies are drivers of terrorism and radicalisation. That is why the UK remains committed to supporting Governments around the world in both maintaining their economic stability and alleviating the suffering of displaced people, and we will continue to do so.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
From covid to Ebola to malaria, we have all seen how important international scientific research is, and we are proud to be a world leader in this. If we are to continue that progress, it does not make sense to cut those international budgets just when their importance is so clear. Will the Minister meet with scientists and find a way to ensure that these vital research programmes can continue uninterrupted?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The FCDO has committed £253 million on R&D this year across the seven themes. Of course, we are always keen to hear from expert voices. I cannot make a commitment that we can necessarily respond in the way that they would want us to, because of the fiscal situation that I have discussed, but we absolutely recognise that science and technology in so many areas—for example, in covid—is the key that unlocks many of the world’s challenges.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The Government’s reductions in the overseas development aid budget, FCDO research spending cuts and now other departmental cuts, according to the research profession, amount to more than half a billion pounds lost to research. Does the Minister agree that, while we battle a once-in-a-generation pandemic, the effects of which across the world we see every night on our TV screens, science is at the heart of many of the solutions we desperately need and that the Government need to continue to invest in and grow science talent and champions of evidence around the globe, not step back in this way?
James Cleverly
The work that the science community around the world has done in bringing vaccines to bear as quickly as it has is a testament to how important this sector is. The UK absolutely remains committed to being a global leader in science, technology and research, and we will do that both domestically in the UK and internationally through our ODA expenditure.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am no pinko leftie and I sometimes pointed out distortions caused by the 0.7% commitment at the end of the financial year, but I am completely mystified from a public accounts point of view about what is going on here. Is it not a fact that, because of the contraction of the economy, the aid budget would have declined by some £2.9 billion anyway? The Minister is now imposing another £4 billion cut on that. We are causing complete chaos, with international development staff all running around trying to cut the budget. Now, by the Minister’s own logic, he is going to revert to 0.7%. We know the economy is going to bounce back, so having cut all this money, they are going to have to put it all back again. What is the logic from a public accounts perspective in what we are doing? Why are we causing such incompetence and chaos in the Department?
James Cleverly
As I said, the economic situation has been forced on us by coronavirus. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend has misrepresented the situation in the FCDO in terms of the actions our officials have taken? I have been deeply impressed by the professionalism and the speed with which FCDO officials have responded to this once-in-a-generation—once-in-a-lifetime—situation. We are keen to get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. Our officials will look very carefully at what programmes we are not able to continue with and what programmes we will be able, or would choose, to either restart or start anew once the financial situation improves.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
In 2019, the UK pledged £400 million to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative between 2020 and 2023—£100 million per year. Last week, it was confirmed that the UK will contribute only £5 million to GPEI this year—a 95% cut. Will the Minister explain how his Government will make up for 2021’s shortfall in a subsequent year, and deliver on the £400 million commitment by 2023?
James Cleverly
I am not able to make commitments for future years. The economic situation is probably more unpredictable now than it has been in our lifetimes. What I can say is that we will seek to get the UK’s ODA target back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for asking this urgent question. The Government have claimed that improving the education of girls globally is their priority, but Save the Children estimates that the Foreign Secretary’s decision will result in a 25% cut in spending on girls’ education worldwide. The funding slash is detrimental to girls in developing countries. In the light of the cuts, does the FCDO expect to fulfil the Government’s manifesto promise?
James Cleverly
The economic situation we find ourselves in is unprecedented and not one that any of us could have predicted when generating the manifesto. The hon. Lady will have heard our commitment to get back up 0.7%. Girls’ education remains a priority for the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) to be his special envoy for girls’ education, and I have seen the energy that she has already applied, with alacrity, to that incredibly important work.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The original 1958 aid target was 1% and covered public and private aid flows. In 2013, the OECD said that we were getting 1.21% in total. Will the Minister make sure that in the future private as well as public aid flows are recorded, so that we have an up-to-date picture of total aid spending?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I do not have at my fingertips the figures for private donations from the United Kingdom, but I think we all know not only that, through the UK Government, we remain one of the most generous ODA-donating countries in the world, but that the British people are incredibly generous. We can all be proud of the way the British people step up whenever there are international challenges. My hon. Friend is completely right that Government ODA spending is incredibly important, but so is the huge amount of money donated by private individuals in the UK.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
The Indian community in my constituency is traumatised by the scenes that we are seeing of the covid crisis in India. I welcome the UK’s emergency package of ventilators and oxygen concentrators, but the Minister earlier acknowledged that no country is safe until the virus is under control in every country. Is this therefore not the worst year to cut the aid budget, because by doing so he is endangering lives not only overseas but here in the UK too?
James Cleverly
I have already said how proud we all should be of our support to India. This is part of a long-standing bilateral relationship, perhaps one of the strongest in our history. All I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s broader question about ODA is that it is driven by circumstances and that we will get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend explain—if not now, perhaps in writing—why the Government seek to change the 0.7% target set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, rather than to utilise the provisions of the Act to explain why they are unable to meet it at this time? If indeed the Government are seeking to change the target and believe that they may do so without further legislation or parliamentary sanction, what does he believe that the 2015 Act was intended to do, if not to stop Governments doing exactly that?
James Cleverly
The 2015 Act envisaged that there might be circumstances in which a Government would be unable to meet the 0.7% target. As I said, this is a truly unique and unprecedented set of economic circumstances. We will look to get back up to 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. We will look at the situation with regard to legislation.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Will the Minister confirm—he has yet to do so—whether any impact assessment was made of the cuts, in particular to Yemen of 60%, Syria two thirds, Libya 63% and South Sudan 40%? Does he not recognise that the feeling of the House is such that those serious measures, those damaging cuts, should go to a vote of the whole House?
James Cleverly
Of course the whole process that we are going through is to balance the decisions that have been forced on us by economic circumstances and the impact that they would have. The whole job of the Department is to make those incredibly difficult decisions. That is the job that we do each and every year. Those decisions have perhaps come into sharper focus this year because the economic situation has forced the reduction in our ODA expenditure, but this is what the Department does: it balances the expenditure that we have at our disposal and assesses the best way in which we can maximise the positive impact of that money.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I ask the Minister a simple question: does he think that the world will be safer or more dangerous over the next five to 10 years? We know the answer to that: authoritarianism is on the rise, power bases are shifting, and international institutions are struggling as we enter a profound and dangerous era of change. Our soft power counts, and reducing our support will leave vacuums to be filled either by countries such as Russia and China pursuing a very different agenda, or by extremism, taking advantage of poor governance and insecurity. I ask the Government not to jeopardise our seat on the UN Security Council by cutting our soft power in this way.
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the work of his Committee. He and I have discussed the integrated review, and the unpredictability and potential dangers that the future might have in store for us. That is why the integrated review is such an important document to assess our development expenditure. I absolutely hear the point that he makes about how such expenditure has an influence on our soft power standing, but he will also recognise that integrating our defence, security and diplomatic efforts is incredibly important. We enjoy a huge amount of soft power, notwithstanding this temporary reduction in our ODA expenditure. I have no doubt that once we can get back up to 0.7%, we will be able to reinforce further still the important work that we do on the international stage.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Africa, I am deeply disturbed that 60 African researchers on the Royal Society’s future leaders programme have been left without funding without warning because of these cuts. As MP for Newcastle University, I am deeply disturbed that funding for its global challenges hub has been cut by 70% without warning, making researchers redundant unless the university steps in. Will the Minister at least agree to remove the cap on carrying over previous years’ underspends on UK Research and Innovation ODA-funded research to help save research and jobs in Africa and the UK?
James Cleverly
The Government absolutely recognise the importance of Africa, in terms of the challenges it faces and the opportunities that it presents itself with. We will spend around 50% of our bilateral ODA in Africa. I am not able to give commitments on the granularity of how programmes will be funded or, indeed, with regard to carry-overs, but as I have already said, we absolutely recognise the importance of research and development as a theme and Africa as a continent.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was absolutely correct in pointing out that this represents a double cut: it is a cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, but it is also, of course, 0.5% of a lower figure, because gross national income has fallen. Can my right hon. Friend the Minister tell the House what effect that is going to have on the Ascend programme, what effect it will have on research into the treatment and prevention of malaria, and how many young women around the world will not receive education as a result of what I am afraid I have to regard as a breach of faith?
James Cleverly
I am not able to provide my right hon. Friend with the level of detail that he has asked for at this stage. The thematic programmes that were set out in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s written ministerial statement will now be worked out in more detail, and we will provide detail to our delivery partners as soon as we are able to, but I am not able to furnish the House with those figures at the moment.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The rate of HIV infection remains stubbornly high—1.7 million people acquired HIV in 2019—and AIDS remains the leading killer of women of reproductive age. These are all preventable deaths. The UK’s most recent pledge to the Global Fund, in 2019, saved 2 million lives. The proposed cut to global health spending is 40%; if passed on to HIV funding, that is 800,000 lives. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no cuts to the Robert Carr Fund, the Global Fund, UNAIDS or HIV research—including on a vaccine, which we are now very close to—and that we will renew and fully meet, without delay, all those pledges that we have made to save those lives?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that while the attention of the world is rightly focused on coronavirus, that is not the only significant health issue facing the world. Unfortunately, as I said in my previous answer, I am not able to give assurances on individual programmes at this stage. The detail that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in his written ministerial statement is available to Members online, and we will be providing further details as our teams, both in country and thematically, work through the next stages of the programme.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have almost run out of time, but I will try to get in the six people who are left. Can we please have really short questions and really short answers? I think the Minister has answered every conceivable question.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent work undertaken by arm’s length bodies such as the British Council in fostering better understanding and relations with other countries. We are indeed a soft power superpower. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that these ODA reductions do not lead to decisions that will damage those bodies’ long-term effectiveness?
James Cleverly
We are conscious of the potential long-term impacts of what we believe to be a one-off and hopefully short-term situation with regard to the economic impact of coronavirus. We will look carefully at the best use of taxpayers’ money to ensure that important delivery mechanisms can continue into the future.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The pandemic has set back progress in healthcare and education for many years, at a time when the Government are cutting aid for reasons that, again, have not been justified. The medical supplies that the UK is sending to India are welcome and vital, but the evidence is clear: long-term strategic support is key to building resilience and capacity, and to preventing future problems from doing the type of harm that we are now witnessing in India. Does the Minister recognise that aid cuts now—even if restored at some point in the future—are, at best, penny wise and pound foolish?
James Cleverly
I have answered the broader question about our budget situation a number of times. The hon. Member is right that the resilience of our partner countries is an important factor, which we consider when we make the decisions that we have made.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]
I know, through my work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Angola and Zambia, of the excellent work of TradeMark East Africa in upgrading borders so that trade can take place more easily, thereby helping developing countries to move from aid to trade much more quickly. Will the Government therefore protect the budget of TradeMark East Africa for this excellent work?
James Cleverly
Although I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about helping countries move to economic self-sufficiency, I cannot give assurances for individual projects at this time.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
UNICEF says that we are facing a children’s rights crisis, so will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that children are protected from the impact of these cuts and that the UK continues to support children who find themselves living in desperate situations?
James Cleverly
As I have said before, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole take the plight of children around the world incredibly seriously. That is why we are so committed to education, particularly of girls, which has been prioritised in our planning of this process.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
I have visited many successful UK aid-funded programmes, so I am disappointed by the proposed cuts to our aid budget. The Minister has confirmed that economic development is a priority for the Foreign Secretary, so does he agree that in order to help countries trade out of poverty and to deliver a truly global Britain, we must continue to fund aid for trade ODA programmes that help the poorest people in the world and enhance our mutual prosperity.
James Cleverly
Although humanitarian issues will always remain a priority, the Government have ensured that we still spend some ODA money on the resilience and strengthening of the underlying economies of a number of countries around the world, addressing the very point that my hon. Friend makes.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Scottish National party has committed to increase aid spending by 50% next year if back in government, despite the constraints imposed by Westminster. With the worldwide pandemic, COP26 to come and loss and damage to be discussed, it is ridiculous that the UK Government are cutting aid. Did the Minister fight his corner to protect the ODA budget, or does he not care enough about the poorest and most vulnerable?
James Cleverly
I, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, every Minister in this Government, and, I have no doubt, every Conservative Member, are absolutely passionate about support for the poorest people in the world. I am glad that the hon. Member’s party has chosen to be so generous. It is Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland working together—as a globally renowned Union—that enables his Government to be generous overseas. I am proud of the fact that our strong Union relationship allows them to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement on our new global anti-corruption sanctions regulations.
Corruption has an immensely corrosive effect on the rule of law and trust in institutions. It slows development, drains the wealth of poorer nations and keeps their people trapped in poverty. It poisons the well of democracy around the world. Whistleblowers and those who seek to expose corruption are targeted, and some have paid the ultimate price with their lives, including, of course, Sergei Magnitsky himself, the inspiration for our human rights sanctions regime. But his courage was not in vain. The framework of sanctions that we are launching today, shared by some of our partners around the world, flows directly from his decision to take a brave stance against injustice, and that will not be forgotten.
This country has an important role to play in the fight against corruption. Our status as a global financial centre makes us an attractive location for investment, and we are proud of that and welcome it. But it also makes us a honey pot—a lightning rod—for corrupt actors who seek to launder their dirty money through British banks or British businesses. That is why we have already taken steps to become a global leader in tackling corruption and illicit finance. Our law enforcement agencies are recognised as some of the most effective in the world. The National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit and its predecessors have restrained, confiscated or returned well over £1 billion of assets stolen from developing countries since 2006. My Department continues to provide funding for this vital work.
The Bribery Act 2010 criminalises bribery and the failure of businesses to prevent bribery from happening in the first place. In April 2016, the UK was the first in the G20 to establish a public register of the beneficial owners of companies and similar legal entities. That was an important first step in tackling the use of anonymous shell companies to move corrupt money around the world. I can tell the House that more than 4.5 million companies are now listed on that register.
In 2017, we adopted the ambitious five-year anti-corruption strategy, bringing in measures such as unexplained wealth orders, account freezing orders and the like, and that year, we also established the International Anti-Corruption Co-ordination Centre in London, which has helped to freeze more than £300 million of suspected corrupt assets worldwide and led to dozens of arrests. According to Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index, those actions—our commitment to tackling corruption—have seen the UK rise from a global ranking of 20th in 2010 to 11th place in 2020, out of a total of 180 countries.
Against that backdrop, the new sanctions regime that I am announcing today will give us an additional powerful tool to hold the corrupt to account. It will prevent corrupt actors from using the UK as a haven for dirty money while combating corruption around the world. As hon. Members across the House will recall, this follows the launch of our global human rights sanctions regime, which I introduced to the House in July 2020. Since then, the UK has imposed human rights sanctions on 78 individuals and entities involved in serious human rights violations, including in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Pakistan, Myanmar, North Korea, Belarus, the Gambia, Ukraine and, most recently, in relation to Xinjiang in China. Now, we have an equally powerful weapon in the fight against corruption.
As with our global human rights sanctions approach, the anti-corruption sanctions are intended not to target whole countries or peoples but, rather, the individuals who are responsible, and should be held responsible, for graft, and the cronies who support or benefit from their corrupt actions. These regulations will enable us to impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals and organisations who are involved in serious corruption. Our approach is grounded in and based on the UN convention against corruption and related instruments. It has a clear focus on bribery and misappropriation of property, and that includes embezzlement.
Bribery is well understood. It is defined in the regulations. It includes both giving a financial or other kind of advantage to a foreign public official, and a foreign public official receiving a financial or other advantage. Misappropriation of property occurs when a foreign public official improperly diverts property entrusted to them in their official role, and that may be intended to benefit them or a third party. For example, it could be, or include, siphoning off state funds to private bank accounts. It could include the improper granting of licences for the exploitation of natural resources, but whatever the particular circumstances, at the heart of this lies the same debilitating cycle of behaviour: corrupt officials ripping off their own people.
These powers will also enable us to target those who are either facilitating or profiting from such corrupt acts—those who conceal, those who transfer the proceeds of serious corruption and those who obstruct justice relating to serious corruption, and that will not be limited to state officials. For additional clarity in all this, we have published a policy note today that sets out how we will consider designations under these regulations. I know that, across the House, there is always interest in the legal criteria as well as the evidence base that we have to accumulate. It is right to say that we will also ensure due process and the rule of law, so that the rights of others are respected. Those designated will be able to request that a Minister reviews the decision, and they can also apply to challenge the decision in court, which is an important check in the system.
As well as introducing the legal basis for this regime, today, I can tell the House that we are also making the first designations under these new regulations, which include some of the most notorious cases of corruption in recent history. Each designation is underpinned by evidence and meets the test set out in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and the regulations. So today, I can tell the House that we are imposing sanctions on individuals who have been involved in serious corruption from six particular countries. First, we are imposing sanctions on 14 individuals involved in the $230 million tax fraud in Russia perpetrated by an organised crime group and uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky. Next, we are imposing sanctions on Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta and their associate Salim Essa for their roles in serious corruption. Those individuals were at the heart of a persistent pattern of corruption in South Africa that caused significant damage to its economy and directly harmed the South African people.
We are also designating three individuals involved in serious corruption in Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala, including facilitating bribes to support a drug trafficking cartel. Finally, we are imposing sanctions on the Sudanese businessman Ashraf Seed Ahmed Hussein Ali, also known as Al-Cardinal, for the misappropriation of significant amounts of state assets in one of the very poorest countries in the world. That diversion of resources, in collusion with South Sudanese elites, caused serious damage to public finances in South Sudan and has also contributed to the ongoing instability and conflict there.
Let us be clear about this: corruption is not a victimless crime—far from it. By enriching themselves, these people have caused untold damage and hardship to their countries and communities, which they exploited for their own predatory greed. So today we send a clear message: those sanctioned today are not welcome in the UK. They will not be able to use British bank accounts or businesses to give their illicit action some veneer of respectability, because their assets will be frozen. I can tell the House that more designations will follow in due course, based on the policy note as well as on the legal criteria that we have set out, and assessed against the evidence.
As with all targeted sanctions, they are most effective when they are backed up by co-ordinated international action, and of course that is particularly important when it comes to corruption, given the fluid, complex and global nature of modern illegal corruption schemes. We will continue to work with our friends and partners, including the US and Canada, who are equipped with the legal framework to take similar action. Today, I hope that the whole House will unite and join me in standing up for the values of democracy, good governance and the rule of law as Britain sends out the clearest message to all those involved in serious corruption around the world: you cannot come here, and you cannot hide your money here. I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
We warmly welcome today’s announcement. We agree that corruption is a global scourge. It costs the global economy billions every year, it sustains rotten Governments, it protects the dishonest and the criminal, it tilts the playing field against businesses that do the right thing and it denies people around the world money that belongs to them and that should be spent on our shared prosperity, our healthcare and our opportunities. As I told the Foreign Secretary last June, the absence of measures on corruption left a huge hole in the global human rights sanctions. If we want to crack down of human rights abusers, we have to follow the money, so we are really pleased to see the Government following the standard set by the USA and Canada in plugging this hole today, and we will study the regulations and the policy note carefully.
However, I hope the Foreign Secretary can assure the House today that there will be resources to support investigations and enforcement, because the current rate of prosecutions for economic crime is woefully low, as he knows. To put it bluntly, if he is serious about what he is saying today, he needs to put his money where his mouth is and ensure that agencies such as the National Crime Agency have the resources they need, allow Parliament to put forward names to be considered for designation and, as I pressed him to do last year, allow parliamentary scrutiny of who is and, crucially, who is not designated, to ensure that there is no prospect or suggestion that big money can corrupt our politics and influence the decisions that are taken. That last one really matters, because while I welcome his words today, the mass of revelations that have come to light in the last few days alone have shown a tangled network of financial interests and cosy relationships at the heart of Government that appear to send a green light to many of the very regimes that he has mentioned in his statement. We need to know that this announcement it is not just a gloss on the surface of a grubby system that underneath signals business as usual.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Saudi, but may I ask him what message it sends to the Saudi regime when he sanctions officials implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi but we then find that all it takes is for the Crown Prince to WhatsApp the Prime Minister to tell him that relations will be damaged between our countries unless the path is cleared for him to buy a key economic asset in the UK, and that instead of standing up to it, he deploys his top aide to investigate? The Foreign Secretary mentioned sanctions against Chinese officials engaging in genocide in Xinjiang, but what message does it send to the Chinese Government when on Saturday we learned that a former Prime Minister could simply message the then Chancellor to ask for Chinese investment into the UK in areas of critical national infrastructure, such as energy, and could gain access, despite having been only 15 months out of office and despite this being in clear breach of the rules?
And for all the Foreign Secretary’s admirable words about Sergei Magnitsky, the UK still acts as a haven for the dark money that sustains the Putin regime, with more than £1 million in Russian-linked donations to the Tory party since the Russia report was handed to the Government, but not a single recommendation acted upon to safeguard our country in all that time. Surely the Foreign Secretary can see the problem. He signals an intent to crack down on corruption and human rights abuses by causing economic pain to those responsible, but just down the road those very same regimes can call up the Prime Minister to advance their own interests, even when those interests are at odds with the interests of the British people. The Foreign Secretary has used very strong words today, but while he is rightly pressing ahead with sanctions, he is either turning a blind eye to the real power relationships in Government or he is being played. We deserve to know which it is.
Dominic Raab
Let me start by welcoming the hon. Lady’s support for both the legal regime and the designations we have made today. I agree with much of her analysis on the damage wrought by corruption around the world, and I think we are at one on that. She raised the issue of the international corruption prosecutions, on which she made an interesting point. Of course, criminal prosecutions are done on the criminal standard of proof, whereas sanctions are done on the civil standard —[Interruption.] Well, she is shaking her head, but that is just a fact. One challenge we have with international corruption is with gleaning the evidence in relation to it, and one advantage we have with the sanctions regime is that it gives us more flexibility and agility to address to the hole, to which she rightly refers, that we are plugging.
The hon. Lady also asked about Parliament feeding in its views, and I think there is a role for not only hon. Members in this Chamber, but relevant Select Committees. As with the human rights regime, we are entirely open to views and evidence. Indeed, we will have to rely on that evidence in order to look at further designations in the future. She mentioned Saudi, but I am afraid that she rather confused herself, because the sanctions relating to Khashoggi were imposed by this Government and remain in place under this Government. That roundly rebuts and repudiates the point she tried to make, which was that somehow the Saudi Government were seeking to undermine the robust approach we take by political influence. [Interruption.] She makes some good points about corruption, but I am afraid she tarnished her statement with a range of political mudslinging.
I do, however, wish to address this issue relating to the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which was published back in July 2020. It sets out multiple actions we have taken and are taking against the Russia threat, some of which I mentioned in the House today. We take action on cyber activity. We have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports and the Northern Ireland border area to determine whether they have been or are involved in hostile state activity. We are introducing new legislation to provide the security services with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat. That Bill will help to modernise the existing offences. We have already implemented the National Security Council-endorsed Russia strategy and have established the cross-Government Russia unit, which brings together all of our intelligence, diplomatic and military capabilities to have maximum effect. This sanctions regime that we are introducing today on corruption is an additional tool, and we will be—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have already told the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) to stop talking from the Dispatch Box while the Secretary of State is speaking.
Dominic Raab
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is that the hon. Lady, who agrees with us on this policy point, resorts to the mudslinging because she does not have too much more to say on the substance.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend? He knows how passionately many of us have supported his quest to make corruption part of the sanctions regime. Indeed, it was the Foreign Affairs Committee with its “Moscow’s Gold” report in May 2018 that called for action not only on those abroad who are corrupt, but on those who are enablers in the UK. Indeed, I hope that he will highlight to the House exactly where those agencies and individuals in the UK who are assisting with corruption could be held to account as well.
I welcome very much the identification that the Secretary of State has given us today of Russian, South African, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Guatemalan and Sudanese elements. Perhaps, for his second tranche, I could ask him to look a little bit wider. We know that corruption is undermining the people of China. We know that the red princes are robbing the people and enriching themselves already. We also know that the Maduro regime in Venezuela has stolen off the Venezuelan people now for the best part of a decade, and, before then, the Chávez regime did the same. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been stealing off the Iranian people for decades and continues to enrich itself off the back of a proud and independent people. Perhaps he could address some of those countries when he responds.
The last point I wish to make is that, while the Foreign Secretary has mentioned Russia, it would be good to hear him talk about those who are close to the Putin regime—those who directly assist President Vladimir Putin in hiding hundreds of billions of pounds overseas. We know that there are many around the world who, sadly, have used our own markets and other territories that are dependent on us to hide wealth. Will he assist in exposing where that money is hidden and using these powers to hold them to account?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his Committee. He has not only campaigned passionately for this but provided, bit by bit, some of the evidence both for the regime and for the focus. I take his point about further tranches and further designations. Of course, we will consider all evidence that we have, whether it is open source or provided by Committees—he should feel free to provide it. He will forgive me if I do not accept the temptation at this point to speculate on future designations, but we remain open to seeing all the evidence to which he refers.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and welcome any effort that is made to tackle corruption that robs societies of both money and resources needed to develop and deliver for their citizens. Targeted sanctions towards individuals and organisations involved in serious corruption are a welcome step; the UK should never be a safe haven for those engaged in those corrosive practices. However, this is all happening against a backdrop of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office confirming that it is cutting its own world-leading anti-corruption, open societies, media freedom and human rights work by more than 50% this year. This is an abdication of responsibility that will allow corruption and criminality to flourish in developing countries. Dr Sue Hawley, executive director of Spotlight on Corruption, said that the cuts
“could undermine not just the UK’s stated aim to act as a force for good globally, but also seriously curtail the UK's ability to stem and seize corrupt money laundered through the UK’s financial system”.
This Government have used the covid pandemic as an excuse to cut aid. In many parts of the world, including close to home, the pandemic has been exploited by Government officials as a smokescreen to conduct business dishonestly by fraudulent means and at the expense of human rights. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why he thinks cutting aid to combat corruption helps rather than hinders the sanctions regime that he is introducing today, and what impact assessment has been made of these cuts to the UK’s anti-corruption work?
Finally, given the debate that took place last Thursday and the unanimous support for the motion calling the UK Government to fulfil their obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide in relation to the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, when will the Foreign secretary return to the House to give a statement imposing global human rights sanctions on the perpetrators of this crime against humanity, not least the Chinese Communist Party Committee Secretary, Chen Quanguo?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for this initiative. He makes a range of points. It is a fair question as to how our aid and development policy is used to reinforce our law enforcement action. He will know that we have safeguarded £10 billion this year, which means we remain one of the global leaders in aid. When we set the seven priorities to safeguard and for allocating in a strategic way, notwithstanding the temporary shift from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, one of those priorities was open societies, and that includes our media freedom campaign, which goes from strength to strength. We do this very much in partnership with the Canadians, but the numbers joining that campaign have risen. That gives us an increasingly broad basis on which to support precisely those journalist and media groups that hold the corrupt to account.
I do not know whether it was just a mistake, but the hon. Gentleman referred to sanctions relating to Xinjiang. We have already imposed Magnitsky sanctions, under our human rights regime, on those responsible for the systemic human rights abuses there. I will not speculate on further designations, but we always consider them based on the evidence.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
I welcome these important extensions to the sanctions regime and the sanctions announced today. They are a fitting tribute to Sergei Magnitsky and the work of Bill Browder, but they also hit Putin where it hurts: the corrupt cronies who hold up his kleptocracy. However, Alexei Navalny is being tortured to death before our eyes, so if these sanctions do not result in his release for medical treatment abroad, ending Putin’s second attempt to kill him, will my right hon. Friend continue to escalate sanctions against dirty-money oligarchs, before Navalny dies in plain view of the world?
Dominic Raab
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Bill Browder, who was Sergei Magnitsky’s employer, because he has campaigned for this not just on the human rights front but on the corruption front for many years. I am pleased that yet again we have taken a further step towards instituting some measure of justice. Like my hon. Friend, we are very concerned about Alexei Navalny. His situation has remarkable parallels and bears comparison with what happened to Sergei Magnitsky, whose health was allowed to deteriorate in prison before he was then tortured and ultimately killed. I can reassure my hon. Friend, however, that we have already sanctioned six individuals in the state scientific research institute in relation to the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, and 14 Russians are named under the new corruption regime that we are discussing today.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
It is about time the Government took further action to stop big money from figures close to the Kremlin influencing our politics—the Russia report made that need abundantly clear—but there are other ways of gaining influence in this country, such as owning football clubs, for example. The review of football governance following the European super league debacle may yet provide an opportunity in this regard, because the owner of one of the six English clubs, Roman Abramovich, has been described by Alexei Navalny’s team as one of the key enablers of Putin’s corrupt regime. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Culture Secretary about ensuring that any future football regulator is tasked with investigating and acting on money in the sport with ties to corruption and human rights abuses?
Dominic Raab
Like many across the House, I share the hon. Lady’s concern about what we saw with the recent football episode. Given the strong lead taken by the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, we also saw a swift rowing back from the earlier planned initiative. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about reform, and of course we take those on board.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The measures announced by the Foreign Secretary are extremely welcome, underlining the Government’s commitment to tackling corruption and its toxic impact on some of the poorest people in the world. Can he reassure me that these new sanctions will work in conjunction with other measures that the Government are taking to tackle global corruption, including spending more to support open societies and to help resolve overseas conflicts?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have prioritised, amid a difficult settlement this year, the open societies agenda, and there is £419 million going into it. I cannot tell him the precise allocation country by country, because we are quite careful not to do that—it often gives such regimes and countries a tool or influence, and it exposes charities, non-governmental organisations and journalists to greater vulnerability.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
May I, too, welcome these designations and this initiative today? Last year, the Foreign Secretary promised that he would extend the existing human rights sanctions to include corruption, and indeed he has done so today. That is a triumph not just for him, but for other campaigners such as Bill Browder, whom he has just mentioned. May I therefore press him to say whether he will be able to go even further, not just by designating more people, which I think he has said he already has in mind, but—he rightly pointed out that this is the trick—by following the money? There is a series of measures, for example relating to reforms to Companies House, that are being considered for potential inclusion in the upcoming Queen’s Speech, which would make it dramatically easier for this country to follow the money and for him to make more designations underpinned by proof. Will we be able to get those into the Queen’s Speech?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is demonstrating yet again what a tenacious campaigner he is. He is lavish in praising others, but actually he has been one of the most thoughtful, ardent and tenacious campaigners for this reform. I will certainly take on board his comments about further measures that we can take in order to really reinforce the global sanctions regime. As he knows, I wanted to make sure that we got this right legally, in practical terms, so that we do not give those corrupt cronies the PR gift of a weak regime that could be challenged in the courts. We want to learn from the practice, but I will certainly continue to listen carefully to everything my hon. Friend says on this subject.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in welcoming the broad thrust of today’s announcement, but it goes after individuals, not after the structures and tax havens that enable this—tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, for example, which is on the EU blacklist. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Cayman Islands enables tax abuse, and if so, what is he going to do about it?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I set out in my opening statement, we have taken a range of measures, including to address the kinds of concerns that he has raised. Obviously, we are mindful of the constitutional powers of the relevant overseas territories, but nothing will stop us taking further measures and further action if we deem it necessary.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome statement on upgrading the Magnitsky sanctions to include corruption, and we must not forget the tremendous work of Bill Browder. Can I ask my right hon. Friend whether these new sanctions will apply equally to all individuals who fall short of the law? For example, will they apply not only to junior but to senior officials in the Chinese Communist party who are implicitly involved in the abuse of the Uyghur and are living off the finances of Uyghur slave labour?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is another ardent, tenacious and eloquent campaigner on this issue. She makes a really important point. We obviously want to be able to apply all the tools we have at the most senior level. We are more likely to have an effect that way. The challenge, of course, is that the higher up the chain we go, the more indirect—I think that was the word she used—the links are, and the challenge is to make sure we have the evidence. However, we will look at this based on the seriousness of the activity and according to the policy note, which I am sure, when she gets a chance to look at it, will give her the reassurance she needs.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State mentioned Transparency International in his statement. Last year, it said that it had identified more than £5 billion of property in the UK bought with suspicious money, one fifth of which came from Russia, and half of all the money laundered out of Russia is laundered through the United Kingdom. So does he not agree that any action taken by the UK to tackle global corruption will lack credibility until the United Kingdom Government have put their own house in order by implementing in full the recommendations of last year’s Intelligence and Security Committee report, including the tightening of rules on all political donations from Russia?
Dominic Raab
I think I have already addressed the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. On the first part, in relation to Transparency International, the United Kingdom is of course an open, outward-looking country. We want to attract direct investment, which is why, as I said in my statement, we need to be on the lookout and be eternally vigilant to make sure that dirty money or blood money does not drift into this country. We are taking these actions today precisely because we are serious about this issue. If he looks at this fairly, he will see that when we came into office in 2010, the UK was ranked 20th in the world on the corruption perceptions index. We have now risen to 11th, and we will keep taking action until we are even higher up the rankings.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement and the extension of sanctions. Corruption really eats away at the prospects of people in the developing world and gives them less confidence in the future and in their elected officials. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to see whether there are ways in which we can innovate to ensure that, for example, development aid money goes to people more directly, to provide the social development opportunities that can otherwise be diverted by corrupt officials?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We give an increasing proportion of our aid to operate in countries via third parties, whether they are NGOs or other partners, rather than direct to Governments. There is a case for both, for all the reasons that my hon. Friend suggested, and I totally agree with him that the approach to official development assistance should complement and supplement what we are doing in the law enforcement space, including through these sanctions. I would be interested to hear any ideas he has for fusing the two and making them even stronger, and Ministers would be keen to meet him.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the statement, which is an important step forward. In respect of Belarus, where the President is propped up by senior people in the military and the police complex, will the Foreign Secretary work with other interested countries—not only Belarus’s neighbours but those throughout Europe—so that we are prepared to look at the evidential trail more broadly than just what our own investigatory authorities can determine? That could make a material difference in challenging the Lukashenko regime.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We very much led the way in relation to Belarus and the human rights sanctions regime—the Magnitsky sanctions—and instituted human rights sanctions before the EU, but we were in constant dialogue with the EU about the names, evidence and individuals. It is important to have that systematic approach, partly to have more effect but also to be on surer ground when sanctions are imposed. Belarus is also a good example, raised by Members from all parties, of where, at the same time as we have imposed sanctions, we have provided extra support for civil society, including opposition groups, not directly but through NGOs, journalists and the support for the media and the open society agenda that we have been talking about as part of the integrated review.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the statement and the measures announced. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is a need to update the international rules and action to ensure that all the progress we have made on tackling money laundering and the hiding of stolen money is not undermined by the use of crypto-assets such as crypto-currencies, which are much harder to track as they move around the world?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right: we need some international co-ordination. It works better as co-ordination rather than supranational institutions, because we want to retain some flexibility, and that has often been quite effective. On the corruption sanctions regime, we already co-operate with the US and Canada, as we did on the list of names we have designated today, and Australia is in the midst of considering a Magnitsky regime on human rights that may, in due course, extend to corruption. The EU followed the UK lead in enacting a global human rights sanctions regime, but it has not yet introduced powers for an equivalent corruptions regime, so we are ahead of the pack on all this. My hon. Friend raises the important point that this is about not just what we do individually, but our convening power and our ability to be a force for good, working with others including the EU, the US, Canada and Australia.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I, too, thank the Foreign Secretary for his commitment and personal determination? Having seen the effect of Libyan sanctions for those Americans and Germans affected by terrorism, in comparison to what has been secured for victims of IRA terrorism working hand in hand with Gaddafi, I believe it is past time that these sanctions are in place. What assurance will the Foreign Secretary give to the British people that the Government are now in a position to impose sanctions and that the people affected can be beneficiaries? What consideration has been given to the widespread use of these sanctions in areas such as those involved in atrocities against the Uyghurs, the Christians, the Falun Gong and the Tibetan Buddhists in China to ensure that businesses as well as Governments will feel the brunt, the pain and the impact of these sanctions?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I share his determination to tackle this in relation to some of the groups he refers to. He will know that we have taken action, in particular in relation to the persecution of the Uyghur Muslims and the use of forced labour. In relation to others—he mentions Libya and others—I cannot speculate in advance. What I can tell him is that we have the legal framework now. We have also set out a policy note—he will be able to look at that and feel free to come back and ask me further questions—which will give him a sense of how we will determine the criteria. It is evidence-driven. That is often the hardest part, but again it comes back to the point about the importance of co-ordinating with our international partners, sharing evidence and sharing our assessment of individuals and countries where we can act.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend the House for three minutes in order to allow arrangements for the next item of business to be made.
Carrier Strike Group Deployment
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I would like to make a statement on the forthcoming deployment of the carrier strike group. Before I do, I wish to send my condolences to the Indonesian navy and the families of the ship’s company of KRI Nanggala following the tragic news that the submarine has been lost. I know the sorrow is felt particularly strongly within our own Royal Navy submarine community, who understand the risks faced by their friends all too well. The United Kingdom stands ready to help our Indonesian colleagues in any way we can going forward.
The UK has a long history of involvement in the Pacific. This year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of our five power defence arrangements between the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Few outside military circles are familiar with the relationship despite the fact that it is Asia’s most enduring military multilateral arrangement. It is a partnership that has grown in scope to cover everything from humanitarian assistance and disaster relief to counter-terrorism and maritime security. It is a partnership based on the common shared values of tolerance, justice and the rules-based order. But even as the Pacific’s importance to our future economy continues to rise, so the challenges to the freedom of navigation in that region continue to grow. Our trade with Asia depends on the shipping that sails through a range of Indo-Pacific choke points, yet they are increasingly at risk whether from hostile state actors or from piracy on the high seas.
We have to be clear to any who wish to challenge our international rules-based system that the laws must be upheld. But our partnership gives us strength. Friendship is the one thing that our adversaries lack and we deliver a powerful message of strength when we show our solidarity. That is why in recent years we have begun returning to the east. The UK now has a persistent presence in the region through British Forces Brunei, a regional and logistics hub in Oman and our maritime component command in Bahrain.
Our carrier strike group gives us something different. HMS Queen Elizabeth is a floating piece of sovereign territory that can sail over 70% of the world’s surface. It is probably the most guarded UK airfield to be found. It gives the Government unprecedented options to act independently against hostile forces on land or at sea for months without having to access bases ashore. It is a warship, a mothership, a surveillance reconnaissance ship, a convener of allies and partners, and a great projector of Britain’s soft and hard power.
The UK has a proud history of being a carrier nation. Those legendary second world war vessels HMS Courageous, Glorious, Illustrious, Ark Royal, Formidable and Indefatigable are synonymous with the unquenchable spirit of our people. Carriers have also continued to play a defining role in our nation’s history well into the modern era. Those who recall the Falklands war will not forget the fundamental role that HMS Hermes played in providing air cover for the vulnerable taskforce while 8,000 miles away from home. Our last carrier HMS Illustrious’s career spanned some 900,000 miles and took in service from Bosnia to the Gulf and Sierra Leone.
British ingenuity has long driven carrier innovation forward, from the angled flight deck to the ski jump developed for the Sea Harrier, but our newest carriers provides a true step change in capability. One can only appreciate the sheer enormity of each vessel when standing on its vast deck, as I did this morning. At 65,000 tonnes, HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, are the most powerful surface ships ever constructed in Britain. Longer than Parliament and taller than Nelson’s column, she has a range of more than 10,000 nautical miles and can fly 72 fast jet sorties per day. This is British engineering at its best: a supreme example of a national endeavour, built by six dockyards—Appledore, Birkenhead, Govan, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Tyne. A cast of more than 10,000 took part in the construction. Some 8,000 apprentices helped complete the major construction in almost five years. Hundreds of small companies lent their niche capability, and 90% of those suppliers came from the United Kingdom.
The carrier does not operate alone, however. She will be surrounded by a ring of capability: Type 45 destroyers HMS Defender and HMS Diamond; Type 23 anti-submarine frigates HMS Kent and HMS Richmond; and, tanker and storage ships Fort Victoria and RFA Tidespring. We will also be accompanied by the Dutch frigate, HNLMS Evertsen, and the US Arleigh Burke destroyer, The Sullivans.
Our carrier’s cutting edge is located on the flight deck, with the renowned RAF 617 Squadron, the Dambusters, operating eight world-class, fifth-generation, F-35B Lightning II fast jets, partly made, I am proud to say, in Lancashire. While 815 Naval Air Squadron will pilot four Wildcat maritime attack helicopters, 820 Naval Air Squadron will fly seven Merlin Mk2 anti-submarine and airborne early warning helicopters, three of which will be fitted with the new Crowsnest, and 845 Naval Air Squadron will operate three Merlin Mk4 commando helicopters. Below deck, a company of 42 Commando Royal Marines will be embarked, while in the ocean depths, a Royal Navy Astute-class attack submarine will deploy in support.
Over the coming 28 weeks, from May to December 2021, we will see our carrier strike group travel over 26,000 nautical miles from the Mediterranean to the Red sea, from the Gulf of Aden to the Arabian sea and from the Indian ocean to the Philippine sea. Besides the full integration of units from the UK, US and the Netherlands, the carrier strike group will operate with air and maritime forces from a wide number of international partners including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Israel, India, Oman and the Republic of Korea.
The deployment will see the units of the strike group visiting more than 40 countries and undertaking more than 70 engagements, visits, air exercises and operations. Critically, these events will provide excellent opportunities for the UK to develop new and existing trade and political links, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. Not only will we meet our commitment to UN-mandated operations in the region but, 50 years on from the creation of the five power defence arrangements, we will further augment our friendship by participating in Exercise Bersama Lima. Meanwhile, units from the strike group will visit Association of Southeast Asian Nations partners as part of our commitment to a more enduring regional defence and security presence. Four major stops on the Indo-Pacific leg of their journey will be Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Japan and India. It will help tighten our political ties in the region. In late summer, we will host our first Pacific future forum in Korea.
Meanwhile, China is increasingly assertive, building the world’s largest maritime surface and sub-surface fleets. However, we are not going to go to the other side of the world to be provocative. We will sail through the South China sea. We will be confident, but not confrontational. More often than not, the carrier group will be in the eastern Mediterranean or the Atlantic, carrying out our duties in support of NATO. As part of this deployment, our strike group will be in the middle east, conducting bilateral exercises and engagement with our long-standing defence and security partners, confirming our commitment to a lasting stability.
Critically, in Europe, our carrier strike group will demonstrate the UK’s enduring commitment to the NATO alliance—the cornerstone of our defence—by participating on this deployment in NATO-level exercises such as Exercise Steadfast Defender. Not only will there be a period of dual carrier operations with the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in the Mediterranean, but elements of the strike group will support NATO missions in the Black sea region, demonstrating that we do not go alone to deter a tier 1 power; we go as NATO.
The contribution of the United States to the rebirth of UK carrier strike has been immense, but our carrier strike group will take our integration with our US partners to a new level. We will have the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS The Sullivans providing the strike group with air defence and anti-submarine capabilities, not to mention a squadron of 10 US Marine Corps F-35B Lightnings—the Wake Island Avengers—flying side-by-side with their UK counterparts from the decks of the Queen Elizabeth. This is the largest air group of fifth generation fighters ever put to sea, as well as the greatest quantity of helicopters assigned to a single taskforce in a decade.
It has been a year since the last Royal Navy ship deployed to the Pacific. It has been more than seven years since the last carrier—HMS Illustrious—deployed there as well. It has been more than 20 years since the last carrier strike group deployed to that region. Our carrier strike intends to return us to that presence. As the crew of the carrier strike group embark on their maiden mission, we wish them well. The threats are moving on, and we must move with them. In this anxious and insecure world, Fortress Britain cannot batten down the hatches. We must stand up for our values and rights wherever they come under threat, not just in our backyard, but far from our shores. Our carrier strike group will send a signal to allies and adversaries alike that Britain will continue to play its part in shaping the international system, not stepping back, but sailing forth to promote our prosperity and protect our interests.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the advance copy, and I add Labour’s condolences to the friends, family and comrades of the Indonesian submariners who tragically lost their lives in the service of their country this week.
We welcome this first major deployment of the Queen Elizabeth, and pay tribute to all those involved who have made this possible. The Secretary of State rightly says that the UK has a proud history as a carrier nation, but Britain has not had a carrier strike force since 2010, when the Conservative defence review scrapped all three of our aircraft carriers, along with 74 newly upgraded Harriers that flew from them. This deployment fills a big gap in Britain’s military capability over the past decade. It is a major achievement that, in the words of Sir Nick Houghton, vice-chief of the defence staff in 2011, is as complex as “staging the Olympics.”
The successful design and build of our two new aircraft carriers is a tribute to the UK’s shipbuilding industry and our UK steelmakers. Will the Secretary of State confirm how much UK-produced steel will be used in the new Type 26s, Type 31s, Astute, Dreadnought and Fleet Solid Support ships? This is a big opportunity to back British industry and jobs. If done well, it will strengthen the UK economy, and our sovereignty and self-reliance. The carrier strike group will sail east with the support of US and Dutch naval warships, and with US F-35 fighters on board.
It is good that the Queen Elizabeth sails with allies, but it is not good if she can sail only with allies. Despite state-based threats to the UK growing and diversifying, the Secretary of State will cut the number of Royal Navy frigates over the next two years. When, if ever, does he plan to have enough British warships to sail with our own British carriers? Will he confirm clearly that the majority of planes on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth will be US not British fighters? Despite the increasing military threats to the UK, he confirmed last month that Britain has ordered only 48 of the planned 138 F-35 fighters. When, if ever, does he plan to have enough British F-35s for our own British carriers?
There are serious concerns about the carrier’s long-delayed Crowsnest radar. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Crowsnest is now fully operational, and that the carrier strike group is fully combat ready? With the Royal Navy currently almost 1,600 under strength, and with the real cuts to the MOD’s resource budget through to 2024, will he confirm the full cost of this year’s deployment?
The Secretary of State has spoken of hard power and soft power, and across the House we hope that Britain will see significant diplomatic and trade benefits from that deployment. With covid security, however, how far will the diplomatic impact be reduced when a carrier cannot host guests or send people ashore? This deployment is important proof of our new British carrier strike capability, but let us not fall for the illusion that Britain is somehow able to project force everywhere in the world at once. Global Britain is a beguiling phrase, but this time-limited deployment will not significantly alter the balance of military power in the Indo-Pacific region. Surely we should focus our defence efforts on where the threats are, not on where the business opportunities might be. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, after the Queen Elizabeth’s gap-year tour of 40 countries, she will return to the military business of helping to protect Britain and patrol the north Atlantic, the High North and the Mediterranean—our NATO area, where Russia poses the greatest threats to our vital national interests?
As the Secretary of State rightly says, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales are the most powerful surface ships ever constructed in Britain. They will strengthen our maritime forces for decades to come. This maiden mission for the Queen Elizabeth is a great achievement for the Royal Navy and a proud moment for our country. We wish her well.
Mr Wallace
I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about this being a proud moment for this nation: a British made carrier deploying overseas, protecting Britain’s interests and supporting our allies.
The right hon. Gentleman put a series of questions to me. On the steel, I am happy to write to him with details of each individual class of ship. As he knows, we are committed to building the Type 26 in the United Kingdom; it is under construction on the Clyde. In Rosyth, work is ongoing to build the facility needed to build the Type 31s and the subsequent Type 32s. He also knows that I recently recategorised the future Fleet Solid Support ship as a warship. I intend to make sure that, if not entirely, there is a considerable degree of UK build in that process, subject to tender. I have to be cautious about the contract, because the competition is to begin soon—very soon.[Official Report, 29 April 2021, Vol. 693, c. 4MC.]
It is important to recognise that throughout all our ships, we try to do our best by our sailors by providing the best equipment we can, and that is often a balance between what is on the shelf in the here and now and what we need to invest in for the future. That is why we have a record research and development budget in the recent defence settlement. It will allow us to invest for the future, so that when we place the orders for subsequent ships and the next generation of submarines, we have British skills and British technology ready to go. It is incredibly important that we give them the best.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about sovereign capability. It is perfectly possible; we have 18 F-35s and we could put all 18 now on the aircraft carrier—we could have just had a UK sort of 2 squadron—and deploy without other ships alongside if we wished to, but as I said at the beginning of this exercise, this is about the fact that our strength, compared with that of our adversaries, is that we have friends and alliances. To attack us is to attack NATO. To attack us is to attack our allies. That is our real strength globally—it is what the Australians would say, what the United States would say, and what all our European friends would say. When countries were ringing up saying, “We’d like to join you,” it would have been wrong to miss the opportunity. More countries offered than we took that wanted to sail with us and stand up for our common values.
I am pleased to say that Crowsnest is now being rolled out onboard Queen Elizabeth, and I look forward to reports of its use and deployment. It is important that we recognise that this has to be delivered. I have been clear with the manufacturers that it needs to be delivered to spec and operate well, because it is obviously important to the protection of our carrier group.
There are plenty of covid safeguards in place. We are all very mindful of the need to protect our sailors. All our sailors will be vaccinated and protected on the deployment. By the time they go into the Mediterranean, they will all be properly doubly vaccinated to make sure that we can give our friends and allies the assurance that the crew are protected. The Navy is almost one of the best organisations in terms of covid safeguards, because living with quarantine for onboard diseases is something naval personnel have had to do for hundreds of years.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of ships and the increase and decrease in the numbers. As I said at the time of the Command Paper, numbers are important, but availability is even more important. I have taken the decision that we will invest in some new classes of ship, so we have more ships. Yes, there will be a drop in hulls for a short period, but at the same time, because of the investment we are doing on availability, we will have more time at sea. That is equally important.
I went to Portsmouth today and stood on a brand-new carrier deck, looking at a number of Type 45s ready to accompany the group, but some of those other ships tied alongside were a sorry sight. People have lots of money to buy ships, but not a lot to maintain them. They were hollowed out year on year. The right hon. Gentleman will make his points about previous Conservative Governments, but the fact is that such hollowing out was common practice across the board under both the Labour and Conservative Governments I served under as a soldier. That is something that I hope this defence settlement will put to rest.
Finally, on NATO, absolutely it is our cornerstone. Our home beat, as I often call it, is the Atlantic. That is where our most aggressive adversary is active. Only recently, we saw it active at Christmas, December time, when nine or maybe more Russian ships in effect surrounded Britain. The Russians have been quite assertive, and that is why it is important that we are active and hold the flank of NATO, also using that convening ability to bring in the French, Germans and others who wish to patrol the seas alongside us.
This is an incredibly exciting opportunity. Where I can, I am happy to facilitate Members of this House visiting the carriers, whether the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales. They are something to behold. I was incredibly proud to stand on the deck of a ship that is made in Britain and is NATO’s first and only fifth generation aircraft carrier capability. To those people who say, “No one wants aircraft carriers anymore”, we should ask the question why the Chinese plan to build five.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I join the Defence Secretary in sending condolences to the Indonesians on the loss of their submarine crew. That shows what a dangerous environment all our navies operate in.
I welcome the carrier’s maiden deployment to help Britain re-establish a sense of purpose on the international stage. Tasking the carrier group to the South China sea but avoiding the Taiwan strait, however, is to set a precedent and to cede effective ownership of those international waters to China. If we are to uphold the rules-based order that my right hon. Friend has just spoken about, there should be no exceptions.
More widely, I pose this question directly to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary: does he think that the world will be safer or more dangerous over the next five to 10 years? It is clearly the latter, and the Royal Navy is now tasked to tilt towards the Indo-Pacific, to conduct naval patrols in the Black sea and to do maritime duties in the Gulf and off east Africa, as well as to protect UK waters and overseas territories. Politely, I put it to him that our Royal Navy will soon be too small to meet our growing operational commitments and the increasingly diverse threat picture that we now face.
Mr Wallace
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points about sense of purpose, and I think that is right. The carrier is an amazing thing in that it convenes a lot of different levels—it convenes hard power, soft power, political will and intent. The mission for the Royal Navy, however, is like the mission for most of the armed forces, which is to strengthen our alliances. That is really important as we go forward.
I agree with my right hon. Friend, that the world is more anxious, more unstable, more insecure and less predictable. That is hard for all policy makers around the globe and for people who have lived by the international rules—for example, maritime law. It is a challenge for us all. The real issue is how to strengthen our alliances, because that is our unique and single point of strength against some very large adversaries.
On this deployment, therefore, we will meet US carrier groups and exercise together in the Pacific. There is no shortage of contested sea lanes in the Pacific. It is not just the strait of Taiwan; there are plenty of contested areas of sea. We will absolutely be making sure that we are confident in our sailing and that we stand up for our values, along the way making friends or strengthening our friendships with a whole range of partners, some traditional and some less traditional. We are here—a role that Britain has always played—to stand up for people who cannot stand up for themselves or to join with them to ensure that we stand strong. Do I think we will need more in the future? Our investment in our defence budget and in seeking to spend our money both on hard ships and power and on cyber and all sorts of other technology is a strong indication that this Government take seriously the rising threat. We will continue to keep it under review, but in the meantime we will go to the Pacific, demonstrate our capability, return, take our watch at NATO and continue on that cycle.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement and I, too, pass on my condolences and those of my party to the Indonesian navy. We all watched what happened over the past few days with horror and they are very much in our thoughts.
Of course, I wish all of those involved in this new venture well. This will undoubtedly be an exciting time for them. The Defence Secretary rightly pays tribute to those involved in building HMS Queen Elizabeth and I join him in that, not least in paying tribute to those in Scotland who were part of that effort. He knows, because we have discussed it before, that my party and I are yet to be convinced of this whole Indo-Pacific tilt, especially as it is about chasing commerce rather than countering threats, and it sounds like there is a fair bit of that going on. The Defence Secretary has said to me in the past that there is no point chasing one threat only to leave oneself exposed to another closer to home. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the threat we have here in our own backyard. The Defence Secretary knows that that is the kind of tilt that I and my party want to see. What assurances can he give us that we will not be left open closer to home?
May I press the Defence Secretary on the Black sea element of the trip, in particular? His statement mentions that the strike group will support NATO missions in the Black sea region. What exactly will the support look like while the strike group is there? As we know from Russia’s recent actions, that is something we should be focused on.
Lastly, on fleet solid support ships, can the Defence Secretary talk us a bit through the timeline we can expect for the competition? Like the shadow Secretary of State and many on the Defence Secretary’s own Benches, we want to see that announced soon and to ensure that it is the yards closer to home that benefit from it.
Mr Wallace
First and foremost, we cannot separate trade from security. We need to secure our trade. The hon. Gentleman’s party’s whole economic basis used to be about exporting oil around the world. If a country cannot export its oil, it cannot run its economy, according to some of the Scottish National party’s previous manifestoes. It is really important that we secure our trade and do not let the values in the rules-based system be undermined far away until it is too late and it gets close to our shores. That is really important.
I am not ashamed at all that this deployment will also be linked to trade. I am proud of standing on British-made equipment, made by Scottish hands, and English, Welsh and Northern Irish hands, and I am proud that there is equipment on those ships that can be used for a whole range of things—humanitarian and non-military-method means, and all sorts of things. We should be really proud that we will be showing that off to the world.
We will not leave Britain undefended. We will still have our Type 23s, our Type 45s and our P-8s, which are based in Lossiemouth, as excellent maritime patrol vessels. We will still have a number of capabilities. Our submarines will be on watch based out of Faslane. I pay tribute to those submariners who will be departing from Faslane to join and escort the carrier group. They do an amazing job, and it is something special to understand what submariners do.
We have had long-scheduled deployments into the Black sea. This is not new. It is not an increase or decrease. We have taken a view that we should stick to our planned exercises and deployment. I think that is the right thing to do—to say that we will not be intimidated from it and that we will stick up for our friends in the Black sea—Romania, Turkey and all those other nations that we work alongside. We will be doing that, as we had planned long before the recent friction we saw up in Ukraine. I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that we are not off to go around picking a fight; we are there to stand up for our values and I think the Royal Navy will do a great job.
Fundamentally, this comes back to the point that we rely on each other. The security of Europe is incredibly important to the United Kingdom and to the continent of Europe. Even last year, in December, when the Russians appeared with a number of ships, the French, the British and the Dutch all set about that issue. We will continue to do so. As I said, the greatest thing about our friends and allies is that we are all in a partnership with solidarity, and that is the best way to defeat or push back our adversaries.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If we want the United States to help defend our interests in Europe, it is only right that we should help it defend common interests in the far east. Does the Secretary of State accept that having Americans intimately involved in this whole process adds to the deterrent effect of a carrier strike force? We do not want to get, in the digital age, into a situation where a surface ship, no matter how powerful, up against a peer enemy armed with hypersonic missiles, might find itself at a fatal disadvantage, but for the deterrent effect of our joint activity with our strategic allies.
Mr Wallace
I note my right hon. Friend’s final phrase, “strategic allies”. Not only are they allies, but they make a strategic difference, and they stand for the rule of law and the same values we do. Today, I met the US commander on the Queen Elizabeth. He said not only that it was an amazing ship, but that they look forward to working with us. As my right hon. Friend said, it is about partnership: “You attack us, you attack us all” is a strong message around the world. The number of people from different countries around the world who have got in touch wanting to be part of this deployment speaks volumes about what is going on in their neighbourhood and their backyard. Finally, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, the United States has always been a significant net contributor to the security of Europe; it is only right that we do the same when its interests are under threat.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I was delighted and actually very proud when HMS Queen Elizabeth visited Invergordon when she was undergoing her initial trials, but while she was tied up at Invergordon, someone managed to land a drone on her deck. Whoever it was commented later in the press that, should they have been of evil intent, they could have landed 2 lb of Semtex on the aircraft carrier and it could have taken out the radar. May I press the Secretary of State? What are our defences against something like that being repeated with ill intent to cause us damage?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes a really valid point about the varying types of threat, from Gatwick airport, as when I was Security Minister—we all remember that—all the way up to a fifth generation aircraft carrier. Small drones pose a real challenge. That is why the Government have taken forward reforms on that. I cannot reveal too many of the details of how we will protect the carrier—obviously, that would weaken it—but I can say that the ship and her escorts are bristling with sensors, which will all be on as she is deployed, and there will be lots of steps that can be taken to protect the carrier.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
May I, too, send my condolences to the families and friends of those lost on the Indonesian submarine?
Despite the negative coverage on the BBC’s “Today” programme this morning, I welcome this historic deployment by HMS Queen Elizabeth and the ships accompanying her, and I wish them well. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fighting platform of this kind will prove an invaluable, independent operational base that will give us greater flexibility to cope with a wide variety of tasks in the future?
Mr Wallace
Yes, and it is a long future. This is not a 10-year or 20-year project; these are 30, 40 or maybe 50-year platforms. Who knows what will be flying off those decks in 50 years’ time or 40 years’ time? They are flexible. They are designed to be flexible; they are designed to do a whole range of tasks. We should not forget that it will not always be about peer to peer; the aircraft carriers of the United States and, indeed, the French Charles de Gaulle have often been deployed on counter-terrorism duties and Afghan overflight duties. I think that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be a very busy ship, as will her sister ship, and all the time she will be flying the flag for Britain.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting HMS Prince of Wales with the Defence Committee and saw the two carriers alongside each other in Portsmouth. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is an impressive sight. I wish her crew all the best on their deployment. In his statement, the Secretary of State said that eight F-35s from the UK and 10 from the US Marine Corps will be deployed on the carriers. I agree with him that this is an example of the good co-operation between the two nations, but I do not know whether he has yet had the chance to read the US Government Accountability Office’s report, published last week, on the F-35; there are persistent problems around the engines, which the office says will see a third of US F-35s being grounded by 2030, as well as ongoing problems with spare parts. Will he give us some assurance that the issues raised in that report will be addressed not only to ensure that we have the capability to support our allies, but to ensure that our F-35s keep on flying into the future?
Mr Wallace
I regret to inform the right hon. Member that I have not read the US report, but it is absolutely right that we keep an eye on all these issues. The supply chain for all our aircraft is really important. There is nothing more powerless than when we discover that somebody has switched off the supply chain and we are dependent on that model. We all often find that in our own homes—for example, when Microsoft stops updating something and suddenly we are stuck. That is why we are a tier 1 partner in the F-35 programme. A significant part of every single plane, including the US F-35s, is made in Samlesbury in Lancashire, in the constituency of Mr Deputy Speaker himself. I am proud that part of the US planes sitting on that deck is made in Lancashire as well—probably the best part of the plane, to be honest. The right hon. Member is right and I will definitely keep an eye on the matter.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
May I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in welcoming this very proud moment for the Royal Navy, for the crew and air crew who will be embarked on HMS Queen Elizabeth, and for the 10,000 people in the UK who were involved in construction of the vessels, as he has already referenced?
The construction contracts went through significant challenge in the early years as a result of changes in design, but from 2012 the design was stabilised and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance interests were aligned with those of the Government. Will my right hon. Friend take lessons from that final stage of the procurement process in his procurement of the fleet solid support vessels that will be designed to accompany the carrier strike group in future? Will he give some confirmation to the House of when he expects the first of those vessels to be able to take its place within the carrier strike group?
Mr Wallace
First, on the carrier alliance, I think the bigger lesson to take is for our future combat air system—the future fighter programme. There are so many vested interests in it and it is such a big and broad programme; we should incorporate many of those lessons.
On the fleet solid support ships, I cannot reveal too much because it is so close to us publishing the competition. We would like it to happen as soon as possible. Forgive me for some of the delay; that is entirely my fault. When I took over office, I was keen to ensure that the fleet solid support ship, for which the previous competition had collapsed, was put in a healthy place. I hope we will see some innovative means by which we can get the best out of British and the best value for money for the taxpayer, as well as improve some of our skills base for our workforce, because it is really important that it is not feast or famine when we make our ships.
I give credit where credit is due; I remember sitting in Aberdeenshire listening to the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announce this programme in the March 1998 Budget. It is a joint endeavour of the United Kingdom involving Governments who commissioned these aircraft and indeed this carrier. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) makes the real point, which is that the risk—it is always a risk—is that we start on a 20-year endeavour and things change. Threats change, design changes and things become unavailable; I am afraid that that sometimes unavoidably increases the cost of these programmes. That is the simple reality. Very few countries are prepared to lean in and take that risk, but in the end I think the prize is worth it, as we will see when this carrier group sails at the end of May.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I very much welcome the maiden deployment of the carrier strike group. The Secretary of State is right to say that it was envisaged and laid down under a Labour Government, and set sail under a Conservative Government. Built in shipyards in both England and Scotland, it is an example of why we are stronger in both our security and economic interests when we work closely together across the four nations. He is right to say it is important we work closely with our friends the United States and other countries, but it is also important that we have sovereign capability. Can he confirm whether we currently have the capability for both our aircraft carriers to go to sea at the same time with British support ships and aircraft if we were to choose to do that alone?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. Strictly speaking we could, but we do not envisage such deployments unless we are in a time of war or significant stress. At the moment, yes, we could strictly speaking, but the way we are working up each aircraft carrier means that we will not be required to do that.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
May I pay huge tribute to Her Majesty’s Royal Navy for getting together and preparing this carrier for sea so effectively? Does the Secretary of State look forward as I do—indeed, as does a great friend of mine, Minister Kono Taro, the current Minister for Regulatory Reform in Japan but his former opposite number in Japan—to seeing Japanese F-35s flying off the deck of the Queen Elizabeth, shortly before he works with his opposite number today to see whether Japan could possibly even join the Five Eyes community?
Mr Wallace
I am not sure how long I will last in this job; no one ever does. I would love to be in Japan when she arrives and join my Japanese counterpart. The Japanese are in a rough neighbourhood sometimes. They stand for an open, liberal society and for free trade, and it is in our interests that we join together. The great thing about the carrier is that Italian and Japanese F-35Bs—all of them—will be able to operate from the carrier. I hope in future we have more and more nations operating from that deck. It is incredibly good news that we are going to go to Japan. It was one of the key directions I gave to the Navy. We are not going to go around in circles; we are going to see our ally. We are going from A to B and it is very important that Japan is the destination. I hope we will go from strength to strength with Japan. I think we have a lot to offer. I hear my hon. Friend’s suggestion and no doubt we will examine it at some stage.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
In his confirmation of this operation, the Secretary of State referred to the encompassing approach of the UK as set out in the integrated review. With respect to India, he drew attention to the UK’s research and development. Currently, our R&D spend is well below the OECD average. He also referred to aid spending, which has been cut in the face of the covid crisis facing countries abroad, including India. Given that, sadly, that will not be the last covid crisis abroad, what planning is being undertaken by the Government to apply that principle of a joined-up approach in the context of covid?
Mr Wallace
One of the lessons from the pandemic is that joined-up working and burden sharing is the key, whether that is better integration internally with devolved Administrations and local authorities or internationally. The international lesson is that we have to be better at working together in our international organisations—the UN, the World Health Organisation, NATO—all of which are incredibly important. What we are seeing right now with India is an international response, with the United Kingdom and the United States sending oxygen compressors and ventilators. We will work together to deliver that response. That is the lesson: partnerships and solidarity win the day.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I point out that I am the chair of the British-Taiwanese all-party parliamentary group? To supplement what my right hon. and gallant Friend, and very good friend, the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned in his question, I am really saddened that we are, in a way, capitulating to the neo-colonialism of China that is taking over islands in the South China sea, occupying them and militarising them against international law, and yet we seem not to be able to join our friends from Taiwan by letting their ships join this taskforce or, indeed, by visiting Taipei. I realise that it is probably a bit late, but I feel quite strongly that we may well have to revise how we tackle the matter of Chinese aggression in the South China sea.
Mr Wallace
I hear my right hon. Friend, and we are all concerned when the rules-based system is tested in the way that it is and when aggressive exercising or deployments happen, as we have also seen in Ukraine. That is no good for anybody and does not resolve any of the issues. The carrier group will be sailing in lots of parts of the Pacific that are contentious. We will be in the Philippine sea, the South China sea and, I think, the East China sea, and making sure that we are in parts of the world where there are currently contentious issues. I do not think that we can be everywhere, but we will be making the point—we will be exercising with US carriers—and we have been very clear in our relationship with China, whether that is dealing with Hong Kong or others, that we believe that respect for human rights and international law is incredibly important, and we will uphold it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
My father served on the carrier HMS Victorious, hunting down the Bismarck, so I welcome the Queen Elizabeth carrier strike group, which will travel 26,000 nautical miles over 28 weeks to 40 countries. However, I ask the Secretary of State: what will the cost of this deployment be? What will the carbon footprint be? What message will it send in relation to COP26? And are there any plans for the Navy overall to try to reduce its carbon footprint and, indeed, the carbon footprint of our trade?
Mr Wallace
On the carbon footprint and the environment, there are a number of initiatives right across Government—as shipbuilding tsar, I am part of steering that—to try to invest in alternative energy or alternative fuels. There is a real prize in shipping if we can help to lead the pack in that—Norway is active in this—because one of the big polluters around the world is shipping, and if we can change the fuel that ships use and so make a difference, we can really help British shipping to steal a march on some of its competitors and open up many of the skills.
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the cost, because there are marginal and real costs, and all the different costs set out. Obviously, the carrier is paid for, deployed, fuelled and ready to go, but it would be anyhow, as are the salaries of all the sailors and Marines on board and everything else. I will write to him with what we estimate the additional cost to be. Of course, I give him one health warning that—as I was always taught as a soldier—no plan survives the very first contact, so who knows where we will be at the end of the year, if they are diverted and we do something else? But I will tell him the details as we get them.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend said that the carrier strike group will be NATO’s first fifth generation carrier strike capability. Does he agree that fifth generation technology is hugely significant for our modern-day armed forces?
Mr Wallace
Yes, absolutely. One of the traits of the generation is situation awareness and its ability to process all that data and stealth, but, also, these generations do not stand still. We are already committed to a sixth generation. FCAS, the next fighter programme for the RAF, is absolutely about the sixth generation. One of the challenges is that we cannot sit still for very long before somebody is trying to get a strategic advantage, but I am confident that, at this moment in time, the carrier and her partnership with the F-35 will present a formidable capability around the world.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
As the wife of a submariner, may I join others in sending my condolences to the families of the Indonesian submariners who have been lost in this tragic accident?
For many years, we have been pushing on fleet solid support ships. In the integrated review, the Government committed to a fleet of three FSSs required for the carrier strike group. We have been pressing for all of them to be built entirely in UK yards, so will the Secretary of State finally confirm that the full contract will go to UK yards?
Mr Wallace
As I have said in previous answers, we are on the cusp of issuing the full competition, and we have to be very careful; I do not want another competition to collapse or to be jeopardised by legal action. I have been pretty clear, and I have reclassified it as a warship. I have put some conditions in the contract, which will be seen by people hopefully to increase skills and the British shipbuilding industry. The details will be revealed when the tender is put out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I, on behalf of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker team, pass on our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those submariners who were tragically lost at sea? We grieve your loss. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We will now suspend for two minutes.
Financial Services Bill
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 355 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 2 to 7.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 9 to 21.
John Glen
I am delighted to speak again on the Financial Services Bill following its passage through the other place, where it has been well looked after by my colleagues Earl Howe, Lord True and Baroness Penn. As our first major piece of financial services legislation since leaving the EU, the Bill will enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards, protect financial stability, promote openness between the UK and international markets and maintain an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets.
The Bill was thoroughly scrutinised in the other place, with more than 200 amendments tabled across Committee and Report. In total, the Lords made 21 amendments to the Bill. During the passage of the Bill, there has been a lengthy discussion about how best to address issues of consumer harm in the financial sector. Lords amendment 1 before us today proposes that this should be addressed through a requirement on the Financial Conduct Authority to bring forward rules that would place a duty of care on financial services firms in relation to their customers.
The Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address new issues when they are identified. However, the Government believe that the FCA already has the necessary powers and is acting to ensure that sufficient protections are in place for consumers. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment, but recognise that Parliament wants to be assured that the FCA’s ongoing work will lead to meaningful change.
I will today set out the standards that firms must already adhere to when providing financial services to their customers. These are governed by the FCA’s “Principles for Business”, as well as specific requirements in the handbook. These principles set out how specific requirements on firms work, and they include:
“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”
The FCA’s enforcement powers allow it to ensure that these standards are met, although the FCA recognises that the level of harm in markets is still too high and is committed to taking further actions.
The Government agree with the concerns that were raised in the other place that this harm may in part stem from an asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that many firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and is committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed where it considers that they may result in harm. The Government therefore support the FCA’s ongoing programme of work in this area and believe that it will deliver meaningful change for the benefit of consumers.
The FCA has considered its existing framework of principles, and whether the way in which firms have responded to the principles is sufficient to ensure that consumers have the right protections and get the right outcomes. Building on this, the FCA will consult in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver this. These proposals will consider how to raise the level of care firms must provide to consumers through a duty of care or other provisions. Ultimately, the proposals in this consultation will seek to ensure that consumers benefit from a better level of care from financial services firms.
I have therefore tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1. This amendment will require the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. It ensures that the FCA will publish its analysis of the responses to this consultation by the end of this year. It also ensures that the FCA will make final rules following that consultation before 1 August 2022.
I hope that the establishment of these clear milestones demonstrates the commitment of both the Government and the FCA to delivering better outcomes for financial services consumers. In line with commitments made in the other place regarding Parliament’s scrutiny of the financial services regulators, I can confirm that the FCA will bring its conclusions to the attention of the relevant parliamentary Committees, giving them an opportunity to consider the proposals and, if they choose, to express a view or raise any issues. The FCA will respond to any issues that are raised by parliamentary Committees.
I now turn to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. It is an issue I take extremely seriously, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment. We must continue to be guided by the facts and the evidence. The FCA’s analysis shows that half the 250,000 borrowers with inactive firms meet the normal risk appetite of lenders and could therefore switch if they chose to without any Government intervention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have been contacted by many constituents who are in a precarious position and do not have such options. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) have conveyed to me that some of their constituents are also in that position. I respect the Minister greatly, but is it not possible to reconsider given the precarious position that my constituents and others find themselves in?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his contribution. I will go on to explain the situation of the remaining 125,000 individuals who could be categorised in that way, the actions that we have taken to date and what we will continue to look for. If that category can move without Government intervention, they are not “prisoners”.
Of the remaining 125,000 who cannot switch, 70,000 are in arrears and therefore could not secure a new deal even if they were in the active market. Those borrowers need to work with their lender to agree an appropriate repayment plan. The remaining 55,000 who are with inactive lenders and are up to date with their payments but who cannot switch are paying on average only 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers on reversion rates with active lenders—those with similar characteristics. The reason these borrowers are unable to switch is not that their mortgage is with an inactive firm but that they do not meet the risk appetite of lenders. They may, for example, have a combination of high loan-to-values, be on interest-only mortgages with no plan for repayment, or have higher levels of unsecured debts, non-standard sources of income or poor credit history. Similar borrowers in the active market are also typically unlikely to be offered deals with new lenders.
As I have set out previously, the Government and FCA have undertaken significant work in this area to create additional options that make switching into the active market easier for some borrowers. In particular, the modified affordability assessment allows active mortgage lenders to waive the normal affordability checks for borrowers with inactive lenders who meet certain criteria—for example, not being in arrears and not wishing to borrow more.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I know that the problem the Minister is trying to solve is not of his making. The problem originated when the affordability rules were changed pursuant to the financial crisis. The affordability rules were waived for people with their existing lenders who wanted to move from one fixed-rate deal, when it terminated, to the next one. Those with inactive lenders who are in the same situation cannot do that because those products are simply not available. That is one of the key problems that we have not solved yet. I would appreciate his continued efforts to work with us on this particular issue.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend, who, without equal in this House, has done so much to champion mortgage prisoners. I hope he will carry on working with us as we continue to improve our understanding and the quality of the data that could underpin further interventions.
I can reaffirm to the House today that my own, and this Government’s, commitment is as strong as it ever has been to finding further solutions that do not provide false hope to borrowers, but I am afraid that amendment 8 represents neither a proportionate nor practical response on this complex issue. I will address the two sections of the amendment in turn. First, the amendment seeks to cap the standard variable rate, or SVR, that inactive firms charge borrowers. This would be an unprecedented intervention in the mortgage market and is a completely disproportionate approach when the data shows that the 55,000 borrowers to which I referred pay on average 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers in the active market. Such drastic Government intervention should not be undertaken lightly, as it could have significant impacts above and beyond the effect that the amendment seeks.
That cap would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the active market who are in arrears or unable to secure a new fixed-rate deal, because the cap would not include them. Let us consider two hypothetical borrowers. The first borrower took out their mortgage prior to the financial crisis when, as my hon. Friend said, there were looser affordability requirements. They borrowed, in some cases, 125% of the property’s value, avoiding the need to save a deposit. Shortly after, their lender failed and had to be nationalised. The second borrower took out their mortgage following the financial crisis, when there were stricter affordability requirements. They saved a deposit of 5% or perhaps even 10%, and then were able to buy their home. Let us say that both those borrowers lost their jobs and now work in lower-paid jobs. They live in an area where property prices have not grown as much as they would have liked. Both try to keep up with their repayments, but ultimately fall into arrears, with the result that neither can easily access new deals. Neither of those borrowers has done anything wrong, and both deserve support from their lender and the wider financial system, but the Government cannot possibly agree with the idea that one should be supported by an unprecedented market intervention of this kind, and the other not. Both adhered to the prevailing conditions at the time.
I am also concerned that any cap on standard variable rates, including one only applicable to inactive lenders, would have unintended consequences for financial stability. The London School of Economics agreed and did not recommend a cap, noting that it could cause market harm. It would restrict lenders’ ability to vary rates in line with market conditions—the ability to vary SVRs allows lenders to re-price products to reflect changes to the cost of doing business—and could therefore create risks with significant implications for financial stability.
The second part of the amendment would require new fixed-rate deals to be offered to borrowers with inactive lenders, although it is unclear how that is to be achieved. Lending remains a commercial decision based on a variety of factors and it would not be right for the Government to compel lenders to provideproducts for specific groups. If the amendment is intended to require the current holders of these mortgages to offer new products, that would require firms that do not currently have the lending expertise, systems or regulatory permissions necessary to offer new mortgage products to do so. However, in opposing the amendment, I reiterate once again my commitment to continue to find further practical and proportionate options for affected borrowers, supported by facts and evidence, as I have over the past three years. Equally, I do not want to give false assurances, or false hope, for the sake of political expediency, especially when it is likely that there is a limit to what further action the Government can take to support such borrowers.
Kevin Hollinrake
Could we agree a basic principle that identical borrowers—the Minister uses the example of two similar borrowers in similar situations—should be treated exactly the same? One should not be treated better than the other. Will he agree to a principle that, if a person is a UK borrower and is in the same financial situation as others, whether they are with an active lender or an inactive lender, the treatment of those individuals should be the same: the options should be the same; the deals should be the same.
John Glen
I would be happy to seek solutions for those mortgage holders of active and inactive lenders, but my hon. Friend must recognise that different individuals have different characteristics: different loan-to-valuation ratios; different credit histories; different income flows; and different histories in their financial situation. Those characteristics cannot be factored out. None the less, I am absolutely committed to this issue and it is in that spirit that I announce today that the Treasury will work with the FCA—that means work with it on a review to its existing data on mortgage prisoners—to ensure that we have further detail on the characteristics of those borrowers who have mortgages with inactive firms and are unable to switch despite being up to date with their mortgage payments.
The FCA will also review the effect of its recent interventions to remove regulatory barriers to switching for mortgage prisoners and will report on this by the end of November, and I will lay a copy of that review before Parliament. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who has done so much excellent work in this area and who champions the cause of mortgage prisoners, may wish to bring proposals sooner than that, and, of course, I have always made myself available to Members across the House to look constructively at any solution that has merit.
The Treasury will use the results of the review that I have set out to establish whether further solutions can be found for such borrowers that are practical and proportionate. Recognising the significant constraints that I have noted, I assure the House and the other place that the Government will continue urgently to seek any further solutions that may provide support to borrowers with inactive lenders who are unable to switch, but, as I have said, those solutions must be practical and proportionate.
In addition, I am grateful to the active lenders who have come forward to offer options to these borrowers. I am also committing today to write to active lenders to urge them and the wider industry to go even further and look at what more they can do to ensure that as many borrowers as possible benefit from these options.
I hope that I have convinced the House that this amendment, in this form, is not the right solution to such a complex issue. I also hope that I have demonstrated my personal commitment, and the Government’s commitment, to continuing to seek sensible and workable solutions.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank their lordships for their work in considering the Bill. In particular, I thank Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Eatwell, who led for the Opposition in the relevant debates.
Let me start tonight with some of the areas where we agree with what the House of Lords has done with the Bill. Lords amendments 16 to 19 make the UK’s net zero targets part of the remit of the financial services regulators. We moved similar amendments in this House, both in Committee and on Report, and both times the Minister led MPs on the Government Benches to vote them down. Indeed, when the House last discussed the Bill, on 13 January, the Minister said
“I do not believe that regulators should be required to have regard to broader questions that are not so closely related to prudential standards.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 398.]
So what was it that led to this Damascene conversion? What happened between 13 January and now to make the Minister do a U-turn and support amendments that he and his party voted down repeatedly in the Commons?
There are many reasons to oppose legislative propositions in this House, but “not invented here” has to be one of the weakest. We have argued throughout the passage of the Bill that financial services, including the work of the regulators, are a vital part of the drive towards net zero. There was no good reason for the Government to oppose the idea during the earlier debates on the Bill. Every sector of the economy will have to adapt to the change and it will be for Government Members to explain to their constituents why they voted the amendments down.
We also welcome Lords amendment 6 on the regulation of “buy now, pay later” firms—a cause championed with characteristic energy and determination by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Again, we called for such regulation in the Bill’s previous Commons stages and the Government voted against it on Report. As financial services innovate, so must the regulatory boundaries. The regulation was recommended by the Woolard report, which was published in February, and we welcome its inclusion in the Bill. The new clause that has been inserted will be just the first stage of the process; the FCA will have to decide exactly how it will be done. Given the enormous growth in the use of such platforms over the past year or two, it is important that the regulator gets on with it as soon as possible.
Lords amendment 9 deals with cashback without purchase. There has been a significant decline in the use of cash during the pandemic, with a big move to contactless payments and payments online. We understand that this has many benefits for consumers—indeed, the pandemic has been called the great acceleration in respect of the many ways it has influenced our behaviour. Despite that acceleration, there will still be a proportion of the population who need cash, both for payments and for budgeting purposes. The Government promised to legislate on this issue at the Budget last year. Since then, it has felt like this is an ownerless problem, with the banks, LINK, the ATM providers, the regulator and the Treasury all somewhere on the pitch but no one really gripping the situation.
Cashback without purchase might be part of the answer, but that alone does not fulfil the Government’s commitment to ensure a nationwide system of free-to-use access to cash. We cannot allow innovation in payments to mean that the lowest-income households in the country have to pay to access their own money. When will the Government get a grip of the situation and bring forward a proper plan for access to cash, even in a world where the total number of transactions paid for in cash declines?
Let me turn to what are perhaps the more contentious issues before us. For many years, consumer groups have campaigned for a duty of care for financial services providers, because of the enormous imbalance of information between the sellers of such products and the purchasers. If we add to that imbalance a financial incentive to sell, we have the seeds of many of the mis-selling scandals that we have seen, with all the distress they have caused to individuals, plus, of course, the lengthy and extremely expensive processes of redress that the industry has had to establish. Would it not have been better to avoid the push selling of inappropriate products in the first place? That is the idea behind a duty of care. Its aim is to change the question in the seller’s mind from, “Is it legal?” to, “Is it right?” The amendment made in the Lords would empower the FCA to introduce such a duty.
The Minister says that he is not convinced. Instead, his amendment in lieu proposes a consultation on the matter by the FCA. Of course there will be scepticism about that, because there have been consultations before and nothing has happened. However, we accept that this commitment, with the timetable set out, is a step forward. In any case, there would have to be a consultation before any such duty could be brought forward. We therefore encourage all the consumer groups, and anyone concerned, to take part in the consultation set out by the Minister.
That brings me to the final issue of mortgage prisoners. We have been living through a period of historically low interest rates. Few people would have predicted that, 13 years after the financial crash, interest rates would be at their lowest levels in modern times. For Governments, including our own, that has enabled the financing of large deficits. For mortgage holders—or the vast majority of them, at least—it has given them access to long-term fixed rates at a low level, enabling them to pay down debt and to finance their home ownership. Indeed, one of the policy aims of low interest rates is to help people pay down debt.
However, one group has been excluded from the ability to fix their mortgages at low rates: those mortgage prisoners stuck on high standard variable rates with little or no ability to switch to competitive mortgage rates available elsewhere in the market. That is not how it started for most of those borrowers. They borrowed from regulated high street lenders such as Northern Rock, which were considered robust institutions at the time they took out their mortgages. Since then, however, some of those lenders have gone bust and the mortgages sold on to inactive lenders. People have become stuck, often at the cost of paying thousands of pounds more per year than would be the case on a more competitive rate. An estimated quarter of a million borrowers are in that position.
The Minister quoted some figures about how much extra people were paying and how that 250,000 was broken down. Some of those figures are disputed by the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners. Let us take the 0.4% that he cited. He said that people were paying, on average, only 0.4% above average SVRs elsewhere. That is disputed by the APPG. It estimates that mortgage prisoners have in fact been paying an average of 1.33% above the average SVR available, according to the Bank of England. Also, remember that in the mortgage market in general, only a small minority of borrowers are on SVRs; most are on a two or five-year fixed rate. That is how the UK mortgage market works for most people.
The Minister said that half of those borrowers could switch now if they wanted to. However, when the affordability changes were brought in, the FCA assumed that it would be only a fraction of that number. Whoever is right, the question must be posed: why have so few of them switched if they had the ability to do so? It cannot be because they like being stuck on a rate of 4% or more. Nor is it the case that all of those borrowers are somehow at the top end of loan-to-value ratios. Three quarters of mortgage prisoners have loan-to-value ratios of less than 75%, and that figure was calculated before the increase in house prices over the past year or so.
The Government claim that 70,000 mortgage prisoners are in arrears and could not switch even if they were allowed to. Let us look at what happens when borrowers with active lenders have been allowed to switch. The APPG estimates that someone with a mortgage of £165,000 will have paid an extra £24,000 over the past decade, compared with the Bank of England average SVR.
In individual cases with active lenders, where borrowers have been able to switch the effects have been huge. The APPG cites the case of a borrower with the TSB who saw her rate reduced from 4.69% to 1.99% and her payment go down from £928 to £397 a month—a saving of about £500 per month. This is transformative for the family finances of those involved. The release of pressure and freedom conferred by such a change in their monthly finances makes a massive difference to people’s lives, and those who have benefited from being able to switch in that way talk of a great weight being lifted from their shoulders—and no wonder.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this debate on the amendments made in the other place. There is no doubt that the Bill represents a major step in our post-Brexit world, enabling us to take responsibility for our own financial services regulation. This is an area of the economy that is important to us all for several reasons, including the revenue the sector raises for public services, the jobs it creates and the impact it has on our financial stability and global presence. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary have rightly set ambitious targets and objectives to develop the sector for the United Kingdom.
We all know the impact the big bang had in the 1980s, elevating the UK to a leading global position in this field, but it is fair to say also that some challenges stem from such radical change, and that is why I am pleased that, at the heart of the Bill, is recognition of the need to enhance our prudential standards and commitments to maintain the highest regulatory standards. Lords amendments 16 to 19 are welcome in that they extend the reach of the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take account of our climate change commitments. That shows how serious the Government are about contributing to our regulatory standards and expectations and enhancing our reputation globally in our attitude to both climate change and strong financial regulation. Lords amendment 7 and the string of amendments relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are also welcome, updating legislation to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in the fight against market abuse and the fight against crime, and recognising the status of legislative consent, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland.
In the limited time available, I will focus on Lords amendment 8, which relates to people who are trapped with their current inactive mortgage providers—mortgage prisoners. We need to recognise the seriousness of the issue and the circumstances in which people find themselves. I, like many Members across the House, have constituents paying higher interest rates on their mortgages than would otherwise be necessary. Although I am optimistic about the economy, it is fair to say that there remains much uncertainty, and developing solutions for people in this situation, who could save thousands of pounds, deserves full and proper consideration.
It has been suggested that there are 250,000 people in this situation, although others challenge that by highlighting that many can already switch providers—that is absolutely true—and others are restricted because of arrears and myriad complex reasons. Whatever the data says, the reality is that an individual paying over the odds inevitably wants to gain a better deal or the best deal possible, and we, as Members of Parliament, have an obligation to give support in a range of ways. However, in doing so, we must also recognise the hardship and complexity of individual cases.
In spite of recognising that solutions need to be developed and worked through and recognising the positive motives of those who tabled Lords amendment 8, I do not think it would achieve what many believe or claim it would. It is simplistic in its drafting and it would be merely a short-term fix. I want to see long-term solutions to the challenges for these individuals and families. Even consumer commentators and London School of Economics research recognises that it would be only a short-term stopgap, not the longer-term answer we would like to see. Intervention in the market for some people would create issues and set precedents that may not have been fully thought through. Ultimately, we need to be working to gain market solutions that will be the long-term answer that people deserve. I welcome the comments made by the Minister in his introductory remarks from the Dispatch Box. He absolutely recognises the challenges that people face. The commitment to work with the Financial Conduct Authority is excellent news that offers the potential of a long-term solution. However, an effective market solution would not be the one-size-fits-all-approach that the amendment suggests.
We must also recognise the complexity that the Minister and the Financial Conduct Authority will have to deal with because of the unique circumstances in which each and every individual finds themselves. The reality is that answering those serious issues, with far-reaching effects on the families tied in such circumstances, requires a number of solutions that genuinely reflect the complexity of those individuals’ circumstances. The amendment has been presented as a simple answer, but, as I said, it requires much more work and study. I am grateful that the Minister responded to the calls from across the House that clearly build on the work he has been pursuing up to this stage. I ask the Minister to continue to respond to those Members supporting the amendment by asking them to recognise the complexity of the situation.
Although I am challenging the Minister—in, I hope, a positive way—I want to recognise the changes that he has introduced so far. The changes to mortgage affordability assessments have had a significant impact. They have made a major change, and there is the prospect of supporting a group of people with a more effective market-based answer than that offered by the amendment. That is the type of solution that we need as a long-term answer. I want to act to support mortgage prisoners, but I do not think that the amendment achieves that. There are many people in very many different circumstances, and I do not think that it recognises all the circumstances that exist. It will not deliver what many people believe it will achieve. There are myriad complex situations.
I would also say that it will take time for the amendment to become effective, even if it was passed today. I say to the Minister that we can use this time to come up with alternative long-term solutions. I had not expected the Minister’s response at the Dispatch Box, which commits to doubling his efforts with the Financial Conduct Authority and even setting a specific timescale. That recognises the urgency of this while managing expectations of the challenges and work that they are committed to doing. We are using the time, as I was planning to call for it to be used, to come up with long-term answers rather than the short-term fix that Lords amendment 8 claims to provide.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I very much support Lords amendment 1 on the duty of care. As the Minister will recall, we have raised this during the previous stages of the Bill, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We think that a financial services duty of care has never been more needed than it is just now, given the difficulties that people have had in the past year with the impact of coronavirus and long covid. The Minister’s proposals are really for consultation, to kick the can down the road until August 2022, giving our constituents quite some time before they can get the duty of care that I think we would all agree they deserve.
In particular, the amendment would help those suffering not just from the effects of covid but from cancer, which is why it is supported by Macmillan Cancer Support. Four out of five people with cancer are affected financially, being on average £570 a month worse off as a result of their diagnosis. Without support to manage this financial impact, money worries can spiral out of control. Macmillan estimates that more than a third of people with cancer, 39%, are severely financially impacted by their diagnosis and of those almost one in three had to take a loan or go into credit card debt. Macmillan’s clear ambition is that every person affected by cancer can rely on their financial services provider to give the support they need to cope with the financial impact of a diagnosis.
At the moment, there is a clear gap in the service. Only 11% of people tell their bank about a diagnosis. Why is that? Is it because they do not think that they will get a fair hearing? Is it because they do not want to admit something like that to their bank because they fear some sort of negative consequence? That tells me that the rules as they stand are not working. It is a patchwork. Someone might have the good luck to have a financial services provider who is understanding, but that is not good guidance and it does not help everybody.
People support there being a duty of care. Research by the Financial Services Consumer Panel found that 92% of consumers, 99% of sole traders and 97% of small and micro businesses believe it is important that there is a duty of care in financial services. Health issues could have an impact on them, because they would affect their business and its viability going forward. The duty of care is also supported by Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Fair by Design, the Money and Pensions Service, StepChange Debt Charity, Surviving Economic Abuse and The Money Charity. They believe in it because a duty of care can lead to the necessary change in culture and practice. Customers should be easily able to access forbearance from their provider, including flexibility on mortgage payments and interest freezes on credit cards or loans, without it damaging their credit files. If we put that in place, it would prevent long-term harm and financial exclusion.
There should be a clearer path to compensation when things go wrong because a provider has failed in its duty of care. That leads to a standard that people can expect and we can hold to account people who do not meet that standard. It would make a real difference were the Government to take this on, and it is hugely disappointing that they do not wish to do so today. I suppose there is still hope that the Government could change their mind right now and do this, but kicking the can around until 2022, when perhaps something will happen, does not help people here and now. I urge the Government to consider that and see whether there is any way they can bring it forward more quickly. Lots of the evidence on this issue already exists so we do not need to go into further consultation to prove the evidence that is clearly there.
In other areas the evidence is slightly more contentious and disputed, such as Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. The number of people affected seems to be part of the contention. The Minister said that he follows the facts and the evidence, but in reality he is disregarding some of the facts and evidence that do not suit his position. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, the evidence is disputed. Although there may be up to 250,000 people stuck on that standard variable rate, many of them have also paid considerably over the odds in their mortgage payments.
There is also a degree of geographical impact. As a result of the location of Northern Rock, 14% of those affected are in the north-east, 16% in the north-west, 12% in Yorkshire and Humberside, and 11% in Scotland. That bears consideration, because this issue has a disproportionate impact on a large and significant group of people and their families, particularly in the context of covid and the challenges that many will be facing, which have deepened this year. It is incumbent on the Government to bring forward some kind of solution.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I will keep my remarks incredibly focused and brief. They will be entirely on Lords amendment 8, which I am afraid I cannot support.
Let me first congratulate and thank the Economic Secretary for all his hard work in bringing the Bill through so eloquently and in such a detailed way. I thank him particularly for his remarks on Lords amendment 8, which I will re-emphasise for the House. He set out very clearly that there are 250,000 people with inactive lenders, of whom 120,000 are unable to switch. Of them, 70,000 are in arrears, which means that they are unable to meet the risk criteria of other lenders.
However, it is worth pointing out that the Government are taking action to help financially vulnerable people and people in financial difficulty with mortgages, for example through the breathing space scheme, which helps to enhance legal protection for borrowers, and the pre-action protocol, which essentially puts repossession at the end of the queue, as a last resort for borrowers.
The centrepiece of Lords amendment 8 is, of course, the cap on SVRs. I entirely agree with the Minister and many others in the market who suggest that that would be unfair to borrowers with active lenders, but most significantly, it would represent a significant and radical intervention in private markets. It would represent a serious risk to financial stability, as the Treasury and the Minister have outlined. Lenders’ ability to adjust SVRs according to market conditions is critical, to enable them to take a risk-based approach to market conditions. Taking that away would make those lenders more vulnerable to financial shocks, such as a future financial crisis, which none of us wants.
This is a significant issue. The Treasury has said that it does not support a cap on SVRs, as has the London School of Economics, as many speakers have already outlined. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) outlined that Martin Lewis backed the LSE report. Martin Lewis has also said that a cap on SVRs would be imperfect and a temporary “stopgap”. That is not a ringing endorsement. For the reasons I have outlined, I simply cannot support the amendment.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I start by paying tribute to Rachel Neale and the UK Mortgage Prisoners group for their incredible resilience and the way that they have worked for the last two years with the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, which I co-chair, to help to get a pragmatic solution to the problems that we know they face. I also pay tribute to my constituent Mohammed Masood, who first brought this issue to my attention after his family’s own experience—a situation that, after so many years, is still ongoing.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Lords amendment 8, which would provide immediate relief to up to 250,000 mortgage prisoners—the FCA’s estimate—by capping standard variable rates and ensuring that they could access fixed-rate deals. The arguments for that were made powerfully and movingly in the other place, and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) from the Front Bench tonight.
The Minister said that he wants to be guided by the facts. I thank him for his commitment to addressing this issue, but perhaps I can share some other data and another interpretation of the same facts to show why I and others believe that the solution proposed in Lords amendment 8 would indeed be both proportionate and practical.
The 250,000 mortgage prisoners took out their mortgages prior to the financial crisis with fully regulated high street banks such as Northern Rock. They were then kept trapped on high standard variable rates before being sold to mortgage loan sharks such as Cerberus, Tulip and Heliodor. The amendment would apply a cap on the standard variable rate for mortgage prisoners with inactive lenders and unregulated entities and ensure that they can access fixed-rate deals. It would be a targeted intervention that would have no impact on the wider market of active lenders, such as the main high street banks, which compete to offer their existing customers new deals.
The margins on these Northern Rock mortgages increased significantly after the financial crisis. As interest rates available to those at active lenders fell, the Government kept mortgage prisoners on high SVRs and then sold them off to inactive lenders and vulture funds, who also kept them on high SVRs. Prior to the financial crisis, the gap between the Northern Rock SVR and the base rate was 2.09%. Since 2009, it has been 4.29% above the base rate.
When the Government sold on the loans, they gave some of the purchasers, such as Tulip Mortgages, complete discretion on interest rate policy after 12 months. Protections for later packages of mortgages sold required only that the SVR be kept at the level of the third highest of a basket of 15 SVRs, which was higher than the current rate charged to mortgage prisoners. If mortgage prisoners were entitled to new deals on the same basis as other customers, the average rate they would be paying would be 1.8% below the level of the proposed SVR cap of 2.1%.
The Minister suggested that the SVRs paid by mortgage prisoners are just 0.4% higher than SVRs at other lenders. As I said on Report, our case studies, which include nurses, teachers, members of the armed forces and small business people, tell another story. It is inappropriate to compare the rates that borrowers with inactive lenders are currently paying with those paid by SVR customers at other active lenders. If mortgage prisoners were with an active lender and up to date with payments, they would have access to a product transfer, giving them a lower fixed rate.
The Treasury has said that the amendment cannot be supported because it would not be fair to borrowers in the active market, but more than 75% of borrowers in the active market move off the SVR within six months as they are able to access a new deal. Mortgage prisoners have been stuck on high SVRs for more than 10 years. Their mortgages were sold by the Government without their consent and without the proper protections. People trapped on these high interest rates do not have much chance to reduce the amount they owe. When their mortgage finishes when they are in their 60s or 70s, these mortgage loan sharks often put pressure on them to sell and threaten to repossess their home.
The FCA and the Government claim to have helped mortgage prisoners by changing the rules on affordability tests, but there has been very slow take-up of those new flexibilities. The FCA’s cost-benefit analysis, published when the rules were proposed, estimated that somewhere between 2,000 and 14,000 mortgage prisoners would switch using the new rules. The APPG has received reports from campaign groups that only 40 mortgage prisoners have been able to switch so far.
Mortgage prisoners have been neglected for more than 10 years. Families have been destroyed and homes have been lost. While the Minister commissions yet another review, every month mortgage prisoners struggle to make their monthly payment due to high interest rates. The delays will mean that more homes will be lost. As the consumer champion Martin Lewis has said, an SVR cap on closed-book mortgages
“would provide immediate emergency relief to those most at risk of financial ruin. No one should underestimate the threat to wellbeing and even lives if this doesn’t happen, and happen soon.”
We welcome support for the amendment from Martin Lewis and from Surviving Economic Abuse.
The Government have the option of coming up with an alternative proposal to provide the relief that mortgage prisoners so desperately need. So far, they have failed to do so. That is why I hope that all colleagues will support Lords amendment 8 tonight.
Kevin Hollinrake
I rise to speak to amendment 8. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, and he has engaged across the House very frequently on this issue. I know this challenge is not of his making. It is not even of this Government’s making, but it is the responsibility of the Government of the day to solve it, because it is a problem of a Government’s making—indeed, it is of a Conservative Government’s, or coalition Government’s making. We are duty-bound to find a solution.
We have heard some very good speeches, including some very fine points about markets and intervention in markets. I am somebody who absolutely believes in markets. The markets have revolutionised my life and I have seen them revolutionise many others—how much wealth they create, how many jobs and opportunities they create, and what a great job they do for consumers in driving down prices and driving up service. But there is no market here. This is an extreme example of market failure. Inactive lenders do not set their SVRs based on recruitment of new customers, which is what should happen in a marketplace. It is not defensible to say, “We cannot intervene in this way in terms of an SVR cap because it is an intervention in markets.” The two things are not compatible.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I associate myself with the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). I understand where the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was coming from, but I really believe that we could make some progress on this issue this evening. That would be of great benefit to many people affected by the issue, so I will certainly support the relevant amendments.
We know how important this legislation is. I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been listening to concerns throughout the Bill’s passage. I wish to comment on two particular issues in respect of which I would like him to tell us further information; I hope he might be able to. We know that this legislation matters desperately because between a fifth and a quarter of adults have experienced a reduction in income in the past year. That is mainly because of furloughing but is also true among the self-employed. It is crucial to get financial services right as we come out of the pandemic to help to make sure that people are not stuck in interminable circles of debt.
We knew that one in five people were already struggling to pay for housing, food and energy and were unable to meet their credit commitments. That proportion has now risen to two thirds among people who were already suffering from financial problems before the lockdown. There has never been a more important time to get right how we regulate our financial services. StepChange points out that 26% of those affected by coronavirus have borrowed money to make ends meet, usually using their credit cards or an overdraft facility. At least £3.3 billion of new debt has been taken on since the start of the crisis. The question for us is whether the Bill is going to do enough to make sure that that credit is offered at a fair and affordable price for people.
Given that 6 million Britons have already fallen behind on a household bill, this is a question for the state as well as for our economy. Mothers, lone parents, those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, the young and the disabled are most at risk of debt. In April, a quarter of all mothers from minority community backgrounds reported that they were struggling to feed their children, and 32% of young women reported finding it hard to pay for essentials. That is not just a financial problem; it is a mental health issue. There is a mental health crisis coming to our country, with one in every 12 people who are over-indebted experiencing mental health problems.
I know that the Minister shares the concerns I am outlining. That is why I have been a terrier when it comes to the “buy now, pay later” industry—because of my concern about the way in which it engages in lending to our communities. The Minister knows the speed at which the industry has grown during the pandemic. The FCA found that 11% of consumers in this country—roughly 5 million people—have used a BNPL product since the start of the covid outbreak, and many of them say that they use “buy now, pay later” credit because they cannot manage their financial distress, which is directly related to the crisis, without it.
BNPL companies have exploded. Within a year, Clearpay now has 1 million customers in the UK, lending to them on average eight times a year. Klarna, perhaps the most well known, reports that its worldwide revenue for 2020 grew by 40%, to $1 billion. The founder of Laybuy expressed concern and surprise that fraud in the UK market was huge in comparison to that in New Zealand and Australia. That just shows the problems of the industry coming and exploding at such a rate in our communities without regulation.
Compare the Market tells us that “buy now, pay later” schemes are being used 35% more than they were in the pandemic, with most customers saying that it is because they cannot afford to make purchases outright. We are a nation with a massive debt bubble underneath our economy and we need to ensure that, when these companies operate, they do not exacerbate it.
I welcome the Woolard review, which was clear that the “buy now, pay later” industry needs to be regulated because people were in financial distress and difficulty because of these products, that the products were not good value for money, and that many of the things their lobbyists had told MPs were simply not true. Indeed, the review also found that consumers may not be applying
“the same level of scrutiny to their decision-making as they would for other credit”
companies,
“including consideration of the potential consequences of failing to repay”,
because they were not getting the right information. The Minister will know—we tried to tell him at the start of the Financial Services Bill—of the case that we needed to take to the Advertising Standards Authority about the way in which Klarna was advertising its products.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I will keep my remarks short, because I know it is late and we have a lot of work to do.
There are many amendments to welcome from the other House, particularly the regulation of “buy now, pay later” by the Financial Conduct Authority, where there is clear risk of consumer harm. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is a remarkably ineffective piece of legislation but it is right that it is extended to e-money, as there is a clear loophole there. On cashback without purchase, there is no risk of consumer detriment there and we need to increase access to cash. It is right that it is brought outside the FCA’s remit.
On Lords amendment 1 and the duty of care, I spent five years of my life trying to get the banking industry to improve the care given to vulnerable customers, and clearly many consumer harms carry on. I launched schemes, actually in this House, for the banking industry to help customers with cancer and customers with Alzheimer’s. I am very attracted to the idea of some sort of blanket duty of care, but I do not support this amendment, for two reasons. The first is that, as written, it is so wide-ranging that there would clearly be massive unintended consequences, which even vulnerable customers would live to regret. The second is that, as the Minister said, the FCA already has very wide-ranging powers, almost certainly enough to deal with all the consumer harms that need to be dealt with. I very much welcome the Government’s move, through their amendment, to push the FCA to look at how to reduce consumer harm and implement an effective duty of care.
On Lords amendment 8, mortgage prisoners absolutely need help. They have suffered massively, through no fault of their own, losing tens of thousands of pounds, if not more. We have rehearsed all the arguments tonight for and against this measure. We agree that we need to help these people, but the question is: how do we do that? The cap of interest rates is, as people say, a sticking plaster—even its supporters say that. I can see the appeal of it, but this sticking plaster comes at great cost: Parliament would be setting out interest rates in primary legislation. That could lead to huge unintended consequences in lots of ways—for example, through the impact on financial stability that we heard about earlier on some of the firms. It would also set an extraordinary precedent, with the Government doing price controls in that way. One does not have to be an historian of the 1970s to know of all the dangers of price controls.
It is also really not the solution we need. Where someone is trapped in a horrible prison with their guards abusing them and they are very uncomfortable, would they want that prison to be made more comfortable and the guards to behave themselves, as this cap in effect proposes, or would they want to get out of the prison? They would want to get out of the prison. We need to make sure that mortgage prisoners can move to other mortgage providers. That should apply to all people who are mortgage prisoners, including those who are in arrears, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) set out. This is very complicated stuff. There are lots of reasons why people cannot move, whether it is their loan-to-value ratio or their income stream, or because they are in arrears. It is absolutely right that they should be helped to go to regular mainstream mortgage lenders that are offering other suppliers, and I very much welcome the Government move to really push on that, working with the FCA. I take on trust their commitment to really push in that direction and get a solution to that for all the mortgage prisoners.
For those reasons, I am happy to vote against Lords amendment 8, so long as the Government do everything they can to help those prisoners.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I, too, will keep my remarks brief. In the debate tonight I, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, will be opposing the Government’s motions to disagree with Lords amendments 1 and 8.
In particular, I would like to focus my comments on Lords amendment 8. This amendment would offer significant relief, I believe, to thousands of so-called mortgage prisoners caught in a vicious cycle of debt through no fault of their own. We have already heard the arguments rehearsed and some terrible stories of what they have been through. All that has been the result of the original decision, after the collapse of the mortgage providers, to sell off those mortgages to investment funds, and that has left as many as a quarter of a million homeowners trapped in spiralling mortgage costs for more than a decade now.
It is a situation that the Government have failed to address, even though there is clear evidence that it is jeopardising wellbeing. A recent study found that mortgage prisoners experienced higher rates of physical and mental health problems, and that they are up to 40% more likely to default as a result of coronavirus. The significance of this amendment is that it would finally unlock this trap and offer an escape from the nightmare of the past decade. Significantly, it would lower interest payments through a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners who are borrowing from a firm that no longer lends to new customers. The cap would be no higher than 2% above the Bank of England base rate, which is currently a mere 0.1%. It would also require lenders to offer mortgage prisoners new fixed interest rate deals in certain circumstances—for example, if they have kept up with payments in the past 12 months, if they have an outstanding loan amount of over £10,000, or if they have not received consent to let the property.
The misery caused to tens of thousands over the past decade and the continuing threat it poses demand that we act. We have heard tonight why. To me, it seems simple. It seems the correct thing to do, and therefore I strongly urge the House to reject the Government’s motion to disagree with this amendment—Lords amendment 8 —as well as with Lords amendment 1.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
There is a famous saying, is there not, that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but the problems born out of the banking crisis in 2008 still persist. Indeed, there are a quarter of a million households with mortgages affected by lenders who suffered at that time. They are with inactive lenders, and in simple terms their mortgages are stuck with non-lending asset management funds.
We know that the Government have looked at many of those borrowers to try to help them so that they can switch lenders. Many of them can—almost half of them—and they can benefit largely from doing so, but it is the remaining half that are our real problems, the so-called mortgage prisoners. Their rates, as they came off the original term deals, moved on to the standard variable rate we have heard about tonight, leaving them paying such disproportionately high repayments. Their lender’s debt was sold on, and as such they cannot remortgage or switch, leaving many families struggling immensely to manage each month. Lords amendment 8 would require the FCA to introduce a cap on those standard variable rates and ensure that mortgage prisoners can access new fixed interest rate deals.
I know there are huge amounts of work going on to try to help these people, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—I thank him for all the work he has done—but also by the Minister, who has been a tower of strength. He has been talking to me far too much about how we can help these people, and I thank him greatly for that. It is an absolute must that we do keep helping these people.
First, the 70,000 mortgage prisoners who are in arrears, would—for many reasons, unfortunately—potentially not be a better position if they were in the active market, as borrowers are unlikely to be able to switch within the market, given the very stringent risk criteria there are today. The Government are trying to support these householders with the initiatives we have heard about, such as the breathing space scheme.
It is the remaining 55,000 who have kept up their repayments that I particularly want to make sure the Treasury can really help and work on solutions for. I know there are again attempts to modify the affordability criteria assessment to try to move those people on to a new lender. Notwithstanding such efforts, those solutions are not the final answer. So what is the answer? Is it Lords amendment 8? Do we interfere with a market?
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate this evening.
As other Members have, I will speak to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. In an intervention on the Minister earlier, I expressed concern about the issue. I do so having been asked by numerous constituents to highlight the dreadfully precarious position in which many have found themselves. I will give one example. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) also gave an example, and such examples are real-life ones of people on the frontline.
I have spoken on a number of occasions—I believe this to be the fifth time since 2017—on the subject of mortgage prisoners and, from the outset, I make it clear that my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Lords amendment 8. I have the deepest respect for the Minister, but there has to be more than cake tomorrow to assure my colleagues and me on behalf of my constituents. We hope that he and Her Majesty’s Government will do what is right for those people.
As we have all heard, the Lords amendment coined the phrase, “mortgage prisoners”. That is what my constituent has highlighted—she believes her family to be prisoners of their mortgage. She writes:
“My husband and I, like many others in Northern Ireland are classed as mortgage prisoners, through no fault of our own. Like many others in Northern Ireland, our mortgage was taken out with Northern Rock, which subsequently collapsed. Our mortgage was then sold to a vulture fund without our consent. As these vulture funds are not an active lender, they do not offer mortgages, hence are unable to offer alternative mortgage products.
We are penalised on very high interest rates, which at the moment is currently well over 4% above the BOE base rate. This is crippling us, never mind the detrimental effect that it is having on our mental health.”
Sometimes it is not just about the finances; it is the effect on mental health as well.
Her email was not the only one to use such terminology. My belief is that the Lords amendment would take strides to free those who have thus far been all but imprisoned through no fault of their own, unable to do anything but scrape by, not entitled to Government help or aid, as their wages are sufficient on paper, but not in reality. I agree that a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners on closed books would address the issue.
I do not propose to spend much time rehearsing the specific arguments, which others have done already. Instead, I wish to make two points that are self-explanatory. Last Monday, the Minister came to the House to tell us that a compensation fund for London & Capital bondholders—with a sum of £120 million of UK taxpayers’ money—would be necessary following the excellent forensic investigation and analysis report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster. I understand the rationale behind that decision, and yet it leads me to my second point : why not a solution for the mortgage prisoners tonight? As I said, and have been reiterating for years, there continues to be what I can only term a failure to regulate in any way vulture funds such as Cerberus, but at the same time Her Majesty’s Treasury rightly made the decisions on Northern Rock. Despite limited efforts by the FCA, due to the restrictions placed in legislation by Her Majesty’s Government on the regulatory perimeter, little or nothing has been done for those mortgage prisoners in more than a decade. It is time for that to stop and for Her Majesty’s Government to start finding credible solutions.
A constituent contacted me to tell me that there is a rumour that the Conservatives will impose a three-line Whip against Lords amendment 8. If that is true, it is very sad. I also believe, with respect, that it is disgraceful. Many of my constituents are worried. They have talked to me personally. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), and my other colleagues have all expressed the same concern. We have to make a decision tonight on behalf of our constituents that ensures that their viewpoints are heard, and we have to do it in the best way that we can in this House, which is by how we cast our vote.
After seeing at first hand the impact of no action on the lives of mortgage prisoners in my constituency and beyond, I can do nothing but agree. If this is the line of the Government against these 250,000—or the half a million, as one hon. Member has said—struggling families, I will be supporting Lords amendment 8. I have no difficulty in that and I shall ask all other right-thinking MPs to do the same.
A decade of struggle has passed. We have it in our hands, right now, in this Chamber, to make a change. It is, I believe, right to do so. I shamelessly ask Members to do what is right on this occasion for those families in the middle section who have been squeezed beyond belief, physically, financially and mentally. Let us give relief to them, as today, right now, it is in our gift to be able to do so.
John Glen
I am extremely grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate. I will not to rehearse the arguments that I made at the outset, but will respond in the right spirit, in the right way, to the constructive and careful analysis that we have had from many Members across the House this evening.
Let me start by addressing the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I said to him during the Committee stage that I was always listening. I think that I have proved that to be the case in the way that the Government have responded on the climate change amendment and on “buy now, pay later”. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who spoke with characteristic deep knowledge of the sector. It is absolutely clear that we need to get the legislation and the intervention right when it comes to “buy now, pay later”. She rightly asserted the massive growth in that sector and the unfortunate consequences that will certainly befall, and that does befall, a number of consumers. We will work quickly to examine that market and what interventions will meet the need.
I am very tempted to address a whole number of points around Lords amendment 8. It is a real priority of mine to find a response that meets the unfortunate situation where people are trapped in very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who made a passionate speech, identifying Louise, a mortgage prisoner, whose personal story was one to which the whole House was sympathetic. A number of other colleagues raised similar stories. None the less, I do need to have a proportionate response—a response that can take account of data. I appreciate the excellent work carried out by the all-party group and I recognise its dataset—449 people. None the less, when I am faced with data from the FCA, looking comprehensively at 23,000 cases, I cannot deny that asymmetry. I will commit to continued dialogue to try to find a way forward. Those are not empty words; they reflect the complexity of this matter—a matter that is underpinned by half a generation of different rules and regulations. Before the crisis, people could borrow in ways that today we would think totally unacceptable, and that are indeed unacceptable. The market must provide better solutions than it can provide at the moment, and I will look carefully at what we can do to ensure that that happens.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made a number of points on Lords amendment 1 about the duty of care, and I have set out at length my approach to that, which is again to examine and listen carefully to what the FCA is saying. It will then be obliged to come forward with rule changes. So these are not empty words; they recognise all the work of the charities and organisations that are highlighting this case. Of course, in financial services there is a strong dynamic of change, and the Government and regulators must be ready to step in and make appropriate interventions as that market changes.
I believe that this Bill is a key component of a new, broader regulatory strategy that will underpin the UK financial services sector as a genuine world leader now that we have left the European Union. I welcome the speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), which exhibited a deep knowledge and a constructive approach to this very sophisticated industry, underpinned with a lot of personal experience. I will take from this debate many points of detail. I do not agree with every point that has been made on Lords amendment 8, but I stand ready to engage with Members across the House to seek to find solutions. I am proud to have been able to lead this Bill through the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendments 2 to 7 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(John Glen.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons 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: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 26 April 2021 - (26 Apr 2021)
22:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 219 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 350 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 270 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 351 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 41B. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 55
Annual reports
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 40B and 40C, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu.
Lords amendment 41B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 42D, 42E and 42F, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (d) to (f) in lieu.
Victoria Atkins
I thank right hon. and hon. Members of this House and noble Lords who have worked tirelessly to make this a truly transformational Bill. It will make a significant difference to the lives of many women, men and children by better protecting them from their abusers and providing them with the support they so very much need. However, before the Bill can have any impact, we need to pass it, and we are fast running out of road to get us to that point. In the course of our deliberations, we should all be clear, therefore, about the risk of the Bill being timed out this week. None of us wants that—I hope I can take that as read. In the collegiate spirit of many of the debates on the Bill, we reflected carefully on the debates that took place in the Lords last Wednesday and we have tabled further amendments in the hope, and indeed expectation, that both Houses can now agree to submit this landmark Bill to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.
On child contact centres, there is no dispute that they need to be subject to appropriate regulation. It remains our contention that, on the evidence currently available, that is already achieved through accreditation by the National Association of Child Contact Centres, the agreements in place between the NACCC, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the judiciary, and the comprehensive statutory provisions already in place that determine how local authorities should discharge their duties in public law family cases.
We listened carefully to the debate last week and recognise that there is an issue that needs to be examined further, but we cannot legislate on the basis of anecdotal—albeit pertinent—evidence. That is why the Government tabled Amendments 9C and 9D, which will require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report about the extent to which individuals, when they are using contact centres in England, are protected from the risk of domestic abuse or, in the case of children, other harm. The report will need to be laid before Parliament within two years of Royal Assent. We will engage closely with the NACCC and others in carrying out the work, which will provide a firm evidence base on which to introduce further regulation, including in the area of vetting, should that be necessary.
I turn to Lords amendments 40B and 40C. We remain concerned that the revised Lords amendments regarding data firewalls still pre-empt the outcome of the review recommended by the independent policing inspectorate in response to the super-complaint. We need to undertake that review without any preconceptions as to its outcome. To provide further reassurance on that point, Government amendments 40D to 40J introduce two new clauses. The first new clause will put the review of the current data-sharing arrangements on to a statutory footing and enshrine in law our commitment to report on the outcome of the review by the end of June. The second new clause will provide for a statutory code of practice relating to the processing of domestic abuse data for immigration purposes. Persons to whom the code is issued—notably the police and Home Office immigration staff—will be under a duty to have regard to the code, which will also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Although the clause is framed in terms of a permissive power to issue a code, I assure the House that we fully intend to exercise that power.
On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome the fact that this revised amendment attempts to separate the issue of leave to remain from the provision of support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. As I previously indicated, we need to focus on ensuring that victims with insecure immigration status can access the support they need. That is the priority. Unfortunately, despite the best intentions, the amendment would not achieve the outcome it seeks. The question of leave to remain is inextricably linked to the conditions attached to that leave, so it is impossible to waive the “no recourse to public funds” condition in isolation from consideration being given to a person’s immigration status.
As I announced last week, we have now appointed Southall Black Sisters to oversee the support for migrant victims scheme. The scheme will provide access to safe accommodation and the associated support to migrant victims of domestic abuse who are not eligible for the destitute domestic violence concession or other existing support mechanisms. The scheme will be independently evaluated, and will provide us with the necessary evidence of the gap in current support arrangements, so that we can put in place sustainable long-term provision. That is the direction of travel we are on. Since the scheme will provide support to victims, Lords amendment 41B is not necessary, and waiving the no recourse to public funds condition for a full year will again have significant new resource implications. The support for migrant victims scheme will be up and running shortly. We should see it through to its proper conclusion and settle on a sustainable programme of support.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify what she just said? At the moment, repeat domestic abuse cases and stalkers will often not be included in categories 1 or 2 because the offences are not treated as serious enough in the way those categories are listed. Category 3 currently involves a tiny number of people. Will the Minister include all repeat domestic abusers and high-harm stalkers—all of them—under MAPPA in future?
Victoria Atkins
As the right hon. Lady will know, category 1 perpetrators have to have committed a specified sexual offence under the legislation, and for category 2 they have to have been convicted of a violent offence and received a sentence of imprisonment for at least 12 months. If they are domestic abuse perpetrators, they will be included in the threshold guidance. This is very much about drawing out in the guidance the factors that local agencies should be concentrating on.
Although domestic abuse is already mentioned in section 6 of the guidance, we have listened to concerns that at local level the preponderance and patterns of behaviour are not necessarily being picked up in offenders in categories 1 and 2, as well as category 3. That is why, in discussions with Baroness Royall, we have been clear that we want to better capture those people under the existing framework. We will consult MAPPA responsible authorities on the draft revised guidance by the summer recess, and we will inform Parliament when the updated guidance is promulgated. Today, Baroness Williams of Trafford has written to Baroness Royall to confirm that past patterns of behaviours will be explicitly referred to in the guidance.
Yvette Cooper
There are countless serious repeat domestic abuse cases that are not sexual offences. There are also countless very serious repeat domestic abuse offences that do not pass the 12-month threshold. All the Minister is saying is that she is going to try to include little bits of lines about domestic abuse in categories 1 and 2, which we know will not include huge numbers of repeat domestic cases, so she has actually gone backwards on some of the things that Baroness Williams was saying.
Victoria Atkins
I do not accept that. The point is that category 3, as we have always said, is the flexible category. It is meant precisely to fit those cases that the hon. Lady has described. These offenders do not fit in category 1 or 2, but because they are considered to be dangerous offenders—they may, for example, have received a sentence of imprisonment of less than 12 months—they are in category 3. We want to join up that understanding in the guidance across all three categories.
We will consult with MAPPA authorities and will also invite views from across the House, but we have been working closely with Baroness Royall to try to address some of the issues that were rightly raised in the other place about past patterns of behaviour and so on. We give that undertaking today: we will look at that phrasing within the statutory guidance that is being drafted to help address some of the concerns in both Houses.
Yvette Cooper
I am very grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous with her time. May I specifically ask about category 3? There are only around 300 offenders in that category, compared with the thousands or nearly tens of thousands of people that we are talking about. Will she undertake to include all convicted serial domestic abusers in category 3?
Victoria Atkins
The flexibility of category 3 means that that is already possible, if there has been a conviction. I gave the example on 15 April of criminal damage, such as if somebody kicks down a door. On the face of it, a criminal damage offence would not fit into category 1 or category 2. That is where the professional curiosity of professionals on the ground—police, probation and prison officers and so on—comes in. If someone has been convicted of that offence, he or she may not be in category 1 or category 2, but if those professionals believe that it is part of a pattern of past behaviour, on which Baroness Royall has rightly focused, that is how they will be put on to the system under MAPPA. We very much want the concerns that have been raised to be reflected in the guidance as well as the national framework.
I have already announced that we need to be sure that action is taken when there are indicators of escalating harm for those who are managed under the least intensive level of MAPPA—so, level 1. To that end, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will issue a new policy framework setting out clear expectations for the management of all cases at MAPPA level 1 by the National Probation Service. This includes domestic abuse perpetrators. That will further help improve the quality of information sharing, the consistency and regularity of reviews, and the identification of cases where risk is increasing and additional risk management activity is required.
Thirdly, as I announced on 15 April, we are bringing in the new multi-agency public protection system, or MAPPS, which will be piloted from next year. All category 3 offenders will be on MAPPS, which will have much greater functionality than the violent offender and sex offender register, or ViSOR, which is the existing database. That will enable criminal justice agencies to share information in real time and improve their risk assessments and the management of MAPPA nominals, including domestic abuse perpetrators.
Fourthly, we are legislating in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to clarify the information sharing powers under MAPPA. For example, GPs and domestic abuse charities can very much be part of that data sharing. That is the intention of the clauses in the Bill, and I hope we will be able to persuade Opposition Members to support us on that.
Fifthly, we are committed to bringing forward a new statutory domestic abuse perpetrator strategy as part of our holistic domestic abuse strategy to be published later this year. Our revised amendment makes it clear that the strategy will address the risks associated with stalking. We will also include a perpetrator strand in our complementary violence against women and girls strategy, which will cover stalking that does not take place in a domestic abuse context.
Sixthly, we are investing new resources, with an additional £25 million committed this year, to tackle perpetrators’ behaviour and to stop the cycle of abuse. Finally, more broadly, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that this Government are committed to supporting vulnerable victims. Having published a new victims code to guarantee victims’ rights and the level of support they can expect, we will consult over the summer on the victims’ law, which will enshrine those rights in law.
The other place has asked the Government to consider again these four issues. We will do so in the next hour. We have listened carefully to their lordships’ concerns and responded with a substantial new package of commitments, both to strengthen this groundbreaking Bill and to further our wider programme to protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children and bring perpetrators to justice. It is time for the Bill to be enacted and implemented, for the sake of the 2.3 million adults and their children who are victims of domestic abuse each year. Let us agree to the Government amendments in lieu, let us pass this Bill, and let us help victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for running through the amendments in lieu. I am sure she will not be surprised to hear that the Labour party remains in agreement with the Lords amendments. I will also run through some of the amendments in lieu and ask some questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castleford, Normanton and Pontefract—sorry, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper); I went in alphabetical order—has rightly pointed out some of our concerns, although I recognise and want to place on the record our thanks for the constant work that is going on between our two Houses trying to settle this once and for all.
On the Government amendment in lieu on child contact centres, the Minister mentioned the NACCC as one of the safeguards already in place, but in fact it is that very organisation that seeks to make the provision more robust. I am sure she received the message today from Sir James Munby, the former head of family justice in this country, who says that the Government’s reservation to support Baroness Finlay’s amendment, which was drafted in partnership with the NACCC, would be a missed opportunity to address an anomaly in safeguarding children and improving standards in general. Specifically regarding domestic abuse, Sir James urges Members of this House to back the amendment in this afternoon’s—it was wishful thinking on his part that we would have got to this in the afternoon—consideration of Lords messages, to ensure that standards in child contact centres and services are consistent and high, and that domestic abuse and safeguarding is appropriately handled through high-quality staff training.
I welcome the review offered as an evidence-gathering measure. Although the Minister might say that there is not necessarily such evidence, I have certainly heard about case after case where there was poor practice, including bad handovers and perpetrators able to access victims. That is really problematic, so we will continue to support their lordships.
I am also grateful for the review offered on the firewall. I feel like I have to say that, but I really am grateful for that review, which has been greeted with some cheer in the sector. However, I seek some clarification specifically on the code. Under part 2, it states that the code must be kept under review, but it is not clear by whom. It also says that the code may be revised or replaced, but again, by whom? Can we ensure that at every single stage, there is buy-in by services for the very victims we are talking about and that they are consulted throughout the process? I also seek an assurance that the whole point of the code is explicitly to ensure that data can be shared only to enable victims to receive protection and safety. I will share with the House why that matters. For example, in a case in my constituency, a woman was applying for leave to remain and going through the process. She had been here on a spousal visa. Her husband threatened to kill her. When she called the police, she was taken to Yarl’s Wood detention centre, where I had to go and get her out. She came forward to the police because there was a threat on her life, and that information was used to put her in detention. She is now legally in this country with indefinite leave to remain. That is why there is a need for a code.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
This is a very short debate and I want to bring in the Minister by five past 10 at the latest, to give her four minutes to wind up. That means speeches need to be four minutes each.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in this debate. It seems to me that what has changed since only a few days ago is that the Government have clearly been in listening and amending mode. In the previous debate, I raised the concerns of two constituents: first, Bishop Rachel, who was concerned about the treatment of those who have suffered domestic abuse who are immigrants; and, secondly, Nick Gazzard, who was concerned about databases and risk registers in the context of the terrible murder of his daughter Hollie Gazzard. I asked questions at that time that have largely been answered today, so I wish to focus on two themes.
The first theme seems to me to be a question of trust. The Government have made various commitments in relation to the Lords amendments on child contact centres, Lords amendment 40B on data firewalls and Lords amendment 40C on data processing for immigration purposes. I believe that the time has come for this House to accept in good faith the Government’s commitments to the Home Office review on data sharing and on the code of practice, which uses the word “may” rather than “must”, but we have a clear statement of intention from the Minister that these things will happen.
The second theme is more complicated: the use of data and systems. In relation to the concern of Nick Gazzard, it seems to me that the main issue the Minister has addressed this evening is not so much the system and the risk register but how it is used and, in a sense, the reverse of the earlier issue in respect of data processing for immigration purposes, which is how to have effective data sharing so that things known by GPs and domestic abuse charities can be accessed by people who really want to access them. That seems to me to be crucial in the inclusion of category 1 and 2 and some category 3 domestic abuse offenders in the new MAPPS process.
I strongly believe that what has been said today about looking at firm guidance by the summer recess on a strategy for perpetrators, with action taken by the National Probation Service when there are “indicators of escalating” concern, will make a difference. On that issue, the time has come for the Opposition to recognise the incredible value of the Bill as a whole. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), said, there is much to support and much to be grateful for. Amendments have continually been made to take on board a whole series valuable points made by experts in the sector and, indeed, individuals from their own personal experience.
The one other thing I would like to contribute, if I may very briefly, is the use of Clare’s law and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which I do not think has been raised recently in debate. It is interesting to note that the figures for 2020, compared with the year ending 2019, have actually seen double the number of right to ask applications, and the number of applications that resulted in disclosure has gone up by 50% from roughly 2,500 to 4,200. We probably need to make more of that in communicating to the wider public. I think it would be reassuring for people to know that Clare’s law is in practice, being used, and increasingly being accepted and the information provided.
With all those things to bear in mind, and being conscious of your strictures on the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I encourage everybody in this Chamber, from whatever party, to put aside differences and to come together in accepting this Bill as it now is?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am going to move to the SNP’s spokesperson, and I am sure colleagues will know that I cannot put a time limit on him, but after that I will put on a time limit of four minutes, because otherwise we simply will not get everybody in.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
I want to speak briefly in relation to the amendments on data sharing for immigration purposes tabled by Baroness Meacher, which are Lords amendments 40B and 40C, as well as the Lord Bishop of Gloucester’s amendment on the domestic violence rule and concession, which is Lords amendment 41B.
On the former, it is good to see that the Government have at least come to the negotiating table with their own amendments in lieu. However, our view is that the other place has sent us what is already a very reasonable compromise, which would mean awaiting the outcome of the review of data processing, as insisted on by the Government, before action is then required in response.
In contrast, the Government alternatives have several problems. First, unlike the Lords amendments, they create for the Government, as we have heard, the power to act, but not an obligation, and also unlike the Lords amendments, that power is not granted for the specific purpose of achieving any specific aim, such as protecting victims of domestic violence. Secondly, Parliament would not be able to amend any code, albeit that either House could reject one. However, if either House did reject a code because it had concerns, the Government could simply then walk away, as there is no requirement to lay a new code that addresses any such concerns.
In short, the danger is that the amendments in lieu could lead to inaction and leave us no further forward. The Minister has sought to assure us that the Government are going to take action informed by the review, and that is welcome, but having given that assurance, the question then is: why are Lords amendments 40B and 40C a problem at all?
Finally on data sharing in relation to the consultation, if any such code is being drawn up that will apply in Scotland—and similar issues may arise for Northern Ireland—it would surely be really important to consult Police Scotland, Scottish Ministers and relevant stakeholders there, given the devolution of criminal justice issues. There is no express requirement for this in the amendments in lieu, so can the Minister give a firm commitment that such consultation would be considered appropriate in advance of issuing any such code?
Turning to the Lords amendment on the domestic violence concession and rule, it is disheartening that the Government have not yet even come to the negotiating table on this one. Instead of offering an amendment in lieu, they are sticking to outright rejection, justified by something I think has really been a moving feast of excuses. A pilot scheme is not even a comprehensive temporary solution, never mind a comprehensive and permanent resolution of the urgent problems that have been highlighted in debate after debate.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester set out exactly why the pilot, though welcome, is not enough in itself. It is restricted in the numbers it can provide for, restricted in the time it can support people for and restricted in its ability to provide holistic wraparound support, even for the limited numbers who access it. While the Government may hope that the pilot scheme ultimately leads them to find the best solution, it is not acceptable to do nothing else in the meantime. Indeed, if the Government are confident about the scope and reach of the pilot, they should have nothing to fear from this amendment. All the new amendment asks for is a safety net, just for the duration of the Government’s pilot scheme, for those who cannot access that scheme. It is a safety net designed to complement, not undermine the pilot scheme, and surely the Government must now come to the negotiating table to discuss how we can make this work.
Again, this is about where our priorities lie—reserving immigration powers or protecting victims of domestic abuse. Of course, it must be protecting the victims, and that is why we should support amendment 41B.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now go to Stella Creasy, and the four-minute time limit starts.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I recognise the progress that has been made on these issues through the process with the other House. But as somebody who has been in the House for 11 years seeking to amend legislation to effect change, I gently say to the Minister that every Minister has told us that a Bill is at threat because of the parliamentary process and every Bill seeks to be a landmark Bill, so we are asking her to go the extra mile on these final issues in this Domestic Abuse Bill. In my short contribution, I want to look at the counterfactual: what happens if we do not include these amendments?
Will the Minister tell us the conditions under which she would want somebody’s immigration status to be a factor in whether they can access help? Like others, I welcome the pilot scheme, but, like the bishops, I am concerned that it can run out and we will be back at square one, where women are frightened to come forward, or are pushed back into the hands of perpetrators because of their immigration status. We will therefore not meet our conditions under the Council of Europe requirements for the Istanbul convention, and we will see women living with their perpetrators as a direct result of our failure to include them in this legislation.
Yvette Cooper
I also welcome the progress that has been made on the Bill and the cross-party consensus that exists on many of the important measures, but I want to take this opportunity to pursue further the issues around stalking and repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse, and to discuss what more needs to be done to keep other victims safe from those whose violence escalates and who pose some of the greatest threats.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment now to a perpetrators strategy. It was one of the issues that we raised previously through these amendments, so it is very welcome. I hope that she or her colleagues in the other place will be able to give more clarity about how stalking will be included in the perpetrators strategy. The wording is slightly constrained, which I assume is partly about reflecting the scope of this particular legislation, but it would be helpful to have some clarification of the Government’s commitment to including stalking and repeat patterns of behaviour as part of the perpetrators strategy. I am still very concerned about lack of strong underpinnings to the commitment to take action against these most dangerous perpetrators whose abuse continues and escalates.
The Minister spoke about being able to change the interpretations of categories 1 and 2 to include domestic abuse among perpetrators already included in those categories. That is fine and it will be welcome in order to take account of their domestic abuse threats, but it will not include the thousands—if not tens of thousands—of repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse, stalkers and high-harm perpetrators who will not be included in either category 1 or 2. As a result, they will not appear on the register or be included in the MAPPA arrangements.
The Minister says that those people will, in the future, be included in category 3, but there would need to be a massive shift in the way category 3 currently operates—not a minor tweak to the guidance, not a few tweaks and changes, not a bit of adjustment here and there; we need a massive change. At the moment, there are only 330 people on that category 3 list. That is half the number there were 10 years ago, and we know that awareness of stalking and of repeat perpetrators of abuse has increased.
That 330 includes a whole load of other offences, not just domestic abuse or stalking. It is tiny in proportion not just to the more than 80,000 people who are already on the high-risk offenders register, but to the number of stalkers and repeat-convicted domestic abuse perpetrators who go through the courts every week and every month, but do not make it on to these registers so that a proper assessment can be made and proper action can be taken to prevent them from committing more crimes and putting more lives at risk.
That is what we seek reassurance from the Minister about. That is why we wanted this to be in legislation, not just tweaks to the guidance. We need legislation in order to deliver a substantial shift in the response from the police, from probation and from specialist agencies. We are just not doing enough. We have talked many times before about how two women a week lose their lives as a result of a partner or an ex. It was two women a week 10 years ago. Not enough has changed. Why is anything going to change now?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It seems like an age since I spoke on Second Reading, and I commend those involved in the massive amount of work that has been done on both sides of the House and in the Lords. I spoke at that time because, unfortunately, the rates in Bristol South are double the national average and the highest in the city. It is no coincidence that it also contains some of the most deprived areas of the country. That link between poverty and abuse, and particularly the impact on children, must be addressed. Although the Bill is welcome, it does not go far enough in some of those areas.
I shall speak briefly about Lords amendments 42D, 42E and 42F. As we have heard, we all agree on the outcome, but I defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who all, while recognising the Minister’s personal commitment and intent, eloquently expressed concerns about how we will hold the Government to account on behalf of the women we all know and represent if legislation is not brought forward on these things.
I know from speaking to women who are expecting a more defined register and legislation that they do not really understand why serial abusers and perpetrators are not more easily registered and tracked. Those are stories that we all know come before us repeatedly. If those amendments are not accepted, I know that the Minister will continue to do this work, but it will be incumbent on her and her Government to prove to those women that these measures are remotely enough.
We all know that we need better action across a range of service providers. Again, that needs much greater support from the Government. Finally—I am conscious of time—I touched last year on the nature of domestic abuse among older women. That is often a much-neglected area, and it would be good to see changes to the Bill that reversed some of the perceptions about the abuse that older women face and made them feel more empowered to come forward, safe in the knowledge that their experiences will be justly dealt with too.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
I share what I believe was possibly the frustration of many other speakers tonight that we are so close to achieving what we want the Bill to achieve, yet we seem unable to cross that final line. I appreciate the efforts made by the Government and everyone else, and by the Minister in particular, but I still have reservations about the Bill—particularly about the vulnerability of migrant women, and specifically about amendment 40B. The amendment in lieu laid down by the Minister is a start, but it still does not go far enough and it fails to capture the one key thing that all our amendments and speeches have said, and everything we have heard this evening: waiting for a stalker or serial domestic abuser to get a conviction for 12 months before considering them for this is way too late.
We know that most stalking victims do not go to the police. This is about cumulative obsessive behaviour. Well-intentioned though the legislation is, we simply do not feel it is going far enough. Between 15 March and 19 April, another 16 women have been murdered—that is between the Report stage in the Lords and ping-pong last week. The Government’s inaction has to end. We have to address this issue now. We have to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill that so many people in this place have worked so hard for over the past four years is achieved by the end of this week.
The same recommendations have been made over the years and the same reviews have been repeated over and over, yet nothing is changing. Rarely are the recommendations put into place and we have seen systemic failures over many years, with widespread misogyny, institutionalised sexism and a gender bias. No amount of guidance or training has changed that across the past two decades. In fact, matters are getting worse. That is why we need this to be in the legislation.
Many Members have mentioned the overwhelmingly depressing statistics about one woman being murdered every three days by a man, and a woman being murdered every four days by an ex or a current partner. It is simply not acceptable. We are all agreed, but we must find a solution. I appreciate the steps that the Government have taken so far to compromise to meet people halfway, but I still think that this will take another step. That is why I, like the Liberal Democrats, will be rejecting the Government’s amendment in lieu this evening.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Briefly, I wish to highlight my concerns on the issue of the identification, monitoring and management of serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators, and the provisions that refer to that. I base most of the comments I make in this Chamber on personal experience—on the people I meet in my constituency office and have helped and tried to help over the years.
I recall sitting in my office looking at the face of a victim, sometimes sitting beside the perpetrator, and feeling helpless and hopeless. I could see what was going on. I could also understand that my words could make the situation more difficult for the victim. So I found myself on some occasions just being silent and listening, when everything within me cried out to speak, act and help. That is what I wanted to do, but I felt that sensitivity was more important. All too often, I have tried to distract a partner while the staff attempted to assure the victim that they were here to help wherever they needed and in confidence. All too often, I have offered help, only to hear a victim say, “No one would believe me because he is a pillar of society.” That proves that, irrespective of position, those in the highest positions and the lowest positions of the land can abuse ladies.
The Lords amendment on this brings clarity on repeated offences, broadening things to include serious harm, sexual violence and stalking, among other specifications. It makes it crystal clear and a little easier to help those victims. It offers them greater scope and, with that, greater support. It makes it clear that the offences clearly listed will never be acceptable. It makes it clear that all those listed offences are taken seriously and that a strategy to deal with this must be a Government priority.
This clarity is welcome. This House must send a unified message on this Bill today. I believe that the Minister is very much committed to making the changes that are necessary to pull all of the concerns and thoughts of Members together, and provide reassurance that when we pass the Bill it is not simply the best we can do, but the best possible—not that we offer help, support and recognition to as many victims as possible, but that we have left no victim alone without legislation to protect them.
It is my desire, when I am faced with cases of domestic abuse—unfortunately, my staff and I have been faced with such cases—to have the confidence to be able to tell the victim, “All the elements, from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the courts, are designed with your needs in mind. You do not have to do this alone. The police and the courts will walk alongside you, and give you the protection you want.” I long to send that message. I look again to the Minister for clarity that this is what we are saying tonight in this Chamber.
Victoria Atkins
I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for the constructive tone they have maintained not just tonight but throughout. I am particularly moved by the comments the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just made. He speaks of the constituents he meets in his office. He knows they are sitting next to their perpetrators and he tries to distract them. I am sure many of us can understand and sympathise with that. It is precisely those people we are trying to help with the Bill.
I will try to deal with some of the issues raised but I am very conscious of time, so forgive me if I am not able to. My noble Friend in the other place will have more time tomorrow and will try to deal with some of the points that will no doubt be raised then.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked questions about the code in respect of the firewall review. We are very much in listening mode. We have not yet drafted the code and will consider the consequences she raised. I draw her attention to the fact that in the new clause we have said we will consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Information Commissioner’s Office. I very much hope that the fact that we have thought about the point she makes about accountability and so on, and included it in the new clause, gives her some comfort.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for raising Clare’s law. We have not talked about it in the context of recent debates. The right to ask and the right to know is an incredibly important tool for victims and the police. We can spread the message across our constituencies that if someone is worried about a new relationship they can ask the police whether there is something they should know about their new relationship, or if the police are worried about a serial perpetrator and want to warn the new partner, then this facility exists. Again, this is why it is so important that the Bill is passed.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly and understandably raised questions about our approach to the point on MAPPA. I know this is an issue to which she has given a great deal of attention and consideration during the passage of the Bill and previously. If I may, I just want to clarify something. I do not know whether there has been a misunderstanding in translation, but I am aware of my duties at the Dispatch Box. I think she said that I had said that category 3 will include all serial perpetrators in future. I hope I have not misquoted her. To clarify, categories 1 and 2 will include domestic abuse perpetrators by definition of the qualifying offences under categories 1 and 2.
We very much hope and expect that the updated guidance we are issuing as a result of the discussions on the Bill and the improvements we will make to data sharing, not just in terms of guidance and framework but also, importantly, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, will see an increase in category 3 offenders. We want local agencies to be applying the system in the improved way we all want. Of course, domestic abuse protection orders will also include notification requirements. I just wanted to clarify that. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding in translation, as it were, or in debate.
Yvette Cooper
I think the confusion is that I was asking whether it would be possible to include all repeat domestic abusers and high-harm stalkers in category 3. That is what we were trying to achieve. Can the Minister include all of them through the change to guidance to include them on category 3?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for clarifying that. This is the nub of it: through the framework that already exists—improved guidance, the national framework that I described, and the wording in guidance and so on that has been discussed recently—we want those offenders whom local agencies judge to pose a risk to be assessed as such. They will either already have been automatically included in category 1 or 2, or assessed under category 3. That is the point of this—it is the professional curiosity that I talked about. We want this framework to work better, in addition to the work in MAPPS, which is being piloted next year.
I know that this is incredibly technical. I have spent the past three years trying to de-jargon—if that is a word—some of this very technical language so that we may all communicate with the victims whom we are desperately trying to help in our constituencies. This is one of those instances that is very technical. I have tried to de-jargon it as much as I can, but it is incredibly technical. We have to look to local agencies and professionals using their best endeavours to protect our constituents across the country.
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) asked the question—which I might have just answered—how we reassure women in her constituency that we are, first, acting with the best of intentions and, secondly, being held to account. I make this point, not just to us but to Members of another place: this is not the end of the road for our work on domestic abuse. We have been very clear that the Bill is a landmark one, but it is setting up a whole programme of work, locally through things such as our specialist services for people in safe accommodation, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and all the measures we have put into local family courts.
This programme of work will, I hope, outlast many of us and our time in this place. By virtue of that, I point the hon. Lady to things such as our announcement that we want to publish a VAWG—violence against women and girls—strategy later this summer, looking at some of the behaviours that we have discussed during the passage of the Bill. Later this year, we will publish a domestic abuse dedicated specialist national strategy to tackle abuse. The momentum that the Bill has created will be continued through both those strategies. This is very much the start of the journey as far as I and this Government are concerned. We very much look forward to listening to ideas and suggestions from across the House as we take through those strategies and other pieces of legislation.
To return to the people to whom the hon. Member for Strangford referred, those constituents whom he faces in his office to help—as we all do—I have talked before about my commitment to helping victims of domestic abuse. This is not just about those victims whom we are trying to help today, or in the future; for me, this is about the women, the victims, I could not help when I was working in the criminal courts at the very beginning of my career. In that day and age, it was all too inevitable that the victim would hand in her withdrawal statement, because the abuser had got to her before she had been able to give her evidence and to put her case forward. It is for those victims, as well as victims now and in the future, that this Bill is so critical. I very much hope that the Lords will help us to pass this piece of legislation as quickly as possible this week, so that we can start to help those victims as soon as possible.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Business of the House (Today) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
National Security and Investment Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the National Security and Investment Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17 November 2020 (National Security and Investment Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
National Security and Investment Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 26 April 2021 - (26 Apr 2021)
23:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Lords amendments 2 to 10.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 12 to 14.
Lords amendment 15, and Government motion to disagree.
Paul Scully
I am delighted that the Bill has returned to this House from the other place and I am delighted to be able to speak to it briefly today following the excellent handover from the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is successfully jabbing the nation as we speak. As we are at a late hour, I will not take up too much of the House’s time. I will just quickly summarise some of the changes to the Bill.
Lords amendments 1 to 10 and 12 to 14 were all tabled by my colleague in the other place, Lord Callanan. Lords amendments 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are what the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel would call minor and technical. Lords amendments 12, 13 and 14 pertain to the annual report as provided for by clause 61, and they reflect the decision to include additional reporting requirements that will provide further value for parliamentarians, businesses and investors. Lords amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were made to the Bill in the spirit of a shared recognition that the requirements of the mandatory notification regime must be no more than necessary and proportionate for the protection of our national security, and that businesses and investments are not unduly burdened or stifled.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who said on Report that we need
“robust powers to guard our national security and…change that backs our best small businesses and our capacity for innovation. Both of these goals are possible; indeed, they are mutually reinforcing.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 1000.]
That is why we have reflected carefully during the passage of the Bill on the 15% starting threshold for the mandatory regime. Lords amendment 2 removes acquisitions between 15% and 25% from constituting notifiable acquisitions under the mandatory regime. The House will recall, though, that the Bill provides the power for the Secretary of State to call in acquisitions of control across the economy. That power remains in place. Provisions in the Bill also ensure that the Secretary of State can amend the scope of the mandatory regime through secondary legislation, which could include the introduction of a 15% threshold if deemed appropriate, although we do not currently anticipate doing so.
I will turn to Amendments 11 and 15—
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On those amendments, my hon. Friend will know that there are profound and continuing concerns about scrutiny associated with the provisions and powers that the Bill provides. He will furthermore know that the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, performs an important role in scrutinising all such security matters. He will know that there is a memorandum of understanding that underpins that between the Government and the ISC. Will he be quite clear that there is no attempt to dilute, to obscure or to escape from the provisions of that memorandum, which says that the ISC can inquire into security matters across the whole of Government?
Paul Scully
I always value the contribution from my right hon. Friend who, as a former Security Minister and a member of the ISC, is very wise and experienced in these matters. I can confirm that the memorandum of understanding absolutely pertains and that the ISC can continue its great work to scrutinise the work of the security services, which will include where the security services’ work supports the work of the Investment Security Unit. It is also important to remember, as we consider these amendments, that we value the work of the ISC, and of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, which I will speak about as well.
Sir John Hayes
To be absolutely clear, that memorandum is, by definition, flexible. The Government have acknowledged that by history, by example and so on. That flexibility should allow the ISC to scrutinise the additional powers in this Bill, and I gather from what the Minister says that he is comfortable with that principle and that the ISC will continue to perform its role in that way. On that basis, I will support the Government tonight in any Division that might ensue.
Paul Scully
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s enlightening words about his intention. I can indeed confirm that the memorandum of understanding is flexible. The ISC does good work and continues to do so, and I look forward to working with him.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving helpful clarification. The Secretary of State wrote to the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and copied in the Chair of the ISC and me as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. Will the Minister confirm that he is prepared to commit in a memorandum of understanding to the Chairs of those Committees being able to see, on Privy Council terms, information that might not be otherwise in the public domain?
Paul Scully
We have got to the nub of the matter quickly. I can indeed confirm that. In the letter the Secretary of State sent to the Chair of the BEIS Committee, copying in my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, he spoke about the fact that the BEIS Committee is able to access the material it needs to scrutinise the work of the ISU, including for example details of some of the risks that the ISU has identified under the NSI regime and the measures taken to address them. As part of that, the Secretary of State confirmed that the Department can provide the Chair of the BEIS Committee with confidential briefings on Privy Council terms, and that he would be happy to set those out in more detail in either a memorandum of understanding or further exchange of letters. The Secretary of State went on to say that he would encourage the STC to provide scrutiny of the work of the ISU where the work of the unit falls within the specific remit of that Committee. He also welcomed the Intelligence and Security Committee’s continued scrutiny of the work of the security services, which will include where the security services’ work supports the work of the ISU.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I hate to be slightly disobliging, but it is a fact, is it not, that the staffs of these Select Committees do not have the clearance necessary to see or handle top secret material, and showing a top secret document to the Chair of a Committee on his or her own, briefly in very limited circumstances, does not amount—as I will explain shortly—to effective scrutiny?
Paul Scully
I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend’s explanation.
I believe that the Bill as amended by the other place through amendments 11 and 15 would require the Secretary of State to provide a confidential annexe, to be provided to the ISC. I am advised by my noble Friends Lord Callanan and Lord Grimstone that there is considerable strength of feeling in the other place about ensuring that the operation of the regime receives appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, and I welcome the passionate and expert debate that this question has already received. It has been proposed that the ISC is better placed than the BEIS Committee to scrutinise the Investment and Security Unit, despite the Secretary of State for BEIS having responsibility for the unit. The implication of the amendments is that the Select Committee responsible for holding the Secretary of State to account across their responsibilities is insufficient in that regard. It is also suggested that the ISC would have inadequate access to information to carry out its duties.
In essence, the amendments would require sensitive details to be provided to the ISC regarding the Secretary of State’s decision on final notifications given and final orders made, varied or revoked, but the ISC is already able to request such information as soon as is appropriate from the security services where it forms part of its long-established scrutiny responsibilities under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and, as I hope I have made clear, its accompanying memorandum of understanding. In addition, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must publish details of each final order made, varied or revoked, and clause 61 already requires the annual report to include the number of final orders made, together with a number of other details. Indeed, that clause was amended in the other place to include further such information in the annual report.
We do not disagree that further information may be required for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Where that is the case, the Government will follow existing procedures for reporting back to Parliament, but that should be done primarily through responding to the BEIS Committee as it goes about its work of ably scrutinising the work of the Department. We will ensure that the BEIS Committee is able to access the material it needs.
It is of course right that the ISC continues its excellent scrutiny of the work of the security services. The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC. That does not require any statutory change to be made. As I said, the memorandum of understanding pertains to the continuing work of the ISC, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that Committee. As such, and with the BEIS Committee having appropriate assurance that it will be provided with the information necessary, there is no need for these changes made to the Bill by the other place to stand.
In summary, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, I believe that this House is today presented with an improved set of measures to safeguard our national security. The ISC will not have its powers—existing powers —diluted through the discussion of the memorandum of understanding, as we have already said. Therefore, I commend the amendments, with the exception of amendments 11 and 15, to the House.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Let me start by welcoming the Minister to the National Security and Investment Bill, and I would like to wish his predecessor well in his work on the vaccine roll-out. I would also like to thank colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve this Bill, and the Members of both Houses who scrutinised its important provisions.
Labour is the party of national security, and has long called for a new regime to deal with evolving national security threats in corporate transactions. A robust takeover regime is also essential if we want firms in our key sectors to grow and provide good jobs here in the UK. So we support this Bill, which allows the Government to intervene when mergers and acquisitions could threaten national security. Unfortunately, the Bill in its original form lacked certain provisions, and particularly the oversight necessary to ensure it was successful in protecting our national security and national interest. So we have sought to improve the Bill along the way, and we are pleased that the Government have adopted some of our suggestions.
Members across party lines raised concerns over the capacity and capability of the new Investment Security Unit to deliver on the Bill’s ambition. We are pleased that the Government have acted on this, and Lords amendments 12 to 14 to clause 61 are based on Labour’s original amendment 31 during the House of Commons Committee stage, and a later amendment tabled by Labour at Lords Committee. Reporting the aggregate time taken for decisions will help to ensure that the new regime works more efficiently for small and medium-sized enterprises, and I was pleased to hear the Minister quoting my remarks to that effect.
We are also pleased to see that the Government have taken steps to address concerns regarding the 15% threshold for a notifiable acquisition. This follows Labour’s probing amendment 16 during Lords Committee stage and Cross-Bench concern. The Wellcome Trust labelled the 15% threshold as a
“regulatory burden for those that may not be able to afford it”.
With Lords amendment 3, the Secretary of State will still be able to call in acquisitions across the economy at or below 25%—and, if necessary, below 15%—where they reasonably suspect that material influence has been or will be acquired. But this amendment will bring the notifiable acquisition threshold in line with our allies in France, Australia and Canada. We are pleased the Government have listened to Labour and made a change that will be beneficial to small and medium-sized enterprises.
It is also welcome to see that the Government have now committed to issue public guidance, which Labour called for with our amendment 17 at the Commons Committee stage. This is good news for transparency. Our approach has been to ensure that our small and medium-sized enterprises have clarity, and that those investing in the UK understand what the rules are and how they will work. The publication of guidance will boost confidence in the new regime for national security screening.
But we are here today because of Lords amendments 11 and 15, and to vote on the Government motion to disagree. Labour believes that the Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditional lacking in national security experience. The BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny, and the confidential briefings to the Chair described by the Minister will not change that.
Dr Julian Lewis
The Intelligence and Security Committee greatly appreciates the work of the Minister and of his predecessor on this important legislation. I was on the Committee in June 2013 when we identified the risks posed by foreign investment and takeovers to the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure, citing Huawei as a case study—and we know what happened after that. We strongly support the Government’s decision to address those risks and we welcome their assurances that national security concerns sit at the very heart of the Bill. That is exactly as it should be.
However, what was not as it should be, with the Bill as originally drafted, was the lack of adequate oversight arrangements for those security concerns and for the process when they are weighed against business and other commercial concerns by the new Investment Security Unit. The Government ought to accept amendments 11 and 15 from the other place, introduced on a cross-party basis by former Security Minister and current ISC member Lord West, former Cabinet Secretary and former ISC member Lord Butler, former party leader and former ISC member Lord Campbell, and former Defence Secretary Lord King—who was of course the first Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee when it was established. Their amendments make provision for that previous lack of oversight. They would require the annual report produced by the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS to include, for each final order and notification made, the Secretary of State’s decision, along with the security services’ assessment of the national security risks uncovered. They would allow the Secretary of State to move any classified information into an annex and to provide that classified annex to the ISC. With the amendments in place as they currently are, we could be confident that the Bill will create the robust regime needed to protect the United Kingdom.
Given the powerful speeches from all quarters and the size of the majority in the other place in support of the amendments, it is surprising and disappointing that the Government remain opposed to them and are seeking to overturn what is clearly common sense. The amendments provide for the ISC to scrutinise the highly classified national security elements and the weighing of those classified elements against commercial concerns.
There appear to be three arguments employed by the Government against the amendments. The first claims that because BEIS is not listed in the Justice and Security Act 2013 or in the associated memorandum of understanding on the scope of our work, the ISC cannot look at decisions taken by the new unit in BEIS. That is based on a false premise.
During the passage of the 2013 Act, the Government explicitly and repeatedly told Parliament that the Act and the MOU would provide the ISC with oversight of all security matters across Government. The MOU mechanism, again, in the Government’s own words, was a “flexible” way to ensure that the list of organisations working on security matters and therefore subject to ISC oversight would be kept up to date.
Dr Lewis
I will give way in a moment, because I would like my right hon. Friend to hear this next bit, as I think there was a bit he was missing in his earlier intervention.
These words were used in Committee in my presence by the then Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), when introducing the 2013 Act. He said:
“I want to be clear that the Government intend that, through the provisions of the MOU, substantively all of central Government’s intelligence and security activities will be subject to ISC oversight.”––[Official Report, Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2013; c. 97.]
As if that were not clear enough, he went on to say, and this is the bit that matters:
“Things change over time. Departments reorganise. The functions undertaken by a Department one year may be undertaken by another the following year… An MOU is flexible: it can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. It will enable the intention of the Government that the ISC should have oversight of substantively all of central Government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and in the future.” ––[Official Report, Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2013; c. 98.]
The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS is therefore precisely the situation that the Government assured the House that the MOU was designed to address, and the unit can easily be added to the MOU by a simple exchange of letters. Indeed, if the Government were willing to give an undertaking here and now to add the new unit to those listed in the MOU, the need for these amendments would disappear.
Sir John Hayes
That is precisely why I drew the Minister’s attention to the flexibility of the memorandum of understanding and asked him whether the Government stood by the terms of that memorandum. The Minister was as clear as crystal. He said that he believed in that memorandum, and he saw no attempt in what the Government were doing to dilute the powers of the ISC or its ability, of the kind that my right hon. Friend set out, to range across government, if I can put it that way, where security is concerned. I think we have had reassurance from the Minister sufficient to support the Government.
Dr Lewis
Unfortunately, and I am afraid unusually for my right hon. Friend, he missed one little part that was missing in turn from the Minister’s answer, because the MOU as it stands does not include the Investment Security Unit. The MOU has a list of seven organisations that we can currently scrutinise. The whole point about flexibility is that, as these units are set up in other Departments, they can be added to the MOU, but the Minister has given no undertaking to add the ISU to the MOU. I am happy to give way to the Minister. If he would like to say that he will add the ISU—the new unit within BEIS—to the organisations listed in the memorandum of understanding, I will stop my speech immediately and say, “Well done, Minister,” but I fear that that is not going to happen, so I will continue with my speech.
The Government’s second argument is that the BEIS Committee is both capable of providing and best placed to provide the necessary oversight. I have the greatest respect for the work and experience of the BEIS Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), from whom we will hear later. He and his Committee are indeed best placed to provide oversight of the business functions of the new Investment Security Unit, and there can be no doubt that that Committee will do an excellent job in that respect, yet it is simply impossible for it to provide substantive scrutiny of the highly classified national security elements or of the overarching decisions taken about how to balance them with the commercial elements.
Select Committees cannot be given proper access to top-secret material in order to scrutinise effectively. Ministers have suggested that the BEIS Committee can substantively scrutinise such material, but that is impossible. While it is true, as we have heard tonight, that the provision of classified information can be negotiated with Select Committees on a case-by-case basis, the laying out of classified material in a secure room in the Department for Members to come in and read for an hour or so—but without allowing them to take any notes, without allowing them to retain it, without allowing them to share it with their staff, without allowing them to discuss it and without allowing them to report on it since any one of those would constitute a very serious security breach—does not amount to effective oversight.
Proper oversight of the national security elements of any decision under this new regime within BEIS must include the ability to access, analyse and discuss top-secret material frequently and fully. The Government already have one body, and only one body, that can do all those things and that they created for that express purpose: the ISC. Members of the ISC are all subject to the Official Secrets Act and have a dedicated office with appropriate security facilities to store and discuss top-secret material freely, and staff who undergo the most stringent Government clearance processes before they are allowed to handle such material—I said in an intervention earlier that the staff of other Select Committees of this House are not so cleared. There is also a lengthy process through which the Committee’s reports must go ahead of publication.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend will know that the call-in power and the power to refuse permission for mergers to proceed on national security grounds is long standing. It is vested in the Business Secretary and sometimes in the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. During all this time, scrutiny has been available to the ISC on those decisions. Has my right hon. Friend found that deficient in some way?
Dr Lewis
I am not sure that without concrete examples of what my right hon. Friend has in mind, I am in a position to give an answer to that question. What I do know is that it is the work of the ISC, on a basis of professional, full-time constant monitoring, to be able to look at the activities of those agencies that cannot be looked at by other Select Committees. He seems to be talking about the power of Secretaries of State to call in decisions, and I am not sure quite how that relates to the work of either Select Committees or the statutory Committee, which is the ISC.
Greg Clark
Perhaps I did not explain myself well. What is proposed in the Bill is an amendment of the current powers. There is a long-standing power for mergers to be blocked on national security grounds. It is one of three grounds on which an intervention can take place, so this is not a new power or a novel departure. The ISC is able to scrutinise the security services’ input into that now, as it will be in the future.
Dr Lewis
The ISC, on behalf of Parliament, is able to scrutinise the input of the intelligence agencies into these processes. It would not be able to scrutinise how that input is then handled, and the trouble is that because that input is top secret, the BEIS Committee would not be able to scrutinise it either. That means that there would be a scrutiny gap between what was being scrutinised by us as it went into the process of the new unit and what was being scrutinised by BEIS minus that sensitive material, so there would be no effective parliamentary scrutiny of the process whereby, as I said earlier, the highly sensitive security requirements were being balanced and offset against the commercial imperatives. Indeed, that may be the very reason why the Government are so reluctant to let the ISC see what is going on.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I fear that my right hon. Friend may have just answered my question before I ask it, but I am most grateful to him; he is making his speech with tremendous passion and is very persuasive. I just looked up the definition of “top secret” and I am wondering what will be missing from the output of the process that would mean that there are some scrutiny gaps. I think he has just explained that he wants to scrutinise the process and I can see why he would make that case, but will he just give us some indication as to what he expects would be top secret in that analysis, if that is at all possible?
Dr Lewis
If I gave an example of something that would be top secret—even if I were in a position to do so because we had started the work that we are not being allowed to start—I would then immediately be breaking the Official Secrets Act so, no, I cannot, and I would not even if I could. However, what is a certainty is that where there are circumstances where the intelligence agencies are advising on the security aspects, for example, of a potentially hostile state buying, overtly or covertly, into a strategically important asset, such as buying up a company engaged in cutting-edge technology. This unit will have to balance that against the possible commercial advantages of major investment from that other country.
The fact is that nobody on behalf of Parliament will be able to scrutinise that process unless either these amendments are accepted or the ISU—this new unit—is added to the list of units already on the memorandum of understanding. As I have said before and say again, if at any time the Minister wants to give me the assurance that it will be added, I am happy to let these amendments go from the face of the Bill.
As I explained, this is the reason that the ISC was set up as it is. If any Committee could do what the ISC does, it would not be necessary for the ISC to have all those unique facilities and arrangements. That is why paragraph 8 of the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC categorically asserts:
“The ISC is the only committee of Parliament”—
I will say that again:
“the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons: this means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of the Agencies”—
and please listen to these next few words—
“and of those parts of Departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters.”
A footnote to that sentence helpfully explains:
“This will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments…by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.”
With that machinery already in place, it is all the more baffling that the Government are now refusing to use the very body they created. Without including oversight by a properly structured and fully cleared security body, the Government are not placing security at the heart of the Bill.
The Government’s third and final argument is that if the ISC had a role, it would encroach on the BEIS Select Committee’s remit. This, too, is baffling and not borne out by experience. The Government’s own MOU already expressly states that the ISC scrutinises the classified parts of some Government Departments, leaving the remainder to the corresponding departmental Select Committees. That is what has always happened, perfectly harmoniously, in respect of a number of other Departments, so it is, again, bizarre that the Government now see this as a problem when they themselves have already made express provision for it.
The ISC can work seamlessly with the BEIS Select Committee on oversight of the Investment Security Unit, as it already does with other Select Committees such as the Defence Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, and in respect of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Far from being an “overreach” of our remit, in this particular case the ISC is trying to prevent its existing scope from being reduced. The unit that currently carries out investment security work is based in the Cabinet Office. Consequently, it is already overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC already scrutinises these activities in their current form in the Cabinet Office, so it cannot be “overreach” to do in future something that we already do. If the Government do not maintain this existing ISC scrutiny when the new Investment Security Unit takes over, it will be a step backwards from the current position.
If national security really is at the heart of the Bill, the ISC, as the national security oversight body, must be allowed to oversee it. The Government gave assurances to the House in 2013 that the ISC would oversee all security and intelligence matters. It is as simple as that. The sensible solution is that which was proposed and accepted in the other place—namely, the amendments that we are now being asked to reject for, as I have demonstrated, no good reason.
If, for some reason we have not been told, the Government cannot accept provision for oversight on the face of the Bill, there is the other solution that I have previously indicated. The Justice and Security Act and the memorandum of understanding linked to it set out the ISC’s role and remit, which the Government expressly told Parliament was the oversight of all intelligence and security matters across Government, now and in the future. The memorandum of understanding mechanism was rightly described by the security Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), as “flexible” because
“it can be changed much more easily than primary legislation.”––[Official Report, Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2013; c. 98.]
The matter before us today is exactly as described in 2013: an area of Government in respect of which the ISC has oversight responsibility has been moved to a different Department. The memorandum of understanding could therefore be updated to reflect this, by way of a simple exchange of letters, to add the Investment Security Unit to the list of bodies covered by the MOU. The ISC would happily accept a commitment from the Minister to this effect tonight, in lieu of the amendment. Either method will ensure what is needed: real oversight of the national security elements of this legislation by the only body constituted and equipped to carry it out, rather than what might be described as “scrutiny in name only”.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am very much of the view that, as Shakespeare said, “brevity is the soul of wit”. Notwithstanding that, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), made an incredibly professional and profound set of points that I hope the Minister listened to closely.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), did, I welcome the Minister to his place, notwithstanding the fact that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is off doing a fantastic job—I think it is fair to say—getting the entirety of the UK vaccinated, of course in partnership with our colleague in Scotland. I am sure that he regards it as a step up in terms of ministerial oversight of the Bill.
On the Bill itself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) spoke on Second Reading and on Report with passion and knowledge of the subject in respect of the scrutiny that should be provided by all of us when looking at such serious matters. We have tried to be constructive with the Government and to make helpful suggestions. I am pleased with many of the amendments moved by those in the other place that the Government are agreeing to—on beefing up scrutiny and perhaps offsetting some of the concerns that some of us might have had about the danger of investment chill, which was certainly real given the original nature of the Bill.
Improvements have been made, therefore, but there is still scope for further improvement. In that regard—as I said, I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—I again urge the Minister to give cognisance to the wise words of the Chair of the ISC.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
I welcome the powers that the National Security and Investment Bill introduces and I am very much in favour of the amendments moved by the Government in the other place.
Those amendments temper the impact on investment of the Bill, allowing a greater proportion of transactions and investment decisions to go ahead without requiring Government approval. Furthermore, the Government’s power to intervene on their own, if needed, will be retained. That is a good compromise between the Bill’s objectives: to grant the Government the powers to defend the UK against losing companies and expertise to unfriendly competitors, without stifling the investment that we need to become the home of the industries of the future. That is vital to our national security and to our future prosperity.
We must ensure that the technologies that are so frequently developed by our brilliant scientists here in this country can also transform themselves into successful world-leading companies here. I think of the many university spin-out programmes and how often extraordinary technology is immediately shipped off somewhere else. Developing more powerful computers and software, but allowing them all to be commercialised and deployed most effectively elsewhere only makes us less secure, not more secure. They will only be commercialised and deployed here if the Government protect them from being snapped up by our competitors, thereby damaging our long-term security interests.
We have seen the impact of such problems in the past. Only last week, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport called in the potential NVIDIA-Arm deal as representing a potential threat to our national security. If Arm, the Cambridge-based silicon fen semiconductor and software design company, can pose a threat to national security, so could the sale of other critical companies in developing industries.
Quantum computing is about to revolutionise the digital age, and the UK has some of the leading research establishments, notably in London and at the University of Bristol. However, many leading companies have moved abroad in the past. The British academics who founded PsiQuantum, the company that believes it is on track to build the world’s first usable quantum computer, moved to California some years ago. I have absolutely zero financial or other interests in that company—it is only that I wish to see the UK lead the world in quantum computing, with all the associated industry and benefits that will follow that.
The four professors from Bristol and London Universities recently made an offer to the Government to build that first usable quantum computer here in the UK, ensuring that the security offered by its cutting-edge technology is based in the UK. I think we can all agree that it would have been far easier and a lot less expensive if those academics had never left the country in the first place.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
In common with other hon. Members who have spoken tonight and on other occasions, the Liberal Democrats support the broad principles of the Bill. It is sensible, at a time of geopolitical uncertainty and increasingly globalised trade, to have provisions for the Secretary of State to intervene in business transactions where those transactions may have a bearing on national security. It is important, however, that the parameters of such a Bill are carefully drawn to ensure both that the transactions that may pose a threat can be caught, and that undue constraint is not placed on transactions that ought to be able to proceed freely.
The concerns raised about the Bill have focused on the fact that many of the definitions in it can be drawn too widely, and that the powers of the Secretary of State to call in transactions can be triggered too easily. That creates an environment of uncertainty for investors, as a wide variety of activities come into the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers. That will potentially act as a brake on investment, and at a crucial moment, when we are looking to strike new deals with global partners to replace the trade we are losing as a result of leaving the European Union.
I therefore welcome Lords amendments 11 and 15, which would require the Secretary of State to provide an explanation for choosing to exercise the powers granted to them. That seems to be a rational compromise. Instead of attempting to frame more precisely definitions and powers that will quickly become outdated as technology and trading practices progress, we would maintain the wider definitions but explain how and why they were being exercised.
That would provide a framework of precedent that investors could refer to when assessing investment risk. It would provide a much greater degree of transparency and accountability to the Secretary of State’s decision making. We have all seen the value of greater transparency over the last few weeks. Adopting these amendments would show that the Government were attempting, in good faith, to regain public trust after that trust has been shaken by recent revelations.
There is a distinct danger that the Bill, without amendment, will leave the Secretary of State vulnerable to pressure from those whose interests go beyond national security. We have seen this Government act to help developers avoid taxes, bankers win access to Government schemes, and shell companies win multimillion-pound personal protective equipment contracts. There is a very real danger that the UK’s reputation as a safe and orderly place to do business may be undermined, and these amendments offer the Government an excellent opportunity to restore our reputation once more. I very much hope that the Minister will take it.
The Bill is valuable and necessary, but it is only part of what is required to boost the UK’s attractiveness as a global trading partner. The scrapping of the industrial strategy in the last month and the continuing failure to construct a workable plan for achieving net zero are holding the UK back from being able to achieve all that it is capable of achieving as we emerge from the difficulties of coronavirus.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
I will focus my remarks on Lords amendments 11 to 15 to clause 61, which, as we have heard, have arrived from the other place on the basis that the BEIS Committee, which I chair, does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department. Let me start by thanking their lordships for their highly informed debate on this issue and their hard work in drafting these amendments.
It is a matter of fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee has a level of security clearance and powers to demand classified information that no other Committee of this House has, including my own. I was therefore surprised to learn that the Government were not going to update the memorandum of understanding with the ISC to extend its remit specifically to include the Investment Security Unit. That is why their lordships have sent us these amendments, which I have no issue with. On that basis, I commend the Chair of the ISC for his eloquent speech this evening. However, the Government have made it clear to my Committee and to the House that they have no intention of supporting the amendments, and nor will they be extending the memorandum of understanding in respect of the ISC.
The Secretary of State did agree with me in Committee that the Bill extends the powers of the Government to intervene in the market and that adequate scrutiny of that function is therefore important. On that basis, my Committee has received a letter from the Secretary of State, which we will formally report to the House tomorrow morning, setting out three key points. First, my Committee will be guaranteed appropriate levels of information and briefing to understand why Ministers have acted in the way they have—this is noting the points made by the ISC Chair this evening. On that basis, my Committee and the Department will enter into a new MOU to reflect this. Secondly, the Secretary of State will brief me, as Chair of the Committee, on Privy Counsellor terms, as required. Thirdly, the Science and Technology Committee, which also has standing in this area, will be recognised as sharing the scrutiny responsibility, alongside the BEIS Committee, in addition to the work of the ISC. I welcome the comments made by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee in this evening’s debate.
My Committee has discussed this issue and wants to ensure effective scrutiny of the wide-ranging and important powers in the Bill. Given that the Government are unwilling to support their lordships’ amendments this evening, and therefore having the main scrutiny responsibility resting with the BEIS Committee, the agreement to enter into a new MOU with my Committee, and to ensure the Chair’s briefing on Privy Counsellor terms, is the next best available option. The BEIS Committee will continue to serve the House in holding the Department to account, and we will of course make it known if we are unable to do that effectively. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister, when he sums up the debate on the Floor of the House this evening, reconfirming the commitments made by the Secretary of State and promptly agreeing the MOU in due course.
Paul Scully
I very much appreciate the spirit and detail with which this issue has been covered in the Chamber today and the consideration that has come from the other place. I am glad that we have been able to bring forward a number of amendments to improve the Bill, ensuring that we can keep the certainty for business and are responsive to the needs of business, while clearly keeping that central focus on national security. It is so important that we keep the flexibility in the definition of “national security”, in order to future-proof the Bill, while none the less making sure that businesses and potential investors in this country know exactly the competitive regime we have here.
That goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) about PsiQuantum. Quantum computing is an exciting technology. The Bill tackles national security, but we must also ensure that the UK is a competitive, good home for technologies such as quantum computing, not least by making sure that we can unleash innovation, and make the UK the science superpower that is the envy of the world, with people wanting to come to build quantum technology units here in the UK, through our use of research and development and by ensuring that we are competitive in all our offerings, while being able to protect businesses for our national security.
I appreciate the kind words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and indeed those of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) when he talked about my coming to this place. Indeed, not only did I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) in leading on this Bill, but I stole his flag for my office, for fear of missing out otherwise when I am on my Zoom calls, because that does symbolise the vaccination process and the fact that the Union has come together—the UK has come together—in an amazing programme.
I am really keen to tackle two more points. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about flexibility versus scrutiny, which I have already talked about. She mentioned that she did not want other countries or other businesses to undermine the UK economy. Clearly, we do not have to go that far to have people undermining the UK economy; we have only to go to the Liberal Democrats for that. It is important that we do not allow that speculation—the sort of muckraking we heard from that contribution—to detract from what is a really important Bill for the UK national security regime, and from that optimism and confidence that is needed for attracting investment within this country.
I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), but I reiterate the fact that it is for the BEIS Committee to oversee the work of the Department. The Committee is particularly well placed to consider how effectively and efficiently the regime interacts with business communities and investors.
Mr Steve Baker
I thought my right hon. Friend the Chair of the ISC really made an open and shut case, and I hope that he will not mind my saying so. If the Minister will not amend the memorandum of understanding, will he be really clear why he will not do so, because my right hon. Friend made an open and shut case that he should?
Paul Scully
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I will come back to that. Let me first develop the point about scrutiny. Clearly, the BEIS Committee has business expertise and is able to determine whether the regime is effective in scrutinising relevant acquisitions of control. I do question some of the narrative that I have heard that suggests that the BEIS Committee is not well placed to scrutinise the NSI regime. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on the ISC requesting further information from the unit or the Secretary of State where it falls under the remit of that Committee. There is no barrier to the BEIS Committee handling top secret material or other sensitive material subject to the agreement between the Department and the Chair of the Committee on appropriate handling.
As part of its role, the BEIS Committee can request information that may include sensitive material from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, including on the Investment Security Unit’s use of information provided by the intelligence and security agencies. The Select Committee already provides scrutiny over a number of sensitive areas, and there are mechanisms in place for it to scrutinise top secret information of this kind on a case-by-case basis.
As the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy explained in front of the BEIS Committee last week, and indeed in his letter to the Chairman of the BEIS Committee, which was copied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, there are three Committees that should act in collaboration. The BEIS Committee provides the primary work of scrutinising matters within BEIS competence, but two important additional Committees—the Science and Technology Committee and, indeed, the ISC—were acting in an auxiliary capacity, making sure that the essential cross-cutting nature of the Investment Security Unit benefits from the rigour of those Committees, with expertise in each area that the unit covers.
The Government therefore do not believe that we need to update the existing memorandum of understanding, because it is flexible and it does still pertain. As I have said, there is no dilution of the ISC’s work in this. The current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that we can have the correct scrutiny of this.
Dr Lewis
I appreciate that I have tried the patience of the House, but on that one point let me say that the MOU is flexible in the sense that we can add new organisations to it. The flexibility is not being used by the Government because they are refusing to add this new unit to the MOU, so the flexibility is rendered nugatory.
Paul Scully
As I say, the direction from the Secretary of State in his letter to the Chairs of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Science and Technology Committee was clear in terms of his expectations of how this should work. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee should be the prime Committee to scrutinise BEIS competence, but similarly the Science and Technology Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee should absolutely be there to look at places within their competence to ensure wider scrutiny.
As I said, we have listened to Parliament. We have tabled a number of amendments to increase the amount of information included in the annual report and the various threshold. We have responded.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 61
Annual Report
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.—(Paul Scully.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Financial Services
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 26 April 2021 - (26 Apr 2021)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 392), dated 24 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.
This Government are committed to combating money laundering and terrorist financing and recognise the threat of economic crime to our financial system. Illicit finance risks damaging not only our national security, but our reputation as a global financial centre by undermining the integrity and stability of our markets and institutions.
While it is right that we stamp out the scourge of illicit finance for the benefit of the United Kingdom, it is also right that we do so because of our responsibilities to the wider world. When illicit finance flourishes, so does serious and organised crime, such as people and drug trafficking and terrorism. These are acts that have huge social and economic costs and, of course, cause unimaginable suffering. That is why the Government are focused on making the UK a hostile environment for illicit finance. As part of this work, we have taken significant action to tackle money laundering while strengthening the response of the whole financial system to economic crime.
The bedrock of these efforts is the money laundering regulations. This is the legislative framework that sets out a number of requirements that businesses falling under its scope must take to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. These requirements include the need for firms to implement measures to identify and verify the people and organisations with whom they have a business relationship or for whom they facilitate transactions.
In addition, the regulations require financial institutions and other regulated sector businesses to carry out greater scrutiny or enhanced due diligence in respect of business relationships and transactions involving so-called high-risk third countries. These are nations that have been identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes, and that pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system. The statutory instrument under discussion this evening amends the definition of a high-risk third country in the money laundering regulations.
Allow me to explain the background to some of these changes. At present, the definition of a “high-risk third country” in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 is linked to retained EU law and references the list of countries identified by the European Commission as high risk. This list was previously operated via EU law, which no longer has an effect in the UK. If our legislation is not amended, the list will become outdated and could leave the United Kingdom at risk from those operating in nations with poor money laundering and terrorist financing controls.
Furthermore, the United Kingdom will risk falling behind international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force or FATF. This instrument will therefore amend the money laundering regulations to remove references to the EU’s high-risk third countries list and insert a new list of countries identified in schedule 3ZA. This will be the UK’s new autonomous high-risk third countries list. It will mirror exactly the list of countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and it will keep the UK in line with international standards.
The change that I have outlined will allow us to continue to protect businesses and the financial system from those who pose a significant threat, while ensuring that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of global standards in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. I thank Members for their examination of this important piece of legislation, and hope that colleagues will join me in supporting it this evening.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
As we pass the midnight hour, we turn to the subject of money laundering. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and note that, alongside this statutory instrument, we had the statement earlier—I was going to say today, but it is now yesterday—by the Foreign Secretary, announcing sanctions against a number of named individuals. In that statement, the Foreign Secretary said that
“Our status as a global financial centre”
had made us both an attraction for investment and also a
“a honey pot—a lightning rod—for corrupt actors who seek to launder their…money through British banks or…businesses.”
It is precisely because we are a global financial centre that there is a special responsibility on the United Kingdom to ensure that each part of that sector always operates to the highest standards. We cannot build a future as a laundromat for dirty money, we cannot turn the other way when wrongdoing takes place and we cannot take part in the denigration of institutions. Of course, we also need the highest possible standards in our own public life if we are going to talk to other countries about corruption. That means allegations being properly investigated; it means a duty of propriety with public money; it means procurement based on open criteria, not on inside connections; and it means that those at the very top of our Government should tell the truth.
We support this instrument, which updates the list of third countries where extra due diligence is required in relation to money laundering and terrorist financing. We understand that these matters lie at the heart of national security and financial security, and we want systems as robust as possible in place to guard against money laundering and terrorist financing. Our defences against money laundering are not just a matter of law and regulation, vital though those things are; they are also a matter of enforcement, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Why does he think that in the recent FinCEN reports the UK was considered to be a higher-risk jurisdiction? Why does he think that so many shell companies are based in the UK? What are the authorities doing about that?
Both the Royal United Services Institute and Spotlight on Corruption have identified Companies House reform as an urgent issue in the tackling of corruption and money laundering. What are the Government doing to drive this? Where are we with the draft Register of Overseas Entities Bill? There was nothing about it in the most recent Queen’s Speech. Will there be anything about it in the next Queen’s Speech? A foreign property register was supposed to be established this year. Will the Government meet that deadline? Finally, where are the Government on implementing the findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which used the phrase “the London laundromat” in the first place?
Effective action against money laundering, terrorism and fraud is about a lot more than maintaining a list of countries; it requires action on all fronts if we are to fight these problems effectively. That is what we need to see.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
I endorse a lot of the comments made by the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden); I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what he was saying.
The Scottish National party welcomes the measures in the regulations, but I certainly cannot share the Minister’s glowing endorsement of the Government’s record on money laundering or, indeed, the even more glowing self-praise that we heard from the Foreign Secretary earlier—or yesterday, as it is now. This is a Government who legislate against money laundering, or in favour of transparency in the world of big business only when the eruption of yet another scandal makes it politically too hot for them to continue to pretend that everything is fine. The Government are packed with hard-line Brexiteers—supporters of Brexit, the timing of which we now know was critical to those who had reason to want to keep British-regulated businesses clear of a tightening of European Union regulation.
The Government showed no hint of embarrassment when the first person to be hit with one of their much-trumpeted unexplained wealth orders turned out to be an east European multimillionaire whose immigration and UK citizenship applications had been fast-tracked purely because of the amount of money they owned—money the source of which was as unexplained and dodgy when they were allowed into the country as it was when the National Crime Agency finally caught up with them. Of course, even now the Government are mired in scandal over who really put up the cash for the spiffing up of the Prime Minister’s flat. Over the weekend, there were persistent claims, which went noticeably unanswered, that the money might originally have come from an unauthorised donor and that, in effect, the money might have been laundered.
There is no indication of what, if anything, the Government are doing to address the fact that seven of the 21 countries on the high-risk list are members of the Commonwealth, and another is trying to join. How can anyone have confidence in the super influence that global Britain is supposed to have if it cannot even fix corruption in its own Commonwealth? It gets worse, because another name on that list is that of the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory. The Government have at their disposal the constitutional tools to put an end to the Cayman Islands’ grim reputation, but they choose not to use them. In fact, recent events have suggested that the Government would rather use their muscle to prevent the Scottish Government from giving children the full protection of a United Nations convention than use it to free one of their few remaining colonies from dodgy business practices that—who knows?—may well have been learned from former colonial masters in the first place.
There may well be legitimate and honourable reasons why a company that never does any business in the Cayman Islands would choose to have its brass nameplate on a door there, rather than in the United Kingdom, North America or wherever the business is genuinely based, but we are talking about 100,000 company registrations in a place the population of which is lower than that of my constituency. As well as answering the questions from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, will the Minister tell us what he thinks attracts so many British companies to create wholly artificial structures to link them to Cayman Islands? If it is not tax dodging or money laundering, or to evade legitimate laws on business ethics and transparency, what on earth does he think they do it for? If he cannot think of a reason, perhaps he should ask some of his colleagues why they choose to register companies there. If you have the Companies House register and the Register of Members’ Financial Interests open side by side on a computer screen, it does not take very many clicks of a mouse to find some very senior Tories who do exactly that.
As well as welcoming the regulations, the SNP will continue to keep up the pressure on the UK Government to bring in the further measures needed to clean up the entire financial services sector. The SNP can already claim a number of significant successes in forcing the Government to match their rhetoric with action and, for as long as there are MPs from Scotland in this place, we will continue to keep up that pressure.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for the points they raised. I shall try to address some of them. As I outlined earlier, the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations introduce a new autonomous high-risk third countries list, which will ensure that UK legislation to protect the financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing remains up to date.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. He first mentioned the FinCEN files, which are largely historic, but I will write to him about anything further I can on that. I met Spotlight on Corruption recently to be challenged on a number of aspects. He mentioned Companies House reform, on which work is ongoing, and there will be further announcements in due course.
The regulations represent the UK’s new approach to high-risk third countries. It will allow the UK to take its own view on which countries are high risk without referencing EU legislation and to remain in line with international standards in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The UK is internationally recognised as having some of the strongest controls worldwide for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Who will be responsible for maintaining the list? Will it be Her Majesty’s Treasury? What will be the procedure to review it so that countries may come on to it and existing countries may come off it if they no longer meet the criteria?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his reasonable question about the updating of the list. The Financial Action Task Force meets three times a year to determine the countries identified on its public lists. As such, the UK’s new autonomous high-risk third countries list could be updated up to three times a year to mirror the decisions made by FATF. We will look at that carefully. FATF monitors the UK—indeed, it did a mutual evaluation of the UK in December 2018 and gave us one of the highest ever rankings—and constantly updates countries who are high risk around the world.
I will make a few points in response to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East. In recent years, the Government have taken a number of actions to combat economic crime, including creating a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to economic crime, and passing the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers, including unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders, and established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision to improve the oversight of anti-money laundering compliance in the legal and accountancy sectors. In 2019, the Government and the private sector jointly published a landmark economic crime plan that outlines a comprehensive national response to economic crime such as fraud and money laundering, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It provides a collective articulation of 52 actions being taken in both the public and private sectors in the next three years to ensure that UK cannot be abused for economic crime.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned the Cayman Islands. As of the FATF plenary in February 2021, FATF collectively agreed to include the Cayman Islands in its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. As that is one of the FATF public lists that the UK autonomous list mirrors, the Cayman Islands will be included in the UK’s list of high-risk third countries. The outstanding issues that the Cayman Islands must address are outlined in FATF’s publicly available statement.
I hope that the House has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting this important step to ensure that we have an up-to-date framework to protect the financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing.
Question put and agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Keir Starmer relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No.7) Regulations (SI, 2021, No. 150) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the business on that Motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(David Duguid.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will now have a two-minute suspension for cleaning.
Public Health
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 150), dated 12 February 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 February 2021, be revoked.
The House meets as the UK reaches a critical moment in our battle against the coronavirus. In the past year, the British people have shown remarkable fortitude in the face of this deadly threat and made extraordinary sacrifices to protect our NHS and save lives. The roll-out of the vaccine is now giving real hope to people that there is light at the end of this long tunnel. For that, we give thanks to the scientific excellence that enabled the vaccine to be developed so quickly, while we are indebted to the remarkable work of our NHS, military, local government, volunteers and all those frontline workers who have worked tirelessly on the roll-out. But amid this sense of optimism we know that very real dangers remain from this deadly and unpredictable virus, and one of the key threats is the importation of new strains that could threaten the efficacy of those vaccines. As restrictions loosen and people start to interact more, the opportunity for variants to spread becomes far greater. That is why protecting our borders against emerging strains of covid is such a vital challenge, and I am afraid it is a challenge that the Government are failing miserably.
That is why today we are taking this unusual step of debating Government measures that have been in place for months. I make it clear that it is not our intention to divide the House or to vote these measures down, because having them in place is better than nothing at all, but the verdict on the Government’s approach to quarantine is damning. They have failed to heed warnings that their inadequate system leaves the door open to new variants of covid, and the consequences are deeply worrying. Sadly, this is in keeping with the Government’s approach to protecting our borders against covid from the very start of the pandemic, with no formal quarantine until June of last year, no testing at the border until this year, and no hotel quarantining until 15 February—and then only a half-baked system. For months, Labour Members have been calling for a comprehensive hotel quarantine system to guard against variants reaching these shores and undermining the huge collective effort to defeat this virus.
As islands, we should have a natural advantage in guarding against bringing the virus into the country. Yet in the early days we allowed millions of travellers to enter the country—23 million between 1 January and 31 March last year—while cases of covid were rocketing across Europe. Millions of people coming into the UK with no tests and no formal quarantine requirements will remain a terrible case study for this Government’s approach of doing too little too late, lurching from one crisis to another, devoid of strategy. It is not as if Ministers were not told: constituents were travelling to our ports and airports, raising the lack of checks and tests from the start.
Of course I accept that dealing with a pandemic is hugely challenging, but the inability to protect our borders is a systemic failing. That failure to plan has made the current quarantine system ineffective and frankly dangerous. By extending the red list to only 40 countries, the Government are leaving the door wide open for new variants to enter the UK. On 1 February we gave MPs the opportunity to vote for a comprehensive hotel quarantine system and a sector support deal for the aviation sector, which Labour has been calling on the Government to introduce for months. The Government again refused to do what was necessary to protect our borders against covid.
There are a number of key reasons why a limited list is an ineffective strategy. Labour Members have set out those reasons, and sadly the warnings have come to pass. First, the hard truth is that we have no certainty about where the next dangerous covid strain will emerge. The thoughts of the whole House will, I am sure, be with the people of India, given the heart-breaking scenes we have seen. Countries not on the red list could have new variants in circulation that are spread by travellers to the UK before they are recognised and acted on. That is exactly what happened with the variant from India, which was classed as a variant under investigation in the UK only last week. Warning No.1 was ignored, and it came to pass.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. How long does he propose that his regime would be in place? By worrying about potential variants coming from overseas, he seems effectively to be arguing for a system that will be in place forever, or at least until every other country is vaccinated. What is his position?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, I am not suggesting for a moment that such a system should be in place forever, and clearly there has to be scientific evidence about that. However, we certainly need to be at a more advanced stage of our own roll-out before we give such consideration, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The comprehensive hotel quarantine system should already have been in place.
The second weakness in the current position is that there are countries with significant outbreaks of the South African and Brazilian variants that are not even on the red list. We understand that the recent South African strain discovered in south London came to the UK via a traveller from an African country not on the red list. Warning No. 2 was ignored, and it came to pass. We know that people travelling to the UK on connecting journeys from red list countries have been mixing with people from non-red list countries on planes and in airports, creating dangerous opportunities for cross-infection. We have seen that in scenes from airports in recent months. Warning No. 3 was ignored, and it came to pass.
The Government try to say that their quarantine measures are tough, but the reality suggests otherwise. It is not just the Opposition giving these warnings. Minutes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on 21 January show that Ministers were told
“that reactive, geographically targeted travel bans cannot be relied upon to stop importation of new variants…due to the time lag between the emergence and identification of variants of concern, and the potential for indirect travel via a third country.”
When the director general of Border Force gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, he set out a damning statistic that of the 15,000 people entering the country each day, only around 1% were entering hotel quarantine. That leaves 99% of visitors entering the country with virtually no controls. It is no use the Government saying that other quarantine measures in place are working, because their own figures show that just three in every 100 people quarantining have been successfully contacted. It is a record of negligence that leaves the doors open.
We know things are in a dire state when a video exists of the Home Secretary speaking against her own quarantine policy, and even the implementation of the half-baked measures we have now has been beset by mismanagement. It took 18 days after the announcement on 27 January for hotel quarantine to begin—more time lost. Even now, I hear reports from colleagues about mismanagement of the system—people unable to book in, poor service, lack of support for disabled people, and exceptions not working as they should for people in difficult circumstances. Then there is the Government’s glacial pace of adding countries to the red list.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
May I probe a bit further the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about the regime the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) is proposing? The right hon. Gentleman said he would like to see our domestic vaccine programme a little further advanced and mentioned the figure of 99%. Let me give him another 99% figure: groups 1 to 9 on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation list account for 99% of those who are hospitalised and then die from covid. Given that we have already vaccinated those groups and that by the end of July we will have offered a vaccination to the whole adult population, what more does he want?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is clearly about our own vaccination roll-out, but it is also about vaccination rates around the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows. However, I point out to him and to his right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean that this system should already have been in place, and I have been arguing for it for several months. I had the same debate with the Minister two months ago, back in February.
I think people watching this debate will be staggered to discover that travellers from India were required to isolate in hotels only from Friday, at a time when India, sadly, is in the midst of a devastating wave, with the highest recorded daily cases of covid anywhere in the world. The stakes for these failures are incredibly high. We have seen outbreaks of variants from South Africa, Brazil and India here in the UK. Until now, strict lockdown conditions are likely to have helped to halt the spread, but as lockdowns lift that handbrake comes off. The Government’s blasé attitude was summed up by the Prime Minister himself when he predicted that a third wave from Europe would
“wash up on our shores”.
It does not have to be this way. Throughout the crisis, the Government should have acted more decisively to secure our borders from the first emergence of the virus to failing to act swiftly on the devastating outbreak in India. In debating this statutory instrument, we are clear that the measures are nowhere near enough to provide the protections our country needs. The hopes of our country rely on guarding against vaccine-resistant strains of the virus reaching the UK, but the Government are just not delivering the protections we need. The Government must think again; they must bring forward the long-awaited sector support deal for our aviation industry and measures that deliver the comprehensive hotel quarantine system the country so desperately needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I agreed with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) when he thanked the scientists for their unfailing work to get the vaccine, the Army for its efforts to help to deliver the vaccine, and the NHS workers up and down the country for getting the vaccine into arms. From that point onward, however, there was not a great deal with which I could agree.
On 15 February, we introduced the managed quarantine service as a proportionate approach. From that date, arrivals from countries on the red list were subject to additional measures, including a requirement to quarantine in managed hotels. We have put in place a proportionate system, which allows those with residence rights and British and Irish nationals who live in the UK to return home, but manages the risk of importing new covid variants. We have signed contracts with 29 hotels to provide accommodation for those in quarantine; as and when demand increases, we can bring on additional hotel capacity. I visited one of the hotels—the Radisson Blu—and was reassured by what I saw. To make the scheme effective, we have introduced specific and limited exemptions to manage the quarantine, and those are for the continuation of essential services, but also in very limited compassionate and medical circumstances—for example, for those visiting a dying relative or with medical evidence that they cannot safely quarantine for 10 days in a hotel. I recognise the significant impact that requiring quarantine in hotels has on individuals, not least financially.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Quite apart from the expense, my British Muslim constituents from Wycombe —one family in particular—who found themselves in a hotel were served bacon. That is obviously not halal food, and they found it difficult to get halal food. This of course is Ramadan, and they found it was difficult to be fed at the appropriate times for Ramadan. Will the Minister confirm that this is not the Government’s policy, and that the hotel should be doing much better for people at this time?
Jo Churchill
I would be happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is incumbent on hotels to support Muslim guests during their time there, but particularly at this time of Ramadan to be aware of their needs. Hotels will arrange for halal and vegetarian options to ensure that people’s needs are catered for, and if they are observing fasting during Ramadan, hotels will arrange to provide meals at suhoor and at iftar. They are also quite happy to support individuals who want to take their tests at an appropriate time of day as well—once fasting is broken, for example—and to provide extra clean towels in order to pray. I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend afterwards and make sure that we can raise these matters immediately. However, I would urge his constituents and anybody else who is failing to get their requirements met to raise the matter, because it is important that we deal with them when people are in managed quarantine. This is a service, and our aim is to make it easy as possible for individuals.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Will the Minister give way on testing?
Jo Churchill
Yes, I will, but then I would like to make a little progress.
Sir Charles Walker
Can the Minister explain to the House, when testing is done in hotels—there is now quite a good sample or quite a good group of people—what percentage of those tests over the 10-day period are picking up traces of covid, and when covid is identified, what percentage of those cases are the South African variant, the Indian variant or the Brazilian variant?
Jo Churchill
I will come on in my speech to how we are picking those up, and the fact that we have world-renowned genomic sequencing actually helps us in that. We have identified, in recent days, 132 cases of the Indian variant of interest. Obviously with those, as when we pick up any positive test on day 2, we are genomic sequencing them to ensure that we have the correct information, so that we can make sure that we are following up and contacting people if they are in quarantine at home. In a red list scenario, people are in a managed quarantine facility, and their period of isolation will be expected to start from then. For the exact differences, I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend, because I do not have all the different numbers for all the different variants on me at the moment.
As I have said, to make the scheme effective, we have made limited circumstances where exemptions can be had. On the impact financially, for those who need it there are deferred payment plans. Alongside managed quarantine, we have also introduced mandatory testing, meaning travellers are required to pre-book tests before they travel. Testing takes place on day two and day eight, and allows us, as I have said, to use our world-renowned genomic sequencing expertise to better track any new cases that might be brought into the country and detect new variants.
Travellers will have to have had a pre-departure test within 72 hours of flying, and carriers should not let individuals board without a correctly filled in passenger locator form, so that we know where people are travelling onward to, and when from a red list country, that they have booked their place in a managed quarantine facility or hotel. If the carrier does not do this, they will face fines via enforcement.
Each of the measures we have introduced adds another layer of protection against the transmission of the virus, reduces the risk of a new and dangerous strain being imported and keeps people safe. However, we do not take lightly adding any country to the red list, but keep things under constant review. In India, for example, there has been an extremely rapid rise in cases detected throughout April. Normally there is a high volume of travel between India and the UK. We have already seen 132 cases of the variant under investigation appear in the UK, and that is why we have acted. As the Prime Minister said:
“We stand side by side with India in the shared fight against COVID-19”,
and our thoughts and prayers are with them at what is the most incredibly difficult time.
These decisions are based on risk assessments produced from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, which monitors the spread of variants of concern internationally. The risk assessments cover a range of factors for each country, including surveillance, genomic sequencing, in-country community transmission, evidence of exportation of new variants and travel connectivity. Informed by evidence, including JBC’s analysis and other relevant public health input information, decisions are taken by Ministers.
It is important to note—this probably goes to the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—that countries are also removed from the list under our particular proposals. Portugal and Mauritius, for example, have been removed from the list to allow travel to commence following evidence showing that the risk of importing a variant of concern from those areas has reduced.
Speed of action where variants of concern are found in the community, with urgent tracing and investigation, can identify and rapidly control further transmission and the variant. We believe that the combination of strong border measures, managed quarantine, testing and enforcement remains the best way to effectively reduce the public health risk of importing variants of concern, as public safety is the driving force. We recognise that the additions to the red list have meant challenging times for the airport sector—a crucial sector to the economy—and businesses across the industry can draw on the unprecedented package of economic measures that we have put in place to support them.
I am grateful for the continued efforts of individuals, airline carriers, quarantine facilities, border forces and others to help us tackle the global pandemic by helping everyone follow the rules, protecting each other and saving lives. The Government objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to international travel for business and pleasure. The current border regimes will remain in place for the time being, as will the restrictions on outward-bound international travel, because at the moment we should not be going anywhere.
The global travel taskforce is developing a framework that will facilitate greater travel when the time is right. There is no single measure that mitigates the risk entirely, and each layer we have introduced helps to reduce the risk. The managed quarantine service is complemented by testing, and those measures have been put in place for all arrivals. The mandatory testing regime improves the efficacy of the post-travel isolation period for preventing onward transmission of those imported cases.
Given the incredible progress made on the vaccination programme, as well as the hard work of British people to bring down the rates, it is more important than ever that we continue to protect people with a strong approach. As the House knows, there are restrictions on travelling abroad from England, and the individual must have a justified reason, but there are those who feel we have not gone far enough and those who feel we have gone too far. That probably indicates that we are where we need to be.
However, our rationale for this policy remains clear: we must continue to be alert and able to take swift action to mitigate any negative impact on vaccine effectiveness from the risk of variants of concern and broader public health challenges. That also includes at airports. The right hon. Member for Torfaen asked me about keeping people separated. Every step is taken to reduce risk to minimise potential for passenger interaction, including tests before departure, social distancing, mandatory mask wearing, the cleaning of facilities and specific lanes to minimise any interaction between those who have come from red list countries and those who have come from amber list countries. A number of airports, including Britain’s busiest airport, Heathrow, have introduced additional measures to separate passengers from the red list ahead of the immigration hall in order to stop them mixing, so it is not fair on those who have been working so hard to produce a system that we can live and work with to say that they are not doing anything. I know this is difficult for families who have been impacted by the introduction of hotel quarantine. However, they are part of the national effort. While we learn more about variants of concern and potential new strains, it is right that we continue to take a cautious approach, allowing us to continue with the road map and move closer to a more normal, yet covid-tinged life.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the House for too long, but I have some questions, and I will explain to the Minister why I am raising them now. I think that they are in order. If I understand this correctly, the Government have indicated that, as of 17 May, more international travel may well be possible, subject to a review, and they have indicated that they will give people a week’s notice of those changes. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have spotted that the date for that announcement to take place is when we are expecting the House to be prorogued before the state opening of Parliament, so this is probably the last opportunity—depending on whether we have Transport questions on Thursday—for Members to ask Ministers questions about the international travel regime before it might change. I happen to think it is important that those questions are asked in the House, rather than simply being left to be asked at a press conference.
Before I set out those questions, however, let me just follow up my question to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who opened the debate for the Labour party. He answered one of my questions, when I could not quite work out why Labour had tabled a motion to revoke these regulations. He confirmed that Labour does not intend to press that to a vote, which makes sense, but he did not really deal with the other question I asked or with the companion question that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) asked. I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on how long he felt a tougher regime should be in place, and in answer to me he indicated that it should be dependent on our vaccination roll-out, whereas in answer to my hon. Friend, he seemed to suggest that it would depend on what was going on around the world.
The reason that I am labouring this point—I am going to press the Minister on it as well—relates to what the regime is trying to deliver. If this is about worrying about what is going on in the rest of the world—given that it is entirely possible, even with a fair wind, that we will not have vaccinated the adult population around the world until the end of next year, 2022—this whole travel regime could be in place for the rest of this year and the whole of next year, which has very significant implications. If, however, the regime is to stay in place until we have vaccinated every adult in this country, that would have very different implications, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester pointed out, as we will have offered every adult a vaccination by July.
My question to the Minister is: will she set out for the House what the Government’s current thinking is? She has indicated that the regime should stay in place for little while, but I note that the explanatory memorandum to these regulations reminds us that the overall international travel regulations will cease to have effect on 8 June this year. That is not far into the future, so the Government will have to make a decision about whether to allow those regulations to lapse on 8 June, effectively resulting in no controls on international travel or, whether—as I suspect is more likely—to bring in further regulations, in which case they will need to be clear about how long they wish those regulations to remain in place.
The exchange between myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester and the right hon. Member for Torfaen illustrated this question. Is this about how well we have rolled out vaccinations in the UK and therefore protected our population from covid? The Minister will know that we already have in place very good genomic sequencing, and as I understand it, all the manufacturers and developers are ready to tweak the vaccines they have already developed, if the genomic sequencing indicates any need to do so. At the moment, although these variants are called variants of concern, none of them evades the vaccine. My understanding is that the vaccines are effective against all of them, certainly in terms of preventing serious disease, hospitalisation and death. There is, I understand, a question mark about the extent to which the vaccines protect against the South African variant as far as mild disease is concerned, but if it enables mild disease to take hold then I am not sure that is something about which we need to be enormously concerned.
I press that point because if the Government are going to take the view that they are so worried about a potential variant that does not yet exist developing somewhere in the world and undermining the efficacy of our vaccine position, then it seems to me that that means we will have to keep the regulations in place at least until the whole of the world is vaccinated and the virus is driven down to a very low level globally. That may not be until the end of next year, on a best-case scenario. That has really quite dramatic consequences for the airline industry, the travel industry and the 3 million people who work in it, and the freedoms of our population, so if the Minister could say a little bit about that, that would be helpful.
Steve Brine
Perhaps it would be helpful if the Government were to say what level of reduced efficacy they would consider to be a cause for concern. Any flu vaccine that I ever purchased when I was doing the Minister’s job had about 60% efficacy. The three vaccines being used at the moment are way ahead of that, so even a reduction in efficacy of 10% would still significantly outpace the flu vaccine we currently roll out. Would it be helpful if the Government said at which level it would drop to where the indicators would flash red?
Mr Harper
That is a very good question. More widely, it would be helpful if the Government and their scientific advisers had a slightly better conversation with the public about variants and the impact they may have on vaccine efficacy, rather than this constant—I accept this is not always how they intend it, but it is the way it gets reported—conversation about scary variants or mutants.
Actually, at the moment—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—all the variants we are aware of are dealt with by the existing vaccine portfolio to a greater or lesser degree. What we are concerned about is what may come along in the future, but we have a very good system in this country at least. My understanding is that none of the vaccine manufacturers yet feel they have to change the design of their vaccines to deal with any variant we are currently aware of anywhere in the world.
One further point I want to make is that how we name variants—the Kent variant, the South African variant, the Indian variant—is not actually terribly helpful. It gives the impression to the public that the variants only come from specific geographic parts of the world and if only we put in a sufficiently robust border arrangement, we could keep them out. The reality, of course, is that those variants could occur anywhere in the world, including here in the United Kingdom. I think I am right in saying that the best advice that exists is that even an incredibly tough border regime can, at best, only slow the transmission of viruses, rather than keep them out forever. At some point we will have to decide when we will allow travel to get back to normal, which is why I asked whether that would be about how the world is vaccinated or how the United Kingdom is vaccinated. I do not think that question has been sufficiently answered.
Specifically on the regulations, there is reference to the ports by which people are allowed to enter the United Kingdom. I want to ask one or two questions about ports of entry. The Minister answered some of this, in response to the concerns raised by the shadow Home Secretary, when talking about the efforts that Heathrow in particular has put in place to try to keep people separate. However, it is the case, having looked at pictures, and listened to the challenges faced by airport operators and the first-hand testimony of people travelling, that people from different countries, including red list countries and non-red list countries, are kept in airports for significant periods of time in a way that is not particularly well socially distanced. That is clearly a risk, if we then insist that they will have to spend time in quarantine, when they have just spent a considerable period of time next to people from completely different countries.
I mention that because I wonder what plans the Government have in place, as they think about increasing the volume of international travel, to automate the process. The Minister will be aware—I am, as a former Immigration Minister—that one of the ways in which we deal with the volumes going through airports is to have e-gates to automate the process of checking people’s travel documents. In order to deal with a significant increase in volume, the testing information on the passenger locator form will, I think, have to be put into some digital form, if airports are to have any hope of dealing with the volume of passengers. Given a significant increase in passenger volumes, even with an increase in the number of Border Force staff, in no way will airports be able to cope with checking all that information and dealing with the volume of flights without becoming absolutely overwhelmed. If the Government might change the position in just a couple of weeks’ time, will the Minister say how far forward those plans are?
My final point—you will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker—is about vaccine passports. I am not at all persuaded of domestic vaccine passports. They run a great risk of creating a two-tier society. Also, once we have vaccinated the adult population, in particular with the take-up rate among the groups so far of more than 95%, I am not at all sure what a domestic vaccine passport gets us once we have reached that level of vaccination coverage.
It seems to me that vaccine passports would be a big mistake. As the Paymaster General, who responded to the debate last Thursday, said to me, domestic vaccine passports and international ones are quite separate and should be treated separately, and it would be a mistake to run them together. I was heartened to hear that, and I hope that is the position the Government will stick to.
Internationally, however, some questions arise from the regime put in place here. I am much more relaxed about international vaccine passports than about domestic ones. We have already have precedents—people have to have yellow fever vaccinations to go to specific countries—and of course if a country requires people to be vaccinated to enter it, it is entirely up to it what rules are set for people who want to visit that country.
My first question for the Minister is because I understand that the World Health Organisation states in its most up-to-date policy paper of 5 February—the latest one on its website—that it does not recommend that countries have proof of covid vaccination to exist before they allow people to travel. The reason it sets that out is that it fears that that would in effect incentivise countries that had already had a good roll-out of vaccine to hog the global supplies for themselves, setting up some unfortunate sets of incentives. That is the organisation’s latest position. Will the Minister say whether the British Government will go along with that position?
I have two questions. First, if the UK Government ease up on the travel rules in May, is their position that they will require foreign nationals to be vaccinated before they come to the United Kingdom, or will the Government stick to the testing regime? Secondly, what steps have the Government put in place, working with the International Air Transport Association and other international bodies, for any kind of international vaccine passport? Perhaps the Minister will update the House on the Government’s plans.
I raise that because, if the Government announce a change to the international position in the next couple of weeks, knowing what plans are under way—and, I hope, this House being asked for its authorisation to implement such measures—would be very welcome. With those few questions, I conclude my remarks.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
I want to highlight quickly how our poorly drawn-up covid self-isolation and quarantine regulations are causing difficulties for UK businesses in competition with EU companies that are following different regulations. That is putting UK businesses at a disadvantage.
I was contacted by David Fletcher from GEV Group, which has its headquarters in my constituency. It is a market leader in critical field repair services to the wind energy industry, specialising in wind turbine blade repair, and it exports its services all over Europe, the US and the far east. Of course, it has had to reorganise and reprioritise services due to the pandemic, but in some cases, as hon. Members can imagine, where wind turbine blades have suffered significant damage, that cannot wait.
The company of course understands the need for covid security and taking precautions, but it finds itself at a significant disadvantage to its European competitors, which are operating under a different approach to travel for frontier workers. Essentially, the EU guidelines provide specific instructions for posted and frontier workers, noting that health screening must be carried out under the same conditions as for nationals exercising the same occupation.
GEV informs me that the UK guidelines have a much looser definition of frontier workers and do not appear to have considered all the likely circumstances they will face. The key issue for GEV is the line in the UK guidance that states that travel must be on a weekly basis. Its technicians typically travel on a fortnightly rotation, as they are stationed offshore on a vessel for that duration. That means that, upon return, they have to observe the eight-day quarantine period, which has led to most of the company’s workforce not wanting to travel. As a consequence, it is losing work to its European counterparts.
I urge the Minister to look at realigning the rules with the EU so that GEV and other UK companies that export services can remain competitive. I am more than happy to write to her on this matter, and I really hope that this simple issue can be resolved very quickly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is late and I will be brief. Over the Easter weekend, I walked through a tragic situation concerning a constituent that reflects the insufficiency of the regulations before the House this evening. I certainly echo many of the concerns that have already been expressed in the debate.
My constituent could not travel back to the UK to see her mother because her mother was in a care home. However, her mother’s condition suddenly deteriorated, so she raced back to see her. As she had taken the two vaccines and had already tested negative, she travelled through hub airports. In the first, she was completely isolated from other passengers; in the second, she mingled with red and green passengers. She then touched down in the UK.
Sadly, my constituent’s mother passed away. My constituent had to go to a quarantine hotel, whereas many of the people she had been mingling with just hours before were free to travel wherever they wanted. When she arrived—obviously, she paid an extortionate amount for it—she was put in a poorly ventilated room and allowed out for only 20 minutes a day. She was in deep grief. She wanted to be at home with her father—isolating, absolutely—but that was denied. Over the Easter weekend, she had two appeals and private transport was arranged, but she could not leave that quarantine situation.
With regard to my constituent’s wellbeing, she felt imprisoned, with no support. When I raised the issue of support, all I was told was that she could be assessed for suicide. She was in deep grief. She needed to be with family, isolating as she was. The only concession I was given was that her father, who was also mourning, could travel to Birmingham from York and, at the full cost of £1,750, stay at the hotel for the full quarantine period. He had legal matters to deal with besides his grief. Other constituents have highlighted the lack of support around mental health.
My constituent is not a criminal, and she would follow all public health guidance required of her, including testing and whatever was needed by a local public health team. Her mother had just died, she was broken with grief, and no one had the capacity to find a solution, while others she met on her journey were free to go anywhere in the UK. That is why these regulations are not fit for purpose.
Further to that, my constituent was told that she would be able to go to the funeral, but if she was to do so, her father would have to drive for more than 12 hours to collect her and then return her, in the midst of his grief. That is not only dispassionate but dangerous—and she would be among 29 other people at the funeral, but she was not allowed to stay at home with just her father. Schedule B1A, paragraph 13, needs significant amendment. It is time to understand humanity and infection control. Both can be achieved, but that is not found in these regulations. So I urge the Government to get a grip of these really important issues and to get a heart.
Jo Churchill
There were a considerable number of questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I will try to cover those that I heard, but he will forgive me if I write to him on the matters for which I do not have the immediate answers. Let me say as a slight cover-all that many of the things to which he alluded will be brought forward by the global travel taskforce when it starts to lay out the approach to restarting international travel safely, aligned with the domestic road map. I appreciate that he said he felt that this was his last chance to raise this issue while the House was sitting, because, given the dates, it is highly likely that that will happen while we are prorogued or shortly after. However, this is live and dynamic at the moment, and I can give him few answers on the specific questions he raised on the global taskforce and what it will say in three weeks’ time about future travel arrangements. Although I apologise for that, there is really nothing I can say to pre-empt that set of instructions as to how and when we are going to lift restrictions, and the use of a traffic light system, where countries will be categorised as red, amber or green, and how we deal with people in that space.
Mr Harper
Let us assume, based on the timings that have been announced, that the results of the global travel taskforce are going to be announced when the House is not sitting. May I get an assurance from the Minister, then, that on the first day after the state opening of Parliament that it is permitted to have a statement there will be a statement at that Dispatch Box by a Minister, so that we are able to ask questions about the results of the global travel taskforce? Will she assure me that that will take place at the earliest possible opportunity?
Jo Churchill
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. I assure him that I will take that request back. As he knows, I cannot commit to that at the Dispatch Box.
My right hon. Friend asked which ports of entry people can fly into, why we have chosen those ports, whether we are extending them and what happens if someone from a red list country is booking in to arrive at a non-designated port. If someone has a pre-existing booking to a non-designated port, it is the individual’s responsibility to change it to a designated port. Carriers are not permitted to carry anyone who has been in a red list country in the previous 10 days to any port of entry other than those that are specified. Currently, those designated ports are clearly Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Birmingham and Farnborough.
I ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) to write to me, but I gently say to her and to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—I cannot discuss the specifics of the case of her constituent, for whom I have the greatest sympathy—that the challenge here is that their Front-Bench team are asking for stricter restrictions the whole time, across the piece. If all we then do is build more and more exemptions into the system, we will have a looser system than the one we are endeavouring to make sure is proportionate, delivers in a way that manages the arrivals from red zone countries, and has a degree of flexibility to ensure that as the system changes we can build countries back into travel and restrict others where there may be a flare-up.
It is right, as I have explained, that all these measures are kept under constant review. The combination of quarantine requirements for all international arrivals means that those arriving from countries presenting with the highest risk are asked to use the Government-approved hotel quarantine facilities. There is a robust testing regime prior to departure and then again on arrival. Enforcement is put in place if required. As we still have more to learn about the virus and, as my right hon. Friend said, more understanding to acquire, we must make sure that our approach is based on the best evidence, and that it is proportionate. That is the responsible approach to take to safeguard progress in defeating the virus and to make sure that we can all get back to some degree of normality.
Mr Harper
Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I press her on one further point? I accept that she cannot set out answers to my detailed questions until the global travel taskforce has presented its outcome and Ministers have made their decisions. The central question I did ask though requires a fairly wide policy decision. It may be that that will be decided by the global travel taskforce as well. Fundamentally, is our travel regime and how much protection we are going to have based on the extent to which we have vaccinated the British public, which is obviously proceeding at pace and suggests that we would be able to relax these measures sometime during the summer, or will it be based on the extent of the virus globally, which suggests, listening to some of the best voices on this, that we will be looking more towards the end of next year. That does not seem to me to depend on what the global travel taskforce is deciding. It possibly does, but perhaps she could furnish the House with an idea.
Jo Churchill
I do hate to disappoint my right hon. Friend, but I will have to do so once again. The answer to that question will appear with the global taskforce as we move into the coming months. In addition to that, there is a package that is linked to the work of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on passport certification. We want to have a coherent integrated system that provides a proportionate response as we move forward.
Mr Steve Baker
On this point of coherence, I know that my hon. Friend cannot comment on the outcome of the taskforce, but does she agree that it is very important that, for all of these decisions on red listing, the evidence is clearly presented to the public so that they can see that countries are being treated fairly? Diasporas do bring with them some of their politics, and she will understand that, in particular, pairs of countries need to be seen to be treated fairly without any particular geopolitical preference. She will understand the point I am making, so can we always present to the public the evidence for the red listing?
Jo Churchill
We always try to make sure that we present the evidence with the rationale behind what we are doing. Ultimately, the driving force behind what we are doing is to make sure that we keep our residents safe and that we help other countries to keep their residents safe. The way that I will finish is that, as we all know, until everyone is safe, none of us is safe.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have already indicated that it is not my intention to push the motion to a vote. I simply thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who spoke very movingly about the situation faced by her constituent. I urge the Minister to look at the system of exemptions, the system of booking, the standard of service and the support for people in hotel quarantine. I also once again urge the Government to change course and introduce a comprehensive system of hotel quarantine.
Question negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For those leaving the Chamber—please do so in a covid-friendly way at 10 minutes past 1 in the morning.
Business without Debate
Emergency Services Personnel: Awards for Next of Kin
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to have this Adjournment debate, although it seems to be a rather two-edged weapon tonight. I thought I was in a good mood, until I saw the time that we would have to do it, but I am not alone—I am with lots of friends—and I am particularly pleased that the Minister responding, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), is a very good friend of mine and new in the Ministry, so he is having a bit of, shall we say, battlefield inoculation.
At about 4.30 am on 7 December 1982, I helped to pull a young woman called Tina Collins out of the wreckage of a pub called the Droppin’ Well in Northern Ireland. She had recently been married to 20-year-old Clinton Collins, my company clerk, who I had promoted to lance corporal the day before. I was then a major in the Cheshire Regiment serving at Ballykelly in Ulster. To celebrate Clinton’s promotion, he had taken Tina to the Droppin’ Well for the evening, until, at about 10 past 11, a huge bomb blew the place apart. Tina and Clinton were together and she later told me that he had shielded her with his body when the explosion occurred. Maybe he did; I hope so.
Clinton was killed—I think, almost immediately—and Tina survived, although in great shock. I was the incident commander and it took us about five and a half hours to recover Tina from where she was lying, under concrete beside the still body of her husband. In all, 17 people were killed that evening and 11 of them were soldiers, six of them from my own company. What happened that night has marked me for life and I will never forget the horror of it.
Then, on 1 July 2009, the Defence Secretary announced in this place that recognised next of kin of service personnel killed on operations would qualify for a commemorative emblem called the Elizabeth Cross. Tina Collins, of course, received it, and it was my real honour to have her visit me in Parliament after I became an MP in 2010. Regimental headquarters of all regiments, particularly thinking of the Cheshire Regiment, have contacted most of the next of kin of their soldiers killed since 1948—the date from which the emblem has been awarded—and appropriate awards have been made. That emblem is made of a silver cross rather like the size of a Military Cross, which my father was awarded. When I sit in my office and look at my father’s decorations on the wall, I always think of the Elizabeth Cross as well. The emblem comes in a large form about two inches square and a miniature form. It is accompanied by a scroll signed by Her Majesty the Queen bearing the name of the person who lost their life in the service of their country.
All I can say, and the Minister will agree with me here, is that anyone I have met who has been given this badge wears it with huge pride, and I—and we all—hope it is of some, albeit limited, succour to them. But it does not make sense to me that those who protect us in non-military uniforms, such as the police, fire and ambulance services, should not have a similar arrangement for their own next of kin if they are killed in the line of duty. I think so, and so do many other colleagues in this place. To that end, I have worked alongside my right hon. Friend, and good friend, the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to try to get support for this, and I thank him. After all, in my view, there are far too many people killed in what we might call the blue light services who leave people behind.
Even late last week, Jack Daw, a paramedic, was killed in the village of Moreton on Lugg when answering a 999 call. An object smashed through the windscreen, killed him in the passenger seat and hurt the driver. The matter is still being investigated, but the media report that it may not have been a deliberate act and was an accident. Our own Police Constable Keith Palmer, George Medal, was killed in New Palace Yard on 22 March 2017. He had a wife and children, and I think Mrs Palmer could qualify for an award.
I gather that, between 1986 and 2013, 26 firefighters were killed attending fires in the United Kingdom. Most of them, of course, had close loved ones, so how about an award similar to the Elizabeth Cross for the blue light services? By blue light services, I mean the police, fire and ambulance services in the first instance, but the award might be expanded to include the coastguard and other organisations that rescue people, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, as well as mountain and mine rescue teams. The award could be given to recognised next of kin with similar criteria to that necessary for the award of the Elizabeth Cross—in other words, their loved ones were killed in the line of duty. I suggest that, if this idea is taken up, the award should be of the same quality as the armed forces’ Elizabeth Cross, which is somewhat splendid and much prized by those who wear it. It seems that the cross—please, not a medal; a cross is so much more distinctive—would look good in silver, designed along equivalent lines to those given to the next of kin of armed forces personnel. In short, it must stand out as special, and so it should.
I have not found one Member of Parliament who has reservations about this proposal. Surely, the next of kin of blue light service personnel who die in the service of their country are just as deserving as armed forces personnel who die for the same reason. Personally, I believe that, at this time, the award might be called the Prince Philip Cross, with the permission of Her Majesty, of course. Based on what I gather about the institution of the Elizabeth Cross in 2009, it may not need legislation, but would it not be appropriate to include it in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Mr Francois, but to speak you needed to have the permission of both the Minister and Colonel Bob—
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
indicated assent.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Exceptionally, then, because it is 20 past 1 in the morning and he is still here, I call Mark Francois to make a short contribution.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I shall more than take the hint. I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, albeit at almost 1.30 am. I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for asking me to make a brief contribution in support of his excellent idea for a Prince Philip Cross.
I have only three brief points to make. First, as a former Minister for Veterans in the Ministry of Defence, I welcome the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), to his new appointment, in which, knowing him as I do, I am sure he will excel.
Secondly, when I was the Minister for Veterans some years ago, I worked on the evolution of the military covenant into what is now known as the armed forces covenant. Similarly, the Government are now talking about introducing a policing covenant for the wider policing family. That is a very good idea, but I have one suggestion: if we really want it to catch on in a popular sense, we should call it the coppers’ covenant. That seems to me to be the obvious name. If we want to give such a covenant a concrete form, what better way than to bring in the Prince Philip Cross, as explained excellently by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham, to honour the next of kin of those in the police service, the fire and rescue service or the ambulance service who give their lives in the line of duty?
Thirdly, as a former Minister for Veterans, I have seen for myself the great comfort that can be brought to next of kin who receive the Elizabeth Cross if their armed forces partner has given their life in the service of their country. Given that Prince Philip’s whole life was about public service, I think that, providing that the palace and, ultimately, Her Majesty the Queen approve of the concept, it would be extremely fitting to name such a cross after his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
There are always many details to work out in respect of such awards, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is more than capable of doing that with the assistance of the Government. Tonight, we need to know whether the Government are prepared to give the idea a fair wind in order to honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice not on the battlefield but in other ways, for the service of their countrymen. I hope that that is a fitting tribute and that the Government might yet agree.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
First, I put on record my thanks to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for the tremendous compassion that he has shown and the interest he maintains, as well as for his remarkable public service in the military. He has raised an important topic tonight. It is indeed true that the emergency services are rightly held in high esteem by all Members of this House and our whole country. We are grateful for their service. I also note with great interest the parallel he drew with the awarding of the Elizabeth Cross to the families of armed forces personnel killed in action and agree with his eloquent description of the remarkable pride with which the cross is worn. I am grateful for the moving way in which he recounted the tragic loss of Clinton Collins and the remarkable strength and courage of his wife, Tina. Tonight, we honour their sacrifice, their loss and their service.
Over the last year, during the covid-19 pandemic, the dedication of all our public services has been at the forefront of our minds. Sadly, the dedication of our public servants sometimes results in the ultimate sacrifice of their lives. As my right hon. and gallant Friend mentioned, the risks to ambulance staff were tragically demonstrated only this weekend when, on Saturday, we saw the death on duty of west midlands ambulance technician Jeremy Daw. I would like to put on record my sincere condolences and the condolences of Her Majesty’s Government to his family at this extremely difficult time.
The Government acknowledge that public service in this country has a long and deep history. The diligence shown by our public services has taken many forms. It is usually quietly given, sometimes in the most extreme and difficult of circumstances, but it is always appreciated by the nation. Each death is a personal tragedy for a family, for a community and for the victim’s colleagues, but each death is also a national tragedy, mourned by all who appreciate and admire the commitment made by those on the frontline to protect and support our community.
Public service takes perhaps its most urgent reform in the emergency services, and the Government are committed to supporting them. Fortunately, very few of our blue light personnel are called upon to make life-threatening sacrifices. However, that does not make fatal incidents any easier to bear. Our priority must be to prevent harm in the first place. It goes almost without saying that our emergency services do an incredibly demanding job. They face some of the most challenging situations daily, putting themselves at risk to safeguard us all, and it is vital that they have the support and protection that they need.
We can see acute risk to the emergency services in considering the statistics for the police service. I was grateful for the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), with the fitting comments he made in regard to the magnificent service of our police force. Home Office figures from 2018-19 show that there were nearly 31,000 recorded assaults on police officers. Indeed, that may well underestimate the true scale of risk. Last year, when the National Police Chiefs’ Council published its findings from its review into police officer and staff safety, it reported that 92 police officers lost their lives on duty between 2008 and 2019. It was fitting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham mentioned Keith Palmer, George Medal—our Keith Palmer—who lost his life so infamously here on the parliamentary estate. Work has been under way to implement the recommendations of the review, which include measures such as overhauling personal safety training and expediting trials of new technology or equipment that could enhance safety. The aim is to ensure that officers are as well equipped as possible when faced with life-threatening situations.
I have often been struck by the bravery of our emergency services in accepting and managing the intrinsic risks of frontline service. I have been privileged to meet many of our courageous police officers. Representatives of the police, the fire and rescue service and the ambulance service are, of course, regularly celebrated through Her Majesty’s honours list and through the award of Queen’s medals. But the Government agree with my right hon. Friend that we must ensure full recognition where that is due, perhaps especially when the worst has happened. That is why the Home Secretary committed to reviewing the current recognition and commemoration of the police to see if we can do anything more to acknowledge our police service personnel and their families.
My right hon. Friend has proposed that it would be appropriate to consider recognition of emergency service personnel killed on duty in a manner similar to the Elizabeth Cross being given to the next of kin of military personnel killed on operations. As Members may know, the Elizabeth Cross was introduced, as he mentioned, in 2009 to, in Her Majesty the Queen’s words, accord the highest respect to those who make the ultimate sacrifice. I can offer my personal testimony that it is an important symbol of tribute to those who have given their lives in the service of their country. It serves to mark the nation’s acknowledgement of their family’s loss. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am supportive of the intention behind his suggestion that similar respect is due to those in our domestic uniformed services.
As Members may know, however, the honours system operates independently of the Government and under the royal prerogative. It is right that recommendations for new forms of recognition should be considered very carefully and consistently with a clear evidence basis. This takes time. It also requires close discussion with those whom we seek to acknowledge so that we can demonstrate our appreciation in appropriate ways.
Although I am unable to make any commitment with regard to my right hon. and gallant Friend’s specific proposal, I want to offer my personal assurances that the Government will explore and carefully consider all options for recognition and commemoration. I remain confident that the process of review will produce meaningful ways in which we can continue to pay tribute to our magnificent emergency services.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Ben Everitt |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 455).
First, I thank everyone who has mobilised to fight the disease. It is not possible to namecheck everyone, but may I single out for thanks all those in the NHS, social care and the Army, as well as returned healthcare staff, who are involved in the deployment of the vaccine? I also thank scientists, pharmaceutical companies and those running clinical trials for developing new vaccines, antivirals and all manner of therapies to combat the threat of mutations.
Of course, I also thank the general public for continuing to follow the rules. It has been a difficult year, but we have made significant progress towards reclaiming our freedom, while doing all we can to protect people against coronavirus. Thanks to the collective efforts of the British public, our world-leading vaccine programme and our fantastic healthcare workers, we have been able to progress to the next stage of the road map, which seeks a balance between our social and economic priorities, and the need to save lives and avoid another surge in infections that could put unsustainable pressure on the NHS.
The decision to move to step 2 was informed by the latest scientific evidence and was based on the assessment that all four tests set out in the road map have been met. Test 1 is that vaccine deployment continues successfully. We continue to make great progress in vaccinating the most vulnerable as we move through the road map. As of 25 April, more than 33.7 million people have received their first dose of the vaccine, and another 12.9 million people have received their second dose. That huge progress means that we continue to meet the first test.
Test 2 is for the evidence to suggest that the vaccine continues to be effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths. Public Health England’s analysis indicates that the UK covid-19 vaccination programme has so far prevented more than 10,000 deaths in those aged 60 and above in England. Furthermore, hospital admissions in the over-65s remain consistent with a vaccine effect of reducing serious or life-threatening illness from covid-19.
Test 3 aims to ensure that infection rates do not risk a surge in hospital admissions that could put undue pressure on the NHS. That is somewhat mitigated by those who are most vulnerable being vaccinated. However, I know from speaking to NHS staff how concerned they are about the risk of a third wave. Currently, the number of hospital admissions continues to decrease, and case rates among the over-60s are also falling. The NHS emergency alert level has been dropped from level 4 to level 3, mirroring how the NHS was in the summer of 2020.
Test 4 is that our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern. As further evidence is gathered on their impact, the incidence of variants of concern, such as the South African B1351 variant or the Brazilian P1 variant, remains very low and stable in the United Kingdom, with border restrictions and testing in place. The Government will continue to monitor those and other variants closely as we ease restrictions, and we will not hesitate to take firm action as necessary to protect lives and livelihoods.
We met all four tests, so we were able to take the next cautious step along the road map on 12 April 2021. That involved the easements to restrictions set out in the regulations we are debating today and covered the reopening of non-essential retail, including personal care and indoor leisure, such as hairdressers and gyms, and the reopening of additional outdoor settings, including the hospitality sector and attractions. Outdoor hospitality is not required to provide a substantial meal alongside alcoholic drinks. Furthermore, no curfew will be imposed on pubs and restaurants, but the requirement to have table service and for customers to order via table service if the venue sells alcohol remains, and payment should be taken at the table or at another outdoor location wherever possible.
The easements also included the resumption of indoor childcare and supervised activities for children, providing they are not in private homes. That includes indoor sport and parent-and-child groups, which can take place for up to 15 people. Wedding ceremonies are permitted for up to 15 people, and wedding receptions are permitted outdoors again for up to 15 people, and should be in the form of a sit-down meal. Smaller outdoor events such as fêtes, literary fairs and fairgrounds are able to take place.
Self-contained accommodation can be used for single households or bubbles. Social restrictions will remain the same as those in place from 29 March, with the rule of six or two households outdoors only. We regret that we are only just debating these amendments now. However, it was essential to introduce them quickly, as no restriction should be in place for longer than necessary.
Step 2 is a considerable achievement and is down to the sheer dedication of all health and social care sector staff, as well as the public’s determination to beat this virus. The easing of regulations is hugely welcome and brings us a step closer to reclaiming normality. Although I am proud of our efforts that have led us to introduce step 2, I must be frank: the virus is not gone from our lives, and we must be cautious as we look to ease restrictions further. There is still the risk of a resurgence of cases such as those reported in other countries. However, if we continue to be guided by data rather than dates, and we ensure that we meet the four tests, we can safely reopen our society and claim back our lives. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for her introduction to this instrument, which, as she said, came into force on 12 April. It amends both the original steps regulations and the local authority enforcement powers regulations. I join her in thanking all those who have contributed to the national effort so far in our struggle against the virus. I echo what she said about the great commitment that has been shown by so many. I also agree that we are not out of the woods yet.
We do not oppose these regulations, but I do of course have some observations and questions for the Minister on the various amendments in this instrument. Let me start with the amendments relating to the steps regulations. As we heard, this instrument primarily amends those regulations to move all of England into step 2, as per the Prime Minister’s road map. It also includes amendments to allow businesses or services otherwise permitted to open at step 2 also to open at self-contained accommodation, caravan parks and campsites.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the instrument also makes
“minor drafting changes to remove superfluous wording and to amend references.”
I was particularly struck by that last assertion, which, it is fair to say, somewhat underplays the utter mess that was made of the original steps regulations when they were drafted. I have never seen such a harsh report as the 46th report of the Session from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which said that the original steps regulations that this instrument amends needed to be highlighted because of a number of serious concerns: first, because of their unusual or unexpected use of enabling powers; secondly, because of defective drafting; thirdly, because they required elucidation; and, fourthly, because they fail to comply with proper legislative practice.
Those are not just a couple of minor errors, but systematic failures throughout the document. The Joint Committee report identifies that those regulations make unusual or unexpected use of the enabling powers in two respects, are defectively drafted in relation to nine issues, require elucidation in relation to five issues, and fail to comply with proper legislative practice in one respect. That is quite a damning list of failures for one statutory instrument, whose purpose is to see us safely opening up society following lockdown. As we have said many times before, how can we expect people to follow the rules if they are not clearly communicated?
These regulations do not deal with all of the Joint Committee’s concerns, but, be in no doubt, we will be dealing with the consequences of them all for some time to come. If a Committee of legislative experts is unsure what is or is not meant by certain regulations and does not believe they give sufficient certainty and clarity, how can we expect the average person to understand them? In one instance, the regulations are so unclear that the Joint Committee said that the law being laid down was unsatisfactory in terms of the rule of law. I am sure the Minister will agree that such statements are pretty damning. It is just not good enough. Who in Government will be responsible for dealing with all the litigation that arises from the inevitable legal challenges to the unsatisfactory drafting of these regulations? Will the cost come from the Department of Health and Social Care’s budget? Who will be paying for the mistakes?
To take one example, regulation 2(2)(b) before us today amends the definition of “private dwelling” in regulation 2(5)(i)(ii) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021, which is a list of exceptions and includes the magic words “as otherwise specified”. When the Joint Committee asked the Department to identify those “as otherwise specified” exceptions, the Department replied that there were none—hence the amendment made by the regulations before the Committee.
That begs the question whether there have been arguments or challenges to the regulations based on exceptions that turn out not to have existed. I should appreciate it if the Minister would explain why those words were included in the first place when they were clearly not needed, and whether there has been any cost to the public purse from what I have outlined. That is just one error that is rectified by the regulations that we are considering today.
Another concern of the Joint Committee appears to have been overlooked altogether. As we know, the regulations make a number of amendments relating to businesses, including allowing businesses or services otherwise permitted to open at step 2 also to open at self-contained accommodation, caravan parks and campsites, including public toilets, baby changing rooms and communal areas. Of course, as part of the road map, those changes have been known about for some time, and there are restrictions. Those who can stay in the accommodation are limited to those in the same or linked households.
There has not, however, been clarity in relation to one of the concerns that the Joint Committee picked up: how the providers of holiday accommodation are expected to know with certainty whether people occupying their accommodation are linked householders. That matters because there remains a question whether the provider of the accommodation could unwittingly commit a criminal offence if they were led to believe that households were linked on the basis of false evidence submitted by a household.
In its memorandum, the Department asserts that it
“would expect a provider of holiday accommodation to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether persons for whom holiday accommodation was booked were from the same household or linked households”.
It adds that a provider who is misled by the submission of false evidence
“may well have a reasonable excuse for having breached the regulations but this will depend on the facts”.
That hardly gives us much clarity or reassurance, does it? What might those reasonable steps be, and why is nothing set out anywhere about that?
As the Joint Committee said, providers of accommodation could have been made the subject of a statutory duty to carry out a verification process, or the regulations could have set out another process for them to follow. Compliance would then have been clear, and there would have been a clear defence to a prosecution. With the regulations in their present form, there is no compulsory or voluntary statutory process, and the evidential burden of proving linked households seems to be a trap for the unwitting to fall into.
As we are talking about a criminal offence—a serious matter—who is policing it? Many people who own self-catering accommodation market it through a third party—usually an internet service. Where does the responsibility lie in that situation for verifying the households of the occupants? That is important, and we need clarity on it if possible.
The regulations also clarify that individuals may enter indoor premises that serve alcohol for the purposes of paying for food and drink, as that was not in the original regulations. Businesses have obviously been preparing for the 12 April reopening for some time, so it is quite possible that, until that last-minute change was made, preparations were being made on the basis that customers would not be able to enter the premises. Is the Minister aware of whether additional unnecessary costs have been incurred by businesses because of that oversight?
As the Minister outlined, the statutory instrument also amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020. The Joint Committee also reported on those regulations, in its 36th report of the Session, where it again raised the matter of defective drafting on a number of counts.
The regulations before the Committee amend the 2020 regulations to clarify that coronavirus improvement notices and coronavirus restrictions notices that require businesses to remedy unsafe practices within a set period or, where rapid action is needed, to close and address an issue before reopening may be issued in relation to the restrictions on accommodation venues as set out in step 2.
The Minister will be aware that, earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government wrote to all council leaders in England urging them to ensure that they work with pubs and bars that are trying to open safely and within the rules. He said that official guidance on what is defined as an outdoor shelter had to be
“applied proportionately and consistently in your areas to support businesses to reopen safely and to avoid overzealous interpretations of the rules”.
He also said that
“if a disproportionate regulatory approach is taken, it risks driving residents into unregulated activity and premises which may be far less Covid-secure and/or illegal.”
That sounds to me as though the Secretary of State believes the Government’s guidance is open to misinterpretation. Does the Minister agree that we really must have clear criteria for our local authorities and local businesses? We are too far down the line now for there to be any confusion about what the rules are and how they should be applied. That is totally unfair on the people on the ground who have to enforce the rules and on the businesses that are trying their best to get on their feet again.
On the powers to issue notices, we are only two weeks into step 2, so it is perhaps unsurprising that I did not find any figures on how many notices have been issued under the step 2 regulations. However, it was a surprise that no data seem to exist for any notices issued under the original regulations, which had been in force since December. That is an awful long time for there to be no record of how the powers have been used. I am sure hon. Members will be aware of local examples of where notices have been issued, but it is not clear whether there is intended to be any collation or publication of figures across the board. If local authorities are not publishing the data, and if the figures are not collected centrally, how are the Government measuring the effectiveness of such notices in relation to enforcement?
I hope the Minister is able to shed some light on that and on whether the Government have plans to collate and publish the figures in future, because we need to know whether the regulations are working—not just whether the timetable in the road map is being adhered to, but whether the restrictions and the draconian powers that we have handed to the state are being used effectively and proportionately and how they play into our shared objective of keeping case numbers and hospitalisations down. Too often there has been a failure to do a proper analysis of the measures taken, as well as a lack of willingness, frankly, to engage with the systemic underlying issues and to ensure that people who are sick with the virus are properly supported financially to do the right thing when they test positive.
I will make a few comments on the general process, which I hope the Minister will reflect on. She will know much of what I am going to say, because I have been saying it for the last 12 months. The SI that we are debating today is yet another example of what is wrong with the Government’s approach, because we are once again retrospectively approving legislation. The regulations have a dramatic impact on individual liberty, as well as an economic impact, and they should not be approved after the event.
The regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 April, before coming into force on 12 April—that is just three days’ notice of their introduction. Although that is actually an improvement on the three hours’ notice that we have had for some other regulations in the past, it is still a pretty poor show that these regulations arrive so late in the day, especially when a large part of this SI essentially deals with errors and oversights from earlier regulations. Again, that is not for the first time either.
On where this legislation sits on the road map, we know that the road map has been in place for several months now, so why are we debating elements of it only now? That suggests to me that there is continuing indifference to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, disdain in the corridors of power for the impact of the rules on those affected by them, and carelessness about the clarity and accuracy of the laws governing this country. I would have expected enough experience to have been gathered by now for there to be no need to come back and correct errors time and again, especially when dealing with regulations of this nature. After all, we are a year into the pandemic. This is the third time that we have come out of lockdown, yet we still see basic errors being made. Mistakes have consequences and, frankly, there have been too many of them. I really think a proper explanation ought to be forthcoming about why we are having to deal with these things as an afterthought. They should not be an afterthought, because we are talking about people’s livelihoods.
What is the urgency for the SI? The regulations state that
“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House”.
That is plainly wrong. As I have already said, the Prime Minister set out the road map more than two months ago. There is nothing in the regulations, or in what has been said by the Minister today, to justify the Government once again claiming urgency to ride roughshod over proper procedures and processes. It is little wonder that we have so many errors in the regulations if they are not subject to proper scrutiny before they become law.
The Government have got into bad habits and do not think the rules apply to them. Yes, they had to act quickly at the start of the pandemic—in an emergency, that is understandable—but that is no excuse for standards to drop, for transparency to be jettisoned and for scrutiny to be considered an inconvenience to them. There can be no justification at this point for normal procedures to continue to be ignored and the claim that regulations needed to be introduced urgently. That is simply a sticking plaster for an Administration who have found that they rather like not having to bother with the norms of going through good governance. This Government have found that having to explain and debate laws before they become law is all a bit inconvenient. We should be better than that, and I think the Minister knows that we should be doing better than that.
History is full of temporary arrangements and powers that somehow became permanent because Governments found that they actually rather liked doing things that way. I will not stop raising this issue until the Government stop using the pandemic as a cover to get away with things that no self-respecting democrat would consider acceptable. I really hope that this is the last time I have to make these comments, because once the slide away from a liberal democracy starts, it can be very hard to stop.
Helen Whately
It has always been clear that the path set out by the road map in February would be guided by data, not dates, and we have stuck to that commitment. Data from the Joint Biosecurity Centre, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling and Public Health England indicate that the five-week gap after step 1 on 8 March enabled us to meet the four tests we had previously set out. The move to step 2 is therefore the next part of our cautious but sustainable path out of the current lockdown in England.
We recognise the impact that the restrictions have had, but the risks of not following that path are too great. By taking a cautious approach, we will protect our NHS and social care system, ensuring that it will be effective in protecting us and putting us on a sustainable footing towards normality. We must all continue to be cautious and observe the limitations that remain in place, and I ask each and every individual to continue to play their part to keep the virus rates low and the strain on the NHS even lower.
On the points made by the shadow Minister, who was critical of some of the details of the regulations, I do not necessarily accept all his criticisms, but I say to him that we are in a situation where regulations are made at pace, and we are not living in entirely normal times, as he is well aware. It may be helpful to mention that the approach taken towards compliance by the police, for instance, is to engage, explain and encourage people to follow the rules, before moving to enforcement.
Rules have been refined during the pandemic—the rule of six or of two households together in outdoor places, for example. As a member of a family of five, I, like many others, welcome that particular move. During the pandemic, we have constantly sought to assess the impact of restrictions, although we recognise that they are often applied in combination, so identifying the impact of a specific change to restrictions is not always possible to the extent that the shadow Minister might like. We have indeed sought to ensure that we understand the impact, and clearly, we have been reluctant to impose restrictions if they are not necessary for saving lives.
The shadow Minister said that he would like to have debated the regulations before, but as he knows and has heard me say before, pace is of the essence here. We wanted to remove restrictions as promptly as we could, albeit by following the steps in the cautious approach that we have taken. I am glad that he noted the slightly longer timeframe than on some of the other regulations. We have committed to following steady progress in the easing of restrictions—subject, of course, to the data and to meeting the tests that I set out earlier.
I thank each and every person for the sacrifices that they have made to keep ourselves, our loved ones and each other safe. Our road map reaffirms our commitment to protecting the citizens of the UK and to providing a credible route out of this lockdown.
Question put and agreed to.
Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 365).
I recognise the clear will of the House for the Government to deliver on its statutory duty with respect to access to abortion services in Northern Ireland. It was on the basis of human rights that, during an absence of devolved Government, this House decided that it was time to step in. Colleagues will recall previous debates in 2019 and 2020, and the outcome of those debates. Today’s debate is not about reopening or unpicking the 2020 regulations, but to ensure implementation of the law that has been in place for over a year.
I acknowledge and respect the deeply held views that Members have on this issue, and I am glad that the decision of the usual channels to allow a free vote will allow all Members to vote according to their conscience. As the Committee will be aware, we previously made the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, which came into force on 31 March 2020, to set out the new legal framework for the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland.
In March 2020, the Secretary of State wrote to the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers asking them to implement the respective recommendations under paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women report, an inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 8 of the optional protocol to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
It has always been our expectation and preference for the Northern Ireland Department of Health to drive forward the commissioning of abortion services, with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so, and to ensure that abortion becomes normalised and embedded as a healthcare service into the health and social care system in Northern Ireland. Over the past year, the Northern Ireland Office has continued to work closely with the Department of Health and other relevant Northern Ireland Departments, trying to progress that work.
We understand that managing the covid-19 response has been an immense challenge, and has placed the health and social care system in Northern Ireland under considerable pressure. However, over one year later, women and girls are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care locally in Northern Ireland. The commissioning of full abortion services, consistent with the conditions set out in the 2020 regulations, has still not happened.
We have been working since the 2020 regulations came into effect to ensure that the duties under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 can be implemented in full at the earliest opportunity. I recognise that some abortion services have been provided since April 2020, and more than 1,100 abortions have taken place in Northern Ireland, but that falls far short of what is required by law. Services have not been formally commissioned, supported or funded by the Northern Ireland Department of Health, and there has been no guidance issued or official support measures put in place.
At the heart of this matter are the women and girls in Northern Ireland who have been, and continue to be, denied the same reproductive rights as women in the rest of the UK. Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, some women and girls have still been forced to travel to England. I have learned of the distress and the unacceptable circumstances that they continue to face at a time when local access should be readily available, given that the law was changed by this Parliament over a year ago. The ongoing covid situation and limitations on travel make it even more important that local access to services is available, and for the current services to be properly supported by the Department of Health, particularly as women should not be forced to choose to travel or to resort to unsafe or unregulated measures at this time.
The Secretary of State takes his statutory duties very seriously, and recognises that the current impasse is unacceptable. That is why we have made these further regulations. The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 March 2021, will provide the Secretary of State with the power to direct a Northern Ireland Minister, the Northern Ireland Department of Health, the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency to take the action necessary to implement all the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report. I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of the regulations, which makes it clear that this is also a binding direction on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive.
We recognise that this is a big step, but it is a crucial one. We have given the Department of Health and the Executive plenty of time to move forward, and we have engaged extensively to see how we could best support delivery, but those efforts have not so far given us results. I have already begun engaging with Minister Swann and his Department again, and I have communicated to him that the Secretary of State is clear that the Department of Health must take concrete steps towards the commissioning of abortion services in Northern Ireland in advance of the summer recess. I have asked my officials to work closely with the Department of Health to ensure that urgent progress is made on this issue. I would welcome the Executive’s considering a full proposal for commissioning, but we need to see movement coming forward. The Secretary of State stands ready, if we do not see significant progress before the summer recess, to issue the direction empowered by these regulations.
We recognise that this is a sensitive and personal issue for many people. Indeed, we have heard many differing views across this House, as well as from Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly, in relation to abortion, including in the context of the debates and the reports under the EF Act. However, women should not be forced to choose to travel, or to resort to unsafe and unregulated measures, when the law is in place to ensure that services are in place for Northern Ireland.
Although I recognise the range of passionately held views on this issue, support for the new regulations is clearly evident. The all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health in the UK, 88 cross-party MPs and 24 representative organisations for the women’s and LGBTQ sector in Northern Ireland have written letters to the Northern Ireland Minister of Health, urging him to take action on the issue.
I place on record my thanks to the medical professionals who have ensured that women and girls have had some access to local abortion services in Northern Ireland to date, and to the organisations that have supported this work, including Informing Choices NI, for providing a pathway to abortion and counselling services, particularly in the current circumstances and amid the wider strains on the health system. I would also like to pay tribute to the late Professor Jim Dornan, a leader in his field and a passionate advocate for health issues such as cancer and women’s reproductive rights.
It is our firm view that the regulations made in 2020 provide a legislative framework that is operationally sound, works best for Northern Ireland and delivers on the Government’s statutory duty. Those regulations were consulted on and sought to meet the requirements of CEDAW in a way that would bring outcomes for women and girls in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK. That is why we do not intend to amend the regulations. We are here today to do everything we can to demonstrate how committed we are to fulfilling the Government’s statutory obligations and ensuring that women and girls in Northern Ireland have access to high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland, consistent with the conditions set out in the 2020 regulations.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, abortion remains a devolved issue, and the Assembly can seek to amend regulations in a way that remains compliant with convention rights. We recognise the sensitivities of these issues and the concerns from, for instance, those who have suggested that sex selection could be an issue. We take the matter very seriously, but sex selection is not one of the grounds on which abortion is allowed under the 2020 regulations, and we will be clear in guidance that that is the case. We also recognise that this will be an important matter for the Department of Health to consider in the guidance that it produces alongside the full commissioning of services, as well as factors that medical professionals should be looking out for so that they can raise any safeguarding concerns.
I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Labour Front Bench, let me say that, because there is no call list, Members should bob up and catch my eye so that I can see that they wish to speak.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hosie. I thank the Minister for his engagement and constructive approach on this issue. Like him, I respect the dearly held convictions of all those who make their case here today. I appreciate the strongly held, long-standing views of all those who have spoken and will speak today. But it is important to remember how we have reached this point and why these regulations are so important for women and girls in Northern Ireland. According to the United Nations, as we have heard, the existing laws amounted to a grave and systematic violation of women’s rights in Northern Ireland. This Parliament had, and still has, a duty to act to uphold those rights.
The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 gave women in Northern Ireland a right to a safe, local abortion service. Parliament and MPs from political parties across the House made their will clear. No longer will we ask women to use unsafe, unregulated services or to make a heartbreaking journey across the Irish sea to seek an abortion in Britain. That is why, in the vote on it, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend passed overwhelmingly. Nineteen months on from that vote, it is simply unacceptable that women and girls are still being denied safe, local services. This failure means that although the Act came into force more than a year ago, women are still being forced—in the middle of a pandemic—to make the heartbreaking journey across the Irish sea to seek an abortion.
It is worth reflecting on how an already cruel journey has been made even crueller in a pandemic. Many women and girls will have been forced to travel alone to unfamiliar cities that have been all but shut down, and denied a consoling hand or a smile. They have been forced to do so by political failure. Every single day that passes denies women the safe, local service that they are entitled to. At any time, that would be unacceptable; in a pandemic, it is morally unjustifiable.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady has cited the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and what she said at the beginning of this process. At that time, she described the efforts that she was making as a mission to address “international obligations”. Are these international obligations or are they, as the explanatory notes say, not so?
Alex Davies-Jones
We have seen that this is an international obligation, and also a moral obligation, on us all. The CEDAW Act is clear, as is the UN, that we need to do the right thing to protect these women and girls.
I welcome the regulations before us today, which the Labour party wholeheartedly supports. They represent an important step forward in ending the cycle of inaction. However, I would be grateful if the Minister, in summing up, could provide some clarity on when exactly the powers would be used. He mentioned before the summer recess that this matter really cannot wait any longer. These women and girls need action now. Will the Government please give us an exact deadline for when the Secretary of State intends to use the powers in the regulations? He knows there is a court case in May relating to the human rights implications of the failure to commission these services. Will he act before then?
The Minister also mentioned that he has engaged extensively with Minister Swann, so will he provide an update on the discussions he has had with the Minister of Health and the Executive since the Government announced their intention to introduce fresh legislation? Has there been any indication of an intention to finally commission abortion services from the Executive? Will he also provide the Committee with an estimate of the number of women and girls already impacted by this inaction—those denied local services, those forced to use unregulated services and those who have been forced to travel to Britain?
As a Welsh Member of Parliament, I understand well the sensitivities around the devolution settlement, but I believe that the United Kingdom is at its best when we work together to uphold fundamental rights, and the obligation to do that lies with this Parliament and this UK Government. The Labour party has always been clear that where such rights are denied, there is a moral and legal duty for the Government to act. That is happening now in Northern Ireland. Quality healthcare and safe, local abortion services are a basic right. The time to act has long come and gone. For the sake of women and girls in Northern Ireland, it is vital that access to services is commissioned immediately.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I support the delegated legislation before us today, and I want to question the Government on the extent of the direction that they seek to give the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland is implemented in full and in the best interests of the people of that part of the United Kingdom.
Devolution is now part and parcel of our United Kingdom. We recognise that some services can and should be delivered locally in different ways, but when it comes to the core values that bind us together, including our commitment as a country to human rights and the rule of law, we take a UK-wide approach. Decisions to sign up to conventions such as the UN CEDAW convention to eliminate discrimination against women are taken at a UK Government level for the whole of our nation. Such conventions and obligations triggered the change in the law in Northern Ireland that we are discussing today. Decisions on whether domestic policies are human rights-compliant are taken by the UK-wide Supreme Court.
These are not matters where, as a United Kingdom, we feel there should be differences. We stand together so that every citizen has the same rights and protections no matter where they live. When the UK Parliament legislated to bring Northern Ireland’s approach to sexual and reproductive health into line with the recommendations in CEDAW’s 2018 report, it was acting democratically with that in mind and following the 2018 Supreme Court judges’ majority view that the then law on abortion in Northern Ireland was incompatible with human rights law. Whether we represent constituencies in Northern Ireland or not, this becomes a matter for everybody in this Parliament—doubly so because the Northern Ireland Executive was not in existence when the UN reported and when the Supreme Court made its views clear, at a time when UK Ministers in this Government were clearly legally responsible for those elements usually handled under devolution.
To bring the situation in Northern Ireland into compliance with human rights law, changes were made on access to abortion in Northern Ireland more than a year ago. In law, abortion services should now be available as a regular healthcare service in Northern Ireland so that women and girls can safely access local services. However, we have heard from hon. Members who have already spoken, that is not the case, and those women and girls continue to be denied the same reproductive rights as women and girls in the rest of the UK. Services that should be available by law are not. Despite broader access to abortion now being legal in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Department of Health has not commissioned or funded services to reflect that. That has resulted in patchy and unsustainable local provision. Early abortion services are currently run by local health trusts without funding or commissioning, which has put them at risk of temporary or permanent closure.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said that its chief executives and medical directors in Northern Ireland are supportive, particularly of early medical abortion services. But trusts have cited a lack of funding, intense workload and uncertainty about the permanence of the services due to a lack of commissioning. Currently, there are no services beyond 10 weeks in any trust in Northern Ireland. Just this Friday, Western Trust announced that it has ceased providing all abortion care, and will refuse referrals.
We know that the impact is greatest on those who are most vulnerable, particularly those who are victims of domestic violence or who may have significant mental health problems. Nobody can fail to be moved by some of the heartbreaking stories of women being forced to carry full-term babies who medical professionals advise are not able to survive through birth.
I would very much appreciate the Minister taking the opportunity, while talking through the regulations, to answer some specific questions that are important context for us all as we move forward. The hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about having a timetable so that we can be clear on how long the Government feel it is reasonable to consider this issue, in terms of their having available to them a power to direct the Northern Ireland Executive to move forward.
Individuals who lead the provision of sexual health services in Northern Ireland have already produced a comprehensive set of proposals for the roll-out of sexual health services in Northern Ireland. The report by Northern Ireland Abortion and Contraception Taskgroup includes widespread recommendations on how we move forward from here. I do not think anybody can question the professional integrity of that group, because it includes the Northern Ireland representative of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, among a great array of professional people.
Does the Minister agree that there are good recommendations for the Executive in that report, as well as recommendations specifically addressing commissioning abortion services and underlining the importance of a co-ordinated and cohesive approach, including on investing in sexual health more broadly, removing barriers to contraception and updating relationship and sex education? To what extent does the Minister expect those responsible in Northern Ireland to liaise with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on practical issues such as those outlined in the report?
Can the Minister confirm which organisation will oversee the roll-out of the new services in Northern Ireland? Presumably, the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority will have a role to ensure that there is compliance with the direction that the Minister will potentially give to the Executive. If it has a role, will it produce reviews and, if so, how frequently?
On primary care, we all know as constituency MPs that GPs play a crucial role in delivering sexual health services and referrals. Does the Minister expect the Royal College of General Practitioners to play an active role in supporting the implementation of these important new regulations? On contraception, will the Minister make it clear in his direction that contraception is an inherent part of a quality sexual health service for women and that it will be an absolute necessity for it to be part of the services commissioned?
Another issue brought up by the body that I was just talking about, which has been putting together recommendations on this area, is protests outside clinics. That is another obstacle to individuals’ access to abortion services. Although I in no way want to restrict people’s right to freedom of speech, the Northern Ireland Abortion and Contraception Taskgroup’s recommendations clearly state that space outside, or in close proximity to, an abortion service or pregnancy counselling centre is not an appropriate location to oppose abortion provision. Will the Minister be taking a view on that as part of what he would expect in the roll-out of recommendations on abortion services in Northern Ireland?
I know that many hon. Members want to speak in this debate, so last, but by no means least, relationships and sex education is a crucial part of any good sexual health service in our country. To what extent will the Minister be keeping a close eye on the way in which relationships and sex education is reformed in Northern Ireland to ensure that it is entirely in line with a full sexual health service for women and girls in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the whole population?
Although issues to do with abortion are rightly matters of great debate and concern, as a United Kingdom, we believe that women and girls should have access to top-quality sexual health education and medication, including abortion services. That is underlined by our support for international conventions, which we have already discussed. As a United Kingdom, we also believe in the rule of law. No one, including the Governments of devolved nations, should be above the law. The Government are acting correctly today to ensure that the law is enforced. I want to take this opportunity to thank the organisations that have worked tirelessly on this issue on behalf of women and girls in Northern Ireland, many of which have provided very important factual briefings for this debate.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward these regulations to ensure that women in Northern Ireland can access abortion services, as was agreed by this place more than a year ago. We all understand that taking this action is a very significant step—a big step, as I think the Minister said in his opening speech. We have also heard that there have been many attempts over the past year to try to ensure that proper provision is put in place in Northern Ireland so that women can access reproductive healthcare and abortion services, as required by law.
Although abortion is legal in Northern Ireland and women are no longer criminalised, challenges remain regarding the implementation of services as set out in the legal framework. In particular, there is no public information about abortion services from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. Telemedicine is not permitted in Northern Ireland, despite it being available in England, Wales and Scotland. The existing service is not supported by the Department of Health, and it is patchy and fragile. In fact, the Northern Ireland Department of Health has failed to commission and fund services properly, and has actively blocked attempts to do so. Alongside that, no central funding is available to allow women and girls to access appropriate services. That job is currently being done by the voluntary sector. I would be interested to know what steps the Minister believes should be put in place to ensure that there is proper signposting and help to access services, supported by public funds.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has initiated legal action against the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland for failing to commission and fund abortion services in Northern Ireland. The commission believes that the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive and Department to agree to fund and commission these services breaches the European convention on human rights.
The law states that abortion services should be available in Northern Ireland. It is therefore our job at Westminster to ensure that that happens, in line with all our international obligations relating to the human rights of women and girls. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that he is looking for progress before the summer recess, but I also wonder, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, whether he could give a more specific timetable and set out what his intention will be if that progress does not happen.
It is certainly worth reflecting on the effect of the failure to act by politicians and Ministers in Northern Ireland on women and girls in Northern Ireland. Over the past three months, three different local health boards have, for a period, stopped providing abortion services. On 5 October 2020, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust suspended its services because the trust had to transfer staff back into other sexual and reproductive healthcare services, and therefore ceased to take any new referrals for termination services. The service resumed in December. During the break in service, 89 women were denied treatment within the NHS in Northern Ireland. On 5 January 2021, the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust ceased providing a service, as the only staff member doing the work went on maternity leave and no replacement had been found. That resulted in a further 24 women being denied local NHS treatment. Those women could not be accommodated in other trusts, so the majority used unregulated online providers. Other trusts did not have the resources to pick up the work in either of those two trusts.
Just last week, as has been referred to, the Western Health and Social Care Trust announced that from 5pm on Friday 23 April, it would stop early medical abortion services. The service had been maintained over the past year by just one doctor, working without any support, and that had become unsustainable. That development also highlights the conditions that service providers currently face and underlines the need for the regulations that we are considering.
Amnesty International has described the situation in Northern Ireland as a “postcode lottery”. Added to the picture is the fact that there are currently no routine services for pregnancies beyond 10 weeks, and no local service for women between 10 and 12 weeks’ gestation. That is because those women will need to be seen in hospital and none of the trusts is prepared to provide that service without it being funded by the commissioning process. Clinicians estimate that in excess of 100 women a year fall into that category. Those women are at increased risk when taking pills unsupervised, and are also at increased risk of complications from surgical procedures. Currently, the only option available to them is to travel to England, even during the pandemic, to access abortion services under the Abortion Act 1967.
The ongoing uncertainty and the cancellation of services have made life even more difficult and challenging for women and girls seeking reproductive healthcare and access to abortion in Northern Ireland. The situation for far too many women and girls has resulted in their having to travel from Northern Ireland to England to access those services. We have all heard the horrific stories of women and girls having to travel, and about the emotional impact of being away from family and loved ones at such a difficult time, but that is even more stark and cruel in the middle of a pandemic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said. I am told that up to five women a week are still travelling to England to seek abortion care. That is during a time of restricted travel and risk of transmitting covid-19—it is unacceptable. Doctors have continually stated that the resultant harm to women will be severe, and clinicians in Northern Ireland have expressed frustration and dismay at the lack of provision of abortion services. Has the Minister made any assessment of how many women in Northern Ireland have had to travel to other parts of the UK to access abortion services during the covid-19 pandemic?
I think it is right to highlight, in the current pandemic, how the failure to act has further impacted on women and girls. It appears that at the outbreak of covid-19, funding was diverted from cancelled services to commission abortion services, and all trusts were able to commission 10-week early medical abortions. However, all the clinics appear to have been in a precarious situation regarding being able to offer care pathways.
Telemedicine is not permitted in Northern Ireland under the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, despite it now being available in England, Wales and Scotland. Telemedicine has been a vital way of accessing reproductive healthcare for women in England, Scotland and Wales during the pandemic. Its availability has provided women with a safe option that has allowed them to minimise travelling to clinics. That was essential, particularly during the first lockdown, when stay-at-home orders were in place across the whole United Kingdom.
The largest ever study of UK abortion care, by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the University of Texas at Austin, MSI Reproductive Choices and the National Unplanned Pregnancy Advisory Service, found that telemedicine is safe, efficient and reduces the waiting period for women accessing abortion services. Professor Dame Lesley Regan, the past president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said:
“This study proves there is no medical reason not to make the current telemedicine service permanent.”
The fact that telemedicine has not been available in Northern Ireland represents another failure of women and girls by the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Department of Health. Has the Minister made any assessment of the need for telemedicine in Northern Ireland during the covid-19 pandemic, and what steps would he look for to ensure that it is rolled out as part of future abortion care?
I once again thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for all their hard work in taking this action to ensure that the UK’s legal obligations to women and girls are upheld, and for moving towards ensuring the provision of, and access to, abortion services in Northern Ireland, for which this Parliament has already legislated.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The regulations, if passed, will compel Northern Ireland Health Ministers to commission abortion services in line with the legal framework outlined in the 2020 regulations. Abortion is a devolved issue, and the only legal or moral basis for the 2019 intervention by the UK Government was that there was no sitting Northern Ireland Assembly at that time. As we are all aware, that is no longer the case, and the Assembly has shown itself to be perfectly competent in developing its own legislation. I believe therefore that there is no longer any justification for the UK Government to impose the regulations.
Pressing ahead, as we are doing today, is a breach of the Belfast agreement and weakens the trust and respect upon which devolution is founded. Not only does the legislation threaten the devolution agreement, but the nature of the regulations shows disregard for the democratic will of the Northern Irish people. Every MP representing Northern Ireland who took their seat in Westminster voted against the 2020 regulations, and the Northern Ireland Assembly opposes the regulations. When the people of Northern Ireland were consulted on the regulations last year, 80% rejected them. I, as an English Conservative MP, have a free vote on this legislation; the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives have no vote at all.
Not so very long ago, members of the Government campaigned passionately to take back control. The British people have rejected the rule of a remote Brussels, preferring to make our own laws according to our own British values and customs. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting contravened international law and must be rectified. Parliament refused, upholding our UK belief—enshrined in statute since 1870—that those who do not abide by the law of the land do not have the right to vote. Parliament never conceded, and 15 years later, we left the EU with our sovereignty intact.
Prisoner voting is not as emotive an issue as abortion, but it is a conscience issue all the same. How can the UK Government, with integrity and without hypocrisy, impose legislation against the democratic will and values of communities in Northern Ireland when they have spent so long resisting similar attacks on our own sovereignty by the EU?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am slightly confused by what the hon. Member is saying. The Minister in Northern Ireland has said that the law is the law, and that he has put forward to the Northern Ireland Executive provisions to enact the law, but they have refused, so I am not entirely sure what she means when she says that they have been doing so. They have absolutely not done so, which is why we are here.
Miriam Cates
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I understand that the regulations are law as things stand, but I will urge the Government later in my contribution to repeal section 9, which I believe is the right and moral thing to do.
It would be one thing for this legislation to bring Northern Ireland’s abortion framework in line with that for Great Britain, but the measures go beyond Great Britain equivalents. They mandate an abortion regime that is quite unrestricted and, I believe, unsafe. Unlike in England and Wales, there will be no requirement for two doctors to certify, and abortion will be routinely available at GP’s surgeries rather than only in restricted places. Although I appreciate the Government’s requirement for safeguards, the regulations could permit sex-selective abortion by default, as they allow abortion for any reason until 12 weeks’ gestation.
Sir John Hayes
What my hon. Friend is saying is, frankly, shocking. She is saying that, far from the claim that we are bringing Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland’s laws on abortion will be entirely different from those that pertain to the rest of the United Kingdom—considerably more permissive, and therefore further out of line with local opinion even than the laws that prevail in England, Wales and Scotland.
Miriam Cates
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I appreciate that this is a very emotive issue, as other hon. Members have said. Many of us have different opinions—I fully accept hon. Members’ opinions—but I would like to make progress on the particular point of view that I bring to this issue.
The enforcement of the regulations could not only permit sex-selective abortion, but allow abortion up to birth for babies with disabilities—even those disabilities that do not prevent people from living fulfilling lives. I am particularly concerned that, without necessary safeguards, women in abusive relationships may be coerced into abortions. The regulations and their enforcement introduce new possibilities for sex and disability discrimination, and go far beyond what is legally necessary or even safe.
Miriam Cates
No, I am going to make some progress.
However, the Government overreach in this legislation goes beyond abortion regulations. Paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report, which were put into statute by section 9 of the 2019 Act, cover matters extending to health, education and the role of women. One provision in paragraph 86 calls on the Government to:
“Adopt a strategy to combat gender-based stereotypes regarding women’s primary role as mothers”.
As a woman and a mother, I find that statement rather patronising. Is it the Government’s job to tell me how I should value my identity as a mother? Rather than celebrating and promoting the vital role of women in nurturing the next generation, this statement speaks of motherhood in negative terms, and reinforces a different stereotype—one that views motherhood as second best.
I have a degree from Cambridge University, I am a fully qualified science teacher, and I became the first Conservative MP to be elected in Sheffield in nearly 30 years, but my greatest achievement, which I value far beyond those others, is being mother to my three children. There are hundreds of Conservative MPs and tens of thousands of science teachers, but my children have only one mum and no one can replace me. Their lives, their wellbeing and their future depend in large part on how well I do my job as a mother.
Tonia Antoniazzi
As the hon. Lady correctly stated, this is a very emotive subject. I was a member of the Women and Equalities Committee when the right hon. Member for Basingstoke was its Chair and we went to Northern Ireland. I have a Roman Catholic background, and I appreciate everything that the hon. Lady says, but I listened and spoke to those women who gave evidence. They had to go through the most horrific experiences. I know that she, as an educationalist, as I am myself, would have great empathy and sympathy for those women. The situation cannot remain as it is.
Miriam Cates
I have deep empathy for women in that situation—not only in Northern Ireland but across the world, under all different circumstances. As I said, I will come on to that point.
The fact that the legislation is not only limited to abortion regulations, but reaches far beyond that, concerns me. Motherhood is valuable, honourable and a deep responsibility—it is a privilege. If that is a gender stereotype that is being put forward in legislation as negative, I reject that, and I imagine that many mothers in Northern Ireland would also do so. Even if the Secretary of State chooses never to use these directive powers, I do not see how anyone can vote for them without sending the impression that the importance of motherhood is questionable or second best.
The regulations tear up the principles of devolution and disregard the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland. They could enforce a potentially unsafe abortion regime and represent an overreach of the state into the role of motherhood.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, but surely this debate is about the rule of law. As parliamentarians, we either uphold the rule of law or we do not. A law has been passed, but it has not been adhered to. Surely she agrees with the rule of law.
Miriam Cates
I absolutely agree. The law is in place, but the question is whether it is the role of the UK Parliament to enforce the commissioning on the Health Ministers. As I will argue, I believe that the right way forward, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is sitting again, is to repeal the legislation and let abortion return to being a devolved matter.
I believe the most sensible action is to repeal section 9, which is a measure I would gladly support. As has been made clear, however, the Government do not intend to take that course of action and instead will continue to press ahead with the regulations. For obvious reasons, there is plenty of support among Members from different parties. Why are the Government choosing to follow that course? From the perspective of someone who does not support such action, I have no doubt that Ministers would be wary of a backlash if they chose to withdraw the legislation, but I am also prepared to believe that Ministers and many right hon. and hon. Members genuinely hold that this is the morally right thing to do. I want to explain why that is.
There seems to be a view that the presence or absence of an abortion regime is somehow an indicator of attitudes toward women’s equality and that, in not having such a regime in Northern Ireland, the approach that the Government are taking is justified in order to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I strongly question the belief that any particular abortion regime, liberal or otherwise, is indicative of women’s empowerment and whether women are being discriminated against.
The UK has the second highest abortion rate in western Europe, which sadly means that hundreds of thousands of women each year feel that they have no choice but to have an abortion. I empathise with people who are in a position where they have no choice but to terminate their pregnancy and their opportunity to become a mother. In a country where contraception is free, and where there is now very little social stigma attached to having a baby regardless of whether someone is married, is in a relationship or is single, how is that something to be celebrated?
Whatever our personal views on abortion, we have to ask what the abortion figures really demonstrate. I believe that they demonstrate not the freedom of women in the UK, but the way that we have devalued family life and failed to support parents in their crucial role of raising the next generation. In a country where our tax policy makes families worse off than in many comparable countries, where child benefit is not available for third and subsequent children, and where social policies drive parents into longer and longer hours at work—[Interruption.] I am going to make progress, as I have nearly finished.
We are sending a powerful message about how we value families in Great Britain, and we need to learn from the comparisons between GB and Northern Ireland. Instead of seeking to impose an even more liberal version of what we have in GB, perhaps we should reflect on what Northern Irish communities have to teach us about valuing families.
Miriam Cates
No, I am going to make progress because I know many other Members want to speak.
In not withdrawing the legislation, Ministers are sending a signal that they believe the right of a woman to choose whether to end her pregnancy trumps all other rights and freedoms at stake here: the right of the unborn child to live, the right of disabled people not to be discriminated against, the right of Northern Irish people to have their deeply held values respected, and the right of women to be protected against coercion and potential abuse. I ask Ministers what moral criteria we have to rank those competing rights. If we see the issue only as a question of rights, we will soon tie ourselves in knots. Using rights to construct a moral framework is deeply problematic, because if we base morality on the protection of the rights of different groups and individuals, we will always reach a point of unresolvable conflict.
However, we do not have to view the debate through the lens of competing rights. We can instead view it through the lens of the social covenant that exists among us and that defines us as individuals, families, communities and nations by the relationships we share and the responsibilities we owe each other. That covenant —that shared identity—is strengthened by trust and cultural diversity. The covenant is weakened when those in power seek to impose their cultural views on those whom they rule, as we have seen so clearly over the past five years.
The regulations are unnecessary, dangerous and overreaching, and they threaten the trust and tolerance on which our Union depends. I urge the Government not to press ahead, but instead to repeal section 9 and restore agency, democracy and dignity to the people of Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The regulations are not just based on the false premise that they are a requirement of international law; they represent a grievous breach of the devolved settlement. For those reasons, and because I believe that the regulations do not reflect the will of the people of Northern Ireland, I cannot support them. We are told that the regulations are being introduced to satisfy the requirements of section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, but to understand the constitutional problem that is section 9 it is necessary to appreciate that the case for the vote on 9 July 2019 was greatly strengthened by a claim that it is now clear was not true.
In urging the House to vote for the amendment that became section 9, its proponents suggested that it was required because we in Northern Ireland were in violation of our international human rights obligations. That was completely inaccurate. The CEDAW convention, which is international law and is supposed to define the terms of reference of the CEDAW committee, does not even mention abortion, let alone define a right to it. Moreover, the CEDAW committee is not a judicial body, and it does not have standing to read in a right to abortion, as demonstrated by Professor Mark Hill, QC.
While the Government were deafeningly silent on that point when it mattered during the debate on 9 July 2019, the explanatory memorandum to the regulations belatedly recognises that paragraphs 85 and 86 do not constitute international obligations—the very term that was used to describe them in July 2019. The document states:
“The section 26 power cannot be relied on by the Secretary of State to ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW Report are implemented. In particular, those recommendations are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
It could not be any plainer, so despite what has been claimed, it is clear that the regulations are not a requirement of international law.
The suggestion that the Government are compelled to act as a matter of domestic law is equally dubious. What exactly is required by virtue of section 9 is a matter of debate; that the Government have an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons is not. The Minister suggests that Parliament gives him no choice in the matter, as though Parliament cannot change an Act of Parliament that it introduced when there was no Assembly, now that the Northern Ireland Assembly has returned. I strongly disagree.
To consider the proper responsibility of the Government, as custodians of the Union, in relation to Northern Ireland, one must first remember that the legitimacy of section 9 and the regulation-making powers rests on a vote on 9 July 2019 on what was not just Northern-Ireland-only legislation, but legislation on a devolved matter, in relation to which 100% of the Northern Ireland MPs who take their seats voted no. Notwithstanding that, the radical and deeply controversial legislative change proposed in what became section 9 was imposed on Northern Ireland by the votes of MPs from the rest of the United Kingdom, none of whom had a mandate to represent Northern Ireland on the issue.
I do not question the fact that Parliament is legally entitled to legislate for Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that certain powers are devolved to the Assembly, but I do question the wisdom of it, and the enduring damage that it will do to the devolved settlement. It opened the door to a regulation-making power, and in principle there is no limit on the number of times the Secretary of State could try to make section 9 regulations. We had one set last year; we have another set this year. All that, even though the Minister of Health in Northern Ireland has stated that there is no legal duty under the current regulations for his Department to commission abortion services.
Each time new section 9 regulations are introduced, they reopen the constitutional sore upon which they rest. Each time, with devolution restored, the powers are used, the Government send out a message that the Northern Ireland Assembly and our current constitutional arrangements are not fit for purpose. Do the Government have no idea how dangerous and how damaging such a message is in the current circumstances? It is also more serious in the sense that it jeopardises an important, distinctive of the part of the Union, which is Northern Ireland, and because we have developed, over more than 50 years, our own approach to valuing the unborn, choosing life and having distinctive life-affirming laws.
The Both Lives Matter “One Hundred Thousand” report, using robust statistical methods, has established that over 100,000 people were alive in Northern Ireland in 2017 who would not have been had the 1967 Act been embraced by the Province. Some people took exception to that and complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, but after a five-month investigation, involving leading statisticians, the Advertising Standards Authority rejected the complaint, concluding that 100,000 was a reasonable claim.
That is in stark contrast to the 9 million aborted here in GB—one baby every two minutes. By the time I finish my speech, another three lives will have been lost or ended. That might not matter very much to some in England, Scotland or Wales, but it matters very deeply to many people in Northern Ireland, touching on a core Northern Ireland distinctive—choosing life.
Reflecting on that, it is vital to remember that the United Kingdom is a Union—a relationship of component parts that are not all the same in every respect. In coming together, we are more than the sum of our parts. Our Union is no more uniform than it is unitary. That means that there is one reason, and one reason only, that Northern Ireland has been overruled. It is not because of any international human rights imperative; it is because a majority of Members of Parliament from Great Britain chose to impose this on Northern Ireland against the wishes of its people and their representatives.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I understand the conundrum the hon. Lady is in. She says that the regulations do not reflect the resolved position of Northern Ireland. Surely we are here today precisely because there is not a resolved political position among the representatives of the people in the Northern Ireland Assembly, although the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to have the same regulations and rules on abortion that we have in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the rest of the island of Ireland?
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Gentleman will know that I disagree with his assessment. As someone who has her roots firmly in Northern Ireland—
Carla Lockhart
Well, living in Northern Ireland and representing a large constituency there, I know that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want laws that choose life. They want life-affirming laws and they want laws that help life to continue. That is why, in common with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I call on the Government to repeal section 9.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady is doing a very good job putting her case, but I note that she does not refer to the majority view of the UK Supreme Court, which found that it was entirely likely that the position in Northern Ireland would be out of kilter with human rights law. Surely she sees that, at that point, there was a need to act.
Carla Lockhart
I thank the right hon. Lady for making that point, which gives me the opportunity to say that had that ruling been binding, which it was not, and as she will be aware, it would have changed Northern Ireland’s abortion laws in only a very, very minor way around foetal abnormality. That does not weigh up against the far-reaching laws that the Government are forcing on the people of Northern Ireland, which are among the most liberal in Europe.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
This is an emotive subject, as many hon. Members have said. Does the hon. Lady accept that once these regulations have been passed, when the Northern Ireland Assembly is sitting, they can be amended, because abortion is devolved to Northern Ireland, as the Minister said in his opening speech?
Carla Lockhart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It undermines the devolution settlement for the UK Government to continue to railroad through abortion legislation that is not wanted by the people and legislators in Northern Ireland and the people who are elected to take decisions on the matter. There might well be an opportunity to amend or repeal—I trust there will be—but the regulations undermine the Union, and they undermine Northern Ireland’s place within the Union.
Carla Lockhart
I am sorry; I really do want to make progress.
Northern Ireland has been overruled not because of a human rights imperative, but because the majority of Members of Parliament have decided to overrule the wishes of the people of and representatives in Northern Ireland. In that context, the Government have to confront another dimension of the sovereignty of Parliament: the fact that no Parliament can bind its successors. Most GB MPs who were persuaded to vote for section 9 thought that they were voting for a measure for the time when there was no functioning Assembly. As custodians of the Union, rather than welcoming the restoration of Stormont by imposing more regulations on us through a power that rests on what can only be described as a humiliating majority, the Government should read the introduction to the Act in which section 9 is located, which states that it makes certain changes
“subject to the formation of an Executive”.
Now that the Executive have reformed and the timeframe of the Act has passed, rather than saying, “There is nothing we can do apart from introduce new regulations,” the Government should do the responsible, Union-affirming thing, which is to recognise that times have changed, that Stormont has been restored, and that the Parliament that voted for section 9 no longer exists. In that context, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State not to place the Union under the intolerable pressure of yet more regulations resting on the anti-Northern Ireland majority of 9 July 2019, but to ask this new Parliament to repeal section 9.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I have listened to her talk a great deal about this undermining the Union. How does she feel that 1,000 women a year seeking refuge in Britain strengthens the Union? We were proud to support those women in their hour of need, but surely it is time for Northern Ireland to take on its responsibilities as a mature society and support its own people.
The Chair
Before we move on, I remind all Members please to wear masks when they are not speaking, unless there is a reason not to.
Carla Lockhart
Thank you, Mr Hosie, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I am trying to recall following your announcement about masks.
I hear much about the 1,000 women, and I empathise with them. I want pathways for those women to choose life. We need services in Northern Ireland that put their arms around those women and say, “Do you know what? There are other options. The option is to choose life.” I want to see those pathways. I want to see investment in the family unit and in women choosing life. I hear much about the women, and I empathise fully with them, yet I hear so little about the unborn. I hear so little about the baby being aborted. Unfortunately, those little babies do not have a voice, so I feel that I have to have a voice for those that are going to be aborted, their life ended so brutally in the womb.
I call on all Members who believe in the Union and recognise the huge damage resulting from repeatedly using a regulation-making power designed for a time that Stormont was suspended, when it is now fully functional, and whose mandate rests on a vote that, rather than expressing the reality of our Union, manifests instead the humiliation of Northern Ireland, to vote against the regulations. I call on them to press the Government to propose the repeal of section 9, and leave the issue with democratically elected politicians in Northern Ireland.
We are all “fearfully and wonderfully made”, and all unique individuals. As I left for London this morning, I left my little two-year-old boy Charlie, and walked away from him with a broken heart, thinking of the millions of babies whose lives have already been ended, and those that will potentially, under the regulations, be ended in Northern Ireland. I want to impress on Members that they should vote against the regulations and allow Northern Ireland legislators to decide on the issue. I assure everyone that the battle has not ended and the last has not been heard from me and many in this Parliament who will continue to be a voice for the voiceless, and stand up for both lives in every pregnancy.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Given the various opinions and comments that I have been listening to, I thought it was poignant and relevant to reflect on the words of Lady Hale in the Supreme Court judgment of 2018, when the Court determined the matter of abortion in Northern Ireland. She said that
“this is not a matter on which the democratic legislature enjoys a unique competence. It is a matter of fundamental human rights on which, difficult though it is, the courts are as well qualified to judge as is the legislature. In fact, in some ways, the courts may be thought better qualified, because they are able to weigh the evidence, the legal materials, and the arguments in a dispassionate manner, without the external pressures to which legislators may be subject.”
I contend that she might have had this room and this debate in mind when she made that point.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making an extremely contentious point, of course, with his usual style and elegance. He is saying that the Court took the view that it was better able to judge sensitive, controversial matters than democratically elected people are. That is, by the way, precisely the same view it took about Brexit, and it is extremely controversial and in my view reprehensible.
Huw Merriman
It should not be unusual for a court to determine its views on the law and indeed on whether the Government and Parliament are complying with the law of the day. I would have thought that that was a fundamental separation of powers point. If we do not have a court taking that role I suggest there is something fundamentally wrong with our constitution, which has served us well over hundreds of years. No doubt my right hon. Friend will want to expand on that point in his speech.
The matter has been looked at by each of the institutions that are key to our separation of powers principle, as I have just mentioned with regard to the Supreme Court. In its judgment on 7 June 2018 it made a declaration that the legal position for abortion provision in Northern Ireland was incompatible with articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, and therefore the UK’s legal obligations. The Supreme Court made it clear that Parliament had three options, one of which was—again, I quote Lady Hale—to
“share our view and pass an Act of Parliament to put things right, which is appropriate if the matter is not simple and easy to solve, and complex arrangements have to be put in place.”
That of course is exactly what Parliament duly did in July 2019. It is at that point that I take exception to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to Parliament’s response to the previous ruling on prisoners’ rights. This is a completely different matter, because in this instance Parliament legislated to take the court’s determination into account. Obviously in the example that my hon. Friend raised it did not.
That takes me on to the second institution in our separation of powers model—ourselves. Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 provided for reform of Northern Ireland’s abortion law and placed a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to make it possible to get access to local abortion care in Northern Ireland. I was actually here at the time; the hon. Member for Upper Bann tells me that I was somehow fooled into thinking that we passed that just because the Northern Ireland Executive was not sitting. I voted very much on the basis that it was clear that the Court had told Parliament that our legislation was out of kilter with our legal requirements. As this is the mother of Parliaments, I regard it as my job to ensure that Parliament complies with the law by creating new laws to do so. I certainly was not fooled as far as that was concerned.
Carla Lockhart
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the explanatory notes outline that it was not an international law requirement? In hindsight, that was misleading.
Huw Merriman
I do not think it was, because I come back to the Court’s interpretation—a clear determination that on two of the articles of the European convention on human rights, the UK was failing its legal obligations. Notwithstanding my interest in ensuring that our abortion laws are updated, I took the fundamental view that it is Parliament’s right to make a determination that we comply with our international legal obligations. My goodness, if we do not on matters such as this, where does it end? How can we lecture other countries around the world about their need to comply with those obligations? As I say, the votes in favour were 328, and 65 against. There was no whipping, and there was an opportunity for a grace period to be inserted should the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly come back together.
Let me move to the third institution: the Executive. I note that Parliament placed a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to enable access to local abortion care in Northern Ireland. The original iteration of the regulations changed legal frameworks around abortions, but did not require that services be commissioned or funded. As we heard, in April 2020, the Northern Ireland Minister of Health, having failed to gain the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive, refused to commission or fund abortion services. As a result, the only abortion services being funded and put together were those run by health trusts out of their existing budgets and staffing.
The regulations simply empower the Secretary of State to direct local bodies to fund and commission services, ensuring that abortion services are and remain available locally. I fully support the granting of the regulations; they are the final part of the powers that started with the Court’s determination that the UK—and, indeed, Northern Ireland—rules did not comply with our international obligations. Parliament voted in a free vote to fix those rules and ensure change in Northern Ireland, which the Executive have done their best through the Government to deliver, but it needs these further powers to do so.
I have tried to give a legal justification for where we are. I could return to the reasons why, to a certain extent, Lady Hale thought that perhaps we were not best placed to make that determination, because we are driven by other matters. I have been to Northern Ireland. I have met the women who have suffered incalculable harm and damage as a result of the law in Northern Ireland. It is an absolute outrage that that has occurred, and it is down to this Parliament to make sure that matters are fixed so that women are treated with much more dignity in the future than they have been in the past.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. He spoke very eloquently about the experience of so many people in that last Parliament who perhaps had not been to Northern Ireland, as I have been in the last 30 years. They suddenly saw something in the United Kingdom that was completely abhorrent to them. People had their minds changed.
I welcome the measures and commend the work by the Minister and the Secretary of State, who have also heard those stories and were shocked by what they saw—we heard that from the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box recently. I cannot believe we are here again. The reason we are here is that every obstacle has been put in the way to prevent women in Northern Ireland from being trusted to choose the best care option for themselves, their families and their loved ones. The message to the women in Northern Ireland who relived their trauma to many of us and tried to educate people in the rest of the UK, to women who are desperately in need of a service, and to women in the future, is this: whatever the pretext, whatever the prevarication, whatever politicking is going on, you have been heard. Right is on your side and the law is the law. You are part of the United Kingdom, a country that proudly supports the reproductive rights of women and girls across the globe, and proudly recognises those rights as a basic human right. This country will support those rights at home in Northern Ireland.
I thank the healthcare professionals who continue to support women in the most difficult of circumstances. Whatever one thinks of the campaigns of politicians over the past 50 years, including those of my party, who turned a blind eye to the situation in Northern Ireland, refused to engage and used various reasons not to support those women, that situation has ended. There has been no concern for human life for the women who travelled; it was just cruel. During a pandemic, it is even more cruel and barbaric. The situation we find ourselves in is not acceptable, but given the political dynamics in Northern Ireland, it is perhaps understandable. We should try to support legislators there to find a way through, but ultimately our obligation is to women.
The Minister of Health, who has had a difficult job during the pandemic—I commend him for the work he has done—in a response to Paula Bradshaw MLA stated the position very clearly. I do not have time to read it now for the record, but it is very clear. The thing that astonished me in his statement is that he said:
“My Department does not dispute that women in Northern Ireland are legally entitled to abortion services. The legal advice that was received by my Department states that the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 do not require my Department to commission the relevant services.”
There is no dispute that the law is the law; the dispute is whether the Minister should commission a service. The Northern Ireland Executive have not taken any decisions; that is what I mean by prevarication. This situation, led by people who simply do not support abortion services, could go on for a great deal of time. It has already been more than 50 years. How much longer do we think it is acceptable for Britain to receive these women, particularly in the circumstances of covid, and not somehow find a way to resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? What the Secretary of State is bringing here today is a way forward to try to resolve that impasse, which is why we have to support it.
There are many voices, although those from Northern Ireland might not be here today. Those of us who have worked on this issue for many years know of them. I was proud to be part of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly’s investigation into cross-jurisdictional issues under the chairmanship of Lord Dubs. It looked at issues that affect all parts of the United Kingdom family. A particular issue that we need to address is the very late, very tragic terminations for women, because the clinical expertise does not exist. Those are the sorts of issues that we need to concentrate on. We need to support clinicians to support healthcare for women.
We heard from a doctor in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, who talked about his 37-year career and the dreadful, stressful situation due to a lack of support. He is trying to keep the trust’s sexual and reproductive healthcare services running during a pandemic. The women who have had early medical abortion services are truly supportive of the work we have done so far, but clinicians are clear that commissioning is vital, and it is actually quite simple.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) could not travel here today, but as an MP from Northern Ireland, he says:
“It remains a major frustration and concern that some Ministers in the Executive feel they are above the law, as is evidenced by the requirement even to direct the First Minister and deputy First Minister to take action.
On behalf of the pro-choice majority in Northern Ireland, I urge committee members to support the new regulations.”
We have to avoid any more situations where women are travelling or having to relive their trauma in a court case. I find it abhorrent, as do those of us who have met some of those women. Let me address just one issue relating to motherhood. There are many women who already are mothers or are desperate to be mothers but, because of their clinical situation, are forced to carry a child who will die on delivery, and are forced to travel to Britain to do that. Often, they are forced to travel and to bring their foetal remains in boxes, and they are stopped at the border—
Karin Smyth
I will finish the point in a moment.
There was no attempt by those people who speak about the situation in Northern Ireland to help those women with the transfer of foetal remains, or indeed to support women knowingly giving birth to a baby who will die. I will now give way.
Miriam Cates
I do not disagree that there are women in appalling situations, such as the ones the hon. Lady has just described, and my heart goes out to them. The point I made in my speech was that the regulations reach into the state’s view of motherhood and that implicit in those CEDAW paragraphs is that motherhood is a negative issue. I have no doubt that for many women who choose abortion in the UK—in GB—each year, it is the fact that there is not the support available to become a mother that is the issue, and that is where we should focus our efforts.
Karin Smyth
We do not have time to debate this issue now, but it is a well-debated issue. However, of the people whom we are talking about, many of them do not choose for many reasons—that is their choice, in my view; the hon. Lady and I disagree about that—to continue a pregnancy, for whatever reason. Of course, what this process catches—it is why it is cruel and barbaric—is also those women who are desperate to have a family, but their child is going to die. They are carrying back those foetal remains in the most barbaric of circumstances. Nobody had concern for those women. In conclusion—
Karin Smyth
I will finish; I need to finish now. Practical steps are needed. In Britain, for example, there are many good examples of third-sector provision of sexual health services. I have pressed the Minister on this issue before. We need to learn the lessons about sexual health services from the rest of Britain. For over 20 years, we have been commissioning third-sector providers to run our sexual health services in Britain and I think that Northern Ireland deserves that quality of service.
I echo the points made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, because the CEDAW recommendations do not just apply to abortion; they apply to sexual health services and education, particularly for young people, in general. When we hear so much currently about violence against women and girls, and the prevalence of pornography and so on in images for young people and how young people are targeted, there is real and deep concern about education provision for young people in Northern Ireland, and how they will understand their own sexual health, and how we ensure that they have a good attitude to sexual health and relationships. That is more crucial now after the pandemic than it was before, and these regulations also allow us to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank you, Mr Hosie, the Secretary of State, and right hon. and hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to come and present my case to the Committee, even though I am not a member of it.
I want to echo the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann, and reiterate those points. This is a matter that I have very strong views on—personal views, and the views of my constituents, who have asked me to come and voice their opinions here in this Committee today. I say very respectfully to the Secretary of State—I have a good relationship with him; he knows that—and put on the record that through these new regulations he has taken sweeping powers of direction to take actions to implement paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report. There has been no consultation on these regulations with those who are opposed to this matter.
The accompanying explanatory memorandum states that there was consultation in 2019 prior to the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, suggesting that that consultation should suffice. I say respectfully that it does not suffice. That consultation was censured by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for being far too short, and 79% of submissions opposed the proposals. Again, the figures are very clear. Moreover, that consultation did not suggest that the Secretary of State would be taking these powers within 18 months of the consultation—powers that go beyond abortion into other areas, including education, which is also a devolved matter, and health more broadly.
As I am sure members of the Committee are aware, the Secretary of State is able to make a direction to Ministers and Northern Ireland Departments under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in a limited number of situations, including the need to meet some international obligations. It was argued by many that the Secretary of State needed to agree to the proposed section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 because it was required to meet international obligations. I believe it is clear that those arguments were false. The Government cannot give a direction under the 2019 Act because the CEDAW recommendations are, in the words of the explanatory memorandum to the regulations,
“not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
I made that argument last June, so in one sense I am pleased that the Government now agree with me on the matter. However, I am distressed to note that soon after the 2 June 2020 vote, in which the Assembly rejected the 2020 regulations and expressly rejected an amendment to limit that rejection to the provision of abortion on the basis of disability, the Secretary of State dismissed that vote when asked about it by the BBC on 4 June, saying our convention obligations overruled it. Specifically, he said that the regulations must
“comply with a UN convention.”
The CEDAW convention does not even mention the word abortion, let alone define a right to it, and it is hard to overstate the anger felt in Northern Ireland when the Government misconstrue arguments in an attempt to render empty votes of the Northern Ireland Assembly as a means of getting their way.
The powers of direction that the Secretary of State has taken for himself are “similar to” the powers in section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but cannot be justified by that precedent because they extend far beyond it. Crucially, they allow directions to go not merely to Executive Ministers, but directly to organisations such as health authorities. Moreover, the scope of directions extends beyond the 2020 abortion regulations to other devolved matters such as sex education.
I know the Minister does not have to respond to me—I asked only to address the Committee—but perhaps in responding to those Members who will vote he will explain what precedent there is for such a wide-ranging direction. How on earth can Assembly Departments plan budgets if they do not know when a directive might be issued that impacts on health, education or the role of women, or what it might say? The potential is great. How many plans might have to be abandoned because of the arrival of an uninvited direction requiring the redirection of funds? That would constitute an intolerable precedent for any devolved Government and is deeply humiliating not only for Northern Ireland Ministers, but for the people of Northern Ireland.
On top of all that, and not surprisingly, given the constitutionally flawed foundation on which they rest, the regulations are in any event dysfunctional because they come without a credible enforcement mechanism. The only way to enforce the law is for the Secretary of State to initiate a judicial review, which is absurd. The experiment with section 9 of the 2019 Act since July 2019 provides a powerful object lesson on why embarking on an attempt to unpick an aspect of devolution—it is as critical as that—invites the creation of a dangerous constitutional mess. The truth is that section 9 must be understood in terms of the Act in which it is located, the purpose of which was the restoration of the Executive. That is now in place; the Executive have been restored. I therefore call on the Government to withdraw the regulations, and propose the repeal of section 9.
I end by reminding the Committee of the words of the then Secretary of State in 2018:
“Abortion has been a devolved matter in Northern Ireland since it was created in 1921, and it would not be appropriate for Westminster to seek to impose its will, or to be the arbiter of an issue that has long been devolved to the people of Northern Ireland. The Government believe that the question of any future reform in Northern Ireland must be debated and decided by the people of Northern Ireland and their locally elected, and therefore accountable, politicians.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 220.]
That would be the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland. The regulations adopt the exact opposite position. The 2020 regulations do not require that services have to be commissioned. Whether they should be or how that should be done is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, not, with the greatest respect, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State.
I reiterate that I speak for all those unborn babies who have not had the chance to enjoy a real life. I believe that opportunity should be there for them. Their rights have to be reinforced. Again, I respectfully call on all right hon. and hon. Members to reject the regulations.
Sir John Hayes
It is a cause of regret when a confused Parliament does the wrong thing, but it is a cause of sorrow when a Government make that worse. The prevailing parliamentary confusion is based on a calumnia. To highlight the absurdity of where we stand, the Government now effectively acknowledge that today’s vote was secured on the basis of a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, a mistaken grasp of what we had to do and must do. The argument of its protagonists on 9 July 2019 about section 9, to which these regulations pertain, was that it was vital to ensure that we met “our international obligations”. Indeed, after 9 July, even the Government suggested that that was the case. When confronted with the Stormont vote of 2 June 2020, the Secretary of State explicitly told the BBC that it made no difference because of our convention obligations.
However, the explanatory notes for today’s Committee make it crystal clear that none of that is the case. They say, of paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report—I draw the Committee’s attention to these explanatory notes, for the purpose of clarity—that
“those recommendations are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
That directly contradicts what the House was told by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others in July 2019. I have here her speech, in which she describes them as just that, “international obligations” that must be addressed.
The most striking thing about the regulations before us is how different they are from the last section 9 regulations—those of 2020. The 2020 regulations were concerned with abortion, but these regulations are much wider in scope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. A clumsy, catch-all, calamitous approach is typical of the way Westminster has handled this topic. It still seems extraordinary to me that we should have greeted the restoration of Stormont in January 2020 with a vote only five months later to undermine devolution in respect of such a sensitive policy area.
We have heard from the Northern Irish representatives here, who after all speak directly for those who are affected by the regulations we are debating. Quite what the feeling is like in that place, a feeling expressed both in public consultation and in the votes in the now reconstituted Assembly—
Sir John Hayes
I will come back to those matters in a moment; first, I happily give way to the hon. Lady.
Charlotte Nichols
The point that the right hon. Gentleman made regarding people being directly affected by this is, I think, false. When I was a teenager and had my own abortion at the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, there were women and girls from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who had travelled to Liverpool for that service, and we have heard today about the number of people who are travelling over. It is not only people in Northern Ireland who are affected by this, because in areas such the one I represent, in GB, there will be people who are struggling to get on the waiting list for these services because people who should be able to access them in their own communities in Northern Ireland are having to travel here to get them. That is what we are seeking to address today.
Sir John Hayes
But these regulations apply to Northern Ireland, and what I said was that the people in the Committee who are elected in Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland have spoken with absolute clarity about the views there—expressed not only in the Assembly and by both communities in Northern Ireland, by the way, but in every poll and test of opinion that has been taken in Northern Ireland, including among women. I think we have to pay some heed, rather as I pay heed to the hon. Lady’s experience from her own part of the country, to those who speak for and represent Northern Ireland.
It is unsurprising—
Sir John Hayes
I will. I am going to give my hon. Friend a short lecture on law in a minute, because he is confused about it, as he was the last time we met in this Committee. Before I give way, perhaps he will chew on this. The Act to which the Good Friday agreement gave rise, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, says, at section 26, that there are only three grounds on which Westminster can intervene in a devolved matter in Northern Ireland: giving effect to international obligations; safeguarding defence or national security; and protecting public safety or public order. Given that we now know, from the explanatory notes for the Committee, that these were not international obligations, on what grounds are we doing what this Committee is being invited to do today, and on what grounds did we in Parliament pass the law that gives rise to these regulations?
Huw Merriman
I do not need a lecture in law because, quite frankly, I do not think my right hon. Friend is qualified. I referenced the judgment from the Supreme Court, which is qualified to give a judgment, that made it absolutely clear that the international obligations with regard to articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights were not being complied with. Ultimately, neither of us is qualified on that front, unless he is going to become a Supreme Court judge.
The point that I wanted to make was on the suggestion that the Government, in what was a free vote, managed to dupe MPs to vote 328 in favour and 65 against. My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, when the Government try to fix free votes, Parliament, because it knows its own mind, tends to do the opposite of what the Government say. Does he really think that MPs are completely stupid in a free vote and do not know their own mind?
Sir John Hayes
I would never say that all MPs are completely stupid, as you know, Mr Hosie, but if my hon. Friend does not value as highly as he ought to the 1998 Act and the devolution settlement that arose from the Good Friday agreement, perhaps he will recognise two other pieces of law that are directly pertinent to our considerations.
The first is the 2005 agreement, whereby the devolved constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland established the consent for constitutional change, described as a fundamental principle of devolution. It made clear that in terms of constitutional change it was essential that the Northern Ireland Assembly took a view, and indeed made a decision, that was consistent with anything that this Parliament did. That is the underlying principle of consent in the devolved arrangement.
Moreover—I know my hon. Friend will have read his papers very closely before coming to the Committee—the Delegated Legislation Committee that looked at the matters before us made it very clear that what we are being asked to do today is entirely exceptional in terms of the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Unprecedented was the word that the Committee that studied the regulations before they came to us used to describe them.
It is unacceptable to argue that because we took a decision when there was no Assembly, now that the Assembly has been re-established, we should ride roughshod over the view that it took and that it takes about the issue. It is inexcusable that the explanatory memorandum should suggest that the new regulations, which are so much wider than the 2020 regulations, should depend on the consultation process for the 2020 regulations, which in any event was sharply criticised as being far too short and deeply controversial.
Having had a deeply controversial and inadequate consultation process for the first regulations, we have now introduced regulations that are more wide ranging and that could, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggested, lead to—
Sir John Hayes
Before I give way to the Minister, I pay personal tribute to him, because he has been incredibly courteous throughout; I have had many exchanges with him on the matter. I know that his personal views on these matters are not a million miles from mine, but I do not want to embarrass him by saying more than that. The truth is that he knows that with these regulations there is a possibility of us ending up with, rather than a circumstance whereby the availability of abortion in Northern Ireland is equivalent to that in the other parts of the United Kingdom, a circumstance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, whereby abortion in Northern Ireland is offered more permissively than elsewhere. Perhaps he can correct me.
Mr Walker
I am very happy to correct my right hon. Friend on that point. I am certainly happy that we have had constructive engagement, and I hope that all Members on both sides of the House, and on both sides of the debate, will recognise the willingness to engage on these issues.
May I come back to my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that today’s regulations are wider in some way than the 2020 regulations? This is simply about the implementation of the 2020 regulations. Today’s regulations make no change whatever to them; they are simply about ensuring that what the House put into law in 2020 is delivered.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister says that, but it is clear from reading the regulations that, in certain circumstances, abortion can take place up to birth and that the 1967 Act’s insistence on two medical practitioners authorising abortion will not necessarily apply in Northern Ireland. I regard both those things as a more permissive application of the law than the one that pertains.
The 1967 Act may well be applied in theory more than in practice—I should not want to comment on that—but at the very least the risk of the more permissive regime that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge described concerns the people of Northern Ireland, who fear that what is imposed on them might not only go against the expressed will of the people, but be altogether worse than that.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made it perfectly clear that the essence of the argument used when the law was passed was that as there was no Assembly we had to act. She argued:
“I understand that, if it was not for the fact that we do not have an Assembly, this would absolutely not be the right way forward”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 183.]
That is what she said, with not a great deal of elegance; none the less, her point is made: it would absolutely “not be the right way forward.”
If it was “not the right way forward”, why on earth have we continued to pursue this path? When the Assembly was reformed, with a new Government, we had an opportunity to think again. It would not have been a huge step, given that the Assembly had the chance to vote on the matter. It has all the appearance of the Government dictating their will and of Parliament insisting that devolution counts only when the devolved Assemblies agree with people here. That is not something that you, Mr Hosie, I nor any democrat in this place could possibly sanction.
We must think too about the consequences for the Union and the continuing pertinence and relevance of devolution. If people in Northern Ireland come to believe what I have suggested—that their right to self-government is condoned by a Parliament that is so arrogant that it says that when they do not agree with the prevailing view here their rights can be torn away from them—how can they possibly continue to believe in the settlement or, indeed, even in the Union?
I was recently contacted by a clergyman from County Fermanagh, who decried the regulations as the final nail in the coffin of devolution. Indeed, an open letter was sent to the Prime Minister from 250 church leaders opposing today’s proposals. On at least four occasions, we have actively ignored the expressed will of Northern Ireland’s representatives on a matter of great importance to many in the Province. First, as has been noted, on 19 July 100% of Northern Ireland Members who take their seats voted against the process that resulted in section 9—a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter. Let me repeat that: a Northern Ireland-only provision on a devolved matter—a matter expressly devolved to Northern Ireland, yet it was imposed despite that opposition from Members who hold a specific mandate to represent the people there. At that moment we told the people of Northern Ireland that the voices of those elected to represent them would be ignored, and their history and deeply held views on this matter of conscience disregarded. By extension, we told the people of Northern Ireland that their opinion did not matter.
Secondly, we ignored the voice of the people of Northern Ireland in the consultation on the 2020 regulations, in which 79% of participants said they did not want the measure to proceed—seventy-nine per cent. is an even greater percentage than I managed to secure of the vote in South Holland and The Deepings—not much greater, but somewhat.
Thirdly, we ignored the voices of the people of Northern Ireland when we insisted on welcoming the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly while simultaneously ignoring its clear vote last year to reject the 2020 regulations. We now seek to forsake them again by forgoing further public consultation on the new regulations, at a time when the Assembly is working as intended, providing extensive and conscientious scrutiny of an imposed policy of the utmost sensitivity and profound local concern.
Carla Lockhart
I noted this with regard to my own speech but did not reference it. If the Committee was forcing a devolved issue on Scotland or Wales, would Members in this place agree to it? I think back to two examples. In 1957, Westminster voted to impose the flooding of the Tryweryn valley in Wales—
The Chair
Order. I have allowed the hon. Lady lots of leeway, and although some of this does touch on constitutional issues, the 1957 flooding in Wales is outwith the scope of the debate.
Carla Lockhart
Thank you, Mr Hosie. My point is that Welsh MPs voted against that, but the Government forced it through, which was recently described as “shameful”.
The same applies with the poll tax in Scotland, about which David Cameron apologised in 2006. One would hope that the lesson had been learned about not forcing things on the devolved Administrations, because that undermines and damages the Union. Therein lies my broad point.
Sir John Hayes
That is true, and the Committee that considered this issue before this Committee said that it was unprecedented in respect not only of Northern Ireland, but of any of the devolved nations. The decision that this Committee looks set to take—I will not put it more strongly than that—in supporting the regulations is so exceptional as to be noteworthy, as I described, and the hon. Lady has amplified.
It has been acknowledged that these issues understandably give rise to strong views, but on a matter as sensitive as this what is happening is particularly reprehensible. It would be reprehensible on a constitutional basis, regardless of the issue, but on a matter that causes such grave concern in Northern Ireland it is all the more so.
Today’s regulations are the continuation of a process that has fallen far short of the standards to which we as legislators should hold ourselves. I am not for one minute suggesting that people in Scotland and Wales think as the people of Northern Ireland do concerning abortion, but the precedents flowing from the way in which we are treating Northern Ireland with respect to the sustainability of the current devolution settlement across our kingdom are obvious.
Do not tell me that this is a matter of the sovereignty of Parliament, which we have heard suggested once or twice. Parliament has been sovereign since 1707. The fact that it can do certain things does not mean that it must do all things or should even do those things that it can. Parliament is sovereign by way of our constitution. By that constitution, it constrains itself by convention, and there are few more important conventions than upholding the Union and the Acts of Parliament that underpin it.
I recommend our Attorney General’s views on judicial activism and the creeping role of the Supreme Court in making public policy. If those views are not sufficiently persuasive, I recommend the views of the former Supreme Court judge, Lord Sumption, who has been clear that democratic legitimacy relies on the judiciary knowing what its constraints should be.
Mrs Miller
Surely my right hon. Friend is arguing against himself. If the Committee decides not to act today in introducing laws that improve the situation in Northern Ireland the Supreme Court will have no better action to take than effectively to put law in place of a vacuum. The current situation has been judged to be in convention with human rights, so we have no choice other than to act on that particular point.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend is right; the Government’s best course of action is to repeal the changes that were made when there was no devolution settlement. There is the prospect of further legal challenge, which I would certainly strongly support given all the things I said earlier about the 1998 Act establishing the devolution settlement; about the fact that this has been described again today by a Committee of this Parliament as being unprecedented; and about the basis on which the Assembly was reassembled and its legal underpinning. What we are doing today is highly questionable and I recommend that the Government think again.
The Minister says that Northern Ireland has some opportunity to interpret the regulations and come forward with its own settlement that stays within the law but does not go as far as some would want. That is true. Northern Ireland can come forward with a settlement, but these regulations are effectively a gun to the head of the people of Northern Ireland, saying, “Either you do what we want by your own decision or we will decide for you.” I hesitate to say anything critical of the Minister because I regard him highly, but it is a slightly deceptive argument to suggest that the Northern Irish can sort this out when a gun is being placed against their heads.
Not for nothing are many people in Northern Ireland very proud of the “One Hundred Thousand” report, confirmed by the Advertising Standards Authority as showing that probably 100,000 people are alive in Northern Ireland today who would not be had the Province embraced the Abortion Act 1967.
Moreover, when talking about the sovereignty of Parliament we must recall that a key aspect is that no Parliament can bind its successors. Section 9 was passed in a Bill the introduction of which defined its purpose in terms of the restoration of the Executive. That was in a previous Parliament and it could have been—it would and should have been—this Government’s course of action to say, “That was then and now is now.” A different Parliament and a different set of arrangements in Northern Ireland necessitates a different approach. That would not have been unreasonable given what I said about the need to maintain the integrity of devolution.
Rather than asking Parliament to pass these regulations, the Government should recognise the current reality and instead ask our new Parliament to welcome the restoration of the Assembly and to repeal section 9, as I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. In making that point, I would say to the advocates of abortion that that would be a debate to have across the House, but more especially in Northern Ireland. If those who want abortion to be more widely available in Northern Ireland make their case and persuade their elected representatives to share that view, living in a democratic kingdom, the majority view will prevail.
It is important to say that the regulations are of course about abortion and its availability in the Province, but they are about something much more: how much we value devolved decision making, how much we respect the different opinions that prevail in different parts of this kingdom and how much we really believe that the sovereignty of this Parliament is enhanced when we are big enough to say that people in different parts of the kingdom can come to different conclusions from the majority view here.
Do we care so little about the distinct regional identities of our Union, unless we take exactly the same approach to abortion in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom, that we would extinguish people’s opinions and eliminate the majority view there? Are we to honour devolution only when those to whom we give power agree with us? Will the Government be content to build their future on past mistakes? Is this an Administration who listen, or do they dictate?
To misunderstand the salience of those questions, or the significance of the answers, would be among the worst political miscalculations of any Conservative Government since the Union began in 1707. As we sit under the gaze of Joseph Chamberlain—
Sir John Hayes
Before I come to my exciting conclusion, of course I give way.
Karin Smyth
The Act of Union 1707 did not apply to Ireland, only to Scotland.
Sir John Hayes
That is true, but I did not claim otherwise. I said this would be one of the biggest mistakes since then.
As we sit under the gaze of Joseph Chamberlain, the radical who in the end became allied to the Conservative Government, and who always put conviction above convenience, perhaps today members of the Committee should put principle and conviction first, not convenience, and think again about the regulations. I invite Conservative members of the Committee—and, I hope, members across it—to oppose the regulations because that would send a signal to Government to think again, to listen, to redraw their plans and to behave in a way that maintains our Union, respects devolution and shows that, rather than ploughing ahead regardless, the Government are sensitive to the wishes and interests of the people in every part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Walker
Thank you, Mr Hosie, for your patient chairmanship of the Committee.
We have heard a wide range of strongly held personal views and varied contributions on all aspects of the regulations from Members representing all parties. I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd, who speaks for the Opposition, for her constructive approach to the debate and our previous engagement on the issue. I particularly commend the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke; the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who has spoken passionately on the issue for a long time; my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle; and the hon. Member for Bristol South, who used to face me across the Committee.
My closing remarks will address several of the points made during the debate. I recognise the strength of the speeches of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stockbridge, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is never knowingly understated, but who, as ever, spoke powerfully.
While some people might wish to use the opportunity to reopen the discussion on the framework established by the 2020 regulations, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings did for a large part of his speech, that time has passed and we are focused on ensuring that the legal right of women and girls to access full abortion services in Northern Ireland is implemented. Let me be absolutely clear that we are not proposing to repeal section 9 of the EF Act. Although we have heard in the debate from some who would like to do that, they are in a small minority in the House and in the Conservative party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle pointed out, there was a five to one majority in favour of the Act, as amended. It remains our preference that, this now being the law of the United Kingdom, the Department of Health should drive forward the commissioning of abortion services, with the support of the Executive, and we will continue to work to see whether progress can be made on the ground in Northern Ireland before the Secretary of State has to consider issuing a direction.
We all recognise that abortion is a hugely emotive subject, but we must not lose sight of the women and girls in Northern Ireland who are at the heart of the matter. It is unacceptable that there are women and girls in any part of the United Kingdom who cannot access these fundamental rights. That is a decision that was taken by the House of Commons in enacting the previous regulations and the EF Act. Even though the law was changed 12 months ago, services have still not been commissioned in full, leaving many women and girls in vulnerable situations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made clear the concerns of health professionals at the lack of commissioning. I thank the Northern Ireland abortion and contraception taskforce for its report. The CEDAW report and its recommendations require that evidence-based protocols are adopted in the provision of services in Northern Ireland. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has also published guidance to help medical professionals. I strongly urge the Department of Health to engage with both groups on the practical issues outlined in their reports.
I have spoken personally to many women and healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland, and some of their experiences are truly harrowing. Many women and girls still have to travel to other parts of the United Kingdom to access the care that should be available to them. One story of which I was informed was of a wanted pregnancy where, sadly, doctors told the mother that the baby would not survive outside the womb. The woman had to travel to London without a network of family support in order to access abortion care. She described to me a harrowing ordeal—unable to travel back on a flight home because of complications with bleeding, stranded in London, alone, grieving and in pain. I have also been made aware that two women have attempted suicide in the past year after their flights were cancelled and they were unable to travel to England.
The distress and the circumstances that women and girls continue to face when local access should be readily available, given that the law changed over a year ago, are unacceptable. It is only right that women and girls in Northern Ireland can make individual, informed decisions with proper patient care and provision of information, and with support from medical professionals, based on their own health and other circumstances—similar to women and girls living elsewhere in the UK.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North made an important point about funding for voluntary services. I have made it clear that we would expect to see that in place before the summer recess so that we can avoid the use of a direction. We want the Executive to move forward on it.
We have heard understandable concerns about respecting the importance of the devolved institutions. I have been clear repeatedly about our desire to work with the Executive, the Department of Health and the Assembly to ensure that the regulations are implemented effectively in a way that works for Northern Ireland, but, after more than a year, it has become clear that without further steps being taken, that would not happen. Even at this stage, we do not wish to have to use the power of direction and we will pause, following the conclusion of the Committee, to give the Department of Health another opportunity to implement the regulations. If we see real evidence of commissioning of a CEDAW-compliant regime, and support for the provision of advice and guidance ahead of the summer, there is no reason a direction should be required. If we do not, we will have no choice other than to meet our legal obligations.
We have already given the Executive and the Department of Health a year to move forward with commissioning services, following the abortion regulations coming into effect last March, and we are disappointed that no progress has been made. We continue to give the Executive, the Minister of Health and his Department further time to move forward on their own terms. Should the Committee approve the regulations on the power of direction, we will pause and give them one final opportunity to make progress on commissioning services. However, we will not let progress be drawn out indefinitely.
We want to see concrete progress towards the commissioning of abortion services before the summer recess. If that is not achieved, we will not hesitate to issue a direction immediately so that the rights of women and girls are properly upheld, and they can have safe and lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland.
I have been asked to estimate the number of people who have had to travel. I note that over 1,100 women and girls have been able to access local services since April last year. That should not be overlooked when services have not been formally commissioned. We have seen a significant reduction in the number of women and girls having to travel over the past nine to 12 months, and we appreciate that, while covid has played a part in that, the change to the law in Northern Ireland and local access have also been key.
We expect that the Department of Health and Social Care will publish the figures for people who have had to travel as standard practice over the coming months. Tempting though it is, I do not wish to estimate—I want the figures. We know that the number is significantly lower than before, but any number at this stage is too many.
Karin Smyth
I appreciate the difficulty, but that is really disappointing. Coming out of the pandemic, flights are beginning to be scheduled, but they are getting more expensive, and it will be more difficult for women to travel as families try to reunite across these islands and society begins to reopen. It will be another four to five months—between now and some point in the summer, if something happens—with really difficult travelling circumstances and more women in distress. Is that date as much as we can get from the Minister today?
Mr Walker
I recognise the strength of the hon. Lady’s feelings and the fact that she is pushing for the most rapid delivery. It is our preference that the Executive and the Minister of Health move forward with this at once, and that they act on what is already in place so that the requirement to travel can be removed as soon as possible. We want to give the Executive every opportunity to do this themselves without being directed, so there will be a pause.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made an important point about education. She is right that the CEDAW report’s requirements, the regulations and the EF Act require us to go beyond the area of health. Sexual and reproductive health education is an important component in ensuring that women and girls are well informed of the choices available to them. One of the recommendations in the CEDAW report, which we must ensure is implemented, is to make age-appropriate, comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health and rights a compulsory component of the curriculum for adolescents, covering the prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion, and to monitor its implementation.
The implementation of that recommendation falls into an area for which Northern Ireland’s Department of Education has responsibility. We have written to the Minister and continue to work with the Department to ensure appropriate implementation in Northern Ireland, but I would point out that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, as part of its work for this year and in accordance with that recommendation, will publish a report on the provision of education services in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about telemedicine. As she will recognise, the temporary approval made in England under the abortion legislation Act cannot be extended to Northern Ireland, but the power was placed in legislation to enable the Northern Ireland Minister of Health to consider other appropriate settings. In this jurisdiction, during the covid situation, that power has been used under UK legislation. I have certainly urged the Minister to consider that, but it needs to be looked at as part of the wider package of the Executive and the Department of Health accepting their responsibilities for this and using the powers available to them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned the Constitution Committee. I recognise that, to some extent, we are in unprecedented territory, but I agree with the Committee’s conclusion that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive should engage in a constructive manner. The Secretary of State is under a clear legal duty under section 9 of the EF Act to ensure that all the CEDAW recommendations are implemented in Northern Ireland—a duty that was placed on him by the House of Commons. However, we have been repeatedly clear about our desire to work with the Executive, the Department of Health and the Assembly to ensure that the regulations are implemented effectively in a way that works for Northern Ireland. It remains our preference for them to deliver on that and to move forward with the full commissioning of services in line with the regulations. That is why we are giving them every opportunity to act on the matter.
I conclude by saying that I have no desire to be here today. Like the hon. Member for Bristol South, I cannot believe that we are here again. The House set out the law and delivered a single compliant set of regulations for Northern Ireland over a year ago. At every stage, we have sought to get those regulations delivered through the proper devolved channels, and the power that the regulations will grant provides a mechanism to unblock the political obstacles that have been placed in the way of their delivery. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put,
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
Air Ambulance Funding
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice, in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall—obviously not when speaking.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 259892, relating to air ambulance funding.
The e-petition that we are considering today was submitted during the 2017-19 Parliament, and I am delighted that we have now found time to consider it, after previous scheduled debates were postponed, first because of the general election and latterly because of the pandemic. I thank the petitioner and everyone who took the time to sign the petition for their patience and understanding in relation to the delays.
The petition is entitled “The Air Ambulances to be government funded”, and it states:
“The air ambulances that operate around the UK cost around £12,000 per day to run and maintain, and are mainly funded through charity organisations. This petition is to ask the Government to fully fund the air ambulances through the emergency services.”
Of course, the funding that the petition called for was not awarded. The UK Government response was broadly dismissive of the need for change. On 3 July 2019 they stated:
“NHS ambulance services provide clinical staff and equipment to air ambulance charities. A charitable model gives charities independence to deliver specialised, specific services to each locality.
Air ambulance services are not NHS funded and are provided by 18 charitable organisations across England, with the majority of their resources supported by their own fundraising activities.”
The petition was launched by Bethany Billington, who has kindly given me permission to tell her story. On 31 March 2019, Bethany’s sister Lee-Anne Parkin and her partner were involved in a road traffic accident. Tragically, Lee-Anne’s partner died at the scene. Lee-Anne was airlifted to the major trauma unit in Teesside where sadly she passed away one week later, never having regained consciousness. During that time the Great North Air Ambulance Service team, who had attended the accident, kept in contact with the hospital to check on Lee-Anne’s progress. The gratitude of Bethany and her family to the air ambulance crew, as well as to the wonderful hospital staff, for doing everything in their power to try to save Lee-Anne’s life, inspired the aspiration behind the petition. I am sure that all Members here today will join me in sending their condolences to Bethany and her family.
It is important that we take the time to recognise the hard work and dedication of air ambulance crews across the UK. They are committed and talented professionals, who often find themselves having to work in the most extreme circumstances. For example, they can administer general anaesthetics and even perform open heart surgery at the scene of incidents. I wish to pass on my deepest thanks to all the dedicated air ambulance crews up and down the country. Many people will know a family who have benefited from this service. It is a vital link in our emergency services.
There are 22 air ambulance organisations across the UK, the structures of which can be extremely complex. I have to admit that I was shocked to discover that all but one of the UK’s 22 air ambulance organisations are charitable organisations. Scotland is the only country in the UK to have NHS-funded air ambulance provision; the other 21 organisations are all funded by donations from generous members of the public. According to Air Ambulances UK, the UK’s air ambulances collectively make over 25,000 life-saving missions a year, at an average cost of £2,500 per mission, or, to put it another way, at an annual cost of more than £62.5 million, the vast majority of which is funded by charitable donations.
Generally, the medical teams on board air ambulances are seconded from local NHS trusts. However, some charities are responsible for employing their own medical staff. In addition, some of these organisations have chosen to lease their helicopters. However, the purchasing of helicopters has become increasingly popular in more recent times. For instance, Cornwall Air Ambulance recently bought the charity’s first helicopter in its 32-year history, while Scotland’s Charity Air Ambulance launched its second air ambulance on 3 April last year.
The number of petitioners clearly demonstrates a strong public sentiment that air ambulances should receive Government funding. However, it would be injudicious of me not to mention that Devon Air Ambulance Trust actually asked its supporters not to sign this petition, stating:
“Whilst we appreciate the sentiment behind this petition, we firmly believe it is not in patients’ best interests. As we have seen over the last decade, government-funded services face significant cuts in funding alongside policy and priorities set by the government of the day. Many aspects of our essential services have been commercialised. The UK Air Ambulance sector has an excellent aviation safety record thanks to our ability to put patients and safety at the heart of our operations. Subject to the same constraints as our other essential services, we would face a stark choice between cutting services or cutting quality. Neither is acceptable or necessary.”
This sentiment appears to have been echoed in the findings of public engagement work that the Petitions Committee carried out on this topic. An e-survey, which ran between August 2020 and September 2020, was distributed to air ambulance charities via the Air Ambulances UK network and received 15 out of a possible 21 responses. All but one opposed the idea that air ambulance services should be fully funded by the Government. The reason provided by one charity was:
“Air ambulances would be a low priority for government funding”.
Another stated:
“The government is never going to be able to guarantee the same level of investment. The impact of austerity on public services has gone far beyond cost efficiency savings.”
Of the 14 charities that responded and opposed Government funding, it is worth noting that three of them were in favour of the Government providing capital grants for larger costs such as helipads.
Although UK Government support for air ambulances has been minimal, it is worth noting that these organisations receive sporadic access to Government funding. In the Government’s response to this petition, they said that in 2019 the 18 air ambulance charities across England were invited to bid for a share of £10 million of funding from the Department for Health and Social Care for a range of facilities and infrastructure projects, including high-tech medical equipment for critical care teams and new helicopters and helipads. However, only nine out of the 14 English air ambulance charities that put forward bids were successful. The money that was secured was used to upgrade equipment and improve facilities.
Responding at that time, Paula Martin, chair of the UK’s Association of Air Ambulances, or AAA, said
“this funding only represents a small amount of what has to be raised”
and that air ambulance charities were still heavily reliant on the public’s “kind and generous donations”. According to an article in the March 2019 edition of the AAA’s Airway magazine, this funding opportunity presented charities with something of a dilemma. There were concerns that it would adversely impact on their regular donors and entirely charity-funded status. For these charities, their independence is vital.
Funding for air ambulances has not been immune to the effects of coronavirus, either. All the charities that responded to the survey stated that their finances had been impacted by covid, with the relevant figures ranging between £500,000 and £3 million and the overwhelming reason appearing to be their inability to fundraise in the same way. A £6 million covid-19 Government funding grant for air ambulance charities was therefore warmly welcomed by the organisations at this very difficult time, although several had concerns about the bidding process, described as
“tortuous as projects must be unfunded but shovel-ready, which is illogical and high risk”
and “lengthy and delayed”; it was also said that
“funding only went to a select few AA’s and sadly they were mainly in the Southern half of the UK”.
As I have mentioned, Scotland is the only part of the UK to have fully NHS-funded air ambulance provision. I would like to take this opportunity to share the detail of that model. The Scottish Ambulance Service, which works closely with Scotland’s Charity Air Ambulance, has two helicopters and two planes, which are fully funded by the NHS. In 2019-20, 3,732 air ambulance missions were undertaken by the Scottish Ambulance Service. That amounts to just over 10 per day, or one every two hours and 20 minutes. Funded centrally, air ambulance services in Scotland have been provided for well over 30 years as part of the wider healthcare provision for the country, based on its unique geography and demographics, and before any charitable helicopter services commenced elsewhere in the UK. The Scottish model shows the potential of a hybrid charity and Government-funded model of air ambulances that, if emulated, would, I believe, serve other parts of the UK well. It addresses the risk that a drop in fundraising revenue poses to charity-only models, while protecting the independence of charity-funded services. Clearly, finding the solution need not be a “one or the other” situation, as Government-funded air ambulance services can operate alongside charity services, as Scotland shows.
In conclusion, this is quite a complex subject, with a range of models and challenges. I look forward to the debate and to hearing from the Minister about a way forward on this important matter.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his considered speech. I am delighted, given that my constituents are so passionate about air ambulances, that this debate is taking place. This year alone, 13 incidents have been attended in Wakefield, and dozens more in the wider Yorkshire area, by the air ambulance helicopter or the rapid response vehicle. Yorkshire Air Ambulance is located at Nostell Priory, just outside Wakefield city centre, and has been marked as one of the best air ambulance facilities in the UK by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is therefore no surprise that the constituents of Wakefield hold their air ambulance in high regard.
Yorkshire Air Ambulance works closely with NHS emergency services, using a similar operational methodology that has been adopted by the NHS emergency service dispatch system, and with emergency staff and doctors on secondment to it. The services provided by the air ambulance are vital to Wakefield and the surrounding towns and villages, and to communities across West Yorkshire, in dealing with issues that cannot be dealt with as effectively by the employment of conventional ambulances alone. Some of the most experienced and highly qualified first responders are employed, complementing rather than competing with existing NHS emergency services. The high calibre of personnel employed by Yorkshire Air Ambulance means that bespoke responses can be delivered to meet the specific needs of Yorkshire’s most critically injured and unwell. Emergency surgery—including caesarean sections and open heart surgery—has on occasion, as we have heard, been conducted in the field.
The people of Wakefield, together with the rest of the United Kingdom, have rightly recognised in the petition that there is a clear need for a well-funded air ambulance. Bringing those services under the umbrella of emergency services could, however, result in a number of unintended consequences. First, doing so could unintentionally degrade the autonomy and flexibility that an independent regional air ambulance provides. If one compares Yorkshire Air Ambulance with London’s Air Ambulance, for example, one will see that there is a stark difference in the requirements needed, specific treatments provided and even frequency of use. London’s Air Ambulance predominantly focuses on violent injuries such as shootings and stabbings, while Yorkshire’s focuses more on road traffic accidents and cardiac arrests.
Even the geographical differences, such as terrain and urban density, make significant differences. A serious road traffic accident on the motorway network in my constituency could lead to simultaneous tailbacks on the M1, M62 and M621 into Leeds, and the A1/A1(M). The ability to land a helicopter directly at the scene means that lives can be saved in minutes. To the north of Yorkshire Air Ambulance’s operating area, it could be flying deep into the dales where there are no roads whatsoever.
As charities with their own independent operating procedures tailored to their specific local requirements, air ambulances have the ability to be flexible and to determine how they want their services to run. They are not subject to the constraints under which the public sector must, by necessity, operate, which is a constant issue facing the NHS when it comes to both day-to-day operations and emergency life-and-death situations. Rather, Yorkshire Air Ambulance is clearly a willing and constructive partner with its NHS colleagues, but critically does not form part of the NHS’s organisational structure.
Her Majesty’s Government have importantly made significant funds available to air ambulances, from LIBOR fines to recent financial support for their vital work throughout the pandemic. Upon inquiring, it has been made abundantly clear to me that Yorkshire Air Ambulance, as we have already heard from many of its colleagues around the UK, such as in Devon, is grateful for the stability that central Government grant funding provides, and would undoubtedly welcome further grants, but not if they are to come at the expense of its operational independence.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for leading it. I always admire the skill with which members of the Petitions Committee introduce a broad range of topics for discussion in Westminster Hall. His point about the extreme circumstances that crews face not just in transit but in what they find when they make their extraordinary journeys was really well made.
We often think most visibly about air ambulances landing in all sorts of places, whether that is motorways, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) just said, or playing fields. We perhaps do not think so much about the extraordinary care that they give on the other end, whether that is caesarean sections, as we heard, open heart surgery or general anaesthetics—all sorts of things. It really is an incredible range of skills to be able both to get to the right place and then to provide the right care. We are truly lucky to have these individuals in our country.
The biggest thanks, of course, must go to Bethany Billington, who started the petition. I pay tribute to her sister, Lee-Anne Parkin, who tragically lost her life alongside her partner, Steve Carroll, in March 2019, as we have heard. It happened seven days after being taken to the trauma unit in Teesside following a motorcycle accident. Great North Air Ambulance was on the scene within minutes of the accident, and Bethany has praised its incredible efforts, and followed those words with actions of her own. She can be very proud of herself, and her sister’s legacy.
There are lots of parliamentary e-petitions, but it takes one that is truly special to get the 100,000 signatures required for a debate to be considered. In this case, there were more than 130,000 signatures before the e-petition closed prior to the last general election, which seems a long time ago. Bethany managed to secure this debate, and we are glad that she did.
I commend the hon. Member for Wakefield for his typically thoughtful contribution. He spoke about Wakefield and the many ways in which his constituents might need these services. There are significant parallels with my constituency in Nottingham, not least in that many of the roads that he mentioned also serve my community, and that his constituents’ high regard for these services mirrors that of my own. Our constituents will want us, their parliamentarians, to address the petition seriously and constructively, as we are doing today.
Let me start by stating how brilliant a contribution air ambulances make. Across the UK, there are about 70 life-saving missions each day. That is an extraordinary service provided to people who, by definition, really need it. A lot of loved ones are saved and lives are changed. In politics, we are never meant to say that we feel conflicted or have thoughts on both sides of an issue. We are supposed to have a firm and unequivocal view, but I do not have that on this issue; I find it quite conflicting.
One thing that makes this country so special is our national health service, which is there for us whoever we are, whatever we need and whenever we might need it. It is free at the point of need and funded by our taxes. I confess to having always found it a little odd that really important services, such as air ambulances and hospices—they are both, I believe, fundamental parts of the health service—are funded principally through charity. In reality, I am conscious that this is, to some extent, going to be a mixed economy. In 2018, the then Chancellor announced £10 million of capital funding to support air ambulances. I hope the Minister will update us on how this was used, its impact and any future plans, because clearly there is demand for such support.
The service is not cheap. The petition says that it costs about £12,000 each day to run; it may well be more. Air Ambulances UK says that each mission costs about £2,500. If there are 70 missions a day, that would put the daily figure at more than 10 times the one suggested in the petition. The real answer may be somewhere in between; either way, we can all agree that the work is priceless and we would never countenance it stopping because of a lack of money.
That gives me a certain confliction about whether air ambulances should be funded as a core NHS service. Happily, whatever my conflictions, the sector has rather resolved the issue for me. It says that it does not want to change its operating model, so I certainly shall not advocate that. If it wants to run the model in this way, and if it thinks that that gives it the best of both worlds and enables it to keep doing the wonderful things that it does—well, it is the expert. It is doing this great job, and it has my full backing.
The Government, via NHS England, still have an important role. At a minimum, they are a backer of last resort. Since the petition closed, events have put extraordinary pressures on charities and charitable giving. The Government were right—we supported them—to give air ambulances a £6 million covid-19 grant. That will have ensured that services that could have been under pressure will have been able to continue. Hopefully, when we get back to normal fundraising activities—perhaps the Minister will announce that he is running the London marathon to raise money for such causes; I will leave that space open for him—it will not be necessary to rely on Government support. Nevertheless, Governments across the UK should always commit to standing behind this crucial sector, in good times and in bad. I hope the Minister will affirm that today.
To conclude, one thing I have held in my head is the profound understanding that—given the volume of missions every day—while we have been having this debate, multiple people will have had to rely on air ambulance services. That is how important this is, and how much of a difference it makes to such individuals and the people who care about them. That is why this petition and this debate are so important. Air ambulances are there for us, and we must continue to support them in their work.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), said, when members of the Petitions Committee turn their hands to giving extremely well-informed and erudite speeches on whatever topics come through the Committee, they display a certain dexterity. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for his thoughtful speech, as ever, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and the shadow Minister, who made typically measured, sensible and thoughtful contributions to this important debate. Although what goes on in the main Chamber may attract more public attention, I often think that if more people were aware of what goes on in this Chamber, they would find that the tone of many debates is different from the one at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber, and that there is a genuinely constructive exchange of views.
As the shadow Minister said, to date more than 130,000 people have signed this petition, and I thank them all for highlighting this important issue for debate. Like him, I pay particular tribute to Bethany for her work in getting such a huge number of signatures for this petition and echo the words of other hon. Members in sending our sympathies to her family. If I may slightly crave your indulgence, Mr Stringer, although this is not directly related to air ambulances, I will take this opportunity —I suspect it may be the only chance I have to do so before Prorogation—to put on the record the condolences and sympathies of all in the House to the family and friends of ambulance technician Jeremy Daw, who was tragically killed at the weekend when on duty when his ambulance was hit by an object. It is important to put on the record our sympathies and condolences to his family and friends.
I pay tribute, as others have done, to the air ambulance charities and to their critical care teams of doctors and paramedics, who are among some of the most highly skilled pre-hospital clinicians in the world. They are capable of performing life-saving hospital-level procedures on patients at the roadside and saving lives. That includes administering general anaesthetic and, indeed, open heart surgery. When a life-threatening injury or medical emergency happens, patients need to be transferred to hospital as quickly as possible. In some cases, survival can depend entirely upon the vital life-saving work of the UK’s air ambulance charities. Air Ambulances UK figures show that, on average, air ambulance charities across the UK collectively complete more than 25,000 of these life-saving missions a year. To put that another way, as the shadow Minister did, every 10 minutes an air ambulance helicopter takes off somewhere to attend an accident or medical trauma.
Last year, I had the huge privilege of visiting the amazing charity London’s Air Ambulance. I saw at first hand the amazing work of the crew who undertake their life-saving missions day in and day out, working alongside the staff of the Royal London Hospital and the London ambulance service to care for the most critically ill patients. I pay tribute to the team there who showed me around—their comms team includes a former member of a member of my staff who now works there, Kirsty McKellar—for their forbearance as I displayed, shall we say, certain symptoms of vertigo while I climbed a ramp to the top of the hospital to see the helicopter on its pad.
The shadow Minister highlighted the cost of every take-off and every mission, so he will be reassured to hear that I did not avail myself of an opportunity to go up in the helicopter; that would not have been a good use of funds. However, I was able to talk to the team and to see their work at first hand. They were clear that they are incredibly proud of their charitable status and their work as a charity. They quite rightly raised a number of issues with me, one of which I will put on the record now: they ask that councils in London and those who have open spaces are always mindful of the need to try to keep those spaces accessible for London’s air ambulances so they can find somewhere to land in this busy city in which we stand today. I was incredibly grateful to the team not only for showing me around the air ambulance and showing me their procedures, but for their amazing work day in and day out. Indeed, I put on the record my gratitude to all the air ambulance charities.
We recognise that air ambulances provide an invaluable service to our NHS. They support the NHS emergency response on the ground and ensure patients get specialised care in both urban settings and hard-to-reach rural areas. Air ambulances also provide additional support to on-road ambulances at times of high demand through the use of critical care cars to increase capacity and ease pressures on NHS services. Additionally, air ambulance services have supported the national covid-19 response by using their aircraft to transfer patients, doctors and equipment, including medical supplies, between hospitals.
I turn now to the heart of the petition and the debate. Although air ambulances provide services to the NHS, it is right that they are not directly funded by the NHS, and that the majority of their resources are drawn from their fundraising activities. That is something that the air ambulance charities support, as hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, have alluded to. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk set out, it is not about the predictability or certainty of Government funding; there are other things that make the charities support the current model. For example, Anna Perry, the chief executive of the Great Western Air Ambulance Charity, said, “In terms of funding and our day-to-day costs, we value the independence our charitable funding provides us. If we identify that our patients need a different kind of treatment or approach, then we can be responsive to those needs. We cover a diverse area, from the Forest of Dean to Cirencester, and from Bath to Weston-super-Mare, and our funding means we remain flexible and innovative in responding to what our communities need from our life-saving service.”
Similarly, the chief exec of the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance said, “While there are benefits to being Government-funded, as an independent, highly regulated charity, we greatly value the ability to be flexible to the changing needs of our patients—for example, by having the ability to quickly adapt to new technologies and medicines. The Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance”—I believe it covers the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham North—“is very much a part of the communities we serve. We are funded by them and are accountable to them.”
I will share a final quote to emphasise the view from the charities. Amanda McLean, who is the chief executive of Thames Valley Air Ambulance, said, “Operating within a charitable model allows air ambulance charities up and down the country to provide efficient, responsive and tailored care to best meet the needs of their communities. By working independently, embedded within our local areas, we are able to collaborate and share best practice while offering a service that is targeted to meet the specific challenges we each face.”
Those are a few examples, and hon. Members have given similar examples from different chief executives of different charities. As the shadow Minister said, it is important that we listen to what the charities that run the air ambulances are telling us.
As has been alluded to, that is not to say that the Government do not provide significant support to the sector. In 2019, the Department of Health and Social Care launched a three-year capital grant programme, which allocated £10 million to nine air ambulance charities across England. These capital schemes provide a range of new equipment and upgrades to support air ambulance services to move towards 24/7 operations, allowing more patients in need of an emergency response to be reached. The funding will also support the modernisation of facilities at seven air bases across England, including building interactive training suites to better prepare crews for challenging conditions, with the addition of seven new critical care cars and a new helicopter.
As hon. Members have mentioned, last year the Government announced a further £6 million of covid-19 emergency funding for Air Ambulances UK to distribute to the air ambulance charities in order to ensure that each charity could continue to provide its life-saving services during the pandemic. Like the shadow Minister and hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that was the right thing to do, as the charitable fundraising activities that they would normally undertake were clearly impacted on by the constraints imposed by the pandemic and the restrictions that were necessary to tackle it. Of course, we support air ambulances through close collaboration with the NHS. For example, NHS ambulance services commonly provide key clinical staff and medical equipment to support air ambulance operations.
Given how vital such services are, it is not surprising that our electors—the public—are keen to see them funded by the Government as part of the NHS. Having listened to the sector, however, our view remains that the charitable model for air ambulances remains the right one—a view that, as I say, is shared by the sector’s independent professional body, Air Ambulances UK. That model has been a long-standing success; London’s Air Ambulance was established as a charity as far back as 1989, and I believe it has now helped more than 40,000 patients.
Decisions on the provision of services for the safe delivery of care are best made at local level. Maintaining a charitable model gives charities and the air ambulance the independence they need, as I alluded to in the earlier quotes, to deliver specialised services tailored to the needs of patients in each locality. A charitable model is also, in many ways, a more feasible way to fund the high capital and revenue costs associated with helicopter emergency medical services, including purchasing and maintaining helicopters. It also gives charities the independence to raise funds through commercial activity and sponsorship with their commercial partners.
Before the pandemic struck, I had the privilege of visiting and—for a brief period—helping in the Birstall air ambulance shop in my constituency, which supports the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Rutland Air Ambulance service. It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to put on record my gratitude to it, as my local air ambulance service, for the amazing work it does, day in and day out, across that part of the east midlands. Indeed, even during the pandemic last year, two new helicopters were delivered to help to support that service. I believe it is the only air ambulance service that delivers a children’s air ambulance service. Let me put on record my gratitude for and recognition of the amazing work it does.
I believe, and the charities believe, that the current model still represents the best route to funding our air ambulances—those cherished institutions—because it gives them local flexibility to do what they need to do. In future, we want to build on the success of air ambulance services and their contribution to the delivery of safe and effective care to the nation. As part of transforming how urgent and emergency care operates, NHS England and NHS Improvement have been working with ambulance services on new ways to deliver care to patients. For example, rather than conveying all patients to hospitals, ambulance services are developing new ways to give healthcare advice through video consultations and by referring patients to a greater number of services in primary care in the community. As we move to a new model of integrated care, each system will have the duty to collaborate with health and care organisations in their local area, including considering how air ambulances can best contribute to their network of urgent and emergency care services.
Essential public donations combined with significant funding contributions from Government—be it for capital or in extremis, as we saw during the covid pandemic—will ensure that the air ambulance charities can continue to provide their world-class care for a patient-centred approach that works for the population they serve. Both the Government and Air Ambulances UK strongly believe that that is best achieved through a charitable model. I encourage everyone to support their local air ambulance charities, even if I do not give in to the gentle temptation offered by the shadow Minister to run the London marathon.
During these unprecedented times, I reiterate my unreserved thanks, and the thanks of all hon. Members who spoke and from across the House, to the staff at the air ambulance charities for continuing to provide their world-leading, life-saving care to patients and their local communities across the UK. They are genuinely inspirational to us all. There is a reason why so many people donate so generously to their air ambulance charities: they know that one day, they could be the one who needs that air ambulance. I suspect that across the country, there is the same huge admiration and gratitude for the fantastic work that these charities do every day.
Martyn Day
We have had a thoughtful and informed debate. I hope we have successfully highlighted the tremendous work of air ambulances throughout these islands, and I hope we have given them a publicity boost for their charitable work and the donations they require. As I discovered in my research, this is a very complex matter, with a range of models across the country, and perhaps a one-size-fits-all solution is not what is needed. There are a lot of lessons we can still learn, and I look forward to finding out more in the weeks and months ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 259892, relating to air ambulance funding.
Rights to Protest
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Gray (in the Chair)
Before the debate begins, I remind the House that any live legal cases connected with recent protests will engage the House’s sub judice resolution and should not be raised. Members are advised to exercise restraint and to try to avoid remarks that may prejudice the legal processes in any way.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 579012, relating to right to protest.
I thank the petition creator Samantha Hurst, and all those who signed the petition, for creating this opportunity to debate what I am sure we all consider an important issue. As of 19 April, the petition had received more than 248,000 signatures from across the UK. It has attracted a lot of attention; rightly, there is a lot of concern about anything that could be perceived as interfering with the right to protest.
The petition begins by stating:
“The right to peaceful assembly and protest are fundamental principles of any democracy”.
All Members will wholeheartedly agree with and believe in that. Our history and way of life have been shaped by protests and the right of people across the country to express their opinions. That freedom must be protected at all costs. The right to peaceful protest cannot, however, come at the expense of the rights of others: the rights of thousands of people to get to work; for an ambulance to get to a hospital; for a newspaper to be printed; or for a public transport network to operate. It is regrettable that during this incredibly challenging year, some protesters have adopted disruptive tactics, creating a huge impact on thousands of people trying to go about their daily lives. They have placed huge additional pressures on our incredible emergency service workers and have created a huge drain on public funds.
During the Extinction Rebellion protests in April and October 2019, areas of London were brought to a standstill. The cost of policing those protests was a staggering £37 million. Imagine how that police time could be put to better use, or what we could do in our constituencies with that money. Imagine how that money could have been used to tackle climate change or help to decarbonise our economy. Over the summer of 2020, 172 Metropolitan Police officers were assaulted by a violent minority during a Black Lives Matter protest. That was not a peaceful protest. That is why the Government need to give our frontline police officers the power they need to ensure that does not happen again.
Strengthening the powers of the police to safely manage legitimate protests benefits not only wider society but specifically those who wish to undertake meaningful peaceful protest. When someone’s son, daughter, husband or wife tells them they are off to a protest, they should not be filled with dread that they could be hurt or subject to abuse, or that they might get mixed up in something. For the interests of legitimate protesters, we must look at what is needed to prevent some of the violent and abusive behaviour we have seen at protests in the last year. There are serial protesters out there who choose to go along to legitimate demonstrations, sometimes even fuelled by drink or drugs. They go along to disrupt and to abuse others. They undermine our meaningful protests and can tarnish causes and the reputations of others who wish to promote such causes. It is right that the Government give the police powers to ensure that protests are not hijacked by small minorities who adopt abusive, violent and disruptive tactics.
I understand that concerns about the Bill are possibly based in some ways on misconceptions and misinformation around a few specific points, and I am sure that the Minister will add clarity on those today. There are loony-lefty, wokey-cokey social media accounts out there that would have people believe that the Government were removing any meaningful right to protest. I am sure that those who took the time to look at the detail will be aware that that is not the case. The right to protest remains rightfully protected, and the vast majority of protests and protesters will be entirely unaffected by these measures.
There are suggestions that the measures ban protests that are annoying. That is not the case. The Bill does not introduce a power to ban protests and annoyance is not a concept plucked from thin air. The public nuisance offence looks to capture behaviour that causes the public or a section of the public to suffer serious annoyance. This is consistent with the existing common-law offence of public nuisance and does not connote merely feeling annoyed.
There have also been suggestions that the measures will ban protests outside Parliament and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that will not be the case. Many causes and characters should rightly continue to be represented here, at the heart of our democratic system. However, the powers should and will mean that police officers have the power to prevent elected representatives and those with business being prevented from entering the estate, and rightly so—to prevent access to Parliament is to deny rightful democratic process.
I think the provisions within the Bill are necessary, but we should continue to have robust debates, such as the one that I am sure we are about to see, and discussions about the right to protest. The Government must protect protesters from abusive and violent thugs who seek to hijack their causes. Similarly, the Government must protect the rights of citizens to go about their daily lives, unaffected by the protests of others.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Sir James. It is rather disappointing—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady may know something that I do not, but I regret to say that it is just “Mr Gray”. One day, perhaps—you never know.
Kerry McCarthy
It is long overdue; I find it very hard to believe that it is not already the case. Sorry, Mr Gray.
As I was saying, it is disappointing that the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) has chosen to frame the debate in the way that he has done, with talk of loony lefties and other pejoratives. I do not think that is at all helpful, and I hope that today we can try to have a measured debate about what is a very sensitive—indeed, controversial—topic.
Being a Bristol MP, I thought that it was important to speak in this debate, given that three of the top four constituencies in terms of the number of signatures to this petition are Bristol seats: there were 3,615 signatories from Bristol West, which comes as no surprise, as it usually tops the charts on these occasions; 1,455 signatories from Bristol South; and 1,343 signatories from my own constituency of Bristol East. Bristol North West was a little further down the list with 972 signatories.
In addition, I had lots of emails from constituents about the Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Some of them touched on other elements of the Bill, for example the provisions that would affect Gypsies and Travellers, and those that perhaps would have an impact on ramblers. Others called for stronger protections in the Bill against violence directed towards women and girls, which are notable by their absence. However, the majority of the emails I received were from people who were alarmed and angry about the public order provisions in part 3 of the Bill, which have given rise to the petition that we are debating today.
Bristol has a proud radical tradition. In 1788, we were the first city outside London to set up a committee for the abolition of the slave trade. The first petition that that committee set up received some 800 signatures. Actually, if we think about that time, long before the days of social media, that was no mean feat; I think it more than rivals the number of signatures that the petition we are debating has received in this day and age. It is also noteworthy that that campaign was one of the first political campaigns in which women were allowed to be involved. More recently, in the 1960s the Bristol bus boycott led to the first UK racial equality legislation, spearheaded by one of my predecessors in this seat, Tony Benn. Last summer, we saw the toppling of the statute of Edward Colston, a slave trader, during Black Lives Matter protests in the city. All those protests were significant moments, historically and in a local sense.
There have been many more protests of less significance in the city that have not sparked international debate or led to change—or, at least, not yet. In some cases, such as the school climate strikes, the significance is in being a tiny part of a greater global movement. Young people in particular feel that, just maybe, they can make a difference by making banners, painting their faces, taking to the streets and making their voices heard. That is hugely important for young people. It is too easy to look at what appears to be vast global indifference to the fate of the planet and despair, so I applaud all those who have not given up hope.
Of course, it is easy to celebrate the school climate strikers, and the chances are that this legislation would not be used against them, but that is why clauses 54 to 60 of the Bill are so dangerous, because a subjective element starts to creep in in terms of what is deemed to be acceptable and, in the words of the hon. Member for Stockton South, legitimate protest, and what is deemed to be not acceptable and not legitimate. As I read through those clauses, I could see the appeal in invoking some of the provisions against, for example, the far-right thugs who occasionally attempt to march—in pitiful numbers, it has to be said—in Bristol, but there will be others who see exactly the same opportunities when it comes to Black Lives Matter protesters.
The problem with the Bill is that it gives the police and the courts powers to decide what is acceptable, what is troublesome, what is annoying and what is too noisy. The police have a difficult enough time as it is when it comes to policing protests, and this Bill means that there is huge potential for political interference and for pressure on the police to intervene. As was said on Second Reading, the definition of “nuisance” could apply to almost any protest outside Parliament.
I want to say a little about the recent protests in Bristol. I have made clear my condemnation of the violence, particularly on 21 March, and my concern about some policing tactics on 26 March. I do not want to revisit that here, other than to say that, since then, I have spent the best part of a day with the police at Silver command during one of the more recent protests, observing the decisions that were made on crowd control and so on. There had been a very peaceful, positive protest during the late afternoon, but a group of people stayed on very late and at one point tried to block the motorway by having a sit-down, and they were having a bit of a rave too. In general, I think the police have got it right when it comes to policing these protests, but I appreciate that theirs is not an easy job.
I want to say this to the protesters, and I preface it by saying that I absolutely want people in Bristol to take part in peaceful protest. People have a right to be heard and to get out on the streets and express their views, but as I have said when I have met representatives of various groups that oppose this Bill—and as the Mayor of Bristol has told them too—“Think about what you are trying to achieve. Think about who you need to win over. Think about how you can best do that. If you are protesting against this Bill, educate yourself about the parliamentary process and when the crucial votes will come.”
If people are campaigning for the right to assemble and protest, and trying to stop the introduction of laws that are predicated upon the—in my view, false—assertion that we have a problem in this country with uncontained, out-of-hand, destructive political demonstrations, it is entirely counterproductive to take part in a protest that culminates in people throwing eggs, fireworks and other missiles at the police, torching police vehicles and attempting to trash a police station. It is not acceptable for very many reasons. It is not acceptable in itself, but it is tactically stupid too, and it plays entirely into the hands of the Home Secretary and others who are attempting to stir up division and exploit fear and prejudice. Dare I say it, if people live somewhere with a Tory MP within travelling distance of Bristol, it might be an idea to focus their political activity—their peaceful protest—there, instead of coming to Bristol to join in a much larger protest here, given that the Bristol Labour Mayor and the four Bristol Labour MPs are all committed to opposing the Bill.
It is also worth saying that even policing a peaceful protest costs the city a lot of money and diverts resources away from other police activities. Blocking the streets in the city centre not only causes inconvenience to motorists. My main worry when I went along and observed the operation with Silver command was that I learned that the buses were all on divert through the city centre. When key workers and people in low-paid jobs have to walk home alone through city streets late at night because the buses are on divert and they have to go some distance to get to a bus stop, it comes to a point when those protesting have had their say and it is time to let people resume their normal lives.
While I entirely respect people’s right to protest, I urge them to exercise that right wisely and well. I believe that with concerted action, by joining together, by making the arguments and by peaceful protest using democratic and peaceful means, we can stop part 3 of this Bill becoming law. Let us all try to work together to do that and not play into the Home Secretary’s hands by abusing the rights that we have.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I join the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in dissociating myself from what I think were, frankly, smears from the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). There is no misunderstanding about what the Bill will do, and it is quite condescending to suggest otherwise. The vast majority of protesters are entirely peaceful. They represent a cross-section of our constituents, and they know that there is a proud history of peaceful protest in this country that needs to be defended.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to add to what I said on Second Reading of the Bill—namely that this legislation is dangerous, undemocratic and disproportionate. It is clear that huge numbers of our constituents feel the same: nearly 2,500 Brighton, Pavilion residents signed the petition opposing any restrictions on our right to peaceful protest. I know from my inbox that there is grave concern about giving the police new powers to undermine what are treasured and critical fundamental rights in any democracy. Handing more draconian powers to the police would be troubling at any time. It is especially dangerous when too much of the police response to the outpouring of anger and grief at the murder of Sarah Everard has been characterised by bad judgment, heavy-handedness and tone deafness. Footage of women apparently being wrestled to the ground by male police officers at vigils to protest male violence and to remember a woman killed by a police officer sent shockwaves around the country.
Moreover, this Bill has been tabled at a time when, as a recent police watchdog report makes clear, the police have responded to the demands of the pandemic and the frightening lack of clarity from Ministers about what was and was not a criminal offence by overreaching and with overzealousness. A review from the Crown Prosecution Service suggests that the Coronavirus Act 2020 has been misapplied by the police 232 times since last year; in fact, that is every single time it has been used to charge someone. Throughout the pandemic, heavy-handed police interpretation has not only been sanctioned but has been encouraged by Ministers.
Let us be clear: the Bill is a blatant and biased attack on the long-standing right to protest from a Government that have a track record of dismissing the rule of law, the truth, legal obligations and human rights as disposable inconveniences. As an aside, I remind colleagues that the Government are also seeking to change how judicial review works—further evidence of their ongoing opposition to future accountability and the rule of law. The Bill is about protecting those with power, and presumably with the Prime Minister’s mobile number on speed dial, from being challenged or held to account by the citizens of this country. It will do that through a range of restrictions on the right to freely assemble and to express dissent.
For example, the Bill seeks to extend the practice of handing out harsh sanctions as a disincentive to those considering organising protests to anyone simply taking part, which is insidious. At the same time, Ministers want to increase almost fourfold the length of time organisers could potentially be imprisoned. Those and countless other proposals are chilling. Put simply, everyone in this country risks being criminalised simply for exercising their democratic rights if the Bill becomes law. Friends of the Earth warn of the particular barriers that will be created for those from marginalised communities to having their voices heard, such as people of colour, who already have disproportionately negative experiences of policing and the criminal justice system. The hostile measures contained in part 4 of the Bill and which will clearly be used to target the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community appear nothing short of racist in their intention.
The Bill is about silencing our constituents and communities, metaphorically and indeed literally, with clauses that would allow a protest to be severely restricted by the police in anticipation that it might be too noisy and thereby disrupt those at whom it is aimed. But right now the voices of our constituents, and of campaigners clamouring for the Bill to be scrapped, are echoed far and wide. The opposition is cross-party and it is growing. Critics of aspects of part 3 of the Bill include two former Home Secretaries, Lord Blunkett and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). A former Greater Manchester police chief constable, a former Durham constabulary chief constable and a former Metropolitan police commander have all warned of the dangers this legislation poses to British democracy and to safe policing by consent in our communities. So will the Government stop and listen?
When I spoke on the Bill on Second Reading, I noted that it would have made Greta Thunberg, sitting alone with a placard, a potential criminal, likewise all the brave and passionate youngsters who know that the future of humanity and our planet depends on peaceful protest, exposing just how inadequate Government action is compared with the scale of the climate and nature emergencies.
As one of the few MPs to be arrested during a peaceful protest and subsequently, after a week’s court case, acquitted of any wrongdoing, I have first-hand experience of the power of non-violent direct action. My protest was against fracking, as part of a movement that has secured an effective moratorium on that technology. Protest works; it changes things. Throughout the long history of this country, people have assembled to express their dissent and have changed the course of that history.
I remember when Members from all parties were falling over themselves to be associated with the Suffragettes on the 100th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act 1918. Back then, protest was suddenly not a dirty word. Now, when the protests are a little closer to home, whether that is Black Lives Matter or Extinction Rebellion, it seems the right to protest is no longer quite so universally celebrated. Fundamental rights are not like multiple choice; we don’t get to pick the most convenient and carelessly ditch the rest. They are universal and they should be defended in their entirety.
I end by calling on the Minister to tell us the truth and answer this question honestly: are the Government committed to upholding the human rights and civil liberties set out in articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights? He recently affirmed:
“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression and will never be curtailed by the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 385.]
Yet the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill seeks to do exactly that. He and his Government either need to level with the British public about the facts or put this dangerous, undemocratic and disproportionate Bill where it belongs—on the scrap heap.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I congratulate those who started the petition. Clearly, there are people out there who care about our democracy; it is debatable whether the Government care about democracy in the same way as those people. It is unbelievable that we need to be here today to debate the right to protest.
I too dissociate myself from the comments made by the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers). It was unfortunate that this important debate was introduced in that way. The Government’s draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a timely reminder that we must never take our democratic rights for granted. The section of the Bill that amends the Public Order Act 1986 is an assault on our civil liberties and it must go.
This petition has been signed by a quarter of a million people, including more than 1,000 of my constituents in Bath. As they know and so clearly say, protest is a fundamental part of any functioning democracy. It is a way for every one of us to stand up for what we believe in, to have our voices heard and to speak truth to power. The Government say that this Bill is about protecting communities from the most destructive protest, but let us not be deceived. The Bill aims to quite literally silence protest and criminalise those who take part in and organise demonstrations.
More than 700 legal scholars have warned about the Bill’s anti-protest measures. There is no evidence to show that demonstration tactics have become more disruptive or more extreme. In fact, according to legal academics, mass arrest at protests very frequently leads to lower conviction rates. Indeed, we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about her experience of being arrested and then found to have done nothing wrong.
Peaceful protest can be noisy, inconvenient and cause disruption, and not everybody agrees on which issues to pick when protesting, but it should not be for the Government or the police to decide what people should be allowed to protest about. The whole idea of protest and of the protections in law is that the people pick the issues on which they want their voices heard. There is no reason to stifle protest. The whole purpose of a demonstration is to have one’s voice heard and to get the attention of those who make decisions.
Time and again, the right to protest has been a driver for positive change. Thanks to the right to protest, we now have a moratorium on fracking. Thanks to the right to protest, the UK’s anti-apartheid movement kept apartheid on the British political agenda. Let us not forget that thanks to the right to protest, women achieved the right to vote. The Government should not seek to shut down that legitimate way of holding the powerful to account.
The measure before us is a thinly veiled reaction to the climate protests that we have seen over the past few years, not just around Parliament, but in towns and cities across the country. The climate emergency has evoked strong feelings, especially among young people. Curtailing their voices would be absolutely the wrong thing to do, as it is the next generation especially who will bear the brunt of a climate catastrophe if the Government fail to act now. Every generation has to fight again for its freedoms, and each generation faces different challenges, but a diversity of voices from all sections of our society makes our democracy stronger. Those voices should never be silenced or suppressed.
The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy. To limit or curtail it would simply be undemocratic, and the Government should be ashamed for even proposing that. The proposals in the Bill must go.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I am pleased to contribute to this important debate as, like other Members, I have received a high number of emails about the Bill. I also dissociate myself from the derogatory comments made by the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers).
Liverpool has a long history of peaceful protests and campaigns for social justice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is just one of a number of recent profoundly concerning moves in this Government’s calculated and authoritarian agenda to sweep aside democracy, stifle dissent and strengthen the hand of the state against the people. The recent Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 provides immunity to state agents breaking the law in our country. Last week, we debated the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which—now in its final stages—will create an unprecedented two-tier legal system of human rights. We will soon face a voter suppression Bill that will restrict the right to vote of black, working class and other disadvantaged communities, as well as plans to limit the judicial review process to stop the public challenging the Government’s decisions in court.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gives unprecedented powers to police and the Home Secretary to criminalise people standing up for social justice. Those powers include draconian punishment of up to 10 years in prison for anyone who poses a risk of serious annoyance or who causes a public nuisance. Those provisions strike at the heart of our democracy and the trade union movement, and they severely erode the public’s right to protest and hold the Government to account for their actions.
Working people throughout history have campaigned with protest and demonstrations for democratic rights in the face of exploitation and oppression by employers and Governments. In the last year, we have seen widespread and popular demonstrations around the Black Lives Matter movement, violence against women, environmental concerns and more. If the Bill passes into law, all those actions will come under threat.
The petition has received nearly a quarter of a million signatures, and there are more than 14,000 responses to the linked online survey, which shows the strength of people’s disgust about the content of the Bill. More than 250 civil society organisations have signed a letter warning that the Bill represents an attack on some of the most fundamental rights of our citizens. Those signatories span from human rights organisations to environmental campaign groups and homelessness organisations; from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller rights groups to trade unions representing millions of people.
The right to protest is the lifeblood of any democracy, and the provisions in the Bill will not make us safer. Instead, they strengthen the hand of the state against all who oppose or fall foul of it, and most concerningly for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, as the police will be given powers to break up so-called unauthorised encampments and needlessly push people into the criminal justice system.
Last week, campaigners forced the Government into a significant U-turn by making them exclude torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the scope of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. That victory shows that the fight is not yet over. We must, and we will, do this again and force the Government to drop the crackdown on our rights to collectively organise against injustice.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) made some slightly misguided remarks about what we are debating today. It is perhaps a bit insulting to his constituents who enjoy the right to protest, and to mine.
On my screen, I am looking at four very powerful women who are in Parliament and have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned the Suffragettes. Dorinda Neligan, who was a headteacher in Croydon and a great Suffragette, got arrested several times in Parliament in 1909 and 1910. I am sure that if she was watching today, she would say, “Well, it’s a jolly good thing that we got the vote and that these powerful women are here today making a case for British democracy,” which is what we are standing up for today—no more and no less than that. I hope the hon. Member for Stockton South will reflect on his comments.
All the speeches that we have heard have made powerful cases. I do not know what is in the water in Bristol, but there are a lot of protests there. There are many active members of the community, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made a powerful case by saying that the police have pretty much got things right during this difficult past year, but that we have to protect the right to protest. People have to think wisely and well about how they do that and how they win arguments.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a very powerful case when she said that our fundamental rights are not multiple choice. As she says, we cannot pick and choose which ones we like and which we do not. I have not been arrested, and I am not much of a protester, but I absolutely and fundamentally believe that we must protect the right to protest. Every six weeks, I meet a group in my constituency—they are largely women in their 50s, 60s and 70s—who are active campaigners on climate change. The last time I met them, they were absolutely adamant that the changes would be very damaging to them and their rights to make their case, which they want to do powerfully and peacefully, for more action on climate change.
We talked a bit about the petition. A quarter of a million people have signed it, which is a significant number. The Petitions Committee used an online survey to ask petitioners for their views, and 95% of respondents were concerned that proposals to increase police powers would prevent the public from being able to hold the Government to account. Three quarters of the respondents were also concerned that the proposals could result in restrictions being imposed on protests, prevent protests from going ahead and result in people who take part in protests facing criminal charges. Respondents said that peaceful protest is democratic, a human fundamental and a basic right, and they were concerned that increased police powers would limit opportunities for people to express dissent, hold the Government to account and bring about positive change. Respondents were also concerned that the Bill would curtail peaceful, well-managed protests and, in doing so, risk increasing unorganised violent protests.
As hon. Members of different political parties have pointed out, the right to protest is a fundamental freedom—a hard-won democratic tradition that we are deeply proud of.
Throughout our history, as we have heard, protests have led to significant change for the better. The Government’s proposals are risky and unnecessary and will be damaging to the traditions at the heart of our democracy.
The arguments have been well made, but I want to make four broad points. First, the Bill is incredibly broad and vague. It has already been mentioned that the measures target protesters for causing “serious unease” and “serious annoyance”. Such measures would definitely have prevented the great protests of history, and that vague term “serious unease” seems a low threshold for police-imposed conditions. It is hard to imagine our society as one where the police can impose directions on a protest for simply being noisy, but that is what the Bill would do. There is also a penalty in the Bill for someone who breaches a police-imposed condition on a protest when they “ought to know” that the condition existed. If someone attends a protest and the police have placed conditions on the number of people allowed to attend, how will those attending know that they are the 101st person to join, and that they are therefore breaching the conditions? The clause could effectively criminalise people who do not know that they are breaching conditions.
Currently, protest must involve at least two people to engage police powers, but the new measures would allow the police to issue conditions on a one-person protest; so if one person protesting causes another person in the vicinity to suffer
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
or the noise that the protesting person generates may have a
“relevant impact on persons in the vicinity of the protest”
the police are able to impose conditions. Those powers are clearly too broad. Steve Bray’s shouts of “Stop Brexit!” were incredibly irritating for all of us, I suspect, but that does not mean he should not have been able to make his point, or that he was causing any damage or harm by doing what he did.
The point of protests, as has been said, is to capture the attention of people and of the Government. Sometimes—pretty much always—protests are noisy. That is the point of them. Sometimes they are annoying; but they are as fundamental to our democracy as Parliament and the courts are. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), made that point on Second Reading, expressing concern about the proposals, and pointing out the risk of their going against the right to freedom of speech. Sir Peter Fahy, a respected former chief constable of Greater Manchester police said:
“People need to be really worried about this…the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to have a voice is fundamental to our democracy, and particularly British democracy.”
He spoke about the bringing in of legislation
“on the back of the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, rushing that legislation through, putting in some really dodgy definitions which the police are supposed to make sense of”,
and said that if one thing had been learned from the coronavirus legislation it was that
“rushed legislation and unclear definitions cause huge confusion for the public and for the police having to enforce it.”
That brings me to my second point. The Bill would put the police in a difficult situation, having to make judgment calls for every protest and no doubt getting the blame because those judgments would be seen as political choices. I support the police. As shadow Policing Minister I think they have done a good job through covid times, in difficult circumstances, with legislation that was brought in at the very last minute, which they had to try to understand. They had to try to police draconian legislation as they had never had to before.
It cannot be right for the police to be attacked or assaulted. We have seen attacks on police and other emergency services increasing in recent years, and more needs to be done about that. At the weekend police officers in the Met were injured as they dispersed crowds during an anti-lockdown protest. Violent protest is never right, but the new powers are so vague that they will force the police to make political decisions about which completely non-violent protests they are under pressure to deem unlawful. That is extremely concerning and will put the police and the public in a difficult position. Why do the Government want to make the police the gatekeepers of public protest?
The public order measures in the Bill risk putting the police in a difficult position more often and creating more disorder and disruption. The Government should not be putting the police in that position. Where the rules are too confusing and too broad, they will only create more flashpoints. It is also worth pointing out that the Government have decided to introduce this contentious legislation restricting the right to protest in the middle of a pandemic, when we have very difficult laws that the police are trying to implement. Why make a decision that potentially puts public health at risk by forcing the public to protest against their freedom to protest being taken away from them in the middle of a pandemic?
My third point, which again has been well rehearsed, is that the changes give dangerous powers to the Home Secretary to make regulations about the meaning of “serious disruption”. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, made a really important point in her speech on Second Reading. She said:
“It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
The idea of giving the Home Secretary such a big power to impose their own perspective on what lawfully constitutes annoying or too noisy is deeply alarming.
If there is a peaceful protest outside the Home Office that the Home Secretary does not like, will they criminalise everyone for shouting too loud? If the Minister wanted to protest about a cause that he cared deeply about, would he really want the Home Secretary ultimately to decide whether what he was saying was right or wrong, or whether the protest was too loud? I know that I would not.
Finally, and really importantly, the existing legislation is sufficient to cover the concerns that have been raised. The Public Order Act 1986 and other powers appear on the statute book to police protests. I am not sure why that legislation is not enough. There are probably questions about when and how it is implemented, but the laws are there. They are really clear, and they are plenty strong enough to stop disruptive or violent protests—the kind of protests that the police would need to be able to stop. The police have the power to break up protests that cause harm or serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community.
As the Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, Michael Barton, who is the former chief constable of Durham police, compared the measures in the Bill to that of a paramilitary-style police force, and asked whether the Government are
“happy to be linked to the repressive regimes currently flexing their muscles via their police forces”.
That seems like strong words, but there is a delicate balance between the need for the police to keep order and ensure that protests are peaceful, and the legitimate right to protest on the causes that we all care about.
The police officers I speak to do not want to undermine that balance. They want our respect. They want fair pay. They do not want to be assaulted. They want to get on with their jobs. They want to fight crime, but they understand those Peelian principles. The right to express our thoughts collectively through protest is one of the cornerstones of our British tradition. It would be of great concern if the Government passed laws to protect them from any public proclamation of criticism.
The police are the people and the people are the police. The co-operation of the public diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of force. Can the Minister tell us what “serious unease” or “annoyance” is? Can he tell us what too much noise sounds like? Which protests would he have stopped under the new legislation, and can he tell us why the Government are introducing rushed, undefined, broad measures that will inevitably undermine the right to protest? Finally, will he reflect on the words of the former Prime Minister, senior police officers, and a quarter of a million petitioners, who are asking him to think again?
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Mr Gray—soon to be Sir James—it is a great pleasure to appear under your wise and beneficent guidance today for what I think it is fair to say has been a binary debate, with not much nuance between the two sides.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers)—the first son of Stockton South—on his speech and on leading the debate about this petition. I thank other Members for contributing, not least the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who unwittingly made a strong case for the legislation, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who gave us the hilarious routine of criticising my hon. Friend for his remarks, and then indulging in such hyperbole and invective that she neatly illustrated why, unlike in Germany, the Greens will always be a fringe party in this country.
Obviously, those who signed this petition are concerned about the impact that the new measures in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill may have on peaceful protest. I start by reaffirming the Government’s firm commitment to the right to peaceful protest. It is, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion pointed out, a fundamental tool of civic expression. I also wish to reaffirm our commitment to the European convention on human rights, namely articles 10 and 11, which set out everyone’s right to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and they are my rights as well as the rights of others. However, the very same human rights legislation makes it clear that these rights are not absolute and must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the Opposition spokesperson, said that we have put the police in a difficult position, yet it was the police who asked for a number of these measures. The Metropolitan Police Service and the National Police Chiefs’ Council have expressed concerns that existing public order legislation, which has not been updated for 35 years, is no longer appropriate for responding to the highly disruptive protest tactics that we have considered today.
In fact, in order to understand how effectively the police manage protests and how legislation could be updated to improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest, the Government commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct an inspection of the policing of protests. The report found that too often:
“The balance may tip too readily in favour of protesters when—as is often the case—the police do not accurately assess the level of disruption caused, or likely to be caused, by a protest. These and other observations led us to conclude that a modest reset of the scales is needed.”
The disruption caused by those protests is made clearer when we examine the cost to the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South pointed out, during the Extinction Rebellion protests of April and October 2019, some of London’s busiest areas were brought to a standstill for several days. That had a disproportionate impact on commuters, small businesses and ambulance services, with the policing operation for the two extended protests costing £37 million—more than twice the annual budget of London’s violent crime taskforce.
In another example, on 4 September 2020 protesters blocked the entrances and exits for the printing presses of News UK, which estimated that it lost over £1 million and was unable to send out 60% to 70% of its print run that day. These highly disruptive protests required police officers from around the country to step away from their regular responsibilities to police them instead. During Extinction Rebellion’s two-week so-called autumn uprising, in addition to thousands of Metropolitan police officers, nearly 1,100 officers were drawn from across England, Scotland and Wales. Instead, they could have been protecting the communities they are supposed to serve.
What is more, on top of this drain on resources, police officers are often threatened, verbally abused, assaulted and injured when policing protests. In London, a total of 23 Met police officers were seriously injured in the line of duty during a single weekend of protest in June last year, and Avon and Somerset police are investigating assaults on 40 officers and one member of the media during the recent disgraceful “Kill the Bill” protests in Bristol. This behaviour from extreme elements of the “Kill the Bill” protests, as well as from equally violent elements of other groups, is totally unacceptable and should be condemned by all right-thinking people.
Given the results of the inspectorate’s report, the spiralling cost to the taxpayer and the increasing pressure on and violence towards police officers and indeed others, it is imperative that the Government act.
I turn to the impact that these measures will have on protests. It is not the case that they will unnecessarily restrict civil liberties. The impact that these measures will have has been misinterpreted, and the majority of protesters in the UK, who behave lawfully, will be entirely unaffected by the changes. This misinterpretation and hyperbole has been repeated across all of the public order measures in the Bill, and is unjustified. It is not the case that these measures allow the police to ban protests. It is not the case that these measures will criminalise protesters who are annoying. Public nuisance is already an existing offence, and we are simply stating it in statute to provide certainty for everybody.
It is not the case that these measures will ban protests outside of Parliament. You will remember, Mr Gray, because you were here at the time, that it was a Labour Government in 2005 that banned protests outside of Parliament, resulting on one famous occasion in the arrest of an individual woman reading the names of the war dead from Iraq outside the Cenotaph. The clause in our Bill merely relates to the passage of vehicles into and out of the parliamentary estate, allowing elected representatives to exercise their democratic rights and conduct our democracy in the way people would expect. Nor is it the case that these measures will ban noisy protests. The police will only be able to impose conditions on unjustifiably noisy protests that cause harm to others or prevent an organisation from operating, for example if a business has to shut down because of the noise being created.
We did, in fact, put forward several legislative measures to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for its consideration. These included, for example, a measure to enable the police to stop and search protesters. The inspectorate concluded that
“with some qualifications, all five proposals would improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest.”
It went on to recommend that the Government consider further measures to require organisers of public assemblies to notify the police of their intention to assemble, and to enable the police, in exceptional circumstances, to apply for the prohibition of public assemblies. However, following careful consideration of the impact of these measures on the police’s ability to manage protests, as well as on civil liberties, we are not proceeding with the full range of measures that the inspectorate has supported. We therefore think that we have struck a balance between the legitimate and fundamental right to protest, and the rights of others to go about their business unmolested.
In short, these measures have been portrayed by some as draconian, and as a dismantling of our civil liberties. This is misinformed at best and misleading at worst. These measures simply seek to improve the balance of the rights of protesters with the rights of others, as I say, to go about their business unhindered, and will allow the police to take a more proactive approach in managing these disproportionately disruptive protests, but will not grant them sweeping powers to override their obligations. When using these measures or existing public order powers, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use is necessary and proportionate. They will also need to be able to show due regard to human rights obligations. This highlights our continued commitment to the absolutely fundamental right of peaceful protest, balanced against the rights of others to go about their business.
I commend the Government’s response to this e-petition.
Matt Vickers
Once again, I thank all the petitioners who have provided us with this opportunity to debate this very important topic. I would also like to thank all the Members who participated for a robust debate, and the Minister for his response and for the Government’s commitment to protect the right to protest.
Given the public interest in this topic and the passion with which everyone has made their argument, it is clear that this is something that we all care deeply about. While we have our disagreements on this issue, I look forward to us being able to have our say on this vital piece of legislation as it continues its progress through Parliament. I hope that we can get the balance right, for those who want to get to work; for ambulances that want to get to hospital; for those who want to print or read a newspaper or use public transport; and, moreover, for those who want to protest safely without their cause being hijacked by those who seek to cause disruption or harm.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 579012, relating to right to protest.
Written Statements
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
This House is well aware of the issues with the Post Office Horizon IT System and the hugely negative impact it has had on the lives of affected postmasters. The Government welcomes the Court of Appeal’s decision last Friday, 23 April, to quash the convictions of 39 postmasters. This is in addition to six convictions quashed by the Crown Court in December 2020.
The Court’s decision is also another important step towards bringing resolution for these postmasters. The impact this ordeal has had on affected postmasters, their lives and livelihoods cannot be overstated. The Government will come back with a fuller oral statement tomorrow, 27 April, to update the House in more detail on these cases, owing to the scale of the miscarriage of justice we have seen here.
[HCWS940]
Kalifa Review of UK FinTech
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Innovation is at the forefront of our vision for the future of UK financial services. The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK remains at the global cutting edge of technology and innovation in financial services. Creating the conditions needed for our FinTech businesses to grow and compete, both here and abroad, is central to delivering on this ambition. This is why, at Budget 2020, I asked Ron Kalifa OBE to carry out an independent review of the UK FinTech sector.
The Kalifa review of UK Fintech (the Review) [1] was published on 26 February 2021. It made a number of recommendations aimed at Government, regulators, and industry across five areas: policy and regulation, skills and talent, investment, international attractiveness and competitiveness, and national connectivity. At publication, HM Treasury welcomed the review and highlighted key recommendations including:
A Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology to strengthen national co-ordination across the FinTech ecosystem to boost growth.
A regulatory “scale-box” to provide additional support to growth stage FinTech.
Amendments to UK listings rules to make the UK a more attractive location for initial public offerings (IPOs).
Improvements to tech visas to attract global talent and boost the FinTech workforce.
Here we have set out the actions that Government and regulators are taking in response to the review’s recommendations.
Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology
The Government recognise the potential for a private sector-led Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT) as an accelerator for FinTech sector growth. It can achieve this through research, thought leadership, and working with regional FinTech hubs and national FinTech bodies to identify and address barriers to growth to the benefit of the sector across the whole of the UK. I have confirmed that the Government support the creation of this centre and will work closely with the FinTech community to make it a reality.
Regulatory scale-box
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also welcomed the Kalifa review and has set out steps it will be taking to deliver against the review’s idea for a “regulatory scale-box”, by enhancing its existing regulatory toolkit. These actions include:
Launching “Always Open” to make the regulatory sandbox available on a rolling basis.
Clarifying the scope of qualifying propositions for the regulatory sandbox to ensure as many firms as possible are able to access support.
Launching, in conjunction with the City of London Corporation, the second phase of the Digital Sandbox pilot, inviting applications to test proof of concepts to solve sustainability and climate change financial challenges.
Considering how to provide a “one-stop shop” for growth-stage firms to dock in and easily navigate what sources of FCA support are available to them.
Working with industry over coming months to identify further solutions for supporting firms manage the journey to scale.
The FCA has also announced plans to create a regulatory “nursery” for enhanced oversight of newly authorised firms, enabling an opportunity for additional support as firms become used to the requirements of regulatory compliance.
Listings regime
The Lord Hill Listings review, which was published at Budget 2021 and made recommendations to boost the UK as a destination for IPOs and optimise the capital raising process on UK markets, addresses a number of the Kalifa review’s recommendations for attracting more FinTech listings to the UK. The Government set out details of their response to Lord Hill’s review in a written ministerial statement on 19 April [HCWS919]. In parallel, the FCA plans to consult on issues raised by the Kalifa review including reducing the minimum “free float” a company must have when it lists, and whether premium listed companies can have dual share class structures.
Scale-up visa
The Government demonstrated their support for attracting international talent to the UK at Budget 2021 by announcing creation of a “scale-up visa stream”. The new stream will be created within a new elite points-based route that will allow employees with a job offer at the required skills level from a recognised UK scale up, including FinTechs, to qualify for a fast-track visa, without the need for sponsorship or third-party endorsement. The Government will set out further details by July and the new route will be implemented by March 2022.
International competitiveness
The Department for International Trade (DIT) has announced it will create two new FinTech initiatives in response to the review. The first is a new FinTech cohort within DIT’s Export Academy initiative. This will provide bespoke, 1-2-1 advice to eligible UK FinTechs who are ready to scale into key markets such as North America, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Tailored advice will cover topics such as legal, tax, regulation, accounting, and market entry matters, all of which will support the international expansion ambitions of FinTechs on the programme. This is in addition to the wide range of existing DIT export support services currently available for UK businesses. DIT will also establish a FinTech champions scheme, comprising of leading UK FinTech advocates who are successfully exporting. DIT FinTech champions will fly the flag for UK FinTech overseas and support the next generation of UK FinTech in their growth journeys through mentoring and peer to peer learning. Both initiatives will enhance UK FinTech overseas, further elevating the UK’s status as a world leading FinTech hub.
Regulation for digital finance
The review also made recommendations more broadly for the Government to develop a regulatory framework for digitalisation and emerging technology in financial services. The Government are taking forward a number of initiatives in these areas:
Along with the Bank of England, HM Treasury has launched a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Taskforce to co-ordinate the exploration of a potential UK CBDC—the Government and the Bank of England have not yet made a decision on whether to introduce a CBDC in the UK. A CBDC would be a new form of money that would exist alongside cash and bank deposits, rather than replacing them; the Government recognise that cash remains important to millions of people across the UK, and have committed to legislating to protect access to cash.
HM Treasury and the Bank of England are launching a CBDC Engagement Forum to gather strategic input on all non-technology aspects of CBDC.
The Bank of England is also launching a CBDC Technology Forum to gather input on all technology aspects of CBDC.
The Bank of England has launched a new account type that will allow access to central bank money by innovative financial market infrastructure providers to allow them to provide enhanced wholesale payment and settlement.
The Government have announced a financial market infrastructure (FMI) sandbox for firms exploring how to use technologies, such as distributed ledger technology (DLT), to innovate in the settlement of financial securities. This regime will aim to support firms, which are developing this new technology, with a more flexible and tailored approach to meeting requirements in current legislation, while appropriately balancing any risks to financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection. This new regime will be inspired by the FCA’s sandbox and HM Treasury will work together with the Bank of England and the FCA to deliver this.
In 2020 the Government committed to creating a framework of standards, governance, and legislation to enable a UK digital identity market. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) published a draft trust framework for consultation in February this year which sets out the Government’s vision for the rules governing the future use of digital identities. A next iteration is expected to be published this summer.
The Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy is taking forward work on smart data and has committed to bringing forward legislation to better enable data sharing across sectors, including open finance. The FCA published a call for input on open finance in 2019 and published a feedback statement in March this year. This set out that the FCA will work closely with the Government as it takes forward the work on legislation as well as assessing the regulatory framework that would be needed to support open finance.
Tax
The review also highlighted the benefits of tax incentive schemes in supporting FinTech growth and at Budget 2021 the Government announced steps it is taking to ensure the schemes work as efficiently as possible, including:
A call for evidence on the enterprise management incentive scheme to seek views on whether the scheme is meeting its objectives, and examine whether more companies should be able to access the scheme.
A review of R&D tax reliefs which follows the consultation last year on expanding the qualifying expenditures to include cloud computing and data.
The Kalifa review also makes various recommendations that Government consider industry is best placed to take forward and I am grateful to Ron Kalifa for bringing these to my attention.
I would like to conclude by thanking Ron Kalifa and his team for their exceptional work in producing this seminal review. Ron has succeeded in producing insightful analysis, and garnering widespread support from industry for a suite of proposals that keep us on track for the continued success of UK FinTech.
I look forward to taking forward the steps I have outlined today.
[1]https://www.assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/978396/KalifaReviewofUKFintech01.pdf.
[HCWS938]
Fan-Led Review of Football Governance
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport announced an independent fan-led review of football governance on 19 April. This will be chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch).
This manifesto commitment followed a number of high profile club collapses in recent years, including Bury Football Club which resulted in its expulsion from the English Football League. Football clubs are integral parts of our local communities and it is vital that they are protected. The European Super League proposals, which would have been detrimental to the entire football pyramid, demonstrated that now is the right time to launch the review.
The Government have now published the terms of reference for the review. It will seek to make recommendations on ways to improve the governance, ownership and financial sustainability of clubs in English football, building on the strengths of the football pyramid. This will include examining the owners and directors tests, exploring ownership models from other countries, and assessing the merits of an independent regulator.
Football begins and ends with fans and we have seen that passionately displayed over the past few days, with clubs being the beating heart of their communities. This review will help put football on a firmer footing for the future and ensure that supporters’ voices are heard.
A copy of the terms of reference will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-04-26/HCWS939/ .
[HCWS939]
Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I have today laid before Parliament, under the powers of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021.
The sanctions regime established by these regulations seeks to prevent and combat serious corruption around the world by allowing for asset freezes and travel bans to be imposed on individuals or organisations involved in serious corruption. It is a smart tool allowing the Government to target corrupt actors and their enablers. It will prevent those responsible from entering the UK or laundering their ill-gotten assets here. These sanctions will help to ensure that the UK is not a safe haven for those involved in serious corruption, including those who profit from it.
The global anti-corruption sanctions regime will stand alongside the global human rights sanctions regime and give the UK an additional, powerful device to prevent and combat serious corruption around the world.
Today, I will also give an oral statement to set out the new sanctions regime and publish the first persons to be designated under it.
[HCWS936]
Contingent Liabilities Notification: NIHR National Biosample Centre
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation (Lord Bethell of Romford) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) National Biosample Centre is a state-of-the-art bio-sample storage and processing facility. It was established in 2014 through a capital grant from the then Department of Health to the University of Oxford, with the aim of enhancing the nation’s capability and capacity to support medical, health and life sciences research into disease mechanisms, new diagnostics and treatments. The NIHR National Biosample Centre remains a key national asset in the context of the Government’s commitment to the life sciences and, since April 2020, it has also served as the Milton Keynes lighthouse lab for covid-19 testing.
To help ensure the long-term financial viability of the NIHR National Biosample Centre, and following consideration of several options, I have approved the transfer of the assets and leasing business from the University of Oxford to the Department of Health and Social Care; in return, the Department will pay £1 and provide the University of Oxford with two indemnities relating to its ownership.
I have today presented a departmental minute notifying Parliament of the two contingent liabilities arising from the provision of these indemnities. Details of the contingent liabilities are set out in the minute.
[HCWS937]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the following debate is one hour.
Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Grand Committee do consider the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do consider the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 and the Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021.
These draft statutory instruments are key components of the Government’s whiplash reforms. They will simplify the process of settling whiplash claims, provide certainty to claimants as to how much their claim is worth, and benefit society by enabling an average reduction in insurance premiums for ordinary motorists of around £35 per premium. I remind the Grand Committee that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn both of these important SIs to the attention of the House.
The House had a number of extensive debates on the merits of the Government’s policy underpinning these SIs during the passage of the Civil Liability Act 2018—which I will refer to as “the Act”—so, with the limited time available to us today, my focus will be on the detail of these regulations rather than on rehearsing past policy debates.
The measures in Part 1 of the Act change the process for making whiplash claims by defining what constitutes a whiplash injury; introduce a fixed tariff of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, or PSLA; provide for an uplift to be applied to the tariff amount in exceptional circumstances; and ban the practice of seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without first seeking appropriate medical evidence. In addition, we are increasing the small claims track limit in respect of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000.
We had also previously committed to increasing the small claims limit for all other types of personal injury, including employers’ and public liability claims, to £2,000. However, the Lord Chancellor has confirmed today, through a Written Ministerial Statement, which I have repeated, that the Government have listened to the views of Members of this House and others, and have decided both to limit this increase to £1,500 and to defer its implementation until April 2022. I hope the Committee will agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic decision, which will give stakeholders additional time to prepare.
The Whiplash Injury Regulations set out a tariff for the amount of damages payable for PSLA for a whiplash injury or injuries of up to two years and any minor psychological injury suffered at the same time. They allow the court to apply an uplift of up to 20% to the tariff amount in exceptional circumstances. Regarding the ban on pre-medical report offers to settle, they specify what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and the experts who may provide it. That will differ depending on whether the injuries include a non-whiplash element.
The purpose of the other statutory instrument is to give powers to the Financial Conduct Authority to enable it to monitor and enforce the ban on pre-medical offers to settle.
Let me now provide a little more detail on each regulation, starting with the tariff figures, which present a rising scale of fixed payments determined by injury duration, with damages reduced less at the top end to recognise more serious injuries. Where the prognosis exceeds two years—in serious cases, that is—claims fall outside the tariff.
We have reviewed and updated the previously published figures to account for inflation. We have also added a three-year future-proofing element to ensure that they do not move out of alignment with future inflationary pressures before the required statutory review in three years’ time. That leads to an increase of about 11% over the figures previously provided to the House.
The reason for the uplift of up to 20% in exceptional circumstances is to balance the need for an effective tariff while also providing for judicial discretion. That 20% figure takes into account feedback received during consultation and in earlier debates, and reflects the position in similar jurisdictions such as Italy, which allow for an uplift of up to one-fifth.
During the passage of the Act we introduced, on the advice of the House, amendments to ensure that the views of the Lord Chief Justice were sought, we have undertaken this consultation, and we are grateful for his consideration of these matters. He was clear that the tariff figures
“demonstrate a material divergence in the levels of damages between those proposed and those which are generally currently awarded”.
He also acknowledged that the tariff figures were similar to those previously tabled before Parliament, when the Government’s intent that the tariffs would be lower than the figures in the Judicial College Guidelines was made clear.
The Lord Chief Justice emphasised that the tariff was a
“narrowly defined statutory derogation from the principle of full compensation through an assessment of damages by the courts”,
but considered that it was not appropriate for him to suggest a change. He made it clear that he understood the Government’s principles underpinning the uplift, but expressed the view that he would prefer the judiciary to have greater discretion.
Following receipt of the Lord Chief Justice’s response, further discussions with the legal advisers to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments led to a need to amend the tariff figures to distinguish between damages for claims for whiplash injuries alone and damages for claims for whiplash injuries and minor psychological injuries. We made the Lord Chief Justice aware of these re-presented figures and he was clear that his response, in substance, remained the same.
The Lord Chief Justice also considered that it would be beneficial to review the tariffs earlier than the statutory three years. We do not know now whether we will have enough data in a year’s time to make an informed assessment, so I cannot commit to an early review, but we are open to the possibility. We must first make sure there is evidence available to undertake a meaningful review from which effective conclusions can be drawn. Having considered the points made by the Lord Chief Justice, we will not change our position on the tariff amounts or the judicial uplift of 20%, but we will undertake an analysis of the available data after a year with a view to considering whether an early review is appropriate.
Turning to the medical evidence, the regulations provide that in cases where a claimant lives, or is examined, in England or Wales they must obtain a fixed-cost medical report from an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal. If there are other more serious injuries, the expert has to be listed on the General Medical Council’s specialist register.
The other regulations, which relate to the Financial Conduct Authority, give powers to the FCA to enable it to take effective action to monitor and enforce compliance with the ban on seeking or making pre-medical offers to settle. The FCA is the regulator for insurers and claims management companies which may be involved in settling whiplash claims. These regulations therefore ensure that the FCA has the powers it needs to regulate Section 6 of the Act.
I emphasise that the measures in these regulations are necessary and important. They will provide certainty to whiplash claimants, create savings which will be passed on to consumers and enable the FCA effectively to regulate the ban on the offering and seeking of offers to settle whiplash and associated claims without appropriate medical evidence. I hope that on this basis the Committee will be able to support these measures. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, has withdrawn so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interests as a partner in the global law firm DAC Beachcroft, and as set out in the register. I support these regulations. The structure of a modest tariff for a modest injury is exactly what was anticipated when what is now the Civil Liability Act was debated in Parliament in 2018. I therefore agree with my noble friend the Minister that the tariff is set at the right level to reflect what these cases are really worth.
The Judicial College Guidelines do not tell us what hundreds of thousands of simple, low-value claims settle for outside court. The JCG also do not exercise any form of control. They simply record what other judges previously thought over the years and uprate for inflation. The number can go up but never slip back, as the guidelines themselves admit.
I will raise just one further point with the Minister, which I made to his predecessor during the passage of the Bill, about other minor injuries outside the tariff. The value of these other minor injuries is not the subject of any tariff so can he provide an assurance that, where they fall to be assessed alongside the tariff, their value will not suddenly become disproportionate to the main whiplash injury?
Lord Etherton (CB) [V]
The digital portal for whiplash claims will be a completely new portal for small personal injury claims arising from traffic accidents where the pain, suffering and loss of amenity element is under £5,000 and all elements of the claim are less than £10,000. It is specifically designed to enable potential claimants to state their claim and avoid court proceedings without the assistance of legal advice, the idea being that the litigant will simply follow the instructions on the screen. It is likely that very large numbers of claims, running into hundreds of thousands, will be processed through the new whiplash portal.
As the Minister said, the 2018 Act provides for the tariff of damages to be reviewed every three years. He indicated that now, after a year, consideration will be given to whether there should be a review more often than every three years. My focus today is not on that review but rather on the absence of any provision for collecting data on the operation of the digital technology so far as the claimant is concerned and a review of how well it is working.
The whiplash portal and protocol are not part of the court’s digitisation reform programme but arise out of a government policy initiative. I nevertheless urge the Government, as with court digitisation reforms such as the online civil money claims digital process for small money claims by litigants in person, to provide for litigants to record their satisfaction or otherwise with the procedural technology. This is particularly important in the case of the whiplash portal, not only because the litigant is expected to be able to navigate the new digital technology without legal advice but because the technology has been developed not by HMCTS or the MoJ but by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.
I would, for the same reason, urge the Government to carry out a review of the operation of the new portal within nine months of its commencement, informed by the views expressed by the users of the portal.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I thank my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar for setting out the purpose of these regulations so clearly. Indeed, the Minister wrote to noble Lords in February of this year setting out the plans for whiplash reform. I strongly welcome the reform and these regulations.
I recognise, of course, that there are genuine whiplash claims, but it is known that there are many “creative” claims. The regulations will help deter them and, it is estimated, will result in savings of approximately £1.2 billion, and of £35 on average on motor insurance premiums, which insurers will pass on.
The provision of a tariff for damages payable for pain and suffering and loss of amenity is welcome. It is obviously central to require a minimum of medical evidence and a ban on settlement without medical evidence, and this is indeed provided for in the regulations. It also seems sensible to provide for a discretionary uplift of up to 20% for appropriate exceptional circumstances. The small claims track limit being raised from £1,000 to £5,000 is also very sensible.
The Association of British Insurers has mentioned that the reforms are very welcome, but it cautions that the potential for claimants to focus increasingly on additional minor injuries, as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out, may result in higher awards than the tariffs for whiplash. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about keeping ahead of the fray on these developments, which could dilute the beneficial effects of these very welcome reforms.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I spoke in favour of what is now Section 3 of the Civil Liability Act 2018 when it was before the House three years ago—and I have not changed my mind. It seemed to me that the case for the whiplash injury regulations that we now have was compelling. It was far too easy for claims to be made that would not survive scrutiny if they were to be adjudicated on by a court. They would be accepted by insurers because it was so much cheaper for them simply to pay up. Human nature being what it is, not everyone abides by the rules. There was an abuse here that needed to be dealt with. A decision to proceed in this way was taken then, and what we are concerned with now is the content of these regulations.
There is no getting away from the fact that the figures listed in each of the columns in Regulation 2 are quite modest. Indeed, some people have described them as “derisory”. We have them, however, in the columns before us, and I welcome very much the Minister’s assurance that he accepts the Lord Chief Justice’s recommendation that a review in the light of experience be undertaken in relatively early course, after one year’s experience.
We note, of course, the opportunity for the court to increase the amounts payable by up to 20% in exceptional cases, and we should also note that Section 3(8) of the Act rightly provides that nothing in that section prevents a court awarding an appropriate amount for any other injuries the person may have sustained, which may well be the case in the ordinary road accident section. There is a risk, of course, that other kinds of minor injury will now take the place of whiplash claims. That will need to be carefully watched. For now, however, modest though the figures are, these regulations have my support.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the introduction of the whiplash injury regulations, given the sheer volume of whiplash claims that were being made to exploit the system, rather than to support those who suffered genuine injury. I do hope that, rather than just being absorbed by the insurance industry, any savings will be passed back to insurance policyholders as a reduction in policy premiums, as they have been paying for many of these unscrupulous claims with increased policy premiums for decades.
My concern with the introduction of the official injury claims portal—a move to an online service that is very much the norm these days—is whether this will disfranchise many in society who would otherwise be eligible to make a successful claim. Can the Minister comment on how those who do not have online access or IT skills, as is still all too often the case for much of society, are to make their claims? Is there an alternative, paper version? In addition, can he outline to the House how these changes to claims are going to be advertised or otherwise communicated, together with any paper version availability?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the reform of whiplash injuries compensation because, in many instances, the accumulated payments for whiplash injuries—which in many instances are very painful and have to be endured for a long time—have imposed a considerable level of premiums on ordinary insurance people.
These regulations are supported by the insurance industry, which has long campaigned on the need to tackle the UK’s whiplash epidemic and has provided funding for the full technical development and build of the new portal through the motor insurers’ premium. However, solicitors’ associations have a lukewarm attitude towards the new regulations, contending that the methodology used for formulating the new tariff rates is fundamentally flawed and leads to a substantially greater reduction in damages payable to injured claimants than is justified. They also believe that the proposed tariff of damages is unfairly low, given the possible severity and duration of the injury sustained.
Therefore, will the Minister and his colleagues consider publishing the correspondence and exchange of views with the judiciary, in the interests of transparency? There is a view that not all the information from the judiciary has been made available as part of the consultation process. Will he also indicate what steps will be taken to ensure that the tariff rates are increased to facilitate fairer damages to injured claimants? In this instance, I mean people who are deserving of this payment and have had to endure so much pain and suffering.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
As I said three years ago in Committee, I broadly welcome the tariff-based system. But today, as then, I wish to raise points in relation to advice, the proper operation of the new system, and the adequacy of the tariff.
I spent 20 minutes this morning watching the video of how this system is to work for unrepresented defendants. It is not easy, and the experience elsewhere has shown that it is difficult to devise a system whereby people can make claims online on something that is not very straightforward. I therefore wish to ask the Minister: what provision is being made to help unrepresented defendants understand the system, particularly those who are not as familiar with computers as Members of your Lordships’ House? Secondly, what advice will be given when a person has to decide whether the offer made by the insurers is a fair one? That is not an easy question. Will it be the CAB or some other third-sector provider, and what funds are being provided to cover this additional cost of the third sector, bearing in mind the immense pressure on it?
It appears that, unusually, the system that has been made has been designed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, stated, by the potential defendants. It is clear that an independent review of the operation of the system itself, as distinct from the tariff, is needed, and I very much hope that a properly independent review can be set up within a year. There should be no difficulty with needing the requisite figures; we just want to know how this is dealing with unrepresented defendants. As to the review of the tariff, I hear what the Minister has said, but I very much hope that, whatever the timescale for the review, it will be independent and the evidence will be published.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these regulations. The objectives are good and clear, although on reflection, perhaps it is a pity it has taken so long—four years—for action. It is good to see Her Majesty’s Government working closely with the ABI, and it in turn with its members, and it is good to hear that everyone is organised for when the portal goes live on 31 May. I like the linkage between the Treasury, the FCA and the industry to assess whether policyholders have benefited from any savings made by insurers as a result of the Act.
However, I am deeply concerned about minor injuries claims. There is the potential here for a huge challenge of quasi-bogus claims from claims management companies and claimant lawyers. I say that because we already have evidence from earlier debates about what is happening in relation to credit lending, particularly payday lending and the backlash against the home-collected-credit format that has been with us for well over 100 years. These claims management companies manufacture complaints and use social media marketing techniques to farm spurious claims in large—in fact, huge—volumes. They end up at the Financial Ombudsman Service, which finds itself facing this mass dumping of claims and has to produce what it calls “mass settlements”, which are then passed on in the cases that we have been debating elsewhere to the actual companies that are doing the lending. In this case, they will be dumped on the insurance companies. Can my noble friend therefore make sure that he is fully briefed on what has been happening in what is in effect an allied industry?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this SI has been prepared by the Treasury. The Civil Liability Act 2018 gave powers to the Financial Conduct Authority to enforce the ban on the making and requesting of offers to settle road traffic accident whiplash-related injury claims without a medical report, as set out in Sections 6 and 8 of the 2018 Act. The SI applies to England and Wales only and is a financial instrument for the purposes of Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to public business.
As set out in Section 6 of the Act, all low-value RTA whiplash-related claims will need to be supported by a medical report provided by a MedCo-accredited medical expert, otherwise known as a ban on pre-medical offers. As the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“MedCo is a system for accrediting medical experts and for sourcing initial fixed cost soft tissue injury medical reports mandated by the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents.”
The requirement to make sure that a medical report is completed before any RTA whiplash-related claim can be settled will provide more certainty regarding the costs of the settlement process and provide both parties with information on the severity of the injury and an accurate assessment of the treatment required and the duration of the injury, so as to be able to assess the position regarding the tariff and identify the compensation payable to settle the claim.
This SI will bring an end to the practice of pre-medical offers to settle, which can lead to unmeritorious minor or exaggerated claims being made by some claimants, including fraudulent claims by uninjured claimants. This will also reduce the risk of under-settlement, as the policy will ensure that claimants with genuine injuries are properly assessed by accredited medical experts—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lord, can I ask you to finish now, please?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
—and receive compensation appropriate to the level of pain and suffering they have endured.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I spent 12 years of my life on a police authority, and I saw the manufacturing of totally spurious claims from a large number of ill-motivated people. Some of them were criminal claims: people had actually manufactured crashed cars and claimed that whiplash had taken place, and it was extremely difficult to deal with them.
What the Government are proposing is necessary, and it is a pity that it has taken so long to bring it into effect. However, I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that there is a claims industry in this country which is determined to find some way in which to make money. The money is made out of honest people who pay the premiums, who pay extra as a result. I warmly support what the Government are doing but I ask the Minister, as has the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, to reassure us that the Government are alive to the fact that the people making these claims will move to other areas and will seek to exploit them. A responsible Government should be alive to this fact and should take steps as soon as possible to crush any resurgence of claims from any other quarter.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, tackling fraudulent whiplash claims to bring down motorists’ insurance premiums is a welcome step. However, these efforts must not be at the expense of access to justice for genuine claimants. On balance, we in the Labour Party support the intention of the regulations. However, we are concerned that they may lack clarity and there should be proper support for the inevitable rise of litigants in person.
We have heard something of the background to today’s regulations—the first proposal in the 2015 Autumn Statement and plans to introduce fixed tariffs for whiplash claims resulting from road traffic accidents. The Minister has explained that the regulations will increase the financial limit of claims managed though a small claim from £1,000 to £5,000 and introduce a new online portal managed by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau to process claims. The Minister also explained that they will set the maximum damages for whiplash claims, although a court may apply a discretionary 20% uplift in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, children and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders are excluded from the new regulations.
The plans have been welcomed by the Association of British Insurers, as it is right that there should be an effort to reduce the cost of whiplash claims to insurers, which is currently about £2 billion. I must say that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, given his time on his local police authority, was apposite and went to the heart of the problem that the regulations seek to address.
Like all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I have been contacted by several interested bodies. They have sent in a number of questions, some of which I will run through. I am sure the Minister will be aware of their concerns, but I raise them nevertheless. For example, how will mixed claims, whereby whiplash has been sustained along with other injuries, be dealt with? Secondly, under exactly what circumstances may a judge apply the discretionary 20% uplift?
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Thomas, made a point about the new portal. First, we trust that the data can be securely transferred to the new portal, but will there be a proper analysis of the data within it so that a review of the new system can be undertaken from an informed point of view? A further question is how the Government propose to address inconsistency in the application of the regulations.
My final point has been made by pretty much all noble Lords speaking in today’s debate. The Association of British Insurers has raised the concern that there may be an incentive for some people to claim for minor injuries and put them at a higher importance than whiplash injuries. That could limit the effects of the reform and lessen the benefits to honest premium-paying customers through the increase in minor injury claims.
In his introduction, the Minister that said he was open to the possibility of a review. When does he think it would be appropriate to review the new regulations?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Given the time constraints, rather than give a speech in response, I will try to deal with the various points put to me.
My noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Naseby made the point that there is a risk that the regulations could be subverted by other injuries suddenly becoming the main injury. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned, Section 3(8) of the Act provides that, where a claimant suffers injuries in addition to a whiplash injury, the court is not prevented from awarding damages that reflect the combined effect of the injuries sustained. The courts will therefore need to determine how mixed injuries are addressed. We are confident that judicial expertise will address these matters on a case-by-case basis, but we will look vigilantly to ensure that the regulations are not undermined, whether by the claims management industry or otherwise, by people reordering their claims so that minor injuries become the main part of their claim.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, asked about legal advice. The short point is that the online system has been designed with the claimant firmly at its heart. It is a modern, user-friendly, digital system. There is guidance in the system and digitally disadvantaged claimants who cannot use it can be assisted by a dedicated telephone support centre. We will review the data produced by the system and monitor it. We will discuss the operational performance of the portal on a regular basis with a user group that includes representatives of claimants and defendants, together with third-sector and consumer representatives.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes asked about passing on savings. The short point there is that the competitive nature of the motor insurance market will ensure that savings are passed on. As she is aware, the regulations provide that insurers have to provide data to the FCA so that it can see the savings being made. I do not want to repeat what I just said, but I assure her that we are very conscious of people who are not online and we want to make sure that they are not disfranchised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked about correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice. I hope I gave the Committee a fair summary of that correspondence. We do not plan formally to publish the letters received from the Lord Chief Justice. I venture to suggest that it would not be appropriate to commit to publishing the full correspondence without discussing it with the Lord Chief Justice. It is also important that these discussions can take place on a proper basis.
As to a review of the tariff system, I hope I set out in introducing the regulations that we will consider a review on the timescale that I indicated. I appreciate that the noble Baroness said that some solicitors think that the tariffs are too low. I am afraid that is a debate that we have had on a policy basis on a number of occasions and, for the reasons I set out, the Government are confident that these tariffs are appropriate and give proper compensation where injuries are properly sustained.
I hope that I have dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. I have already referred to the contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I very much welcome his support on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked about medical reports. I assure the Committee that the online system is fully integrated with MedCo, so that once a liability decision has been received by the at-fault insurer, claimants can proceed through the system to obtain their report from an accredited medical expert. Importantly, if the at-fault insurer has accepted any portion of liability, it will also pay for that report. We have worked very closely with MedCo to ensure that reports are presented in an accessible, user-friendly format, while continuing to include all necessary information on the claimant’s injury and prognosis. As I said, we will ensure that unrepresented claimants are fully supported through the process.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, asked a number of questions, first about the online system. The noble and learned Lord referred in particular to unrepresented defendants; I do not know whether he actually meant unrepresented claimants, whom I have already dealt with. So far as defendants are concerned, I assure the Committee that a full programme of webinars has been undertaken where professional users can learn more about the new process and ask questions. Information has been regularly disseminated through an e-shot programme and through social media channels such as LinkedIn and YouTube, and additional information pages will shortly be available on GOV.UK. Third-sector organisations have been taught about the new online service and, therefore, they will be able to signpost people to it. I am confident that, once the system is up and running, it will run well. I hope I have also dealt with the noble and learned Lord’s points about the tariff and a review of the system; I have sought to make the government position clear on that, and also on the data point. If I have misunderstood his focus, as to defendants or claimants, I will perhaps write to him to set out the position in more detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, regretted that it had taken so long. I am very conscious that this debate precedes my involvement in it by some years. All I can say is that we have got here, and the regulations will be up and running shortly—better late than never. The important thing now is to make sure that they work properly and fairly, and that is certainly what we will do. I am absolutely alive to the fact that there is a claims management industry, and that it will shift its focus. We will be equally vigilant to ensure that the purpose of these regulations is not undermined.
I therefore welcome—if I may say—the support in principle for the aims of the regulations from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He asked me six questions in a rat-a-tat way. Let me give equally speedy responses, because I understand that we are all limited for time. First, I hope I have dealt with mixed claims; that is a Section 3(8) issue. On the 20% uplift, all I really want to say is that the word used in the statute is “exceptional”. I do not think it is appropriate for me to gloss that word, especially as we now have Pepper v Hart, so I will just say that it is an ordinary English word and falls to be interpreted in the normal way.
Thirdly, on the portal, I can assure the noble Lord that data is secure. I have already explained, I hope, the timing of the review. We will keep the question of its extent and timing under review, and we will look at it in a year’s time, as I said. I am afraid I did not quite understand the point about an inconsistency in application; I appreciate it was not the noble Lord’s point, but he was passing it on. The whole point here is that we have a tariff, so similar injuries really ought to be dealt with in a very similar way. If those who passed the question on to him are not satisfied with my answer, perhaps he will reformulate the question to me—and if he does, I am happy to provide a written response. But there should not be inconsistency, because we have a tariff. The fifth point was that there would be an incentive to claim that the minor injury is in fact the main one; I hope I have dealt with that already. The noble Lord’s last substantive question was on the review, and I hope I have dealt with that as well.
I apologise for running through this at something of a pace, but I have only 10 minutes, of which I have about 15 seconds left. I hope that I have dealt with all contributions. I will check the Official Report and write if I have not, but otherwise I respectfully commend these regulations to the Committee.
Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Forensic science and the criminal justice system: a blueprint for change (3rd Report, Session 2017-19, HL Paper 333).
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move today’s debate on the Science and Technology Committee report, Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System: A Blueprint for Change. The committee is indebted to all those who provided written and oral evidence. We held 21 oral evidence sessions, with 50 witnesses, and received 103 written submissions; I thank all who participated. I also thank the committee members, our committee clerk Donna Davidson—who, I am delighted to see, is the Table Clerk for today’s debate, and to whom goes the credit for a well-written report—our policy analyst Dr Daniel Rathbone, and our committee clerk Cerise Burnett-Stuart, who is, as always, an efficient organiser. We were also fortunate to have as our specialist adviser Professor Ruth Morgan, director of the UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, and professor of crime and forensic science. She is an internationally recognised expert in forensic science and its application in criminal justice systems. Her advice and knowledge contributed much to the report, and I thank her most sincerely. I am indebted to all those people.
I am also grateful, knowing her very busy schedule of legislation, to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for taking the debate today. She was kind enough to meet me and others to discuss the report following its publication. I shall say more about that later, and I thank her for listening.
Over the last 10 years there have been nine reports on forensic science and the criminal justice system, all intended to improve the service—yet adverse reports on virtually all aspects of the system continue to be made. Our report, based on the evidence we received, addresses the whole subject in a holistic way. A key aspect of it was the importance of addressing the whole forensic science system to identify the root causes of failures in the current system and to find best steps forward.
The delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of forensic science evidence and the trust that society has in it. The quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales is inadequate. We heard this repeatedly in our inquiry. In her 2019 annual report, the Forensic Science Regulator urged that the Government’s focus should be on
“the protection of justice rather than the protection of historic or current policies.”
One of the recurrent criticisms we heard was the lack of high-level leadership and oversight of forensic science from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The strong evidence led us to recommend establishing a forensic science board, to deliver a new forensic science strategy and to take responsibility for it in England and Wales.
Budget cuts, reorganisations and exponential growth in the need for new services, such as digital evidence, have put forensic science providers under extreme pressures. The result is a forensic science market that is dysfunctional, and one which, if not properly regulated, will soon result in major forensic science providers going out of business, putting justice in jeopardy. The Government have an opportunity, following the recent much-welcomed legislation establishing the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis, and with the pending appointment of a new regulator, to give the regulator resources and the function of regulating the market. I hope the Minister feels able to agree to this, but if she does not, can she say who should be responsible for regulating the market?
Structural and regulatory muddle continue to exacerbate the malaise, even now. There is no consistency in the way that the 43 police forces commission forensic services, with some doing so in-house and others contracting it out to unregulated private providers with no quality controls. Police forces also differ in which specialisms they outsource and which they keep in-house. This calls into question equitable access to evidence for defendants, and raises issues over the quality of the analysis undertaken and the evidence presented. It is urgent that the Forensic Science Regulator is given a number of statutory powers to bolster trust in the quality of forensic science provision. Will the Government use the opportunity provided by the appointment of a new regulator to give her or him these powers?
Fair access to justice for defendants is further hampered by cuts to legal aid. The defence needs to have an opportunity to commission its own forensic testing where the evidence is disputed. Further, the rapid growth of digital forensic evidence presents challenges to the criminal justice system. We were not presented with any evidence of any future strategy to deal with this. The Government have recently increased funding, but it still falls short of who will be responsible for developing a longer-term strategy.
Lack of resource and poor co-ordination of research and development in forensic science has resulted in concerns about the scientific validity of some of the forensic science evidence, particularly regarding its interpretation. It is vital that the failings identified by our report are recognised, otherwise public trust in forensic science will continue to be lost, threatening confidence in the justice system. Crimes may go unsolved, and it runs the risk of increasing the number of miscarriages of justice.
Our report was published on 1 May 2019 and the Government responded to it in July 2019. The Government’s response addressed only one part of the forensic science ecosystem, not the other key issues identified in the report. The proposals set out in the response are insufficient to address the systemic issues, and fall way short of addressing the core challenges or providing a path forward that will lead to reform across the whole of forensic science and enable the science to effectively assist the justice system.
Some things have changed since then, although not much for the better, and opportunities exist even now to address some of the failings identified in our report. Let me briefly say what has changed. One of the key pieces of good news, of course, is the establishment of the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis. I thank the Minister for that. What the regulator lacks is the regulatory powers needed to drive the changes required to make the provision of forensic science in England and Wales world-class, as it once was.
There is also a need to address the level of resources required for the regulator to do his or her job. I hope the Minister can comment on that. Instead of the forensic science board recommended by the committee, the Criminal Justice Board has formed a forensic sub-group to address a forensic science reform programme to strengthen forensic science provision and address key risks and challenges. However, it is not clear how far it has progressed, what role the Government play in it and what responsibility they have for it. Despite further incidents such as a cyberattack on one of the providers of forensic services, the issue of fragility of the market is not being addressed.
The Government have put more money into the Transforming Forensics programme and launched its delivery arm, the Forensics Capability Network, but several police forces remain sceptical of its effectiveness, as evidenced by a request by the National Police Chiefs’ Council for a review. Accreditation, meeting quality standards and training still remain issues, as does inequality in the availability of forensic services to defendants, as opposed to the prosecution. As I said, cuts to legal aid threaten the financial viability of those who provide legal aid to the defence. To date, there have been some positive conversations on funding for forensic science research and development, but very little progress is being made.
Before I conclude, I have three further questions for the Minster. Where in the Government does accountability lie for provision of quality forensic services to assist the justice system? Who will be responsible for regulating the market in forensic services? How will the Government ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of research and development and forensic science methodologies, including digital forensics, foundation research and, importantly, the interpretation of forensic materials?
I end with a quotation from one of our witnesses, Professor Claude Roux, director of the Centre for Forensic Science at the University of Technology, Sydney, and president of the International Association of Forensic Scientists. Referring to all aspects of forensic services in England and Wales, he said:
“England and Wales held, essentially, the international benchmark. It was the ‘Mecca’ for forensic science … 30 years later”,
due to “an ongoing national crisis”, it
“is more of an example not to follow.”
That was not pleasant for the committee to hear. I beg to move and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. 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.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his comprehensive introduction to the debate. His speech got right to the heart of the dilemma the House faces in judging the adequacy of the Government’s response to the committee’s report and recommendations. After weighing all the evidence presented, the committee saw the need for systemic, root-and-branch reform across the whole of forensic science if it is to play an effective role in assisting the justice system. The Government have chosen not to take that strategic view. Rather, they have focused on just one element and only one part of the report: the creation of statutory powers for the regulator. Welcome though that is, unless there is an increase in the regulator’s scope and powers, and unless there is a body responsible for driving and implementing strategy, I fear little will really change.
I joined the Science and Technology Committee only this year, so was not involved in the production of this excellent and hard-hitting report, but I have read it and much of the evidence. Its findings shocked me profoundly. I suspect that other Members of this House may, like me, have gained awareness of the role of forensic science in the criminal justice system largely from the limited coverage in the news media. I understood the received wisdom to be that we had a world-class system, but whatever confidence that had given me in the competence of the service, its scientific base and the reliability of its judgments was shattered by this report.
The main conclusion of the Select Committee is that the quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales is inadequate. It highlighted an absence of high-level leadership, a lack of funding and an insufficient level of research and development, which had all been exacerbated by the coalition Government’s abolition of the government-owned Forensic Science Service in 2012. It further identified the need for the regulator’s powers to be expanded and made statutory, as the coalition Government had promised.
It was particularly concerning to note that although there have been no fewer than nine reports on the state of forensic science in England and Wales, all raising similar concerns to those raised in the Science and Technology Committee’s report, very little, if anything, has been done. As the report says, the delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of the evidence available. The inadequacies of the service are clearly endangering that integrity, as well as undermining public confidence.
In their July 2019 response to the report, the Government acknowledged the inadequacies of the system and seemed to be largely positive about, and apparently supportive of, the committee’s recommendations. So it was strange that the Government seemed reluctant to accept the structural changes proposed by the Select Committee, such as a forensic science board to oversee strategy and a national institute for forensic science to address the problems of under- resourcing in research and a lack of co-ordination.
The committee’s report is robust in its criticism of the lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. The Government agreed that there needed to be a joint approach, and said:
“Following the appearance of ministers from the two Departments before their Lordships, there has been much closer cooperation.”
While this may be flattering to the immediate persuasiveness of your Lordships’ committee, there is nothing to guarantee that this new spirit of co-operation will be maintained. Indeed, the lack of any action in the last two years does not suggest much has changed. Can the Minister tell the Committee how she proposes to ensure that collaboration continues, and how she will evaluate its effectiveness?
Similarly, in rejecting the recommendation for a national institute for forensic science, the Government rely on the two ministries
“developing an even stronger working relationship with UKRI … to … set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development”.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees that this is rather a loose arrangement. It does not really seem any change from the current situation. In the last two years, some conversations have apparently been initiated with UKRI but there has been no formal recognition, so far, that forensic science requires dedicated funding, and no progress has been reported on the need for strategic oversight of research and development or identifying funding to enable it. Will the Minister acknowledge the very significant lack of funding—less than 0.1 % of UKRI spend over the last 10 years—and indicate how that will be resolved looking ahead?
I referred earlier to a change that the Government have agreed. In the last few months, they have been able at last to find parliamentary time for the Private Member’s Bill introduced in the Commons by the Labour MP Darren Jones, which we debated in this House last month and which had its Third Reading just last Thursday. It had full government support and in part addresses the recommendations in the Select Committee’s report in placing the regulator on a statutory footing and giving it powers to enforce a statutory code of practice. It is a great start but as the chair of the Select Committee said at Second Reading, while most welcome it was a missed opportunity to address the other issues identified by the committee and by the outgoing regulator, and highlighted today by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
I hope that today’s debate will prompt the Minister to go further; the delivery of justice requires it and the confidence of the public must be won back. Will the Minister keep these matters under close and regular review so that further changes can be brought in as necessary? I hope she will agree that this is the only way in which to avoid yet a further future report that reiterates the concerns of the nine previous ones, as well as the 10th one that we are debating today from the Science and Technology Committee.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was not a member of Science and Technology Committee when this report was written, although I am now. I am really sorry I missed it, because it was clearly a fascinating and important investigation. However, I have read the report, which was up to the committee’s usual high standard of rigour and integrity, and the main impression I gained was that the forensic service in this country has become a shambles and, regrettably, has fallen a long way from its former high standard. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, called it, more politely, inadequate and dysfunctional. This is bad in itself, but it is a particular disaster given the fact that the science is moving so rapidly in new directions and the demand for the service is growing exponentially, particularly in relation to digital evidence.
High-quality forensic science is crucial for the operation of justice. It is important to the accused, both guilty and innocent; it is important to victims, both existing and potentially in future; it is important to the police, judges and advocates to enable them to do their job properly; it is important to juries who need confidence in the quality of the forensic evidence to allow them to be as sure as possible about their decisions; and it is important to the public on whose behalf the criminal justice system works. But it is clear that, for whatever reason, not usually the fault of those who work in the service, the service has let us all down over recent years and lost its former high reputation. The committee has done an excellent job in its report of getting to the bottom of what has gone wrong and proposing a comprehensive plan of what needs to be done to put it right.
Four aspects jumped out at me as I read the report. First, on leadership and resources, the committee led with this issue in its very first recommendation. I absolutely agree that the service needs strong leadership at arm’s length from government. The committee recommended a forensic science board to take the lead in strategy, organisation and regulation. The Government instead proposed a less independent alternative—a steering group of the Criminal Justice Board jointly chaired by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. That is hardly arm’s length. Where is it? Does it exist? What has it done since the report in spring 2019? Do we have to wait another two years for action? Yes, we now have a statutory regulator, thanks to a Private Member’s Bill, but this is no use without adequate powers and resources.
The committee listed five powers in its recommendation 12, all of them needed to enable the regulator to ensure the quality of provider organisations and individuals, and the ability to force them to improve or remove them from the service as necessary. It is outrageous that some providers are currently unregulated and some so-called expert witnesses not adequately qualified. The Government did not agree with these recommendations, but I believe that a regulator needs teeth, otherwise how can he or she do the job? It is nearly 10 years since the Government promised that the regulator would have such statutory powers, a time lapse which the committee described as embarrassing. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will take appropriate action so that it is no longer embarrassed?
On resources, following the disastrous cuts to legal aid, the committee heard that the defence sometimes lacks the ability to commission its own forensic testing where the evidence is disputed and, on the prosecution side, the police need adequate resources to build their case. Some police forces use their own labs, some put the work out to private providers and some a mixture of the two. But if you are going to put a public service out to the market, you have to show private providers that there is a stable business there in which they should invest. As the committee’s evidence shows, the market is fragile and some providers may close down. The Government’s response is to reform procurement policy. This sounds to me like saying, “If we don’t like the price of butter, we can go to a different supermarket.” Can the Minister tell us what it actually means apart from an attempt to get more for less?
Secondly, it is currently unclear where accountability lies in government. I echo the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel: can the Minister say clearly where accountability lies now? Is it with the steering group or whichever department happens to be in the chair at the time? There is also a lack of co-ordination. The committee proposed that the new FSB should work with the regulator and the proposed national institute for forensic science to ensure standards, strategy and co-ordination. Can the Minister say how the Government’s alternative structure will do that?
Thirdly, on research and forward planning, it is vital that there is a mechanism to look ahead and plan for investment in research into new forensic methods and, where appropriate, the use of artificial intelligence and automation and the practicality of how these can be integrated into the service. In the past, the development of and confidence in DNA evidence has allowed former miscarriages of justice to be corrected and unsolved crimes to be laid at the doors of the perpetrators at last. If resources are not put into the development of new forensic science, there will be more miscarriages of justice and unnecessarily unsolved crimes. Victims are always the ones to suffer for this but so does the whole of society. This is where the committee’s recommendation 21 of a national institute for forensic science within UKRI comes into the picture. Without such an expert group to do the horizon-scanning and ensure the funding for the correct areas of research, the rogues will always be way ahead of the forces for good.
That brings me to staffing. The service does not just rely on new methods but on high-quality staff. Where are the planning and resources for staff training? Recommendation 13 and others cover this. The proposed forensic science board would have the responsibility, together with the College of Policing and the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, to develop a strategy for the ongoing training of all forensic science practitioners, including those who provide expert evidence in court, as well as providing CPD on forensic science for practising lawyers. Given the rise in digital crime, it is essential that more staff qualified in this area are recruited. What system do the Government propose for the staff planning and training function, and why is it better than the committee’s recommendations?
Finally, on confidence, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has outlined the delay and inadequacy of the government response. It makes me wonder whether this indicates a lack of interest on behalf of the Government or perhaps a lack of understanding of the role forensic science plays in building the confidence of the public in our criminal justice system. Does the Minister agree that a high reputation for forensic science can have a beneficial effect on the willingness of the public to co-operate with the police? It can also affect the prevalence of crime, deterring potential criminals as well as catching them. Police chiefs, in their evidence to the Committee, did not show that they have confidence in the Government’s response to the report. If they do not have confidence in the system, who can?
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing the report from the Science and Technology Committee on Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System. This is an important report, which has not only shone a light on to some of the current failings and inadequacies of the use of forensic science within the criminal justice system but also makes important and much-needed recommendations for change and improvement. These recommendations are to be welcomed, and I very much hope that they will be carefully considered by all those working across this complex and multifaceted discipline. I recognise that some of the actions have been progressed since the publication of the report nearly two years ago, but it is particularly encouraging to note the successful progress of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill through both Houses, with just Royal Assent now awaited.
When enacted, the Forensic Science Regulator—the FSR—will gain long-overdue statutory powers. At this point, I declare an interest as the chair of the UK’s national accreditation body, UKAS. UKAS is the sole national body recognised by government for the accreditation of organisations against nationally and internationally agreed standards. It is in this capacity that I especially note the committee’s conclusions on the clear benefit of ensuring that the majority of forensic science providers are accredited to the appropriate international standards. Accreditation delivers assurance of the impartiality and competence of providers, which, I am sure we would all agree, is imperative within the criminal justice system.
I also welcome the recommendation that UKAS and the FSR work closely together to ensure that accreditation to relevant ISO standards is accessible and is progressed to ensure that the objectives of the FSR are realised. In fact, UKAS and the FSR have worked closely since the FSR role was first created. Together we have achieved consistent success in improving standards through the accreditation of forensic science providers in both the private sector and police forces, in line with the expectations of the FSR codes of practice and conduct.
As the FSR powers evolve, UKAS will continue to collaborate closely to deliver the vision of the FSR, focusing on clients with the required standards and, through the accreditation of forensic science providers, the demonstration of the appropriate competence of practitioners undertaking this critical work. In addition, UKAS and the FSR are able to share information through appropriate agreements, helping to support each other in their respective roles. The need for high-quality and reliable forensic services with sufficient capacity and capability to deliver the services required is a given. They are critical for a fair and functioning criminal justice system.
I therefore welcome and support the report’s conclusions calling for the delivery of strategic and accountable leadership, reflecting all the main stakeholders, to set the vision, strategy and agenda for forensic science. This leadership, vision, strategy and agenda are needed now more than ever as the shape of forensic science evolves to accommodate new technologies and changes in the types of crime and evidence needing to be examined. The recommendation to focus on building capacity within the digital forensics market will likewise be imperative to keep pace with demand.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee for the expertise and foresight they have brought to this excellent report. I add my support to their conclusions and recommendations.
Lord Mair (CB) [V]
My Lords, it was a privilege to have been a member of this House’s Science and Technology Select Committee under the expert and excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I congratulate him on his wise leadership.
Our report, published in May 2019, highlighted that this country was once regarded as world-leading in forensic science and seen as the international benchmark. But, regrettably, this is no longer the case—we are lagging behind other countries. This is principally because of an absence of high-level leadership, a lack of funding and an insufficient level of research and development. Our inquiry repeatedly heard that the forensic science system in England and Wales is not operating as it should; it is inadequate and in a state of crisis. We heard consistent evidence of the decline in forensic science, especially since the abolition of the highly respected Forensic Science Service in 2012.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlined some of the principal recommendations of our report. One was the creation of a forensics science board to take responsibility for forensic science in England and Wales. Another was the creation of a national institute for forensic science to set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development, and to co-ordinate and direct research and funding. The Government decided not to implement either of these key recommendations, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will focus on two important areas affected by this decision: the market for provision of forensic services; and the research and development requirements, especially relating to digital forensic evidence.
On the market for provision of forensic services, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly emphasised the urgency of giving the Forensic Science Regulator a number of statutory powers. The proposed establishment of the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis is much welcomed. The noble Lord drew attention to our inquiry hearing evidence of a dysfunctional forensic science market. Our committee recommended that these statutory powers should include the means of regulating the market.
The effectiveness of forensic science for the criminal justice system depends critically on who provides it and how accessible it is. It must be good enough to be relied on by the courts, and it must be equally accessible to both the prosecution and the defence. Since the closure of the Government’s Forensic Science Service in 2012, some types of forensic science analysis are increasingly undertaken by police forces in-house, particularly disciplines such as fingerprint analysis and digital forensics. Our inquiry heard that the forensic marketplace accounts for about 20% of service provision for law enforcement in forensic services by value, with the remaining 80% of forensic science work undertaken by in-house employees of police forces.
There has been a large reduction in spending on forensic science services. We heard that the £120 million spent on forensic science in 2008 was down to about £50 million in 2018. Significant reduction in spending on commercial providers of forensic science has contributed substantially to market fragility. We were told by a number of witnesses that the state of the forensic science market in England and Wales is unsustainable and in need of urgent reform. A number of private forensic science providers had gone into administration or been suspended, leading to significant fluctuations in the market and consequent problems for the criminal justice system. Dr Gillian Tully, until recently the Forensic Science Regulator, stated in her 2019 annual report that more needed to be done to stabilise the procurement and provision of forensic science services by police forces.
Procurement of forensic services from private providers is largely run by the 43 police forces and their police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. A distinctive feature of the forensic science market is that, in any given region, the police forces are essentially the sole customer. We heard evidence that commoditised procurement processes had led to a 30-40% erosion in pricing over six to seven years. Suppliers of forensic services were being forced to compete so heavily on price because the contracts were so big and came around so infrequently. The result was prices being reduced to unsustainably low levels. We all know the dangers of this: the level of scientific skills offered by private providers of forensic services is inevitably compromised if they are being driven down to very low prices.
In their response to our report, the Government acknowledged that there is a strong relationship between price and quality. The key question, therefore, is how to rectify the current situation. Our committee heard how, as an alternative procurement model, some police forces are now using a managed service model. In this model, for a fixed price a large provider contracts to provide police forces with all the forensic science services they need long term, for up to 10 years.
Although this provides long-term stability for a large provider, it leaves little opportunity for the smaller specialist providers, many of which are uniquely able to offer scientific analysis in important niche disciplines. Evidence we heard indicated that some important specialisms are dying out because they are no longer sustainable. This is worrying.
Our report concluded that the current procurement models for forensic science services will need to change substantially in order to stabilise the market. The evidence pointed to the need for a body to oversee the market and ensure continuity of high-quality service provision. Without this the criminal justice system will continue to be severely compromised.
Our committee recommended that the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently review the structure of the market for forensic science, and also review the procurement process for commissioning private sector providers alongside provision by police forces. The primary aim should be to determine a procurement model that balances price, quality and market sustainability. It is particularly important to ensure a level playing field between private and public sector providers of forensic science services, maintaining the capabilities of small providers in niche disciplines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Forensic Science Regulator will be given the necessary statutory powers to achieve this, overseeing and regulating the market effectively, thus ensuring its stability and its quality?
The second and final area on which I shall comment is research and development, especially in relation to new technologies and the increasing importance of digital forensic evidence. Digital evidence is now a key component in many criminal trials. Digital forensic capabilities must therefore be available to both the prosecution and the defence. Our committee heard that around 80% of all crime cases have a digital element, whether it be CCTV, mobile phones and social media data, or cyberattacks. Interrogating and analysing digital evidence is becoming increasingly time consuming. The evidence was clear that very considerable investment was needed in the use of modern technology to handle, search and analyse digital content.
Digital forensics is a rapidly expanding field. Its increasing importance is clearly recognised in the comprehensive Digital Forensic Science Strategy published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2020. The value of artificial intelligence and machine learning to the criminal justice system cannot be overestimated. A modern mobile phone could have 1 terabyte of data on it, equivalent to many thousands of documents. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have vital roles to play in facial and speech recognition, and in identifying patterns of behaviour. There are enormous opportunities to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to streamline the handling, searching and analysis of digital forensic evidence. However, there are complexities, because human biases might be replicated by machine learning systems. This requires more research, particularly in the context of evidence for criminal trials.
A further pressing complexity is the rapid rise of deepfake technology. It is now possible to create digitally altered videos or soundtracks that make someone appear to have done or said something that they have not done or said. Deepfake videos and soundtracks are becoming easier to make and are dangerously difficult to identify as fakes. We are entering a world where it is no longer possible to believe all digital information. It is these very complexities that point to the urgent need for research in digital forensics.
Our report recommended that UKRI, working with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, should urgently and substantially increase the amount of funding allocated to forensic science, for both technological advances and foundational research. We emphasised the need to focus on digital forensic science evidence and the opportunities for understanding and developing further capabilities in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise this vital need and will act accordingly?
In summary, there can be no question that proper delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of forensic science evidence, and the trust that society has in it. There are urgent changes needed to the system of procuring forensic science services to address market fragility, ensure stability and maintain high quality. There is also a need for more funding to be allocated to research and development in forensic science, especially in the rapidly changing area of digital forensics.
My final point is—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
I am sorry, I have to suspend the committee for five minutes for voting.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
We resume proceedings, and I am delighted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mair, if he would benefit us by repeating the last couple of sentences or so of his remarks. Is the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there?
Lord Mair (CB) [V]
I am indeed, thank you. I was just about to conclude. My final point is this: included in the title of our report were the words “a blueprint for change”. How much of the blueprint will really materialise? There are fears that only a few of our recommendations will be implemented. Substantial change is needed across the board if forensic science is to properly assist the criminal justice system. Full confidence in its provision needs to be restored.
Lord Winston (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is to be warmly thanked for chairing the Science and Technology Select Committee so ably and for finally getting this Motion tabled. I declare that I was not a member of the committee when it produced its report, but I am now.
Forensic science in criminal justice is an extremely important topic and the recommendations of the committee are of grave concern. In this respect, it is regrettable that it has taken two years to debate this report. I suppose that one can at least say that not much has changed. We pride ourselves as a civilised society, at the heart of which is a stable democracy and a justice system which has rightly been internationally respected as a model. But it is obvious that major deficiencies have left some cruel results and great distress—or even worse—for a number of people, often entirely innocent citizens. The delay in doing something more about this is an underlying problem and it reflects extremely badly, in my view, on the Government.
I am going to address some of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has already addressed, so I will illustrate my remarks in a slightly different way. I declare an interest as a member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. Last week, the conviction of Josephine Hamilton and others was quashed on appeal. This litigation involved evidence depending on an antiquated computer system and out-of-date software. Earlier, Mr Justice Fraser, in his written judgment, which extended to 313 pages, quashed the conviction of 39 sub-postmasters on the grounds that the commercial IT system, which was sold by Horizon and Fujitsu, was unfit for purpose, in spite of the Post Office’s assertions to the contrary.
The software was based on a long-unsupported version of Windows NT4, first launched in 1996. In computer parlance that is not merely equivalent to the description of Chancery and Jarndyce in Bleak House by Dickens; it is closer to the Middle English of The Friars Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer. The software was, in spite of denial by the Post Office, subject to bugs, errors and defects. To compound the seriousness, Mr Justice Fraser pointed out:
“To see a concern expressed … that, if a software bug in Horizon were to become widely known about, it might have a potential impact upon ‘ongoing legal cases’ where the integrity of Horizon Data was a central issue is a very concerning entry to read in a contemporaneous document”—
and I agree; it shows one of the problems with these commercial interests.
There is another problem apart from the commercial interests. Most reasonably educated people think of forensic evidence with the precision and scientific certainty often given in the media—in “Line of Duty”, “Broadchurch”, “The Fall”, “True Detective”; even “The Night Of” and “Silent Witness”. This has encouraged many people, including jurors, to consider some evidence not as circumstantial but as certain. This is certainly true of much biological evidence—for example DNA, to which I will return in a moment—and even to the gait of a person, the shape of a skull, the cause of a fire or the use of a partial fingerprint. In a sense, the importance of data and its analysis, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, has now become increasingly central to the criminal justice system.
The increasing difficulty raised by the analysis of extensive data in criminal justice is well illustrated in the case of the Crown v Michael Richards, Robert Gold, Rodney Whiston-Dew and others. This commercial fraud involved over £200 million and had been initiated some 10 years earlier. It involved setting up projects promoting sham attempts at carbon sequestration overseas, a complex network of many wealthy investors, tax relief claims, offshore banking and extensive fraud involving the Inland Revenue.
During an earlier appeal heard by Sir Vivian Ramsey in 2013, the prosecution was stayed on the grounds of an abuse of process—partly because the prosecution had failed to comply with the duty of disclosure. There was a major difficulty. It is unnecessary to go into detail here, but the investigation and subsequent prosecution had required the seizure of 7 terabytes of information, 85 digital instruments and additional non-digital material, which took some years to analyse. After the devices were returned to the respondents, HMRC kept digital information on file and the respondents were then in a position to recreate the nature of their involvement.
Eventually it became clear to HMRC that the proprietary software needed to analyse all the digital information it had taken was served by FTW version 1.7 and it did not permit full optical character recognition. There were in all some 312,500 files, which were reviewed by people scrolling through thumbnail images. Subsequently, the information was migrated to a later version of FTW, version 3.4. This was equally unsatisfactory, because it required a lengthy process and there were continuing software problems. These deficiencies included, for example, the misplacement of attachments to emails.
In a subsequent hearing in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division chaired by Sir Brian Leveson in 2015, the earlier ruling was overturned. In some 33 pages, a very clearly expressed judgment was made by three judges. The appeal by the prosecution was allowed and the earlier stay was lifted. The case finally went to trial two years later, more than 10 years after HMRC had started its investigation. The key defendants were given lengthy prison sentences. The trial before Mr Justice Edis with the presentation of those data took 10 months, and it is notable that early in the trial one juror found that she was pregnant. She was finally delivered of a baby girl, Evie, before the trial finished.
Now, how much did this process cost? How much of the defrauded money was recovered? Perhaps the Minister might inform the Committee after this debate or perhaps write to me separately. With the increase in litigation involving commercial crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, and organised crime, such as trafficking or illegal use of the internet, serious investment in digital technology and constant refurbishment of hardware and software are crucial, and the need for effective machine learning and artificial intelligence, as he has maintained very clearly, is essential.
I am just a doctor; I am not a lawyer—as my imperfect description of that last case will confirm. But I did promise to return to biology and DNA before I conclude. The excellent report from the Select Committee has detailed the inadequate provision for properly set up forensic laboratories, the questionable qualifications and training of many technical staff, and the expense and problems arising when commercial companies tender for contracts with the police. One example of problems that may arise is well illustrated by the Randox débacle.
Randox Testing Services advertises on the web, as I checked this afternoon, for workplace testing, medical-legal testing and Covid-19 antibodies and PCR. I have not yet been able to find out how much it charges for this, but its website claims that it has undertaken 17% of the Government’s national Covid testing. Apparently, the police used to outsource most of their toxicology testing to it, and it is claimed that some dishonest employees in its laboratories fabricated evidence of alcohol usage and 10,500 cases, mainly involving drink-driving, are being reanalysed. The cost and delays involved in this are considerable, and this investigation is still going on two years later. Retesting is apparently taking a long time because, we are told, there is a chronic shortage of scientific expertise and accredited laboratories, leading to delays in providing toxicology analysis in unrelated cases of sexual offence and rape. This is just one example of the Select Committee’s concern about outsourced laboratory testing in inadequately supervised commercial laboratories.
I conclude on the subject of DNA. In 1988, my own lab was refining PCR, the polymerase chain reaction, then an entirely new process, to test human embryos for possible sex-linked diseases and for any one of a number of 6,000 genetic diseases that cause serious or usually fatal disease in children and young people. It required exquisite care in dealing with the DNA from just one or two human cells. Indeed, many colleagues told me that this would be quite impossible; it is now used worldwide. All DNA of that kind, whether medical or forensic, requires—[Inaudible]—months if not years in our methods and redesign of at least one laboratory.
The problem of contamination is serious; it is also true of advanced spectroscopy, for example, when one is looking at chemical analysis of toxicological samples. With DNA, a tiny tube about 1 centimetre high can be contaminated by somebody touching apparatus nearby or coughing 30 metres away from the tube. We do not know how long DNA—a stable molecule, apparently—will survive on a given surface or how long it may be contaminated on a swab. DNA analysis has now become sophisticated and automated, but mistakes are still possible, particularly in untrained hands and in inadequate laboratories. Even in well-equipped premises that can happen. Many years ago, in a totally different experiment, a colleague and I voluntarily withdrew a paper that had already been accepted by the international journal Nature because we felt unsure that we could replicate our results after lengthy storage of the DNA on which we had run gels.
It is clear from this report that forensic science, yet another area in which the UK has led, is in dire straits, due to underfunding, poor regulation, inadequate training, limited university courses, which are seen as a cash cow, and scanty meaningful research. There are too few properly qualified individuals and a very wide range of forensic specialities. This report is commendable because it clearly outlines many of the key issues. As Sir Brian Leveson, who gave evidence to this inquiry, pointed out, inadequate or flawed forensics seriously undermine the system of British justice and the trust of the public.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have been a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology at the time we undertook this investigation. In this context, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his outstanding leadership. He was relentless and courageous in getting to the root of the problem. I hope that he feels as a result that we served him well. I also thank the excellent contribution that our special adviser, Professor Ruth Morgan, made, not just when we were meeting but with what she handed out as preparation for today’s debate.
At the outset, I make one point—namely, to draw attention to the seriousness of the issue we are debating. In the United Kingdom, we live in countries that uphold the rule of law and have a legal system that aspires to deliver justice. As we wrote in the report, the integrity and accuracy of evidence is critical to ensuring public trust in our system. If that trust ever drains away, the consequences for our society will be enormous. Therefore, it is very important to stress that securing justice is really at the core of what we are doing. It is not simply about the police having a very successful record of prosecutions, entrepreneurs believing that the private sector should be intimately involved in provision or the science community feeling that the development of science is critical. What really matters is the reliability and accuracy of forensic science in providing public confidence in our system.
In this context, I shall make three points. First, we made it very clear in our report that the fundamental weakness of the current system was at the highest level—namely, to do with the relations between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Justice. We concluded that there was a lack of leadership providing a vision, strategy and agenda for the whole of the forensic science service. We said that we really need one umbrella that covers policing, the judiciary and the defence community. We heard again and again, as we have heard this afternoon, that the parent system is too fragmented, with parts entrenched in silos. As a result, the quality of forensic science is not at present fit for purpose nor up to our traditional reputation.
That recommendation, which is foundational to our report, was based on the evidence we received from Ministers, although they may not have been as blunt as I have been today, and from the Forensic Science Regulator. One week before our report was published, the Home Office published a review of forensic science, the primary focus of which was the management of the market, but in addition it said that it recognised a broader set of issues which would have a significant impact on shareholders’ confidence in the system. Then the Government, in their response to our report, mentioned that they had set up a steering committee, jointly chaired by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, but its primary focus was the operation of the market. More recently, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the Criminal Justice Board last year set up the forensic sub-group to oversee the issue.
In my judgment, all of that falls short of setting up what we were recommending—a forensic science board. I do not know why that is. It may be that the departments have other, more urgent matters of business, which I could understand, that they need more time, or that they face the challenge of persuading some of those who are in quite deep and well-protected silos of the need for change. Are the interests of the judicial system and the defence community, alongside the police, adequate to establish what we set out to achieve in this review?
A second issue I will draw attention to is the market for forensic services, which has been described today as dysfunctional and in evidence to us as unstable. This is not straightforward, but, if we look back, I believe that three trends have become apparent. One is that in-house provision by the police has kept increasing over the past 10 years, so that by now, 80% of forensic science is conducted in-house by employees of police forces, and only 20% by marketplace provision. This trend was commented on in the House of Commons report on the closure of the Forensic Science Service back in 2011, when the police had, at most, 40%. The Commons committee made a strong recommendation that it should be prevented from increasing. Clearly, since that time, it has gone on increasing.
The second trend is the charge of serious market fragility and instability. By this I think people mean that we have here a sector in which a small number of large firms are undercapitalised. Some have withdrawn or gone into administration. Little investment seems to have been made in innovation and there has been a loss of skills from the profession. When police forces join together, they act as a monopoly buyer—a monopsony—to drive down prices excessively, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, mentioned. A commoditised model for procurement that places undue weighting on price and less on quality of service means that we are not getting the kind of value for money that we are looking for. Finally, long-term contracts covering large areas will squeeze out small providers.
The third trend, which has been noticeable over recent years, is the cut to budgets. If you want a vital private sector, there must be resources in it, and those who are purchasing have to put funds into it. However, what we see here is great uncertainty over the structure and the future of investment in this business, and the question I ask myself is: if I were a private investor—which I am not—in the area of science and biotechnology and so on and knew something about the business, would I put money into this? There is so much uncertainty at present surrounding this market.
Despite these criticisms, it is important to note that in the report we make it very clear that we did not hear convincing arguments in favour of resurrecting the Forensic Science Service, which was closed down in 2012 and was a completely state-owned, commercial organisation. What we did recommend—I am delighted that the Government have taken this on board—was an expanded role for the Forensic Science Regulator, especially in relation to the procurement process, to avoid the clustering of contracts and maintain the capabilities of small providers.
The question for the Minister is: does she not feel that, if we are to have a competitive market in which there is a stream of new ideas and innovation, the extent of in-house police provision needs to be not only halted but cut back in the way that the House of Commons Select Committee was recommending 10 years ago? I do not say this from an ideological perspective. If provision by the police is more effective, so be it—let us have it. But I have a nagging suspicion that this trend will not produce the innovation that a more open marketplace would provide.
My final, brief point is on the importance of the defence community, alongside policing and alongside the courts, and the need for symmetry in funding between prosecution and defence. This point was made powerfully by one witness, barrister Carl Harrison, who said that in his career he had been commissioned by the police as the prosecuting authority 160 times and by defence counsel only three times. He concluded that this reflected the level of funding available to challenge specialist forensic evidence. The point was also made powerfully in the six letters between the Ministry of Justice and the representatives of Keith Borer Consultants that were provided for us by Ruth Morgan in advance of this debate.
The increase in funding from £35 million to £51 million is certainly welcome but, if defence-focused organisations are to be able to recruit, train and retain high-calibre individuals, more funding will be needed, and this will be another important item on the agenda of a regulator with statutory powers.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, although I was not a member of the Select Committee at the time of this inquiry, I now have the privilege of serving under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Patel, so I can say with confidence that he will have led it in a most effective and courteous way. I thank him for his superb introduction, and him and his fellow committee members for their excellent report.
I will talk about research and development in forensic science, a theme that has been touched on by other contributors, including the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, my noble friend Lord Mair and the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The committee’s report describes three important facets of the scientific basis of forensics: identifying the sources of a material or mark, for example a chemical trace; the activity levels of a material, for instance how long it might remain as a trace; and the biases in human judgment in interpreting the evidence. The report also highlights the increasing importance of digital forensics, as has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Mair and the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
This country has a distinguished history in forensic science. This includes the development in the 1830s by James Marsh of the Marsh test for arsenic poisoning; the use of fingerprints, developed by Sir William Herschel and Francis Galton in the late 19th century; and, of course, the discovery of hypervariable mini-satellite sequences—DNA fingerprinting—by Sir Alec Jeffreys, that was first used to successfully solve a double murder case in 1986. We also pioneered forensic science in the world of fiction. Arguably the most famous fictional detective of all time, Sherlock Holmes, was a master of forensic science and wrote several monographs on the subject. Furthermore, he was ahead of his time. He used fingerprint evidence in The Sign of Four, which was written 11 years before this technique was finally adopted by Scotland Yard in 1901.
Moving back from fiction to fact, it may be helpful to anchor my comments on the need for more research on forensic science with a real example. The Royal Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh have published an excellent set of primers on forensic science in practice, including one on forensic gait analysis, briefly alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The question is: can you identify a person by the way they walk, for instance as captured on CCTV footage? Although forensic gait analysis is used in courts, the primer notes:
“The scientific evidence supporting forensic gait analysis, as currently practised, is … extremely limited.”
The report goes on to say that there is “no evidence” to show that gait is unique to an individual, no credible database for assessing the frequency of abnormal gait, no published estimates of the error rates in identifying individuals by gait, and no standardised methodologies for analysis and comparison of gaits. In one small published study of the accuracy of gait identification, the failure rate among experts was a staggering 29%. In short, if gait analysis is to continue to be used in courts, more research is urgently needed. That is just one illustrative example.
In this context it is particularly concerning to read the analysis published in 2019 by Professor Ruth Morgan of UCL, who, as the Grand Committee has heard, was the specialist adviser to the committee. She reported that during the 10 years to 2019, the research councils, now under the umbrella of UKRI, invested a paltry £5.6 million per year in forensic science, which she estimates to be about 0.1% of the total budget for the research councils over this period. Furthermore, it appears that this investment is declining, from a peak of £13.5 million in 2013 to only £1.1 million in 2018. As Professor Morgan points out, less than half this spend is on dedicated forensic science research, as opposed to other research that might have implications for forensic science. It is also focused on short-term challenges, rather than on research that would build the foundations for the next generation of new forensic techniques: so-called foundational research.
One may well ask whether £5.6 million a year is a big or a small sum of money, bearing in mind the breadth of themes that it covers, including digital and cyber science, analytical chemistry, molecular genetics, imaging, psychology, statistics and linguistics. Well, one way to consider whether £5.6 million a year is a small or big sum is to put it in the context of the overall cost of crime in this country, estimated by the Home Office to be in the region of £59 billion per year. Perhaps another illustration of the relative size of £5.6 million per year spent on research is to note that, according to a 2015 estimate, Transport for London spends roughly twice this amount each year dealing with graffiti. In short, £5.6 million seems a very small number.
This small and apparently declining investment in forensic science by UKRI must also be viewed in the context of the marketisation of forensic services, already referred to by my noble friends Lord Patel and Lord Mair, and by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. According to Professor Morgan’s analysis, this marketisation has had a cascade of negative consequences for forensic research. It has resulted in restrictions on dissemination of new tools because companies view their discoveries as commercial and confidential, a dramatic decline in the size of the market, with a reduction of more than 60% in spend on forensic science services, and a lack of investment by the private sector in research.
It is against this background that the Select Committee made two recommendations relating to research and development. First, it recommended the creation of a national institute for forensic science within the UKRI family to set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development and to co-ordinate and direct research funding. In their reply, the Government said:
“We will carefully consider the business case for a National Institute”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and my noble friend Lord Mair interpreted this as a polite form of rejection of the idea.
Secondly, the committee recommended:
“Current levels of investment in forensic science research are inadequate and do not appear to reflect value to the criminal justice system. We believe that the Home Office has abdicated its responsibility for research in forensic science. We recommend that UK Research and Innovation urgently and substantially increase the amount of dedicated funding allocated to forensic science for both technological advances and foundational research, with a particular focus on digital forensic science evidence and the opportunities to develop further capabilities in artificial intelligence and machine learning.”
In their reply to this recommendation, the Government said that they would
“ensure that policing and the CJS benefit from advances in science and technology by developing and implementing new forensic techniques more coherently.”
They added:
“The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are focussed on developing an even stronger working relationship with UKRI as we work with them and other strategic partners to develop and set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development.”
The Government’s response, however, makes no reference to either foundational research or evaluative interpretation.
In closing, will the Minister update us on her response to these two recommendations? Have the Government concluded their careful consideration of the case for a national institute for forensic science and, if so, what did they decide? Has there been an increase in the amount of public funding of forensic science research and has this included more funding for foundational research, as recommended by the Select Committee in its excellent report?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Science and Technology Committee for its work in producing this excellent report, its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his masterly exposition of what the report is all about and, of course, the committee’s staff who have been so incredibly helpful in briefing Peers ahead of this debate.
I will now exhibit my worst character defect, according to some of my friends, and say that I was not a member of the Science and Technology Committee, but I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority for the 12 years of its existence from 2000 onwards. As soon as the idea of privatising the national Forensic Science Service was floated, I made a speech in which I said, “This is a mistake and it will cause all sorts of problems”. Well, I told you so—rather I told them so. I was very unhappy when it finally went ahead.
The worrying thing that underpins all this, across the forensic sector, committee and the Government, is the acceptance that miscarriages of justice have occurred as a result of the failures, changes and inconsistencies in the way that forensic science is conducted. That innocent people may have been found guilty and guilty people may have been found innocent should worry everyone in this country because it undermines the whole justice system and the rule of law. I am yet to see any serious reflection from the Government on the implications of this or any attempt to ensure that these injustices are remedied.
I will come back to this issue, and I would like the Minister to explain what conversations the Government have had with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to trawl through these past cases and ensure that any forensic errors are put right and that anyone wrongly convicted has their conviction overturned. This work should be conducted using government funds and should not be constrained by the availability of individuals’ funds or legal aid.
The Government’s response to the report, specifically on legal aid, sadly expresses that they are
“not aware of legally aided defendants being denied access to forensic testing and expert advice for funding reasons.”
Will the Minister expand on the basis of that assertion? Is it founded on ignorance or have they gone out of their way to seek examples of legal aid limits getting in the way of justice? I ask this because some Peers had an email from a forensics organisation that mostly does legal aid criminal defence work. It says that, while the three main laboratories that work with the police have had significant increases in funding recently, there has not been a corresponding increase in funding for the defence. It says that it has tried to engage with the Government about legal aid funding, but to no avail, for example, on the arbitrary limit on travel time of four hours. This does not tally with the Government’s claim that people are being denied access to the forensic science that they need to prove their innocence.
To conclude, I believe that it is impossible to separate forensic science from the wider undermining of criminal justice funding that has occurred during 11 years of Conservative cuts. At the beginning, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said that somebody gave evidence that a national crisis brought us to this point, but it was not; political decisions by the Conservative Government made it clear that we would take this route. The Government have treated people’s innocence as an unaffordable and optional luxury, rather than the underpinning of the fabric of society’s trust in the justice system. When people realise that innocent people can go to jail and guilty people can go free because of failures in the system that the Government have allowed to happen, the whole system is doomed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn, so, I now call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, it was a great privilege to have been co-opted to this committee for this inquiry, and a privilege, pleasure and education to serve under the wise and far-sighted leadership of my noble friend Lord Patel.
During the course of the evidence, it was sad to hear that the respect in which the leadership the UK had shown in forensic science had declined so rapidly. Only a few years before, that leadership had been celebrated at a conference organised by the Royal Society, which demonstrated that the UK was then significantly ahead of several states and of the leaders in the field, which are acknowledged to be Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States. I had hoped that this report would provide the opportunity for the UK to regain that lead, particularly as a result of serious issues relating to forensic science that had arisen in the United States under the leadership of its then President.
The report concluded that the failings in the system were due to three matters: lack of high-level leadership, lack of funding, and insufficient research and development. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave a perfect overview, and I join him in tributes to those who advised the committee. Other noble Lords have dealt with other issues, in particular the market, AI and miscarriages of justice. I will confine my remarks to leadership, and to research and development. I appreciate that the criminal justice system’s focus over the last year and a half has been on dealing with the problems brought about by Covid-19, but forensic science is essential to justice and nothing can excuse a failure to plan ahead now to restore its position.
I therefore turn first to the need for high-level leadership. I tried to find out what has happened since the Government’s response to the report in July 2019. The criminal justice board publishes its minutes. The minutes of July 2020—the last I was able to find—said this. They are short, so I can quote them:
“Forensics: Stocktake 2020 … The LORD CHANCELLOR spoke about the importance of forensics within the CJS and was pleased to receive an update from the Forensics Sub-Group to the CJB which is jointly chaired by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office.
BARONESS WILLIAMS OF TRAFFORD noted that the Sub-Group had identified the need for the Forensic Science Regulator to become a statutory body.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thanked the Sub-Group for all their work and invited Board members to provide further comments, outside of the meeting, on the paper presented.”
If I may respectfully say so, I am afraid that is not very informative as to progress over a year.
More seriously, the criminal justice board has much else to do. In the years I served on it or went to its meetings, which was shortly after its formation until I retired as Lord Chief Justice, it was not the kind of body, nor was any sub-group, that was effective on the detailed issues that require great expertise and knowledge of science and the law with which this issue is concerned. However, more serious is the problem that the work on forensic science needs to be independent and accountable. The minutes show how unaccountable it is because there is no explanation of what it does, and it cannot be regarded as independent. Forensic science needs to serve the police, the prosecution, the defence and the interests of justice. It is very difficult to see what the criminal justice board sub-group has done on that first issue.
The second thing, which is about to happen, is putting the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis. Dr Gillian Tully was an excellent regulator. She retired two months ago—she was a pleasure to work with and achieved a great deal. Her most recent achievement was dealing with the very difficult subject of standards for evaluating opinions, which play such a large role in the evaluation of forensic evidence. There is an interim regulator, but when is the new regulator to be appointed? When will the Government look seriously at its powers? That is the key issue. Although the regulator’s role is key, it is not that of leadership. It is to ensure quality and accreditation, and that the market functions efficiently. It is not independent and it cannot provide the holistic leadership of scientific research required in our system.
I look forward to hearing that much more may have been done, but I could not find it. Maybe that is due to my inability to trawl the records in sufficient detail, but I could find no explanation elsewhere. I very much look forward to what the Minister can say about progress. The UK needs to be back at the top of the league, and it can do that only with holistic leadership of the kind set out in the report.
The second aspect I briefly refer to is the need for proper funding of independent forensic research. Again, I refer to just two areas: digital and DNA. It is clear from the evidence received by the committee and from evidence I received when chairing the Welsh Government’s Commission on Justice in Wales that digital forensics remains a major issue. Indeed, it has been an issue for the last nine years. Two things have gone hand in hand: the increased power of mobile devices and their ability to store so much, and the increased use of them to communicate in permanent record things that would never have been recorded before, which comes as a surprise to many. They are therefore essential to the administration of justice—not only for establishing guilt but for showing that conduct that may be complained about was innocent.
The use of digital forensics is important to the deterrence of crime through successful prosecution, the confidence of victims in the system, as assurances about the way information is contained in phones is critical, and, equally importantly, the proper use of police time. For example, in commercial litigation, increasingly sophisticated and independently reliable software has made a very significant difference. It extracts and searches properly and reliably. As far as I can ascertain, there are still serious issues with what needs to be done to tackle these matters—extraction and particular searching—so that something reliable is available to the police, the prosecution and the defence, which is so critical to the three issues to which I have referred. There are other aspects, including AI, facial recognition and deepfake, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has spoken and which underline the urgent need to address an area that requires significant leadership and investment.
DNA has been essential to the criminal justice system since the 1990s. It has made a significant contribution to the conviction of the guilty and, equally importantly, the exoneration of the innocent. It has been a journey not without its problems: low-template DNA brought about serious miscarriages of justice in the way in which it was first used, and mixed and partial profiles and transfers have been a real problem. Much has been done; the Royal Society has led with a primer on this subject, which is parallel to the one spoken of a short while ago. But as I understand it, there are issues with mixed and partial profiles and transfers, and much more needs to be done. These are but two examples of the need for development and research—and it is development and research that are both scientifically independent and not dependent on police budgets.
The forensic science budget, to the extent that it is now largely in the hands of the police, must be looked at again. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, stated, I very much hope that the Minister is able to tell us a bit more about what UKRI has been doing, what advice it is taking and what it is going to do to bring investment to these vital areas.
Let me look at a way forward. I hope that the way forward will be by government action. In March 2011, the Law Commission produced an excellent report on expert evidence and draft legislation. Two years later, the Government said they would not bring forward a Bill and, therefore, made it clear that it was up to others—leave the law as it is, or look for change. All the reforms envisaged by the Law Commission were then brought about by the Criminal Procedure Rules, much to the benefit of the criminal justice system, and they worked.
The report we have been speaking of is the 10th in 10 years. As far as I can ascertain, nothing much has happened, although I hope the Minister will be able to tell us otherwise. It may be that it is because structures are not devised to be accountable or informative. However, forensic science is essential to justice, as the speech of each of your Lordships has shown, and it is essential to keep the UK at the forefront of world leadership in science and the law.
I trust that Her Majesty’s Government will not fail in restoring the position, but if they do, I hope that we will be able to find an example similar to that which was taken in relation to the report of the Law Commission and find another way to put into operation this excellent report, if Her Majesty’s Government feel unwilling or unable to do so.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I often start speeches by saying that it is an honour to follow this or that noble Lord, but I have to say that it is absolutely a great honour to follow the expertise that we have heard already, led off by the outstanding speech by the noble Lord, Lord Patel—a counterpoint to his outstanding leadership of the committee in producing this report.
We are here today to celebrate the second birthday of this report. It was published in April 2019, when I was a member of the Science and Technology Committee. The Government responded in July 2019, and it is safe to say that some water has passed under the bridge since that summer. The first thing was the general election in 2019 and then, of course, Covid. The general election means that in fact the Government are a different Conservative Government from the one who made the initial response, although I note that the Minister has remained the same. I therefore assume that the Minister stands by the response that was made by that different Conservative Government and that we are not, as in other cases, dealing with a distancing.
When it comes to the pandemic, the criminal justice system has, like all aspects of public life, come under extreme pressure. The backdrop for discussing this could hardly be more difficult, and that is not only because of the virus. The Lords Constitution Committee set out the issues last month. The pandemic, it said, has left the court system in England and Wales in “crisis”, with a backlog of cases that could take years to clear. Importantly, it also said that a decade of cuts has meant that the court system was already in a “vulnerable” state when the disease outbreak occurred last year. It continued:
“Without adequate resources, technology or guidance, our much cherished justice system remains at risk.”
That report very much reinforces the situation that we are discussing today about the forensic science service. I hope that Covid is not used as an excuse for where we are now.
In their response to the report, the Government were clear:
“The Government agrees that the ‘delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of evidence’.”
They also said that
“our top priority is to prevent miscarriages of justice.”
Those are both very reassuring comments but, of course, without willing the means, they are quite flimsy. We should therefore ask the Minister whether she thinks the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that evidence is as accurate as possible and whether they are doing all they can to avoid miscarriages of justice. If the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is frank, as she usually is, I am sure she will be able to indicate that there is work to be done, and it would be important to indicate what the timeline for that work is. Not to put too fine a point on it, as other noble Lords have mentioned, more often than not, justice hinges on forensic evidence. If the evidence is inaccurate or inadequate, justice is compromised, and, as many of your Lordships have said, once confidence in the evidence goes, confidence in the whole justice system is compromised, and that is central to our democracy.
I hasten to add that, thanks to the dedication and hard work of many practitioners, that terrible situation is largely avoided. But I ask the Minister: what about the environment these people work in? Does it have the finance it needs? Does it have leadership? Does it have a structured approach to standards? Is it doing the necessary work to embrace the future? Is there equal access to necessary services?
Many of these points have been covered by other noble Lords, so I apologise for some repetition, but I am going to take each of them in turn. There will be many questions; indeed, there already have been. I hope the Minister will undertake not just to answer as many as possible in her verbal response, but to answer them in writing, and to publish the answers in the Library. She is nodding, which is very helpful.
First, does the forensic science service have the finance it needs? We have heard what the Constitution Committee said about the whole justice system, and of course the forensic science service has not escaped. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, in 2010 some £120 million was spent on forensic science, but in 2019 that had dropped to £50 million to £55 million. Can the Minister tell us what the budget for this year and next year is?
In the Government’s response on the issue of market stability, the role of a special team set up by the National Police Chiefs’ Council within the forensics capability network was highlighted. That team, they said, was going to co-operate across police forces and
“manage commercial strategy; manage contracts; co-ordinate capability building and provides long-range demand forecasts.”
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who is sitting opposite me, knows more about markets than most people, and I hope that the Minister will study carefully his critique of this situation. I had written down, “This is a good way of creating a more effective monopsony”—and that is exactly what is happening. It does not help the structure of the service providers one iota.
What has this body actually done? How many police forces have now bought into the network—and, by exclusion, how many have not bought in? What concrete initiatives have we seen over the past two years in terms of the market, and market structure? How do the Government assess the stability of the market—or who do they rely on to make that assessment for them? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who said that some private sector companies had adapted their services to the Covid situation. We need to study this on pure forensic service terms.
The Government also committed to provide
“all budget holders with data and measures to assess the impact of forensics spend on outcomes in the criminal justice system.”
I find that a very intriguing sentence. What outcomes are being targeted? Is it pounds per conviction, or what? What data, what measures, are the Government providing to budget holders, and when will those measures and that data be published?
The second issue is leadership. We have heard categorically from many speakers how our proposal for the creation of a forensic science board was designed to create strategic focus. I am not surprised that Her Majesty’s Government damned the idea with faint praise—or rather, with no praise at all. What they offer instead is an alphabet soup. We have the MoJ, the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Forensic Capability Network, the College of Policing, the criminal justice boards, UKAS, the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, UKRI, the Forensic Science Regulator and, of course, all the companies in the private sector providing the service. I am sure I have missed some out. I have one simple question for the Minister: in the regrettable instance of a miscarriage of justice due to a problem with the forensic evidence, where does accountability lie? With whom does the buck stop?
My third question is: does forensics have a structured approach to standards? In this area I am uncharacteristically optimistic, or I have been led to be optimistic by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, who set out the work the regulator is doing with UKAS. However, as other noble Lords have said, the regulator needs the powers and the resources. It would be helpful if the Minister could say where those resources are going to come from—because if they came from a levy, that would be levying an already impoverished sector.
Is the forensic service doing the necessary work to embrace the future? That is a debate unto itself, and we have heard phenomenal contributions from some of your Lordships. The Government’s response raises the prospect of a document that the Forensic Capability Network is creating, a five-year road map to prioritise rapid development in key areas such as DNA and digital innovation. I looked for this document and could not find it. Does it exist? If it does not, can the Minister confirm which five years it is supposed to cover? If it does, can he explain where we might find it?
Finally, is there equal access to the necessary services? This is the most vital single issue. Without equal access, we do not have equal access to justice and without justice we do not have democracy. The report set out the issue of access to forensics for defendants, particularly those on legal aid. As we have heard, the Government said that they were not aware of legally aided defendants being denied access to forensic testing and expert advice for funding reasons. That flies in the face of the evidence that we heard. The chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, set out a clear case as to why the Government should be concerned about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, talked about asymmetry in the market, and there is a very important asymmetry that we have not talked about yet in detail. It concerns the availability of service, and here I cite none other than the website of the Forensic Science Network itself. On the homepage of the network—and in a minute we will remind ourselves how important it is to the Government—it says:
“Welcome to the new network for forensic science in England and Wales, supporting more than 4,000 specialists with critical services, advice and technology.”
So far, so good. We then come to the strapline:
“FCN is the UK’s largest forensic science network—for policing, by policing.”
Watch those words. It reinforces this elsewhere, as is clear if you dive into the question of its purpose. It says that it
“provides much of the evidence that can identify and bring offenders to justice.”
It characterises forensics in that way, while I and the rest of the committee characterise forensics as bringing justice to a court proceeding. That is not the line the FCN takes.
Let us remind ourselves that this is the FCN that is tasked to set out strategies, as we have heard earlier, and that is managing the market for forensics. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke about the need for independence. This is in no shape or form independence. An independent forensic service is one way of going about gaining that independence; this report goes another way and talks about having a structure that delivers independence. I conclude that this service has not delivered, and not just because of financial starvation; structurally, there is a big problem in the middle of the way this service is delivered, and the Government should very carefully look at this debate and this report.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee on the report, which is very clear in its message, findings and recommendations. Just over a month ago, we had the Second Reading debate on the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. During that debate the noble Lord referred to the Science and Technology Committee, as its chairman, and the report we are now discussing. He said that the regulator Bill, which he supported and welcomed, was nevertheless a
“missed opportunity for the Government to address other issues in relation to forensic science and its use in the criminal justice system. The quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales are inadequate”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 591.]
The noble Lord has repeated that statement today. What were those other issues and why is the quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales inadequate?
During the debate last month, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked what role the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would play in the governance of the forensic science service, as there was, he said, a lack of leadership. The noble Lord also said that there was an increasingly dysfunctional forensic science market, that the quality of forensic science needed bolstering and that research and development in forensic science was underresourced and lacked co-ordination. He said that the United Kingdom used to be regarded as the world leader in forensic science technologies and innovation, but that we are now regarded as a place where not to look, including in digital forensics, where the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of the requirements continues to grow. Today, the noble Lord has also referred to the impact of budget cuts, reorganisations, cuts to legal aid and exponential growth.
In the Second Reading debate on the regulator Bill, my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, who was also a member of the Science and Technology Committee, referred to the instability of larger providers, the patchiness in availability of specialists and niche providers, and the lack of a strategic overview of future skills and staff requirements—all pretty damning observations, many if not all of which have been repeated in speeches today.
In their response to the debate last month, the Government said that the decision to close the Forensic Science Service in 2012 was taken because it was losing an estimated £2 million a month. As with the ill-fated probation service reorganisation, it looks as though the Government paid scant regard to the effectiveness, stability and suitability of the alternative arrangements that were introduced—hence, we are in the position we are in today, with inadequate forensic science provision in the criminal justice system.
I quote the last paragraph of the summary of the committee’s report:
“Unless these failings are recognised and changes made, public trust in forensic science evidence will continue to be lost and confidence in the justice system will be threatened. Crimes may go unsolved and the number of miscarriages of justice may increase. Furthermore, world leading specialist expertise will be under-used, and England and Wales may never regain its reputation as holding the international benchmark for forensic science. This report follows others that have raised similar concerns, yet the changes that are necessary have not been made, despite acknowledgements that they would be. Forensic science in England and Wales is in trouble. To ensure the delivery of justice, the time for action is now.”
Yet, there seems to be no shortage of bodies, organisations and programmes involved in forensic science services—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, drew attention to. That is possibly part of the problem.
The Government’s July 2019 nine-page response to the report refers to the Forensic Science Regulator, UK Research and Innovation, Home Office Science, the Forensics Policy Steering Group, the Criminal Justice Board, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the forensic science strategy, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Forensics Capability Network, police and crime commissioners, the Legal Aid Agency, local criminal justice boards, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences, the regulator’s advisory council, the Royal Society, the Transforming Forensics programme, the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, the digital investigation and intelligence programme and the College of Policing, in addition to police forces, providers and criminal justice system stakeholders.
The Science and Technology Committee report we are discussing refers to the problems highlighted by noble Lords today and during the Second Reading debate on the Forensic Science Regulator Bill last month. However, as has been said, the report was published exactly two years ago this coming Saturday. The Government’s response to the committee’s report was published in July 2019—one and three quarter years ago. I may be in a minority, but I do not see how the role and effectiveness of this House is enhanced by that kind of delay in discussing one of our own committee’s reports.
The only benefit that the lengthy delay had is that it makes it more difficult for the Government credibly simply to tell us what they intend to do in response to the report, as opposed to what they actually have or have not done, and what specific improvements have already actually been delivered over the last one and three quarter years since they published their response. I will look for the Government to spell out what specific improvements there have actually been in the provision and delivery of forensic science in the light of the recommendations made and problem areas identified by the committee in their report beyond the completion of the passage of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill.
During the debate last month, the Government referred to the presentation of plans to the Criminal Justice Board; setting out four key pillars of a forensic science reform programme; work being progressed with the Ministry of Justice, the regulator’s office and other stakeholders; investing £28.6 million to accelerate innovation and combat crime; providing police forces with specialist support functions; publishing a digital forensic science strategy; developing a workforce strategy; and supporting the Forensic Science Regulator Bill—something they said they would do five years ago. The impression I got from that government response last month is that, over the last two years, there have been no actual specific improvements to the inadequate quality and delivery of forensic science in the criminal justice system as identified and spelled out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report.
If I am wrong in saying that, could the Government, either in their response today or subsequently in writing, spell out what those measurable, specific improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science have been over the last two years that have addressed issues identified by the committee in their report? If I am basically right in saying what I did, could the Government, either in their response today or subsequently in writing, spell out what measurable specific improvements to the inadequate quality and delivery of forensic science in the criminal justice system identified and spelled out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report they are now committed to introducing, implementing and achieving, and within what specific timescale?
Too much of the Government’s written response in July 2019 and in the debate last month seemed to be about changing the way things are done, rather than a commitment to delivering specific, clearly identifiable and measurable improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science in England and Wales, which the committee’s report said was inadequate. The Government said in the conclusion of their response in July 2019 at paragraph 24:
“Through implementation of the joint-review of forensic science and its ongoing consideration of their Lordships’ recommendations, the Government expects the provision of forensic science into the criminal justice system to be significantly strengthened. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are jointly responsible for bringing about the collaboration, investment and oversight required to make this happen.”
If the Government are confident that what they intend to do will deliver specific, clearly identifiable and measurable improvements in the quality and delivery of forensic science services, they should set out what those improvements will be, how they will be measured and within what timescale. It is called being accountable. If they cannot, how can we or they judge in the future whether their response to the issues the Science and Technology Committee has said need addressing has actually delivered? Like other noble Lords, I await the Government’s response, including the extent to which they do or do not intend to implement the recommendations in the committee’s report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this vital debate. I also thank the Science and Technology Committee for its very thorough inquiry into forensic science, and for its subsequent report. If I may, I will go through the tenets of the report and the questions arising from it today.
The report was clear—my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke enthusiastically about this—that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice needed to provide joint leadership in forensic science, and that the governance needs to inspire effective collaboration and co-operation across operationally independent bodies. As a direct result of your Lordships’ report we created a steering group, jointly chaired by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It soon became an official sub-group of the criminal justice board, reporting to the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General. The sub-group is delivering a vital reform programme, which I will come to later, but this spirit of co-operation has strengthened over the last two years. Its work is ongoing and it meets every six weeks.
To reiterate, this Government are committed to protecting the public and keeping our streets safe. Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools for investigating crime. The successful prosecution of county lines drugs gangs, sexual offences and violent crimes often depends on high-quality forensics, including digital forensics and DNA analysis. We should always remember the Stephen Lawrence case. It was only because British scientists were able to detect and analyse a drop of blood measuring less than 1mm in diameter that his family was finally able to achieve some measure of justice.
Despite everything said this afternoon, this country has some of the world’s best forensic scientists, both in public law enforcement and within the private sector. Every day, their expertise is deployed to solve crime and deliver justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about comparators with other countries, particularly across Europe. When compared to nine other networks of forensic science institute state labs across Europe, the turnaround time in England and Wales using comparable metrics is world-leading. The turnaround time for drugs casework in England and Wales is 21 days; elsewhere, it is 24 days. For DNA casework, in England and Wales it is 10 days; elsewhere it is 43 days. We really should commend our forensic scientists here in the UK on their ability to turn things round.
I also welcome the significant efforts made by those involved in this work to markedly improve turnaround times. As noble Lords have pointed out, however, forensic science has faced challenges in recent years, including constrained resources—as I think all noble Lords have said—and an exponential growth in the volume of new sources of evidence, such as digital material. To answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others we have taken steps to address this by investing over £28 million in 2020-21 in the Transforming Forensics programme and a further £25.6 million in 2021-22 to continue to strengthen forensics services for policing, including digital forensics, which the noble Lord, Lord Mair, spoke about. We helped to set up the police-led Forensic Capability Network and our investment in it is bringing some much-needed stability to the commercial market.
When it comes to quality, the former forensic science regulator worked closely with all partners to establish standards for the collection, analysis and presentation of evidence. These are established in the regulator’s codes of practice. Adherence to these codes, whether partners are employed by police forces or privately contracted, plays a key role in ensuring that the evidence used in investigations and presented to court can be relied on—which noble Lords have underlined this afternoon.
The former regulator rightly highlighted in her most recent, and final, annual report, as well as in discussion with my department, that the inability to enforce those standards has resulted in slower progress towards compliance with quality standards across the forensic community. I agree. That is why we fully supported legislation to give the regulator the power to enforce quality standards as a last resort, and to take action when it has reason to believe that substandard forensic science activities are creating a substantial risk to the course of justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about the Randox case. Obviously, it is subject to an investigation at the moment so I will not talk about it. But the legislation we supported is a very specific improvement that I know the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the Committee, will agree with. I know that there are noble Lords and others who think that the legislation did not go far enough. We do not claim that giving the regulator these important statutory powers will, on their own, be enough to address all the issues currently facing the provision of forensic science—not at all. Nevertheless, it represents a significant milestone in the delivery of quality forensic services in England and Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for successfully stewarding the Bill though the House.
To address the point the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made, there is of course more to do. That is why we are working with the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator, policing, the Attorney-General’s office and other key stakeholders to deliver our forensic science reform programme. That programme was agreed by the Criminal Justice Board in July last year. It will make good on the commitments set out in the joint review of forensics provision implementation plan published in 2019, and will go some way to tackling the issues identified in the committee’s excellent report. The reform programme is organised around four pillars to deliver strategic oversight and leadership across the criminal justice system for the future of forensics.
The first pillar is police capabilities. In 2021-22 we are providing £25.6 million in funding to the police-led Transforming Forensics programme, as I said, so that it can continue to build the Forensic Capability Network to provide specialist support functions to forces such as increased capacity in digital forensics, particularly in child sexual exploitation investigations.
The second pillar is regulation of provision. I have already spoken about the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. We are also providing a clear legal framework for the extraction of information from digital devices belonging to victims and witnesses through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We will provide guidance on the use of this power through a statutory code of practice. We will also consider the legal framework for suspects through the response to the Law Commission report on search warrants.
The third pillar is criminal justice system capabilities. The MoJ is working to increase the transparency of expert witness credentials and ensure that defendants have equal access to experts. To answer my noble friend Lord Griffiths’ question, the CPS and Judicial Office, together with other key stakeholders, are helping to oversee and deliver on this important strand through their membership of the forensics subgroup.
The fourth pillar is research and development. Home Office Science and the Forensic Capability Network are working together to identify current and future research needs and to design and implement a research and development model to meet the needs of the sector. Home Office Science has developed strategic mapping of potential funding routes for forensic science research and development. In addition, the Forensics Capability Network has developed working groups across the sector to inform the research strategy and development of capability road maps for forensic disciplines. Taken with the legislation to give the Forensic Science Regulator statutory powers, we think that this reform programme represents a joined-up and concerted effort to address the issues facing forensic science in England and Wales.
Those are, basically, the tenets of the report; I now turn to specific questions. If I do not get to any of the questions that noble Lords asked—there were quite a lot of very sensible questions—I will follow up in writing, as I usually do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about training, and I agree with her. But, of course, the police are operationally independent, and we cannot dictate on this as a Government. However, the statutory regulator can investigate labs, including police labs—which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned—that fall short of standards.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about the accreditation of services; this is tied up with powers for the regulator. By having statutory investigatory powers, she will be able to take action against providers who fail to get accreditation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, asked about the procurement model. The forensics subgroup has representation from the Association of Forensic Science Providers and the commercial arm of policing’s Forensic Capability Network so that market issues and procurement are discussed.
On my noble friend Lord Griffiths’ question about police provision, again, they are operationally independent. It is for them and the PCCs to decide what is best, and they can best determine what is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about the national institute. I will write to provide a more fulsome response, if he is okay with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made absolutely the right point about evidence being as accurate as possible—we do not have an effective criminal justice system if it is not. I think that giving the regulator statutory powers will drive up quality standards and help ensure the accuracy of evidence. The MoJ is leading on work to ensure that forensic science is properly presented in court. On the budget, we will work closely with the regulator’s office to ensure that it gets the resources it needs. We assess the stability of the market via the subgroup, and the Home Office and the MoJ are accountable for this. I will write on some of the other points that the noble Lord made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, alluded to the Forensic Science Service that closed in 2012. They did point out, of course, that it was losing £2 million a month of taxpayers’ money. While that is not a reason for its closure, there were repeated failings in addition that led to multiple case reviews and retesting programmes. The move has brought benefits. Commercial provision has had a significant positive impact on the delivery of forensic science, including increased resilience, faster turnaround times and reduced costs. I read the report thoroughly and I noted that the committee did recognise that a return to the FSS was not a desirable way forward, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out. We are now more joined-up than we were in 2019.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Rosser, referred to budgets continuing to be under pressure while the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of its requirements continue to grow. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referenced the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talking about this at last month’s Second Reading of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. Our forensic science reform programme recognises that the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of its requirements continue to grow. That is why I am pleased that the NPCC published its Digital Forensic Science Strategy last summer, and that we invested more than £28 million in 2020-21 in the transforming forensics programme, with a further £25.6 million to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the cost to defendants of getting a second opinion on forensic evidence being greater than the legal aid budget will fund, meaning that there is the potential for unsafe convictions as evidence cannot be effectively challenged in court. Legal aid regulations prescribe the maximum rates that are payable to forensic scientists and other experts, but these rates can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. The Ministry of Justice is currently working to increase the transparency of expert witness credentials and ensure that defendants have equal access to experts.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I think another noble Lord on the committee talked about the regulator working 3.75 days a week. The regulator is currently defined as a part-time role, but we recognise that they will have a higher workload as a result of the legislation, and there will be additional recruitment to the regulator’s office to meet this need.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who raised concerns about unqualified individuals being able to pass themselves off as experts in court when their credentials may be in doubt. I agree with her concerns, and the powers contained in the Forensic Science Regulator Bill will enable the regulator to publish lists of those unsuitable to be instructed as experts.
There was a final question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel: where in the Government does accountability lie for the quality of provision of forensic science services to assist the justice system? It is a joint effort by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, but, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about who the buck ultimately stops with, it stops with the Home Office: that is the straight answer to a straight question.
Before I finish, I will just thank Gillian Tully—other members of the committee have also done this—for her excellent work and dedication to the role. I hope that her replacement will be just as good as she was.
I thank the committee and I will follow up any questions I have not answered in writing.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I also thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful, measured and excellent contributions. This has been one of the best debates I have heard or taken part in in recent days. In response, it is not in my nature to be confrontational, and I shall not be, and the Minister’s response showed that much of the work is in progress. She also suggested that the Government had taken note of some of our recommendations and are finding a way to take them forward. I hope that is correct, because she has heard all the contributions today, which were not only powerful but well-meaning and supportive.
I think there is a recognition that the way in which the forensic science service serves the criminal justice system needs to be looked at. If that is the message I am getting from the Minister today, I am satisfied. Of course, that gives the Science and Technology Committee an opportunity, especially as the report is now two years old, to revisit the subject—maybe in about 18 months’ time—with a short follow-up report. We may well do that, but for today I simply thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in this excellent debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Baroness O’Cathain
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of our very good and valued friend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain—Detta O’Cathain—on 23 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and all her friends.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Denham
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of another good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his long and much-valued service to the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I want briefly to acknowledge what the Lord Speaker has just announced and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Denham on the notification of his retirement from this House.
Lord Denham became a Member of this House in 1949 and has served with us for over 71 years. On his retirement, he was the longest-serving Member of the House. My noble friend had an admirable career, serving in the Governments of Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and culminating in an impressive 12-year term as Government Chief Whip. He was devoted to this House, knew it backwards and served it well. I know your Lordships will join me in thanking him again for his long and distinguished service to the House and to the country.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them brief and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Industrial Strategy: Local Growth
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornhill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Annual Report by the Industrial Strategy Council, published on 23 March, which recommended the development of local strategies to deliver sustainable local growth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The work of the Industrial Strategy Council to date has been pivotal for the success of the industrial strategy. As we begin to transition into our plan for growth, the work of the council, including reflections in its annual report, will be taken into account. We are working with local enterprise partnerships, mayoral combined authorities and other local partners to build on the priorities identified through local industrial strategies. We will also address new issues which have arisen since their publication.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. One wonders why, if it was so pivotal, the council is being disbanded. The report is critical of the Government’s proposed approach to levelling up, which it argues is over-reliant on big infrastructure projects and centrally controlled pots of funding spread far too thinly over too short a time. Does the Minister agree with significant historical and international research that such a centralised approach rarely works? Can he confirm whether the forthcoming, much awaited devolution White Paper will provide an opportunity to reverse this trend and provide a far more effective way forward?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will continue to work on the levelling-up agenda, building on the strength of many places. We encourage those places to consider key sectors, assets and clusters that they want to support to foster their long-term growth ambitions, building on the strong evidence base and the brilliant work done to date by many places across the country.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following on from that question, can I ask the Minister to set out the ways in which the innovation, productivity and wealth-creation capacity of sectors of the economy that are not the direct responsibility of BEIS, such as the creative industries, will be engaged at a local level in the delivery of the plan for growth?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Lord has been a long-term champion of the creative industries, and I agree with him. We recognise the importance of the creative sectors. In Build Back Better: Our Plan for Growth, creative industries are highlighted as one of the sectors that we expect to shape the UK’s economic future. Upgrading and creating new cultural and creative spaces represents a core element of the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
The Industrial Strategy Council’s annual report points out that the Government’s plans
“are not yet a practical roadmap for delivering Net Zero, with several areas at present lacking the required scale to make progress at the required speed”.
Housing retrofit is one such area. Will the Government accept the recommendation of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee’s recent report on energy efficiency to open up the proposed £3.8 billion social housing upgrades? It is estimated that green home upgrades could support 77,000 jobs across the north alone. That is levelling up.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. The £62 million social housing decarbonisation fund demonstrator is currently delivering 19 projects across England and Scotland. In the autumn 2020 spending review we committed a further £60 million towards funding the main elements of the social housing decarbonisation fund to ensure some early progress and, of course, we are still committed to the manifesto commitment of £3.8 billion for the funding total.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, the report by the Industrial Strategy Council, which was appointed by the Government and consists of a number of distinguished businesspeople, points out that, whether it is called an industrial strategy or a plan for growth, the basic premise is the same: a programme of supply-side policies to drive prosperity in and across the economy. Does my noble friend agree, and, if so, what are those supply-side policies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In the new plan for growth that the noble Lord refers to, we have decided that the Industrial Strategy Council in its current form will no longer be needed to monitor and evaluate the impact of the industrial strategy. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have convened a build back better business council to act as a sounding board and to provide help, advice and support on the way forward.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, the ISC report urges the Government to develop a comprehensive and ambitious labour market strategy, co-ordinated across government, employers and the education sector. What plans do the Government have for such an overarching strategy and for overseeing how their various skills-related initiatives mesh together to deliver a skilled and resilient workforce across the UK as needed by the plan for growth, and to close the future skills gap highlighted by the ISC?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right that skills are one of our key priorities for investment, along with infrastructure and innovation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary have asked Sir Michael Barber to conduct a rapid review of government delivery, including in the skills system, to ensure that it remains focused, effective and efficient and to suggest how it could be strengthened.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Industrial Strategy Council’s most recent annual report suggested that, for levelling up to succeed, it needed to include consideration of devolution. How much thought have the Government given to further devolution in their industrial strategy? Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in convening the build back better business council and who will lead its work? Is it always the case that pivotal councils, such as the Industrial Strategy Council, get abolished?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course it is not always the case. Many councils do good work. We think that the local Industrial Strategy Council did some good work, but we are building on that, extending and taking it forward. The Build Back Better Council, to which the noble Lord refers, will take forward that work.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, why is the Industrial Strategy Council to be abolished? A number of other noble Lords have asked this question and I want to press the Minister on it. How do the Government intend to fill the gap that will be created to hold government Ministers to account on the plan for growth overall?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Many of the elements of the work of the Industrial Strategy Council have been superseded. There are now new challenges—we had the Covid epidemic. The Government, of course, are still being held to account in this House and elsewhere. The purpose of the Build Back Better Council will be to provide help and advice on the way forward.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, although I was once a voluntary sector member of a regional assembly, I do not hanker after a return to that particular bit of structure. However, are Her Majesty’s Government contemplating any new local structures as part of the response to the questions raised, or do they trust local authorities, executive mayors and existing bodies, such as the LEPs, to deliver on this agenda? I notice that the Minister did not mention local authorities in his original response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That was not a deliberate omission. Local authorities are still key to the development and delivery of these strategies and policies, along with the LEPs, the mayoral combined authorities and, of course, local businesses themselves that need to be involved in the way forward.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to the paragraph from Build Back Better headed “Changing the way we invest in places”. For a town such as Eastbourne, what will be the empowered local institution and with whom will it cohere and co-ordinate?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer the noble Lord to the answer I just gave to the right reverend Prelate. We will work with local enterprise partnerships, mayoral combined authorities and other local partners. The key to that is local businesses in areas such as Eastbourne, and we will look at the geography and structure of these partnerships going forward.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, if developing skills across the country is to be part of the levelling-up agenda, will the Minister recognise the importance of design, which gets no mention at all in the Build Back Better plan? Does the Minister agree that education and design starting in schools will be crucial in developing creative ideas and innovation, one of the Government’s three pillars of growth?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree that design and innovation are going to be key and crucial. We have a history in this country of taking good design and innovation and then not developing them into viable products led by British businesses. That is something that we need to correct, and our forthcoming innovation strategy will address many of these issues.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the earlier report, the council said that we should keep the spotlight on places whose productivity levels and growth rates were well below the national average. I know that the Minister shares my view and agrees particularly with this recommendation. What are the Government are doing to try to bring this idea into reality?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that productivity will be key to our success going forward. He and I come from part of the UK that needs to expand its productivity and key to that will be developing the skills agenda, which I set out in the previous answer.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked—a compliment to the Minister, who consistently manages to answer them all in the time allotted.
Folic Acid
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply from Lord Bethell on 23 March (HL Deb, cols 717-20), whether they have reached a conclusion on the findings of their consultation on the proposal to add folic acid to flour which closed on 9 September 2019.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for keeping this issue live. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are in the pre-election period for the Welsh and Scottish parliamentary elections and, as this is a UK-wide consultation, we cannot make any policy announcements at this time. But I can advise that, since my last reply, Ministers have looked at this extremely closely and hope to discuss it promptly with the devolved Administrations after 6 May.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
For my 16th Oral Question, may I ask about value for money? Why can the UK Government not use their own estimate in the impact statement for the consultation, which said:
“Preventing an NTD carries a lifetime benefit of up to £3m”
per person with spina bifida? It said that fortification presents
“a significant reduction in NTDs, possibly … equivalent to 150-200 NTDs per year”.
This is every year, not a one-off, so the savings from fortification amount to hundreds of millions of pounds. The work in the United States on the CDC website confirms massive financial savings. Why are the Government so reluctant to save this money?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I would be glad to take the noble Lord’s recommendation back to the department; he puts it extremely persuasively. As I said, we have looked at the substantial point closely and it is extremely persuasive, as the noble Lord rightly put it. We hope to come forward with recommendations as soon as the elections are over.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Rooker said. I may be addressing this with my third or fourth Minister. I am not certain whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, dealt with it when I was opposite, but he may have done, which would make the noble Lord my fourth Minister on this issue. It is even more irritating that it was research in the UK that led the United States and other parts of the world to adopt this policy. I think The Minister has run out of road on this one, and I would like to hear what the timetable to implement this policy is.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely endorse the tribute of the noble Baroness to those who have worked on this policy. She is right: the science that has gone into this has been persuasive around the world. I thank those in industry who worked with us on our pilot, which proved extremely successful. We are in good shape when it comes to thinking through the implementation of such a policy. My hands are tied at the moment, because of purdah, but I hope to return and fulfil the noble Baroness’s wishes.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords on their tireless work on this issue. As former co-chair of the all-party group on folic acid fortification of flour in the other place, I remember the campaign to bring about the consultation well. As the parent of a son born with a neural tube defect, I am keen to see the Government act as quickly as possible to prevent avoidable births of children with such a condition. For the sake of the unborn and their families, can the Minister give a categoric guarantee that, after 6 May, when the elections are out the way, we will finally get definitive action and definite proposals?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to all those who have worked so hard, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has delivered a playbook campaign on this. Being on the receiving end, I pay tribute to the grace, persuasiveness and energy with which he has conducted that campaign. He is not the only one, and I pay tribute to the personal testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds— what a moving story he has just told. All who have been involved in these sorts of conditions would have been touched by that. I cannot deliver the categoric guarantee that he asks for but, as I said, we are looking at it extremely carefully and I hope to return soon.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his campaign. I urge him to keep up the pace. While the Government are looking at that, we surely need more creative public information campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of folic acid, particularly when communications around health have, under- standably, focused on the pandemic. What work have the Government done with HCPs, in practice, to make sure that women are fully informed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right: with half of pregnancies unplanned or unexpected, it is entirely right that we should seek to raise issues such as folic acid. The Government are committed to the preventive agenda, and folic acid is just one among many examples where we hope to mobilise public interest in looking after their own health to avoid these kinds of conditions. Her point is extremely well made.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the department’s website states:
“More than 60 countries worldwide now add folic acid to their flour, including Australia, Canada and the US.”
It goes on to say:
“In Australia, neural tube defects fell 14%”.
This would save 400 babies a year in the UK. The department has spent the last year making Covid-related decisions in our best interests. Given the Minister’s comments, can we expect an announcement by the end of June?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness puts the statistics persuasively. The numbers I have are slightly different, but her gist is right. I hope to return after purdah to revisit this important subject.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just said, does the Minister agree that it is high time that we followed Australia, which mandated the addition of folic acid to wheat flour for making bread? As long ago as 1988, folic acid fortification of all enriched grain product flour was fully implemented in the United States and Canada. It is time to say yes to the long-running campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; it should be a departmental priority on 7 May.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord and others who have pressed this point that it is a departmental priority. There has of course been a pandemic and that has slowed things down. I cannot avoid that fact, but we are very much returning to the prevention agenda in the round and the issue of folic acid in particular.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will understand the frustration in the House at the repeated delays in implementing a policy that has the opportunity substantially to reduce the scale of suffering that goes on, because of our failure to implement the implications of research that, I remember and as has been said, showed the benefits of fortification in the 1980s. It is desperately dispiriting to know that that research has been taken up by other countries, but not the UK. I press the Minister and suggest that it would be extremely helpful if the meetings that he has said need to take place with the devolved Administrations could be arranged now. Perhaps he could write to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, copying the letter to other noble Lords, to tell us exactly when the meetings that he has described are scheduled.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear the frustration loud and clear and reassure the noble Baroness that we are working on this at pace.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, in response to numerous questions and debates on this subject over the years, no Minister has ever produced a satisfactory explanation of why we do not add folic acid to flour. Would it have made any difference if the folic acid suppliers had had the Prime Minister’s mobile phone number?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his relentless campaigning on this issue and join others in encouraging my noble friend to, as soon as possible, ensure that manufacturers are mandated to add folic acid, so that we can prevent the misery and heartache of dealing with neural tube defects. I also ask my noble friend whether we can make sure that this applies to all kinds of flour, including gluten-free flour, for those mothers-to-be who are not able to have normal bread.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I understand that considerable efforts have gone into ensuring that folic acid is put into flours of all kinds, and I pay tribute to the industry for trying to deliver a comprehensive service. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, as fluoride has been added to drinking water to reduce dental caries, surely the Minister agrees that preventing spina bifida is more important, as a former colleague of mine, Professor Richard Smithells, pointed out nearly 60 years ago. Is it not time to act?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I take on board the point that it is time to act. That is why we are working hard on the matter. As I said, I hope to return to the House on this soon.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked; congratulations to the Minister. We now move to the third Oral Question.
Natural Habitats: Infrastructure Projects
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the legislation that implemented the European Union Habitats Directive in regard to the protection of natural habitats during the construction of major infrastructure projects.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, protecting and improving the environment while delivering vital infrastructure is a top government priority. This includes the development of a more strategic approach to the protection of habitats and species, allowing for more dynamic and pragmatic planning while benefiting biodiversity. The Environment Bill will provide a statutory basis for species conservation and protected site strategies to encourage the design and delivery of broadly based solutions, in partnership with planning authorities, local communities and others.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as shown in the register. This Question is not intended to provoke a binary debate between construction versus wildlife but it is an opportunity to consider the delay, risk and cost imposed on nationally significant infrastructure projects by what has become an intricate, bureaucratic and box-ticking regime. Now that we are free of the EU, will my noble friend at least consider using the forthcoming Bill to amend the definition of what counts as an IROPI—an imperative reason of overriding public interest—in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to include critical national infrastructure?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the regulations do not currently define which projects count as IROPI. However, nationally significant infrastructure projects will most likely always meet the public interest test, providing the project meets the environmental safeguards that no feasible alternatives exist for delivering it without impacting upon a protected site and that the necessary compensatory measures from any damage to habitats or wildlife have been taken. If my noble friend has any particular example he is concerned about, I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it, including the scope for clarifying whatever guidance we have on this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, may I take this opportunity to express my regret at the death of my noble friend Lady O’Cathain, who, with her years of experience, would have contributed so perceptively to this complex matter? In general, I support the thrust of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Question. Now that we have left the EU, can we interpret the provisions of the directive in a less batty fashion, and more in accordance with common sense?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are looking for opportunities to break down the binary choice that my noble friend Lord Moylan hinted at in his question, and we are finding a number of ways in which we can provide a simplification, while maintaining standards. Bat licensing is a good example; Natural England is developing a new streamlined bat licensing process which involves accrediting and assessing an ecologist’s competence in undertaking survey work. By using that system, developers will benefit from a more streamlined licensing process for their project, and licence applications no longer require up-front assessment. We believe that this will save developers £2.6 million per year, £13 million and 40,000 business days over five years, and on wider rollout, an estimated 90% of bat licence applications could be assessed in this way. There are many other examples of that kind of approach working.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what enforcement powers will the office for environmental protection have against government departments which are judged to have breached our laws when it is established via the Environment Bill? Is the Minister confident that these powers will ensure parity with the environmental protection we enjoyed while we were a member of the EU?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will set legally binding targets through the Environment Bill and an environmental improvement plan, which will be reviewed every five years. The Government will have to report on progress towards achieving those targets every year. The OEP will hold the Government to account on progress and every year can recommend how we can make better progress, to which the Government must respond. The OEP will have the ability, if necessary, to take the Government to court, although of course we hope that that will be unnecessary. In many respects, the scrutiny that this Government and future Governments can expect to receive will exceed greatly the scrutiny that existed before we left the European Union.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, habitat loss comes in many forms, and often because of human activity, as in the loss of ancient woodland due to the construction of HS2. However, it can also occur because of climate change, as in the large landslide on the Jurassic Coast between Seatown and Eype in Dorset. Does the Minister acknowledge that this may require the intervention of infrastructure to provide protection for the remaining coastline?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
There will be moments when such interventions are of course justified, and there will be others when nature-based solutions might be better applied to the kind of problems that the noble Baroness has cited. We know, for example, that flood prevention can be achieved much more effectively and cheaply in some circumstances by planting trees rather than building concrete defences, and the same is true of a range of other problems that the Government are required to address.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I know that my noble friend the Minister will be aware of the bats and newts conservation Bill 2008, which was my Private Member’s Bill in the Commons on exactly this issue. I am ridiculously pleased when I see bats, or, indeed, newts, and I certainly like newts as much as Ken Livingstone does—I am currently having two newt ponds built on my farm in Leicestershire, helped by the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust. Great crested newts are not uncommon in this country; indeed, they are pretty common. They may not be common in Spain or Greece, but that is another matter. We should not be spending millions on an industry of ecologists who will admit that newts, for instance, can travel hundreds of yards each night. Will my noble friend listen to the pleas from this side and review the absurd EU habitats directive, bringing some common sense to bear on this issue?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too share my noble friend’s fascination with newts, but perhaps not quite to the extent that Ken Livingstone does. I mentioned in an answer to a previous question that we are streamlining the process, and that is true across the board, in relation to both bats and great crested newts. District level licensing, for instance, has reduced the average time to issue a licence to 23 days compared to 101 days previously. The estimated national annual time saving is around 2,500 weeks. Schemes are now available in over 150 local authorities, and in March, the thousandth pond was created in Natural England-led schemes. Early monitoring data tells us that 34% of new ponds being colonised are colonised in the first year, which is double the normal rate, so we have achieved better environmental outcomes—better newt outcomes—while at the same time streamlining and speeding up the process of development.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one clear lesson of the success of the UK’s vaccine development is surely that the removal of overly bureaucratic and risk-averse regulations frees up creativity and speeds up innovation. In that context, and in light of the Government’s commendable priority of levelling up and building back better, will the Minister look at how we can cut the expensive, cumbersome red tape created by the habitats directive for infrastructure and construction projects? Will he look at more efficient and flexible means of conservation, without creating barriers to human development, job creation and productive industrial growth, which are more important than newts in my opinion?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I do not think, and the Government, likewise, do not believe, that there is a binary choice between biodiversity and human development; our challenge is to reconcile the two, as we must. In the last 20 to 30 years we have seen dramatic biodiversity collapse in this country of all types of species, from insects to predators. This Government have announced their high ambitions for the environment, including protecting 30% of our land and seas. However, where we have an opportunity to simplify and improve the rules protecting wildlife and habitats, as the noble Baroness suggests, then yes of course we should explore that, and indeed we are.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee on HS2—Euston to West Midlands; natural habitats are a very big issue with the project. Will the Minister make sure that HS2 is completely open about its activities, to reassure people living near the line’s route? In particular, will it publish unredacted results of all tests carried out near and under the mid-Chilterns aquifer?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, I cannot unilaterally commit HS2 to doing so, but it should. I will convey that message back to colleagues in Government. HS2 is a nature-positive programme, which has been overlooked too much by some of its opponents. The amount of land being planted with trees, for instance, greatly exceeds the amount of land that will be damaged by the process, and HS2 would do well to tell its story more effectively than it has been doing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, even though we have left the European Union, can the Minister confirm that we will still be bound by the Council of Europe’s Berne convention, which was the base of the EU habitats, but that the Government will take a more sensible and pragmatic approach under that convention?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are completely committed to ensuring that our environmental protections are not only maintained, but enhanced. We have said so at every opportunity. EU exit gives us the opportunity to improve our existing domestic and legacy EU laws to support those high environmental ambitions and, where appropriate, we should keep all those regulations under review, which we do.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Creative Industries: Covid-19
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of COVID-19 on the levelling up agenda in relation to the creative industries sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, our creative industries are a global success story, growing at four times the UK average before the pandemic struck. While the pandemic has had a heavy impact, particularly on audience-facing subsectors, the Government have provided them with unprecedented levels of support through the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund and the £500 million TV and film production restart scheme. Both these schemes have supported businesses across the UK and will help to ensure that the sector can return to growth as soon as public health conditions permit.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. The Budget included the levelling-up fund, which drew attention to the importance of the creative sector in this endeavour, so why are the Government so resistant to working with the industry to create a scheme for insurance cover for festivals and live events? Without this, and as long as the threat of the pandemic continues, events that are so important to local economies and local jobs will not happen this summer. Does the Minister agree that in preventing such an insurance scheme the Government are taking a backwards step in their bid to level up the country?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely do not accept that we are taking any backwards step, either in support of the creative industries or in relation to levelling up. We have offered substantial practical help through setting out a very clear road map and identifying an events research programme to get those events going. We are aware of the wider concerns about securing indemnity for live events and are continuing to explore what further support we can offer.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Many creative industry venues, which are important dimensions in the tourist economy, have been devastated by Covid. Can the Minister confirm that the levelling-up fund may consider projects aimed at making these venues more secure against Covid while maintaining their audience capacity and giving audiences the confidence that they need to attend such venues, and that it will be in order for local authorities throughout the UK to submit applications to the fund in support of such projects?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The levelling-up fund has very explicitly focused on the importance of cultural and creative spaces in regenerating those areas and includes new and upgraded community hubs of the very type to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I declare my interest as a former member of the Advisory Committee on Pop Festivals and my other interests as set out in the register. As the Minister knows, festivals are often a major foundation of artistic activity outside our great cities, but many of those planned for this summer are already being cancelled because of uncertainty over Covid. Do Her Majesty’s Government have plans to assist?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise the importance of the live music sector more broadly, and music festivals in particular, which is why more than £34 million from our cultural recovery fund has supported festivals, including Boomtown, Shambala, Glastonbury and Deer Shed. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, we are aware of the wider concerns around indemnity for live events and are trying to understand the market failure and how it impacts on different forms of live events.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer making content for Netflix and the Sony Channel. Organisations representing freelancers have called for a freelance commissioner to be established, as many are not covered by the Small Business Commissioner. During the past year, 45% of freelancers have fallen into debt or used up their savings. Millions of others in the creative industries are struggling to find work. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to set up a commissioner dedicated to supporting employment rights and employment obligations for freelancers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount that freelancers are a critical part of our creative industries and that we should explore many ways of ensuring their success in future. That is why we recently extended the pan-economy self-employment income support scheme with individuals now able to qualify for grants based on their 2019-29 tax return, meaning that more than 600,000 self-employed individuals will be newly eligible for the scheme.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, which include my membership of two trusts involved in cultural activities. In many of our most deprived communities, the cultural industries have taken a severe hit. Given that they are closely aligned with the hospitality sector, what plans do the Government have to develop a national plan to help the hard-pressed cultural sector recover as we emerge from lockdown? Can the Minister say some more about the support the Government are likely to give to freelancers, who have been frozen out of many of the schemes supporting workers in the cultural sector?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I just commented on the expansion of the scheme, which we think will include many new freelancers who are self-employed. The Government share the noble Lord’s concerns about support for our deprived communities and see cultural assets as critical in their revival. That is why more than two-thirds of the Culture Recovery Fund has been spent outside London and why we have a major series of funds, including the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and, in future, the shared prosperity fund, all of which have a creative industries strand within them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, a number of groups in the creative industries are falling between the cracks in government support. For example, recent BECTU figures show that the overall number of black and minority-ethnic workers employed in the theatre industry has fallen by 19% over the last year, compared with a 3% overall reduction in the number of white workers. Does the Minister agree that levelling up must be about disadvantaged groups as well as geography? What can the levelling-up fund do for the creative industries in this respect?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right to raise these points. Absolutely, levelling up should cut across a number of axes, including the one the noble Lord raises. We are working to improve this area. At Budget the Chancellor announced a new approach to apprenticeships in the creative industries, with £7 million of pilot funding to test flexi-job apprenticeships that might suit better the working practices of the creative industries. Over 1,300 creative industry placements are now available via the Department for Work and Pensions Kickstart scheme.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the substantial support the Government have given the creative industries and pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for all their hard work. When she mentioned apprentices, it reminded me that the BBC has announced that it will employ 1,000 apprentices. Will she join me in recognising the crucial role the BBC and other public service broadcasters play in levelling up, given their increased regional presence? For example, the BBC now makes 60% of its programmes outside London.
Baroness Barran (Con)
As my noble friend is well aware, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from government, but I share his warm welcome for the BBC’s recent announcement that it plans to move 60% of network TV commissioning spend and 50% of network radio and music spend outside London.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that, while levelling-up action must give priority to investment in creative and cultural enterprises across all regions, investment in arts and humanities education is equally important and crucial for innovation and creativity? This aspect is not often valued. What are the Government doing to ensure that this significant area is not overlooked?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. She will be aware that much of the work we are doing today stems from the creative industries sector deal, which includes an important plank focusing on skills, just as the noble Baroness suggests.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and this brings Question Time to an end.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Historical Inequalities Report
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State for his apology on behalf of both the Government of the time and the commission. This is an important moment for the commission and the country in coming to terms with past injustices and dedicating ourselves to future action. The report is a credit to the commission of today, but its content is a great discredit to the commission and the Britain of a century ago.
It is estimated that up to 54,000 casualties—predominantly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel—were commemorated unequally. As many as 350,000 were not commemorated by name or not commemorated at all. The report found that the failure to memorialise these casualties adequately was rooted in
“the entrenched prejudices, preconceptions and pervasive racism of contemporary imperial attitudes.”
Today, belatedly, we aim to commemorate in full the sacrifice of the many thousands who died for our country in the First World War and have not yet been fully honoured. We will remember them.
In response to the report’s recommendations, I want to ask a few questions. Does the commission have sufficient resources to undertake the next stages of the work and continue the search for these men and women? What role will transparency play in order for today’s commission to be up front about former mistakes? How will Britain’s embassy staff, including our defence attachés, communicate this public apology widely? When can we expect the completion of the investigation into the way in which the commission commemorated the dead from these countries during the Second World War? No apology can atone for the injustice, indignity and suffering set out in this report. While we need an apology today, we need continued action tomorrow.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have a few questions.
This report is clearly very serious and raises issues that need to be explored, perhaps in a wider context. The work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the 2020s is hugely important and valuable. I have visited certain Commonwealth war graves that are exclusively linked to World War II in Europe, so I suspect that the memorialisation I saw was a fairly accurate reflection of what had happened. However, if the intention of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is to reflect everybody’s contribution equally, regardless of rank, nationality or faith, it is absolutely crucial that the war graves actually do that. In particular, if one visits war graves and assumes that what one is seeing gives a full picture of the loss of life that was incurred during the First or Second World War but we then find that that is not the case, it is a problem not just for those who were lost and their families but for everybody seeking to understand the contribution made, particularly in the First World War, by citizens of the Empire.
There is often a tendency to talk about the United Kingdom, or Britain, winning the war; that is, a tendency to talk about British history as if it is about servicemen—it was essentially men in those days—who came from the United Kingdom or mainland Britain losing their lives. However, many hundreds of thousands from across the Empire and the countries that are now part of the Commonwealth gave their lives. It is crucial that they are remembered.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I welcome the Secretary of State’s apology and this report. However, I also want to know what the Government are planning to do to ensure that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has the resources to try to rectify some of these inequalities. It goes beyond simply saying, “Have we managed to identify people or are we just going to put up another plaque saying ‘Plus 10,000 others, identities unknown’?” Will the Government help the commission to look for ways of being more creative about how we understand the past, how we acknowledge the gaps in our history and our understanding of history, and how we understand the debt that we owe to so many Commonwealth countries?
The reasons why so many people were not named and not commemorated are particularly shocking. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, when you get into the depths of the report, it is not 54,000 or 170,000: it is potentially another 350,000 people. If we did not know who they were—if people had been buried in mass graves, for example—that is one thing, but if there was simply a sense that, somehow, some lives mattered less, that is another. Perhaps that was the view 100 years ago but it absolutely should not be the view now.
We need to look for ways to ensure that history, as it is taught in 2021, can be understood in its global context. Can the Minister tell us what the MoD plans to do? There are 10 recommendations, including going beyond statues and stone memorials to film and other things. Have the Government begun to think about how we can look again at our history and ensure that we pay honour to all those who gave their lives, regardless of their creed, colour, country of origin or rank in society? All those lives—all the fallen—matter equally.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am standing in for my noble friend Lady Goldie, who is busy with the next piece of business; as noble Lords can imagine, it is taking up quite a bit of time. I am very pleased to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I acknowledge and note that they both accepted the apology that the Government have made. They are both right; this is an important report which makes for sober reading. The report of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission special committee makes clear that in the aftermath of World War 1, in certain parts of the world, the Imperial War Graves Commission failed to live up to its core founding principle of equality in death for all, as was mentioned earlier, regardless of status, religious belief or ethnicity. Moreover, while the IWGC itself was at fault, the British Government at that time, together with colonial Administrations, also failed in their duties and were complicit in the decision-making that led to the outcome described in the report.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned the numbers involved. It is worth my reflecting as well that a further 45,000 to 54,000 casualties, predominantly Indian, east African, west African, Egyptian and Somali personnel, were commemorated unequally, usually in registers or collectively on memorials but not by individual name. At least a further 116,000 casualties—and potentially as many as 350,000—predominantly but not exclusively east African and Egyptian personnel, were not commemorated by name or possibly not commemorated at all. This is sobering and absolutely needs to be addressed, as both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said. As she also said, we must remember all those who fell fighting for our country in World War 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about funding. I reassure him that the £52 million per year given by the UK Government via the MoD to the CWGC is in place. The Secretary of State will keep a very close eye on funding; if further funding is required, he will look at that with great care. On the role of transparency, which the noble Lord raised, I reassure him that there is a programme for regular reporting, as the Secretary of State for Defence outlined the other day when he made the Statement in the Commons. There will be quarterly updates to Parliament on progress and, as the chair of the commissioners, he will hold the CWGC to account on delivery.
As we may come on to later, many of the 10 recommendations laid out have specific timelines. This is an important piece of work; each of the 10 recommendations—all of which the Government have accepted, by the way—are rolled out with sunsets and timelines for work to be completed. I do not have an answer to the question on communication and embassy staff, but it is important. I am absolutely certain that those from our country who are based in countries where there is much work to be done, including in Egypt, Sierra Leone, west Africa and Nigeria, will be called on to help with this work and complete the investigations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the wider context and she is absolutely right. Going back to the point about equality in death for all, it is important that we remember each individual. This will be done through addressing the 10 recommendations, where there will be openness towards creativity; communities should engage in the areas that we want to look at, and countries themselves should engage with the war graves commission and the special committee to see what can be done to honour those who have fallen in defence of their country. That could be in the form of a physical memorial or—we are looking at this very carefully—a digital means. It is important to say this, and to be sure that we identify these means. One further thing is that certainly schools need to be included in this. Young people must recognise the importance of remembering their ancestors who have fallen in battle.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to address an equal injustice. It is over 100 years since the death of Lieutenant Walter Tull. He is remembered with great affection by professional footballers and with enormous pride locally in Northamptonshire; he is also now a renowned figure throughout the Commonwealth. He broke through prejudice and precedent by becoming the first person of colour to command white troops. Such was his leadership and gallantry that Lieutenant Tull was recommended for a Military Cross. Through a combination of precedent and racial prejudice, he was denied that award. Will my noble friend address this ancient wrong with a view to awarding Lieutenant Tull a posthumous and well-deserved Military Cross?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have taken note of my noble friend’s comments. The actions of Walter Tull in the First World War were no doubt very brave, and the Government have received many representations requesting that he be awarded an honour for his bravery along the lines of what my noble friend has said. However, it is a general principle of our national honours and awards system not to make retrospective awards. This policy dates back to the end of the First World War, when in 1919 an army order was published stating that no further awards would be given for services in that war. That principle remains in force today.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, only after my comparatively recent criticism on radio that millions of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs had fought and died in the two world wars was it agreed by the Blair Government to invite other faiths to join Christians and Jews at the Cenotaph observance. Ignorance and prejudice pervade all societies. Does the Minister agree that, rather than showing periodic righteous indignation when racism hits the headlines, the Government and faith leaders should lead in ensuring that the dignity and equality of all human beings is made central to the teachings of both history and religion?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, who makes an extremely good point. As we have said, it is important that we roll out solutions to the 10 recommendations. We must put right the wrongs from these historic failings.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments just made by the noble Lord, Lord Singh. Like many others, I have stood in places such as the Menin Gate and been overawed by the reading of the names there. In seeing the names of the fallen from many parts of the then Empire, I had assumed that all such were indeed properly commemorated. I know now of course that I and many others were wrong in that assumption. I have present and past diocesan connections with Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe and Tanzania. I have also visited memorials and cemeteries in those places where I have seen the names of some local nationals. I am now asking myself how many names were not there when I visited those places. Is the Minister able to give me confidence to assure my colleagues in those places that their fallen compatriots will be as fully commemorated as possible, as soon as possible? Is there anything they can do to help this process?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, one of the points made in the recommendations concerned looking at the evidence and having flexibility in the evidence criteria used. All new proposed commemorations must meet certain specific criteria, but the commission has for some time been working on new policies concerning the evidence required to prove status, allowing for flexibility where it is known that documentation is wanting, for example. It is very important to bear this in mind because we want to use every opportunity and every evidence that we can find to commemorate those who have fallen.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I received the report we are discussing with great sadness and echo some of the disappointment—to say the very least—at its findings, but I want to move in a slightly different direction. I have visited a war cemetery in Kariokor in the outskirts of Nairobi, and found that all the graves of those who had fought in the Second World War were appropriately commemorated. Similarly, the 40,000 carriers and porters who were essential to the supplying of the troops are commemorated adequately in a scattering of cemeteries, from Mombasa up to the ridge in the highlands of Kenya.
I have also visited cemeteries in Karen and Asmara in Eritrea. It was most touching to see that the fallen in February and March 1941 saw Indians, Sikhs, Muslims, British Christians and whoever buried in the same yard and, as it says in the record, “According to the rites and ceremonies of their particular religion”. Could it be that this was general practice, the improvement that had been made by the time of the Second World War? Could the Minister give us some indication of when that picture will be fleshed out, so that we have a more adequate understanding of the process?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point in focusing particularly on the Second World War. Of course the report focuses only on the First World War. I reassure him that, as the rollout of these recommendations continues—and we are making sure that we do roll them out—we will be looking at the Second World War later as part of an expanded plan, but that is some way down the line. The noble Lord is right: in the First World War, those who perhaps were not honoured were indeed combatants or perhaps carriers, those who carried the supplies that were needed to support the troops engaged in fighting. It is those individuals in the First World War who we want to focus on.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, two of my uncles died fighting for Britain. It is scandalous that it took a Channel 4 documentary to draw attention to the blatant failure to commemorate the brave, loyal black and Asian soldiers who lost their lives fighting for Britain in World War I. Shamefully, films, television programmes and history books on both world wars have also neglected to portray this massive contribution accurately. Can the Minister assure us that this new determination to right wrongs and recognise the contribution of black and Asian soldiers, and to show them the respect and dignity that they deserve, will be robust and thorough, so that our children and future generations learn our true and accurate history?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed. The noble Baroness makes several passionate points there, and she is absolutely right. I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to David Lammy, whose programme it was, linked with the history professor Michèle Barrett, that led to the setting up of the special committee with 14 members. I also reassure the noble Baroness that, as I said earlier, 10 recommendations have come out of that special committee and we have pledged to take them all forward. I hope that reassures her.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
As honorary war graves commissioner for Iraq, I welcome the report, which has shone a spotlight on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s wonderful work. I am naturally particularly concerned that, despite the difficulties of working even in today’s Iraq, the war graves commission should be tasked and supported in its efforts to ensure that all the war graves in Iraq are properly recognised. I had the honour of visiting a number of these war graves, particularly the enormous ones in al-Amarah and Basra, which arrived because of the battles of Ctesiphon and Kut and the defence of Shatt al-Arab, and there is no doubt that those graves need further attention. Could the war graves commission be encouraged to do more in Iraq, with all the wonderful work that it has already done?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise that issue. Our current policy in Iraq is to clear and secure our sites when it is safe and practical to do so as we await an opportunity for a more sustainable return. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission will slowly and steadily begin to rehabilitate the sites in Basra and al-Amarah, as my noble friend has mentioned, as it has done in other parts of the country such as Kut and Habbaniya. We reassure those connected to all the Commonwealth casualties buried and commemorated across all our sites in Iraq that our commitment to the fallen remains in perpetuity, and when we are able to we will restore them to a standard befitting the sacrifice of all those who lie there.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the apology by the Government. In life, hundreds of thousands of African and Asian soldiers, many of whom were coerced into the British Army, were treated with little or no respect during the Great War. In death, those brave soldiers were treated with utter contempt. Professor Michèle Barrett, who worked with David Lammy on uncovering this monumental scandal, found documentation from the Imperial War Graves Commission in 1920 stating that
“Most of the natives”
—Africans—
“who have died are of a semi-savage nature and do not attach any sentiment to the graves of their dead.”
“Shocking”, “appalling” and “shameful” are just a few of the adjectives that you would put to that statement. You can see why our British history and curriculum need to be honestly reviewed and revamped.
What is also shocking is that it is a clear fact that in 2010, nearly 100 years later, with officials in full knowledge of the facts, nothing was done. We need to know why. Given the Windrush scandal and the outrage following the Sewell report, trust from black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities desperately needs rebuilding. Will the Minister therefore agree to meet me, along with senior Army officials, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and interested parties, to find a proportionate and decent response to put right this monstrous wrong?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord makes some very important points and I agree with him. The words “appalling” and “shameful” came from the noble Lord, and I totally agree with that. As he alluded to, we are of course looking at what happened a long time ago, over 100 years ago, under the old IWGC, but now we have the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. He is absolutely right, and I will certainly pass on to the MoD and my noble friend Lady Goldie his request for a meeting. I think it is appropriate to say that, even though it is over 100 years ago, good praise needs to be given to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission now, along with the Government —linking into DCMS, I should say—when it comes to looking really seriously at these past injustices and putting them right.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Regimental Sergeant-Major Alhaji Grunshi, DCM, MM, of the Gold Coast Regiment, fired the first shot in World War I. His name is important and it is remembered. He lived—but many of his fellow regimental soldiers died and were buried in known graves on the Gold Coast. Their names in those cemeteries were obliterated in an appalling act of imperial racism, on the basis that to do otherwise would be
“a waste of public money”
and not “appreciated” by the native tribes. Direct descendants of those native tribes—and I am one of them—now sit on both sides of your Lordships’ House. This House is entitled, as are the descendants of those who fell in the First World War on the Gold Coast, in west Africa and throughout the Commonwealth, to a categorical assurance from this Government that money will be found to conduct the research and erect headstones on those graves that are known on the Gold Coast. We want not a promise to look at it with favour but a categorical assurance that it will be done. Without that, frankly, apologies do not count for much—or would that too be regarded as a potential waste of public money?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I was very moved by what I heard from the noble Lord. He is absolutely right to point to the people who have died and the person who fired the first shot of the war on the Gold Coast, who I think lived. That is indelibly on my mind. I reassure him that it is not just the Gold Coast but other parts outside Europe, all over the world. I mentioned some earlier: Mesopotamia, east Africa, west Africa, and so on. I could go on. It is very important that we look at each of these areas. Recommendation 4—which we have agreed with—in the special report is to establish a consultative committee. What is very important, and perhaps is the best reassurance I can give the noble Lord, is that we should be liaising with the local communities out in the Gold Coast to work out what we should do, how we should it and by when. This consultative committee has been pledged to be set up within the next six months.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a descendant of an Army officer who was at one time seconded to the King’s African Rifles. During World War I the regiment suffered over 5,000 casualties, with a further 3,000 dying from disease—more than 20% of the complement. It is thought that the regiment was supported in the First World War by some 400,000 native porters of the Carrier Corps. The information on the number who lost their lives and on their burial places is apparently unknown. In the commission’s search for historical inequalities will the Government press for the inclusion of the King’s African Rifles, together with the Carrier Corps, particularly at local village level? Will they prioritise engaging with the King’s African Rifles & East African Forces Association, whose regimental historian said:
“No regiment has ever been more intimately connected with the territory through which it marched and fought, or with the peoples from which it was recruited”?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Again, the numbers are sobering—I have picked up the figures of 5,000 and 3,000. I have taken very seriously what the noble Lord has said. One of the 10 recommendations is on the importance of engagement and education. The commission will develop a broader and more far-reaching range of relationships, working in partnership on projects, including, I would like to think, on the King’s African Rifles, to remember the sacrifices of all those who served and died in the First World War.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I served for 10 years, some years ago now, on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and I am deeply shocked—indeed, scandalised—that I was totally unaware of this petition. I believed the mantra that everybody was treated equally in death. I ask my noble friend: has any estimate been made of the cost of giving full restitution? I suspect it will be pretty heavy and I do not want to see this fall away as time goes on.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I alluded to this point earlier during the Statement. I reassure my noble friend that the UK currently contributes £52 million of the overall budget of £66 million a year. This new piece of work we have pledged to do is very important and the Secretary of State has not ruled out additional funding if it were to be required in the future.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare two interests. First, I once had the honour and pleasure of serving with the King’s African Rifles and, secondly, as Adjutant-General I was an ex officio member of the council of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I once noted in the chapel of a prison on the Isle of Wight a memorial to four people killed in the Great War. They were identified only by their prison numbers. In accordance with the motto of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—
“I will make you a name”—
I set about discovering their names, which I succeeded in doing. Will the Minister please assure me that these forgotten casualties will soon, like them, be made names?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, and so they should be. I am sure that this is an important part of the ongoing work. One thing is very clear and it is the first recommendation of the report—which we have accepted, as we have accepted them all—that there is ongoing commitment to search for those who fell and to recognise the dead and find the names of those who died.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this business has now elapsed. I apologise to the five noble Lords whom I have not been able to call.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Regulations and Order laid before the House on 8 and 22 March be approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the two Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 March be approved.
Relevant document: 46th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 View all British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this is a small and perfectly formed Bill, which attracted very little controversy and corrects a long-standing anomaly in the ability of the British Library to fund itself. It has been ignored by the mainstream press but, such was the obsequious nature with which I approached these proceedings and the praise I lavished on so many of your Lordships, it received a full write-up in Private Eye. I beg to move.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 View all Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my thanks to the Minister for her help in securing the passage of the Bill. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this small but equally perfectly formed Bill, which is important although it covers very few words. I beg to move.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 192-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons - (22 Apr 2021)
16:20 - Division conducted remotely on Motion E1 - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 243 - Motion E1 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. When there are no counterpropositions, as for Motions C and D, the only speakers are those listed, who may be in the Chamber or remote. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak subject to usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any Members intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak should make room for those who are. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
Leave should be given to withdraw Motions and when putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. When there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. 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. Noble Lords following the proceedings remotely, but not speaking, may submit their voice—content or not content—to the collection of voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email; the way to vote will be via the remote voting system. We will now begin.
Motion A
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A to 1Q in lieu.
“(5A) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it is an excluded offence by virtue of Part 3A of Schedule 1.”
“3A An offence under section 1(1) of the Genocide Act 1969 (genocide).”
(za) genocide as defined in article 6,”
(i) article 8.2(a)(ii)-1 (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949), or
(ii) article 8.2(c)(i)-4 (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character), or”
(za) genocide as defined in article 6,”
(aa) torture within—
(i) article 8.2(a)(ii)-1 (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949), or
(ii) article 8.2(c)(i)-4 (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character), or”
(za) genocide as defined in article 6,”
(aa)torture within—
(i) article 8.2(a)(ii)-1 (which relates to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949), or
(ii) article 8.2(c)(i)-4 (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character), or”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, in proposing their amendments in lieu, the Government have listened to the very real concerns expressed by many in both Houses. I wholeheartedly concur with the thanks expressed by the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in the other place last week to my friend—I call him my “friend” in the most healthy and familial sense of the word—the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his constructive approach to this issue.
The Government have recognised the strength of concern that, by excluding only sexual offences and not other serious offences, the Bill risks damaging not only the UK’s reputation for upholding international humanitarian and human rights law, including the United Nations convention against torture, but also the reputation of our Armed Forces.
While the other place rejected the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, they accepted the Government's amendments in lieu to add genocide, crimes against humanity and torture to the excluded offences in Schedule 1, and to remove the delegated power in Clause 6(6), which allows the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1.
Although we can be absolutely reassured that our Armed Forces would never resort to acts of genocide or crimes against humanity, and that it would be extremely unlikely for individual members of the services to be charged with such offences, the Government accepted, with the support of the other place, that not explicitly excluding these offences from the Bill was a clear omission that needed to be rectified. In addition, the Government recognised, with the support of the other place, that, to prevent any further perceived damage to the UK’s reputation in respect of our ongoing commitment to upholding the rule of law and our international obligations—particularly the United Nations convention against torture—torture offences should also be added to the list of excluded offences in Schedule 1.
Although the Government were not supportive of excluding further offences at that stage, they have continued to reflect on the very real concerns in both Houses that all offences that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, including war crimes, should be excluded from the measures in Part 1. I can confirm to the House that the Government will therefore table an amendment in lieu of Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to exclude war crimes also.
I am also aware that many continue to have concerns that the International Criminal Court can step in to investigate and prosecute United Kingdom Armed Forces personnel. I am happy to reassure on the perceived risk of ICC intervention. I invite your Lordships to consider the criteria that might surround an allegation that the complainant maintains is a war crime. The prosecutor would have to consider the case evidence referred by the service police and if, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the evidence was sufficient to indicate that a war crime had been committed and that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, the prosecutor would consider the public interest in the case being prosecuted, including whether the accused was fit to stand trial. With the strong likelihood that a prosecutor would determine that the case should be prosecuted, subject to the consent of the Attorney-General, this could all proceed well within five years.
However, if, for some reason, the allegation did not arise until after five years but sufficient evidence still existed that a war crime had been committed, the prosecutor could still determine that the public interest in prosecuting such a serious offence would rebut the measures in Part 1 of the Bill. A prosecution would therefore proceed, again subject to the consent of the Attorney-General.
It is important to be clear that there are already many instances where a prosecutor could exercise discretion not to prosecute a case and the ICC would not intervene—for example, if the evidence was not deemed sufficient because it was not robust, or the recollections of the witnesses were unclear or in conflict with each other. In such circumstances, the prosecutor might likely conclude, understandably, that there was not a justiciable case, and the case would not proceed to prosecution. In this case, the prosecutor would not have to consider the public interest or the Bill’s measures. However, in this circumstance, although the International Criminal Court could theoretically seek to intervene, it is inconceivable to me that it would.
Similarly, if the prosecutor exercising the discretion he or she has under the existing prosecutorial guidance took the view that the accused was not fit to stand trial, and that a prosecution was not sustainable or not in the public interest for some other valid reason, I think it again inconceivable that the ICC would intervene. As such, we have to be very careful with the distinction between “could” and “would”. I am illustrating how, if a prosecutor decides for valid reasons not to prosecute, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that the ICC would consider that the UK is unwilling or unable to prosecute a particular case and would then intervene.
Furthermore, I also make clear that, in accordance with the International Criminal Court’s procedures, a preliminary examination would first need to be initiated by the Office of the Prosecutor to decide whether it would be necessary for the ICC to seek to intervene in a state investigation or prosecution. In practice, if the Office of the Prosecutor were to raise issues with us, this would trigger a long and detailed preliminary examination of the situation, within which we would be consulted each step of the way. This would mean that we would have many opportunities to prevent UK service personnel being prosecuted at the International Criminal Court. We are confident that we would be able to show that the UK national system is both willing and able to conduct investigations and prosecutions, thus excluding the ICC’s jurisdiction over UK service personnel.
I have given that rather lengthy analysis and explanation because I seek to provide further reassurance to your Lordships on this particular issue. I believe that Commons Amendments 1A to 1Q go a very long way to addressing the concerns of this House in respect of relevant offences. I therefore urge that the House agrees to them, in lieu of Lords Amendment 1. I can confirm that the Government will not oppose Amendments 1R to 1U in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, noting that they will table a further amendment in lieu tomorrow. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
Leave out “1A to 1Q in lieu” and insert “1A to 1G, 1J, 1K, 1M and 1N, do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1Q and do propose Amendment 1R as an amendment thereto, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 1H, 1L and 1P and do propose Amendments 1S to 1U in lieu thereof—
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s opening statement today. I, and many others, have a genuine sense of relief that the voice of this Chamber last week, so overwhelmingly expressed in the debate that took place, has been listened to with such clarity. There was a feeling then, before the Bill was amended, that it would have produced a situation that is profoundly embarrassing to the nation we live in, is unhelpful to the troops we send abroad and generally does no good for anyone at all.
The Government have now recognised the strength of the argument. By including genocide, torture and crimes against humanity in the excluded areas of the presumption against prosecution, they have rescued their own reputation. Of course, until today, they had excluded war crimes from those exclusions; at that point, we faced the ludicrous contradiction that meant that we would have seen a presumption against prosecution for some of the most heinous crimes that come under the definition of war crimes yet no limitation for torture or genocide—in contradiction, therefore, to international humanitarian law, which recognises no form of limitation of time or jurisdiction on such crimes. This is why I tabled the amendment that would include war crimes in those exclusions: so that there would not be a presumption against prosecution for some of the most terrible crimes that still could be committed—though they are unlikely to be—by British troops.
The Government listened to the chorus of criticism that took place. Why was it so widespread and deep? Why did so many of the military veterans of senior rank in this House vote for the amendment last week? It was principally because they believed that the reputation of our Armed Forces would be damaged by singling them out for what the Law Society called a “quasi-statute of limitations”. Importantly, it was also because, had we passed the Bill unamended, our troops would have been subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
At the weekend, the chief prosecutor of the ICC, Fatou Bensouda, wrote to the right honourable David Davis on this very subject. She repeated what she had said previously:
“If the effect of applying a statutory presumption was to impede further investigations and prosecution of the Rome statute crimes allegedly committed by British service members in Iraq—because such allegations would not overcome the statutory presumption—the result would be to render such cases admissible before the ICC.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Lansley. I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen on leading the opposition to the original proposals contained in the Bill. He did so with great skill and persuasion. At the same time, I thank the Minister, who clearly listened avidly throughout the proceedings in connection with these matters. I think it is fair to say that she did not always give the impression of being enthusiastically in favour of the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness was brought up in the Roman law traditions of Scots law. In those circumstances, the expression “pacta sunt servanda”—promises have to be kept—will come as no surprise. I suggest that this remark should be reproduced above the desk of every policymaker in government. I am at some pains to understand who in the Government endorses proposals which are, prima facie, contrary to law. I say that not only in relation to the topics the House is discussing today but also drawing your Lordships’ attention to Part 5 of the internal market Bill in which this House and the other place were encouraged by the Government to create circumstances in which the Government could break the law without any adverse reaction. It seems to me that there is a unit of opinion—or, perhaps, some powerful policymaker—somewhere in the Government which does not appear to have sufficient understanding of the important fact that, for a country which argues as frequently as it can for the rules-based system, our ability to do so is substantially undermined if we are not shown to be adhering to that very system. If you want to preserve your reputation, you cannot play ducks and drakes with the law.
The Government may have been saved the consequences of the original provisions, but it is important to remember that, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, made clear, they had excited the concerned interest of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. The UK is a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations. How embarrassing would it be if it was thought that this country had departed from the provisions of the United Nations charter and conventions made under and in respect of it? As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, pointed out, there was a discussion about whether the United Kingdom should join the International Criminal Court—I remember it. The balance of opinion was that it should and, if my recollection is correct, the United Kingdom was a founder member. How equally embarrassing it would be if, as a former original member of the International Criminal Court, the United Kingdom had to be brought before it.
There is a benevolent outcome in this matter, but it will take some time. We may have saved the Government from the consequences of the original provisions, but we will not save ourselves from damage to the reputation of this country. We should be very sure that, from now on, we will do everything in our power to make certain that that reputation is justified and, in particular, that our legitimate claim that we embrace the rules-based system on all occasions can be shown to be endorsed, not just in principle, but in practice as well.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who speaks with such great authority in this area. I spoke about war crimes at Second Reading and again in Committee, and supported, though did not sign, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, that was carried on Report. I came in today because I thought it was important to emphasise that the omission of war crimes from the list of exclusions, which I understand to have been the Government’s position until just now, was not some minor footnote to the noble Lord’s amendment. It tore the heart out of it because it destroyed its objective of protecting our troops from prosecution in the ICC. For that reason, I was delighted to hear just a few minutes ago that the Government have finally agreed not to oppose Motion A1.
It was of course right in principle to exclude genocide and crimes against humanity from the presumption against prosecution, but the practical implications of doing that were, frankly, negligible. After all, the crime of genocide requires,
“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Crimes against humanity qualify as such only when they are
“part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”.
Not even in the extravagant imagination of Mr Phil Shiner could British forces be accused of these most serious of crimes. Of course, the original concession also extended to torture. That could have practical effects because British servicemen are, unfortunately, sometimes accused of that crime. It is right that the presumption against prosecution should not apply after five years to that very serious crime.
However, torture is only one war crime among the dozens listed in Article 8(2) of the Rome statute. Let me remind noble Lords of just some of the others: wilful killing; inhuman treatment; causing great suffering; the destruction and taking of property; unlawful confinement; attacking civilians; excessive incidental death, injury or damage; attacking undefended places; killing or wounding a person hors de combat; and outrages upon personal dignity.
In contrast to genocide and crimes against humanity, it is, I am afraid, quite possible to imagine such crimes being alleged—perhaps credibly—against British service personnel. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, mentioned the letter sent last Friday from the ICC chief prosecutor to David Davis MP, in which she said:
“Some of the most serious cases pending before the competent investigating and prosecuting authorities in the UK, including those examining pattern evidence and command responsibility, concern such alleged crimes.”
If this Bill were to result in a decision not to prosecute after five years had passed, this latest letter puts it beyond doubt that such cases would be considered admissible before the ICC on the basis that the UK was unable or unwilling to prosecute. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that prosecutors could well take on cases of this kind that were deemed sufficiently strong, not least because the prosecution of British service personnel would be a firm warning to other states within the jurisdiction of the ICC that might be toying with the idea of following the dismal international lead set by the original version of this Bill.
For these reasons, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and his supporters on holding their ground, the Minister on her efforts and the Government on finally agreeing to do the right thing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for bringing forward his amendment both on Report and now. I also thank my noble friend for the way in which she has responded. As she will recall, I did not participate on Report but I listened with care; we had subsequent conversations about this. I read with great interest the contributions made by a number of my former colleagues in the other place when our amendments were considered there last week.
First, while I agree with my noble friend and welcome the concessions that the Government have made, it is important for us to understand the nature of this further substantial shift. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who, in quoting part of Article 8(2) of the ICC statute, illustrated the wide range of potential crimes listed there. This gives rise to the concern that the chance of a vexatious allegation in relation to such a wide range of potential crimes is far greater than it is for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. However, as my right honourable friend Jeremy Wright, the former Attorney-General, helpfully said in the debate last Wednesday in the other place, by virtue of the exclusions that the Government have introduced, there is an increasing inconsistency as to which offences are relevant and which are excluded.
The truth of the matter is this: if we could be certain that the decisions made by prosecuting authorities on a relevant offence would exclude the potential of a further prosecution by the International Criminal Court—and that the decisions made by UK prosecutors would be sufficient for everybody’s acceptance—the UK would be able and willing to undertake a prosecution, even of a relevant offence, and this would be accepted by the ICC; my noble friend the Minister made this point in introducing the debate. The court could then proceed only if we were unable and unwilling, which we evidently would not be. I fear that there is uncertainty about this.
We have to balance, on the one hand, the uncertainty about exposing our potential servicepeople to the International Criminal Court—especially after the five-year period—against, on the other hand, not being able to reassure them that these offences have been brought within the scope of relevant offences for the higher prosecution threshold. The iteration between this House and the other House has helped enormously to understand that there is a balance to be struck.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, it may be presumptuous of me spontaneously to offer, on behalf of all gallant Lords, a sincere thank you to the Minister for the good news she has brought today. I can probably extend that to all those who are involved on operations, who are in command of those on operations or who train them beforehand. Frankly, the idea that we might have sent soldiers, sailors and airmen to depart on operations with even an inkling that, in certain circumstances, they might have enjoyed some sort of exemption from prosecution for war crimes is fundamentally opposed to what makes us what we are and gives our Armed Forces moral authority. It is absolutely fundamental to our sense of service. The concession in the other place that the Minister has reported is fundamental to our ability to retain the moral authority of that service.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like noble and gallant and noble and learned Lords, I welcome the Minister’s further concession. One of the most welcome things in the final stages of this Bill is that we are gradually beginning to see its most egregious bits removed. We have lost Clause 12; this was most welcome. A very welcome amendment was tabled in the Commons, although it did not go far enough. However, it began to pave the way for the amendment brought again by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, which the Minister has agreed to accept. This is extremely welcome.
I will not rehearse the arguments made by other noble Lords about the International Criminal Court. I merely want to say that we on these Benches support Amendment A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson. We also look forward to the government amendment in lieu and to seeing that war crimes—as well as genocide, torture and crimes against humanity—are excluded from the presumption against prosecution. This will tidy up the Bill in a most welcome way and, hopefully, will lead us to a piece of legislation that does what we need it to do and what our service personnel and veterans need it to do.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the overwhelming defeat in this House a couple of weeks ago, the Government’s decision to accept parts of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, to exclude torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the presumption against prosecution was a welcome step forward. This was testament to the efforts of the noble Lord and the vast coalition of supporters inside and outside this House. I pay tribute to them all today.
We should not forget that these serious offences are illegal and immoral. Under all circumstances, they must be investigated, and if there are grounds for the allegations, there must be prosecutions and punishment. Not including them in Schedule 1 from the beginning was a mistake, and one that could have led to British personnel and veterans being dragged before the ICC, as the ICC’s chief prosecutor herself said. Now, she has written another letter about the current government concessions, saying:
“I remain concerned that many war crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction would still be subject to the envisaged statutory presumption … any gap between the scope of coverage in the excludable offences under the proposed legislation and conduct which might otherwise constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court would risk the persistence of … rendering relevant cases concerning such conduct admissible before the ICC.”
Therefore, it was clear that there remained a serious problem and that the Government were still picking and choosing some crimes that are covered by the Geneva conventions.
We still believe that war crimes must be excluded and strongly support Motion A1 to exclude everything covered by Article 8.2 of the Rome treaty. We are therefore delighted with the Minister’s speech. Essentially, I believe the Government accept the essence of Motion A1, and we will see that in the new amendment from the Commons. I thank the Minister for her efforts and her willingness to talk to many interested parties. We have got to the right place.
It might be useful to lay out what I expect to happen now. As I understand it, Motion A1 will be pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and the Government will accept it on the voices. It will then go back to the Commons, and an amendment in lieu will be moved by the Government. It will have substantially the same effect as Motion A1, and it will be approved in the Commons. The new amendment will then be returned to us, where we will unreservedly welcome and approve it. That will be a happy outcome to this complex debate.
I join other Members in celebrating that there have been a variety of speeches looking at this subject in this session, in previous sessions and outside the House. I accept that getting the balance right is a matter of some subtlety, but I believe we have got to the right place, and I look forward to the amendment in lieu coming back to us.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. Again, I thank and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his assiduous attention and perseverance in respect of this issue. I endeavoured to engage widely, and I thank noble Lords for the recognition of that engagement. I was anxious to do my level best to understand where the concerns really lay.
I thank noble Lords for the welcome they have extended to the Government’s change of position on this. As indicated by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I welcome the recognition that there was a balance to be struck. I now detect, quite clearly, I think, that your Lordships are seeing the Bill reach a shape whereby it is a positive advance, providing clarity and greater certainty to our Armed Forces personnel. As I said in my opening speech, the Government will not oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and they will table an amendment in lieu to ensure drafting accuracy.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) [V]
I am delighted with what the Government have said and with the support that has been given to this amendment in this House. We are doing absolutely the right thing by our troops. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, makes the strong point, which I have heard from a number of military officers, that to have left any vestige of possibility that our troops might have appeared before the International Criminal Court would have been a disgrace, entirely wrong and very damaging to the morale of those who are still deployed to defend this country and its interests.
The offences under Article 8.2 of the Rome statute are protected in international law as being without limit of time. To have invoked any presumption against prosecution for those offences would have been to be in breach of international law and international humanitarian law. If that had happened, it would have been a stain on our country, or, as one of the senior military representatives said, a national embarrassment.
This country has also been saved from the use of this legislation by every dictator and warlord in the world, who would have used it as a precedent for their own illegal actions. Even in the last few weeks, we have seen a number of countries subject to the ICC jurisdiction praying in aid this draft of the legislation. We have been saved from that as well.
I, of course, admire and respect those who serve in our name in conflicts overseas. They do so bravely, tenaciously and professionally. As Defence Secretary and then Secretary-General of NATO, I often had to make decisions about the deployment of these individuals and place them in harm’s way. These were never easy decisions to make, but I was comforted by the fact that our Armed Forces always act within the law. To single them out as being somehow above these laws would have done a disservice to them and to their purpose.
I thank the Minister for her consideration and for listening, the Secretary of State, who listened to the voices that have come from such a wide range of opinion, and all those who have helped in this particular argument. I look forward to seeing, before they are tabled, the drafting amendments that the Minister promises will be brought forward for the amendment in lieu in the other place. As a matter of form, I beg to move Motion A1.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it is the Government’s view that the timescales included in the amendment are operationally unrealistic, do not take account of the nature of investigations on overseas operations and could put us in breach of our international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights to effectively investigate serious crimes. Where the service police have reason to believe that an offence may have been committed, they have a legal duty to investigate it. Artificial timelines and restrictions placed on them in respect of the conduct of investigations would clearly prevent them carrying out effective investigations and would impinge on their statutory independence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Moved by
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
2B: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations
(1) In deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings for allegations against a member of Her Majesty’s Forces arising out of overseas operations, the relevant prosecutor must take into account whether the investigation has been timely and comprehensively conducted.
(2) Where an investigator of allegations arising out of overseas operations is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to continue the investigation, the investigator must within 21 days refer the investigation to the Service Prosecuting Authority with any initial findings and accompanying case papers.
(3) An investigation may not proceed after the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the allegation was first reported without the reference required in subsection (2).
(4) On receiving a referral under subsection (2), the Service Prosecuting Authority must either—
(a) order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought, or
(b) give appropriate advice and directions to the investigator about avenues of inquiry to pursue and not pursue.
(5) On the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must send a final report with accompanying case papers to the Service Prosecuting Authority for the consideration of criminal proceedings.
(6) After receipt of the final report, the facts and circumstances of the allegations may not be further investigated or reinvestigated without the direction of the Director of Service Prosecutions acting on the ground that there is new compelling evidence or information.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
“case papers” includes summaries of interviews or other accounts given by the suspect, previous convictions and disciplinary record, available witness statements, scenes of crime photographs, CCTV recordings, medical and forensic science reports;
“investigator” means a member of the service police or a civil police force.””
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I would like to quote some wise words on this Bill with which I entirely agree:
“those who commit criminal acts … must face justice and must expect to be called to account. However, that should be done without undue delay: periods of delay stretching over years are simply not acceptable.”—[Official Report, 20/1/21; col. 1170.]
That was the opening statement at Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. A moment ago, as I understood it, she suggested that the current status quo was perfectly flexible and reasonable and that there should be no change. I do not agree. She has considered this Bill with remarkable fortitude and dealt trenchantly with her colleagues on some of these issues. I admire her very much for that. Having been present in person on the only occasion that a conviction of a war crime has been recorded in a British court, I am relieved that war crimes have now been removed from the presumption against prosecution. Clearly under her influence the Government can think again. I thank her. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, for his leadership on this.
No one has suggested throughout the whole passage of the Bill that there has been unacceptable delay by the Service Prosecuting Authority or the office of the Director of Service Prosecutions in bringing prosecutions, and nor has there been any complaint of delay in the listing of cases for trial or in the time taken in the courts martial process.
I referred at previous stages to the difficulties faced in investigations in theatre: the fact that investigations by victims in a hostile country may be made late, the likelihood of a lack of co-operation, the need for security for the investigators themselves, the problems of language and culture and, importantly, the lack of the range of forensic scientific facilities which would be readily available to investigators of domestic crime within the UK. All these pose considerable difficulties. However, the Bill still does not directly address the problem of delayed, shoddy and repeated investigations, which has very much been the concern of many members of the Armed Forces.
The Bill still introduces the novel idea of a presumption against prosecution for murder and for lesser charges to terminate proceedings arbitrarily; that has thankfully been truncated today but is still just about hanging in there on the serious offences of murder and likewise. This anomaly—this presumption against prosecution—may be the subject of law lectures in future, perhaps for a lengthy period until it is reversed, as I am convinced it will be, but will the presumption of prosecution still in this Bill be extended to other categories of public servants? Will there be a presumption against the prosecution of policemen after a number of years, or soldiers who have served in Northern Ireland? We have recently seen senior police officers tried for decisions made, under stress, more than 30 years ago. Have the memories of witnesses to those tragic events faded? Should retired police officers have the threat of prosecution held over them? Today a trial starts in Northern Ireland dealing with the events of 50 years ago. When the promised Bill to protect veterans of Northern Ireland operations is produced, will there be a presumption against prosecution in that? If so, I predict serious riots in Derry.
I return to my amendment, which sets out a practical and principled way of monitoring investigations and stopping them if, in the opinion of the Director of Service Prosecutions, there is insufficient evidence and no prospect of further investigations succeeding. Only if there is new and compelling evidence which satisfies the DSP could such investigations be resumed. It would not be, as at present, at the inclination or judgment of the investigator himself.
I am aware that the government response to my amendments in both this House and the other place, as we heard just now, has been to argue that its time limits are too restrictive. However, flexibility is built into the system I propose: no arbitrary cut-off applicable to all, regardless of the circumstances, but with each case considered individually on its merits. The insertion of time limits to control and monitor the investigation is precisely the point.
The alternative argument advanced by the Government is that Sir Richard Henriques is carrying out a review of the process of investigations. If that is so, it is not I who am premature with my amendment but the Government, who are pushing this Bill forward before he has reported. I know Sir Richard well from the days of my youth when I trespassed on the northern circuit; he is a judge of outstanding ability and integrity. If I were assured that my amendment and the speeches on it would be put before him, and that he could report in time for the Armed Forces Bill—the Second Reading of which we expect in this House perhaps in June—it would materially affect my decision as to whether to press this Motion. I beg to move, but look forward very much to the reply of the noble Baroness.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we continue to accept and recognise the problem of baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But the Bill, unamended, just does not do what was promised—that is, to protect British personnel serving overseas from vexatious legal claims and shoddy investigations. This is the gaping hole in this Bill, and it could be neatly fixed in the way that was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
I remind the Minister that the conditions set on investigations in the amendment are not arbitrary, nor are they time limited. The proposal ensures timely, not time-limited, investigations. This is not unrealistic, because it has been tried and tested in civilian law, and that is one of the reasons why the former Judge Advocate-General is so keen on such a proposal. We have worked hard with the Government and across the House to try to build a consensus on this. While we believe this has been achieved with colleagues from all sides, the Government remain extremely resistant to proposals, so we are forced to recognise the restraints and realities of ping-pong. Therefore, we support the calls by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for the amendment to be referred to Sir Richard Henriques, and reported on in time for it to be considered in the Armed Forces Bill, to ensure that we return to the issue.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his Motion B1. He referred to my remarks at Second Reading relating to trying to address protracted and repeated investigations, and I stand by these remarks which, within the context of the Bill, seek to provide greater clarity and certainty to our Armed Forces personnel, but not by imposing artificial time limits on investigatory processes. That is implicit within the noble Lord’s amendment.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is well intentioned. He suggests that his amendment should be referred to Sir Richard Henriques, and the Government certainly have no objection to that. Indeed, Sir Richard Henriques may already have been closely following debates in this Chamber on the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment may be a fruitful subject on which Sir Richard may wish to reflect. I cannot commit, of course, to saying that the report from Sir Richard will be concurrent with the Armed Forces Bill. Its Second Reading may reach this Chamber in June, and I understand that Sir Richard hopes to produce his report in the early summer. Again, while we will all be very interested in learning what Sir Richard has to say, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will understand that I cannot commit the Government to whatever he may produce in his ultimate report. I certainly believe in having a wide field of material available for consideration of complex issues. If that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I hope he will be minded not to move Motion B1 to a division.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received no requests to ask any short questions of elucidation, and accordingly call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for that reply. I note that she is prepared to refer this issue to Sir Richard Henriques. It would be sensible to see what he has to say. I am sure that he will take on board all the submissions that have been made, and will produce a way forward to ensure that delays are monitored and controlled, and not left to hang about for ever, as has happened in the past. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Motion B1.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3A.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motions C and D.
Amendment 3A in Motion C is simply a consequential amendment to the title of the Bill as a result of moving the duty to consider derogation provision.
Commons Reason 4A in Motion D reflects the representations I made to this House previously, that the absolute limitation periods proposed in Part 2 of the Bill allow reasonable time for the bringing of claims, and that it is incompatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights for different periods to apply in respect of different types of claimant.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to say on Motion C, which is purely technical.
The original amendment behind Motion D proposed that the ordinary rules of the Limitation Act should continue to apply to members of Her Majesty's Forces serving in overseas operations. The Government’s objection is that this is discriminatory and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the whole Bill is discriminatory, not least on the criminal side. It discriminates between personnel serving in overseas operations and personnel serving within the United Kingdom who do not have the protection of the so-called presumption against prosecution, for example, nor the protection against civil suit which these provisions seek to give.
Discrimination is not the problem here, the real issue is discretion: the discretion of a judge, in appropriate circumstances where it is equitable to do so, to extend or disregard the limitation period in actions in tort or, for example, for unlawful detention, or for breach of the articles of the human rights convention—for example, torture—or, in the case of our troops, for negligence, either in the provision of equipment or in training. The law has recognised over the centuries that the imposition of an absolute cut-off may in the circumstances of a particular case be entirely unjust.
Our system has operated quite successfully in cases arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vexatious claims or claims which were so delayed as to make it impossible to try the issues fairly have been struck out in their hundreds. That is the system that we have got, and it is a system that works.
Your Lordships will recall that, at Report, I argued that the clauses which created a blank wall for all litigants, whether foreign nationals, civilian victims or members of the Armed Forces, should be removed from the Bill and that the tried and trusted system that we have—allowing judges to do their job in the particular circumstances of the case—should continue. The Government persist in removing the judges’ discretion, even in the narrow class of service personnel on overseas operations. We shall see how this works out, but I expect that veterans’ organisations will be clamouring at the door of the Ministry of Defence to reverse the decision as soon as possible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are very disappointed that the Government have rejected our amendment to Part 2 of the Bill. We still believe that it is simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend, or indeed than their colleagues whose service is largely UK based. The amendment was designed to ensure that claims by troops or former service personnel were not blocked in all circumstances after six years, as they would otherwise be under the Bill.
This provision also directly breaches the Armed Forces covenant, as the director-general of the Royal British Legion confirmed. He argued: “I think it”—by implication, the Bill—
“is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.—[Official Report, Commons, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill Committee, 8/10/20; col. 86.]
While our concerns have not gone away, we recognise that the Government have shown absolutely no desire to change this, so we will not ask the other place to think again with another vote. However, we strongly urge the Government to think further on this matter, and we will return to it as soon as possible.
For now, I want to thank colleagues for their unwavering support for our amendment, especially the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Boyce. Having created such a widely based coalition against this part of the Bill, the Government should think long and hard and use the opportunity of the Armed Forces Bill to correct this deeply unwise feature of this one.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions. I think that what emerges is a simple divergence of opinion. I say to both noble Lords that the problem with Amendment 4 is discrimination between different personnel engaged in the same activity on which the Bill is predicated, an overseas operation. These differences of opinion are unlikely to be reconciled, but I thank the noble Lords for their contributions.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I have said before, and I say again, that the MoD takes seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans. There already exists a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support for them. I have previously spoken at length to your Lordships about the nature of this support and do not propose to repeat my comments in full, but I wish to highlight a couple of the key points.
First, service personnel are entitled to receive legal support where they face criminal allegations or civil claims that relate to actions taken during their service and where they were performing their duties. Legal advice and support is also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries and in litigation.
Secondly, a range of welfare support and mental health support is routinely offered to all our people. The potential impact of operations on a service person’s mental health is well recognised, and policies and procedures are in place to help manage and mitigate these impacts as far as possible. Additionally, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MoD and departments across government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure the needs of veterans are met.
As your Lordships would have noted from the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement, significant progress has been made to ensure that our service personnel and veterans have access to a comprehensive package of legal, pastoral and mental health support. We therefore believe that it is unnecessary to establish a statutory duty of care.
Not only is Amendment 5 unnecessary but it could result in unintended and undesirable consequences. Whether an individual wants or needs pastoral, welfare and mental health support is a personal issue. A duty of care “standard” could, if not carefully drafted, end up as a one-size-fits-all approach, not being flexible enough to cope with the needs and wishes of individuals as they arise and are identified. It could even engender an approach whereby support is provided only in accordance with the “standard”, which may leave personnel without the right support at the right time for them.
We are also deeply concerned about the potentially negative effect of the amendment if it is included in this legislation. It is clear that it is likely to lead to an increase in litigation, which will mean more of our people being subject to potentially lengthy and stressful court proceedings. That is profoundly undesirable and contrary to the objectives of this Bill. I think that many of your Lordships will recognise that pastoral and moral duties are extremely difficult adequately to define, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so will lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty.
We are also concerned that, as investigations and allegations arise and often occur in the operational theatre during conflict, involving the commanding officer, the Royal Military Police and service personnel, the amendment may have unintended consequences which impact on the operational theatre and, again, lead to an increase in litigation. That is not some draconian concoction or lurid speculation; it is the simple practical fact of introducing a legal standard which, despite the efforts to exclude from the doctrine of combat immunity, could well encroach into the operational theatre.
The MoD is clear about its responsibilities to provide the right support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and to seek to improve and build on this wherever necessary. Setting a standard for a duty of care in this Bill is neither necessary nor desirable. I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dannatt
As an amendment to Motion E, at end insert “but do propose Amendment 5B in lieu—
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care update, and
(b) include the update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;
(c) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(6) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(7) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.””
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is with predictable disappointment, but no less determination, that I return to commending to your Lordships the amendment in my name to establish a duty of care standard. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that in Committee and on Report this amendment stood in the names of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Stirrup, thus reflecting support from former Chiefs of Staff of all three armed services.
It is fair to say that this overseas operations Bill has had something of a troubled passage through Parliament. It is extraordinary to note that the Minister piloting the Bill in the other place has now left his appointment as the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. What that says about smooth, joined-up government is a matter for speculation.
Notwithstanding the welcome concessions made by the Government this afternoon pertaining to our obligations under international law and Britain’s reputation as an upholder of a rules-based international community, the Bill is also about the wider interests of the people Mr Mercer in the other place sought to champion—namely, our defence people and veterans. The serving and veteran communities have been looking to the Bill to provide better protection from repeated, extended and vexatious investigations and possible prosecutions following their service overseas on deployed operations.
No one suggests for a moment that anyone is above the law. Indeed, soldiers take up arms only to protect the law, but when this new Bill passes into law it will singularly fail to provide the protection that serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces believe it should provide. For this reason, the duty of care standard amendment has been tabled to improve this Bill and enable it to achieve one of its original objectives. That it has been consistently opposed by government Ministers and the government majority in the other place is both puzzling and disappointing.
If the Government argue that the Bill as drafted would give serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces the protection that they seek and do not accept my amendment, will they commit to issuing a clear statement down the chain of command and out to the various veterans’ organisations as to how the Bill benefits and protects them? Those who are serving or have served have the right to believe that their employer will protect their interests. The Government have brought forward or implied various reasons why they will not support this duty of care standard amendment. It has been suggested that such an amendment is not necessary, in which case I repeat my request for a clear statement of benefit to be briefed to serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces.
It has been suggested that setting out a duty of care standard will invite further litigation from Armed Forces personnel. As I have argued previously, this is an empty argument, as in the amendment the Ministry of Defence has the opportunity to draw up its own statement of a duty of care standard, then act within it. That sounds to me like sensible, good practice to me—not something to be fearful of.
It has also been suggested to me that setting out a duty of care standard would create an unfortunate precedent. That argument misses the point as well. The inclusion of an Armed Forces covenant in the Armed Forces Act 2011 illustrates that the Armed Forces are acknowledged to be in a different category of employment from civilian occupations. The Armed Forces covenant was crafted and designed to recognise and protect that difference, so the argument of creating a precedent is also an empty one. The Armed Forces are in an employment category of their own.
Finally, I believe I have every right to be fearful. If the Government are failing to protect their employees from repeated, extended and vexatious investigations arising from overseas operations, what chance do Northern Ireland veterans have of gaining similar protection? I am not holding my breath, despite often-repeated statements that legislation would be introduced to address that problem too. I beg to move Motion E1 as an amendment to Motion E.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have not received any requests from unlisted speakers. Does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raises an important issue. Although we did indeed receive the Written Ministerial Statement, it did not go far enough. It is absolutely clear that the Government wish to make commitments to service men and women—the Bill was intended to do so—yet, when we get down to the details and requests to support the Armed Forces covenant and to ensure that the rights of service men and women and veterans are respected, the detail seems to disappear.
This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, perhaps does not go far enough. Such a duty of care should arguably be for all service personnel, whether overseas or at home, and for all activities. Had the noble Lord tabled such an amendment, he would almost certainly have been told it was out of scope of the Bill. Therefore, this is in many ways a modest amendment but a very important one. If the purpose of the Bill, as the Minister has pointed out—and pointed out so many times in the earlier stages of the Bill—is to stop vexatious claims, investigations and so on that are deleterious to the health and well-being of service personnel and veterans, the least the MoD can do is to commit to supporting service personnel and veterans going through the difficulties of investigations and prosecutions.
It is a limited but very important amendment. I am sure the Minister has been listening, because she has done a fantastic job of listening to us over many hours of debate. But if she has been listening, she has not yet yielded any ground whatever. Might she feel able to move at all? Otherwise, I suspect I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, through the virtual Lobby to support this amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we remain four-square behind the important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, to provide a duty of care standard for personnel and veterans who face investigations and litigations. It remains unclear why the Government will not accept this limited proposal. If it is simply because they fear being sued for not fulfilling their responsibilities, I simply say to the Minister that all the Government need to do is to make sure their duty is fulfilled in the first place.
It has been suggested that it is unreasonable to single out the Armed Forces for this protection but, as the noble Baroness just pointed out, the covenant shows that the law recognises that being a soldier or serviceman in a combat situation is special and different. In no other job can you require somebody to go into a potentially lethal situation and, in the final analysis, die for their country. This amendment recognises that there needs to be something special when people have worked under conditions that those of us who have never been in that level of tension, responsibility and fear probably cannot understand. We can at least partly understand how difficult it must be. Surely, there should be a reciprocal movement by government, the command and the MoD to support those in such danger when they come under the aegis of the law and have the difficult job of defending themselves. This amendment merely makes sure that they are properly looked after and that anybody making decisions about how they are looked after recognises that, at the end of the day, there is hard legislation.
Since we last debated this amendment in this House, we have had a change of Minister for Defence People and Veterans—the ministerial lead for this legislation. While there are certainly mixed opinions about him, no one can fault Johnny Mercer’s passion or sense of mission. His resignation letter to the Prime Minister lays bare the failings of the Government on veterans’ concerns by saying that
“we continue to say all the right things”
yet
“fail to match that with what we deliver”.
Clearly, there is an issue and we believe that having this duty of care on the face of the Bill will allow the Government to deliver while being reminded how Ministers come and go but statutory protection remains in place. We have heard how troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations have felt cut adrift from the Ministry of Defence. When Major Campbell was asked what support the MoD gave him, he replied simply: “There was none”.
We believe that the Government should think long and hard about this amendment. It is an unlikely coalition of three former Chiefs of Staff of their respective parts of the Armed Forces, politicians from around this Chamber, and many outside, who recognise the value of looking after our troops when they are in difficult times. This has to change and we believe that legislative change is the right way. We therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, in asking the Government to think again. If the noble Lord feels that he has had an unsatisfactory response and wishes to divide the House, we will support him.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions. I realise that this is an important debate. It is an issue which, as I have recognised in previous contributions, elicits very strong and sincerely held views and feelings.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, referred to my former ministerial colleague, Johnny Mercer. I pay tribute to him and recognise his commitment to veterans, as I pay tribute to his successor, my honourable friend Leo Docherty, himself a former soldier, who has a deep and abiding interest in veterans.
I listened carefully to the contributions across the Chamber. What I have not heard in response to my attempt to describe the wide range of support which is offered to our Armed Forces personnel and veterans—through a range of directly provided services, likely to be the case, for example, with serving personnel; or in conjunction and co-operation with veterans’ charities; or through consultation with the devolved Administrations, many of whom are responsible for delivering the essential services and support which our veterans require; or through the Armed Forces Covenant and how we propose to develop that further in the Armed Forces Bill—is a detailed indication of where the MoD is falling short. I certainly feel it would be helpful to have greater clarity about what noble Lords think are the deficiencies of the MoD in this context.
I have also not heard a response to the Government’s legitimate concerns about the unintended consequences and the potential legal implications of creating a statutory duty of care. As I pointed out, this has to exist alongside the common-law doctrine of combat immunity and the very real concerns that this well-intended amendment could stray into and inhibit activity in the operational theatre. None of the contributions addressed these legal concerns or provided any alternative legal view. If one is available, it would be helpful to the discussion to hear what it is.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her thoughtful and measured response to this short debate. She made a number of entirely legitimate and fair points. She asked whether there could be a statement of detail on the concerns that a duty of care standard would meet, but I do not think that this Chamber is the place to get into a detailed drafting session. The purpose of the amendment is a purpose in principle to establish the desirability of a statement on a duty of care standard; this should stand on its own.
Going beyond that, the drafting of the amendment is such that the initiative remains with the Ministry of Defence to draft the duty of care standard in the way that it wishes. This also addresses the legal question that the Minister posed. The answer is that, if the Ministry of Defence draws up its duty of care standard in a careful and thoughtful way then continues to operate within it, the unintended consequences of serving or former servicepeople litigating against the Ministry of Defence represent an empty argument, as I argued before.
However, I am grateful to the Minister for picking up the point that, if there are beneficial aspects to the Bill, they are extracted and put in an information format so that they can be briefed down the chain of command, as I asked, and to veterans’ organisations. As much as I welcome that move, why would the Ministry of Defence not do that at the conclusion of the Bill? Anyway, I am glad that the concession has been made and that that will happen.
Nevertheless, I believe that the case for setting out a clear duty of care standard remains extremely strong. There have been several references to the former Minister for Defence People and Veterans; as I understand it, he is currently sitting in the public gallery of a court in Belfast to show solidarity with two former servicemen who are being tried some 40 or 50 years after events took place. I salute Mr Mercer for doing that and continuing to champion veterans’ causes. Veterans look to him for leadership; they also look to a number of us former service chiefs for leadership.
I rise to that challenge to continue to provide leadership to the veteran community. I am therefore disappointed that the Government do not accept the need for the setting out of a detailed duty of care standard. I continue to press this issue, and therefore wish once again to test the opinion of the House and divide on this matter.
National Health Service (Charges and Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House regrets that the National Health Service (Charges and Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/169) do not address the underlying funding problems faced by the pharmaceutical sector, which may affect the capacity of local pharmaceutical services to respond to future emergencies.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome and support this statutory instrument. In fact, it is an excellent example of the contribution and innovation that community pharmacies make. Disappointingly, this has not always been recognised by the NHS, nor financially supported by the Government. As the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has pointed out, community pharmacies have remained open throughout the Covid-19 pandemic; they have adapted to provide services in a Covid-secure way for their local communities, and they are offering face-to-face advice and healthcare on a walk-in basis. As well as delivering more than 1 billion prescription items a year, they have delivered healthcare advice at the rate of more than 48 million consultations a year. They have been a buffer for the NHS, helping their local communities and reducing pressure on other NHS healthcare providers.
The PSNC audit earlier this year, to be published this week, is fascinating. It says that 1.1 million informal consultations are taking place in community pharmacies in England every week. That comes to more than 58 million consultations a year. Every week, pharmacies provide advice on symptoms to more than 730,000 people. Nearly 38 million people per year—76% of pharmacy advice consultations—are people who have self-referred into the community, and 8.6% of those people seeking such advice said that they had been unable to access another part of the healthcare system. One in four informal consultations in pharmacies also involves advice and support relating to Covid-19. That means that 270,000 patients every week are seeking advice from pharmacies on Covid. Pharmacies giving advice save more than 2 million GP appointments every month, or 24 million every year. An additional 70,000 people would go to A&E or an NHS walk-in centre every week if they could not get advice from their local pharmacy.
Pharmacies, therefore, make a huge contribution. They can also make a contribution to the national Covid-19 vaccination effort. Some community pharmacies are already doing so, but all of this impressive work is at risk if they are not given adequate financial support. They cannot be expected to subsidise the NHS.
Work by the Company Chemists’ Association has shown that the community pharmacy sector is facing a real-terms cut in funding of more than 25% during the period 2014 to 2024. In 2016-17, funding for pharmacies was cut by more than £200 million a year, and, as a direct consequence, community pharmacies of all sizes have closed. We are now two years into the current five-year community pharmacy contractual framework, which was due for an annual review last year but which did not take place due to Covid. So the sector has been left, after those cuts, with a flat funding position for five years in a row, when the cost of service delivery continues to rise and the NHS prescribes more medicines year after year. We know that the additional cost of providing Covid-safe care has been significant. The sector has spent more than £400 million extra—out-of-pocket expenses—to sustain the service. The Government have provided some extra funding, but this falls way short of covering the full costs incurred.
The systematic underfunding of the community pharmacy sector, combined with the pressures to which I have referred, is putting many pharmacy businesses in a critical position. Many pharmacy owners are having to reduce services, opening hours or staff levels to cut down on costs. Large pharmacy chains have also announced significant cost-cutting and reorganisation measures over the past year. A study of independent community pharmacies found that 28% to 38% were in financial deficit already, and that this would rise to 64% to 85% without a funding uplift.
Already, we have also seen more than 400 net closures of pharmacies since funding cuts were introduced in 2016; 327 of them have been in the 30% most deprived areas. This has a knock-on effect on local high streets and potentially contributes to growing health inequalities. It is surely counterintuitive that we should have pharmacies closing in the middle of a pandemic—but without funding support, we expect more closures, which means more communities losing their primary link to the NHS.
The Government did provide £370 million in emergency funding loans to help pharmacies to stay open during the pandemic, in 2020. As I have explained, that money has been spent on covering the more than £400 million of NHS costs. Cash-flow modelling suggests many pharmacies cannot afford to pay back these emergency moneys. In summer 2020, HM Treasury made an initial offer on reimbursing pharmacy costs throughout the pandemic, but this was very constrained. Will the Minister tell us today whether the Government will write off the £370 million in advance payments that were made to pharmacies at the beginning of the crisis? I hope that he can bring a positive message. This would go some way to bridging the cost gap. Importantly, any shift to claw back this advance money from an already underfunded network will lead to further financial difficulties and potential closures.
I opened by describing some of the fantastic work done by community pharmacies. They are a critical part of the NHS and they have much more to offer to benefit patients, local communities and local healthcare systems. They are working with local GPs to roll out referrals from general practice, so that patients can get quick and convenient access to advice on minor illness, but they could do so much more. Over the coming months and years, pharmacies could really help on prevention, on levelling-up health inequalities, on identifying people with undiagnosed high blood pressure and other cardiovascular diseases, and on helping to tackle obesity and other health factors that have contributed to the UK Covid-19 death rate. They could provide enhanced community and public healthcare. I have already said that they could boost our vaccination effort and provide a first port of call to support GPs to return to pre-Covid activities. The new community pharmacy consultation service has the potential to enable pharmacies to meet the currently unmet need in urgent care, but it is currently failing due to a lack of engagement by, and referrals from, GPs and NHS 111.
It is very important that, in addition to providing financial support to the sector, the NHS trusts patients to know when their pharmacy is the right place for them to receive their care. Patients should be allowed to choose pharmacy as a place to receive their urgent NHS care. Part of the problem is that community pharmacy does not have a place around the table when it comes to the decision-making bodies at local level. I give notice to the Minister that I expect the NHS Bill, which we will see in the next Session, to put this right. We argued when the Bill went through that removing pharmacy from the boards of CCGs was a mistake. My goodness me, it has been a mistake.
Surely we should all come together to unlock the potential of community pharmacies and help the NHS get back on its feet as quickly as possible. I come back to funding: the current funding envelope for the community pharmacy network is unsustainable. We need to do better. The NHS could learn and benefit hugely from the pharmaceutical sector. I hope that this debate will encourage the Minister to take a much more positive look at what the sector can provide. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for introducing this debate. It is a most timely and important one. As I sat down to prepare my speech for today, I thought back to a year ago, and two places. One was the relatively affluent suburb of south London where I live. It is very fortunate. It has a major teaching hospital, a number of excellent primary care facilities and, if anything, an oversupply of pharmacies, both chain and independent. Contrast that to a small place up in Lancashire, where there is a district general hospital but where the GP services have not had any permanent staff for the whole population of a small town in over 15 years. The high street chain pharmacies there have bailed out and just one or two community pharmacies remain, and they are struggling.
From watching people at that time when it was not possible either to go to hospital or to a GP, I saw people visiting their local pharmacy services and relying on them. In south London they were very well served; up in Lancashire they were not. That is the important thing for the Government to recognise. We are talking about a sector that is both a key part of the front-line delivery of healthcare services but also, in part, part of the retail sector, which we know was under severe stress even before the events of the last year. It behoves the Government to take a strategic view of services for the public and to begin to work out exactly how we make sure that the population as a whole has access to this most important of services.
I am no Pollyanna about the pandemic. I do not take the view that there are any great silver linings. It was terrible. However, the pandemic has highlighted those things that are contributing factors to health inequalities as well as new ways of working for the NHS which we need to—and have shown in the last year that sometimes we can—adapt and accelerate at pace.
The important thing to understand is the unique role of high street pharmacies. They are not on the web. They are physical presences where people can go as a walk-in and talk to trained professionals. That, I believe, makes pharmacies a very significant part of the overall pattern of health provision, which I think may change. I think the way in which people will access GP services in future may change. However, we have to have some consistency and some understanding on the part of the public, who, by now, after a year, are very well versed in understanding how we best use the resources of the NHS and do not waste them but who really want to be sure that they can use pharmacy services and can rely on them to be there.
The all-party parliamentary group held an inquiry in 2020. We have known since 2016 that we have lost about 400 pharmacies, disproportionately in those poorest communities. In 2020 we found that the cost of staying open and offering services when other NHS services were under the cosh has had a disproportionate effect on pharmacies. Some 95% of independent pharmacies believe that they are under financial pressure. We really should not allow that to continue.
I also want to talk about the distinction between community pharmacies and the chains. Chain pharmacies have a difference that arises from their ability to operate at scale and that is very valuable. It is now the case that the majority of people with eye problems go to their opticians. I know that in this last year GPs were signposting people to go to opticians if they had minor eye problems; so, too, with audiology services and other services which are primarily being done in pharmacies rather than in the NHS. If that works effectively and efficiently for people, we should make sure that it remains.
I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. One of the biggest changes that we have witnessed during the pandemic is the change to telemedicine for women seeking abortion and access to contraceptive services. Data that has been subject to two different reviews—in Scotland and England—shows that that move has been extremely beneficial to patients. It has cut waiting times. It has enabled women to be seen much more quickly than they would otherwise have been. It has beneficial health outcomes. I know the Government are in the middle of a consultation but I hope that they will make that move permanent simply because it is in the best interests of the health of women and girls. I also hope that the Government will come through on the suggestion that we should make access to contraception much easier and allow young women to go to pharmacists and for that to be the primary route for accessing oral contraception but that the oral contraception should be free. We should not be cost shifting as we do that.
I want to make one other point. It has always seemed to me that one of the biggest barriers to integrated healthcare care at whatever level—acute, primary, community—is that of information and data sharing. I believe that if we are to make more progress on that—as I think has been hinted at or has been mentioned in passing in the White Paper—we need to come back to how data is shared responsibly across different providers so that we can enable people to have access to services without any leaking of their private data. I believe it is safer for people to have their data shared with NHS-approved pharmacists than it would be for them to seek other services on the web from unlicensed providers.
I want to echo the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: pharmacies have played a tremendous role this last year, but they cannot sustain it and continue to provide the services that they have. If we imagine that, this time next year, the NHS is again having to deliver a vaccination programme on the scale that it is now, it is impossible to think that pharmacies could continue to bring up the slack. So in the meantime, I back the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his request that pharmacies are not asked to return the £370 million that was put in on an emergency basis, and that, secondly, as a matter of urgency, we have a plan for integrating pharmacy services in a clear and thought-out way, proactively taking part in prevention and also enabling people to deliver emergency front-line telemedicine services to people who need acute access.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association, as in the register of Members’ interests.
I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon; the instrument makes a permanent change to broaden the existing arrangements for the supply of prescription items for pandemic disease or in other serious emergencies. As indicated by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, there really are no downsides to this. The instrument
“allows specified medicines to be issued free of charge either on prescription or in response to a patient group direction (PGD), a pandemic treatment protocol (PTP) or serious shortage protocol (SSP) authorised by the Department for Health and Social Care.”
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the regulations before us. I also pay tribute to the role that community pharmacies have played in this regard—both generally and particularly during the pandemic. I would link to the role of community pharmacies the particular role that dispensing doctors have played. I once again ask my noble friend the Minister if, in the course of the afternoon, we could focus particularly on delivering medical care and pharmaceuticals in a rural setting, and ensuring that all aspects of rural life, including health policy, are delivered in a way which has clearly been rural-proofed.
I am delighted to join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in paying tribute to the role that community pharmacies play. But I would also like to pause for a moment and set out, as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, the role that dispensing doctors have played. This is something of a lifelong interest for me because my late father was a dispensing doctor and my brother is a retired dispensing doctor. Dispensing doctors exist in rural areas because a pharmacy is not commercially viable. They date back to the time of Lloyd George and the National Insurance Act 1911.
It is important to appreciate that the income from dispensing cross-subsidises the medical service. Dispensing doctors do not have access to EPS—electronic prescription services—for their dispensing patients, over a decade since the system was introduced. That would seem to be a sign that perhaps rural-proofing in England is not working as well as it is in Wales, where they will be included for dispensing patients. Pharmaceutical needs assessment can place a dispensary under threat if a pharmacy application is made, unlike in Wales, where dispensing doctors are a full part of the pharmaceutical service, thanks to the Welsh department listening to the actions requested by the Dispensing Doctors’ Association.
Dispensing doctors are buying drugs in the same marketplace as pharmacies, yet their system of reimbursement and fees are different from community pharmacy. Despite this, as I understand it, NHS England and the department exclude dispensing doctors—in particular the DDA—from discussions on these matters. I ask my noble friend: why is that the case? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also mentioned that community pharmacies are excluded from these decisions as well. It strikes me that, immediately, the DDA, representing dispensing doctors and community pharmacies, should be at the table when these matters are discussed.
Most dispensing practices have vaccinated their patients against Covid as there is no scope for large centres in remote and rural communities. It is extremely difficult in areas such as sparsely populated parts of north Yorkshire for patients to access any such urban remote centre. Also, a lack of rural proofing harms rural communities. Primary care networks are being set up yet most dispensing practices are, in effect, their own primary care network given the large practice areas and dispersed populations that they serve.
As I mentioned previously, dispensing doctors are NHS GPs who are permitted to dispense medicines in designated rural areas where a community pharmacy is not economically viable. As I also said previously, dispensing practices use any profits that they make from the purchase of the drugs that they dispense to cross-subsidise the provision of the medical practice. That is often overlooked. There has never been any formal acknowledgement of this in England, although I understand that Scottish officials have done so before the Scottish Parliament.
In making the specific request to have regard the role of dispensing practices as well as community pharmacies in the dispensing of drugs under the regulations before us this afternoon, may I make a more general request to my noble friend that his department practise proper rural proofing? This will ensure that the work of, and reimbursement of, dispensing doctors in dispensing to their patients—often in rural, remote and sparsely populated areas—is properly addressed in the terms I have set out.
In that regard, I shall support the Motion to Regret before us this afternoon if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, presses it to a vote. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look sympathetically on the arguments I have made in favour of dispensing doctors specifically and the rural proofing of health policy more generally.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, as others have said, community pharmacies make a huge contribution to life in the UK. I support this narrow statutory instrument but I deplore the position in which so many pharmacies have been left.
Let us look at what community pharmacies do and what they could do. They already take a huge weight off GPs and the accident and emergency services, effectively providing a triage service in many cases but often dealing with the problem all the way through. They provide emergency out-of-hours services, particularly for those who are terminally ill and need special medication, perhaps at night when other services are shut. They provide screening services, which are essential if we are to keep our population on the right side of healthy. They deal with minor ailments. They provide obesity management, which we all know is absolutely crucial for the future. They also provide phlebotomy, taking quite a lot of the effort of blood tests out of hospitals, which are so overstretched at the moment. They can provide stop smoking clinics; again, these are essential for modern life, where we need to kill tobacco before it kills people.
As we have seen in the past 18 months, pharmacies can also provide vaccination services. This is going to be increasingly important because it appears that vaccination is going to be not a matter of getting through this particular Covid epidemic but an annual event. We will need all the vaccinators we can find. How much more could our community pharmacies do?
If ever we are to see the combination of health and social care that has long been seen as the holy grail for a healthy, comfortable and happy society, community pharmacies must be a crucial part of it. They can straddle the ground where local government and the NHS meet. They can broker understanding and they can broker solutions, to make it sensible, convenient and comfortable for people to live in the community, rather than being sidelined in homes. But what is happening to those pharmacies? The EY report published last September, commissioned by the National Pharmacy Association, found that the current network in England is
“unsustainable under the current financial framework”.
EY projected that by 2024, 72% of pharmacies will be in deficit, with an overall shortfall to the sector of £43,000 on average to each pharmacy and concluded that no industry is sustainable with so many operators in default. Already 28% to 30% are in default and, according to the survey, 52% are planning to sell their businesses. If the businesses are in deficit, there will not be people queueing up to buy them, yet a hit of 52% to our network of community pharmacies would be completely disastrous. The National Pharmacy Association, which commissioned the survey, called on the Government to take a “public interest focused safeguards” approach against the pharmacy network collapsing. Can the Minister commit to re-examining the funding model with that public interest safeguard central to the thinking?
Pharmacists undergo long training and bring vast medical expertise to their dispensing role, but they dispense far more than just medicines. They are there to provide advice and they offer humanity. For many elderly people, the visit to the pharmacy is one of the major points of contact with human beings during their week. They provide centres for communities. In many cases, they are core to the continued survival of a viable high street.
We have seen so many shops closing due to Covid and not reopening. The trend was already under way with internet shopping, but it has been exacerbated by the virus. In many cases, however, the community pharmacy continues to draw people into an area and therefore provide footfall to sustain the other shops and cafés which bring life to an area. They do not have the type of footfall that appeals to the major chains. In many cases, the major chains have a business model that depends on large sales of make-up, toiletries, photographic equipment—you name it. That is what keeps them trading, while the pharmacy just draws a few extra customers into the business. However, the pharmacies that are hubs to so many communities have only minor add-on sales. They are at the heart of the communities because they provide an essential service to the people who live locally. If those streets are to survive, they need the pharmacies to survive.
Therefore, while I support this statutory instrument, I also support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the Government to re-examine the funding and to make a short-term £350 million improvement to the way these pharmacies survive; otherwise they will simply die in front of us, and we cannot afford to see that happen. Already, the Government have indicated that they would prefer to use a firm such as Greensill to provide these pharmacies with the speedy payments that they need, rather than speeding up the payment itself. So many pharmacies had to opt to use that service because they needed the cash flow immediately and could not wait for the Government to pay their bills. Those who have tried to sign up since the middle of March have been unable to. Therefore, my final question not the Minister is: can he undertake to ensure that the Government pay pharmacies promptly for the service that they provide, so that they do not have to resort to external factors to get their money on time?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling this regret Motion. I echo his opening remarks about supporting the principles set out in the regulations, but proper resources are needed.
We on these Benches thank the All-Party Pharmacy Group, the Company Chemists’ Association, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the Library for their excellent briefings. I personally want to thank my local community pharmacy for the wise advice that it provides for my community and its ability to provide excellent services over the last 14 months, since the start of the pandemic.
A bit of housekeeping first: I note with regret that this instrument breaches the 21-day rule and its provisions came into force on 1 March 2021. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I often say to the Minister: when will this urgency rule change? I understand that there are some issues about really urgent statutory instruments coming in on time, but this one should have been advertised in advance and ready for us to debate before it came into effect. Is it so inconceivable to think that, a year into the pandemic, we might have wanted to plan for a place to redistribute new medicines urgently? The Government are far too reactive, and they really need to plan. So how have the Government been working with pharmacies throughout the last year on this issue?
It is interesting to note that the Explanatory Memorandum says that the 2021 regulations also make changes to existing legislation on the obligations of different types of pharmacy. As a result, certain types of providers of community pharmacy services will be required to provide a home delivery option for patients with specific prescription items in a pandemic situation free of charge. We have heard from a lot of community pharmacies that are struggling financially, and they may not have the ability or finances to set up a delivery system of that kind. So how are the Government working with pharmacies to ensure that they have the proper resources to deliver medicines to vulnerable patients?
I believe we all recognise that community pharmacies play a vital role in their local areas—often extremely local—which gives them the ability to reach right into the communities, something that is much harder for many other healthcare providers to do. Whether they are in a town centre, a member of a large pharmacy chain or a family-owned pharmacy at the heart of their village or ward community, our pharmacies are an essential tool in reaching everyone. However, we need to note that since 2016 we have lost 400 pharmacies —perhaps not surprisingly, disproportionately from the poorest communities with the largest health inequalities, as my noble friend Lady Barker so movingly described. Thinking about the Government’s focus on health inequalities, community pharmacies in those areas absolutely need the right resources.
The All-Party Pharmacy Group ran an inquiry last November that included a survey of just over 1,600 pharmacy professionals in England and called for written and oral evidence. It found that the cost of staying open throughout the pandemic and offering services when other NHS services were reduced or halted resulted in staff burnout and rising debts. We hear a lot about nurses, doctors and front-line hospital staff but we need to recognise that other healthcare professionals have faced that same burnout.
Nearly half of pharmacy contractors think that their pharmacy is at risk of closing within the year. More than nine out of 10 feel that their place of work is under financial pressure, and over nine out of 10 feel that the Government do not appreciate the role of pharmacies in front-line healthcare. Pharmacies dispense 1 billion prescriptions a year and gave more than 2 million flu vaccinations last winter. Pharmacists are highly trained healthcare professionals, and their pharmacies are the front door of the NHS for many people who may be too scared or just do not know where to take their health issue.
Pharmacists deliver advice via 48 million consultations a year, taking vital pressure off our GP surgeries, urgent care centres and accident and emergency services, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. They have also moved with the digital times with a confidence and ease that some other parts of the NHS might perhaps envy—for example, with electronic prescriptions sent from surgery to pharmacy and digital notifications letting the patient know when they can collect their prescriptions. During lockdown, they have worked with volunteers to deliver prescriptions to people who cannot leave home, whether they are shielding, self-isolating or quarantining. More importantly, their Pinnacle database was used by the NHS to record Covid vaccines delivered, and then linked back to NHS records. It is very welcome that our pharmacists had an effective system, and that the Government, for once, recognised that it would be faster and more effective to use an existing system. I hope that joint working is symbolic of the esteem in which the Government and the NHS hold our pharmacies.
They have done all this without complaining, repeatedly finding ways to make things happen, especially in the last year, and we know that they are trusted by their customers. However, overwhelming financial pressures are causing them serious concern. As we have heard, many pharmacies are being pushed to the brink of closure. An EY report published last September made it absolutely plain that the community pharmacy network is unsustainable under the current financial framework, predicting that, without any change, 72% of pharmacies will be in deficit by 2024, with a network-wide deficit of just under £500 million.
These financial projections were based on figures that predated the pandemic, which has undoubtedly put further pressure on pharmacies. This extra pressure means that nearly half our community pharmacists believe that their pharmacy is at risk of closing within the year. The problem is that the regulations take no account of these circumstances. Can the Minister tell us when the Government and the NHS will consult with pharmacists so that they have a clear picture of what is happening? When will the Government and the NHS turn that into urgent recommendations for structural financial change? Enhanced resources would make sure that pharmacies are able to be at the heart of any health reforms that the Government wish to announce following their White Paper. Will the Government look specifically at providing resources for training pharmacists to deliver the new community health services that Ministers refer to so frequently?
At this difficult time, pharmacies are also being asked to pay back the advanced funding provided by the Government to help deal with the extra demands relating to Covid-19, but we know that much of this funding did not even cover the extra costs that pharmacies have had to bear. With their other financial problems, as already outlined, plus extra costs not supported by government, many pharmacists will not even be able to make these repayments. If the Government do not relax the repayment timing—or, better still, turn these loans into grants—forcing repayments now may force pharmacies into closure. That would be catastrophic, and a heavy burden for any Government to bear, especially one that has dished out billions of non-repayable grants to many other small businesses, which is what most of our community pharmacies are.
The pharmacy sector is willing and able to step up and help transform health services. The Company Chemists’ Association said on publication today of the Government’s White Paper:
“We hope the proposed changes in this White Paper will create an environment that allows the community pharmacy sector to do more to help relieve pressure within the rest of the NHS. With waiting times for hospital treatment at their highest for ten years, community pharmacies are needed now more than ever to provide patients with clinical care, close to home.”
It went on:
“However, to deliver on this, pharmacies need fair funding for both the services they currently provide and for any additional workload they are ready and willing to deliver.”
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I welcome the principles behind these regulations but, without appropriate support and resources, the Government are setting our pharmacies up to fail—something no one in Parliament or government wants to happen. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Like my noble friend Lord Hunt, I welcome the purpose of the 2021 regulations, as community pharmacies are contracted and commissioned in England under the national community pharmacy contractual framework, which sets out the services that need to be provided, how quality is assured and other expectations, such as safety.
As has been said, the CPCF is negotiated nationally between NHS England and NHS Improvement, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. As has also been said, the latest CPCF runs from 2019-20 to 2023-24, but it has not been able to be reviewed, due to Covid. It makes it easier for pharmacies to dispense certain medicines under specific circumstances. If those medications to help treat coronavirus outside hospitals are found, the regulations aim to allow them to be dispensed in such a way as to maximise take-up—this must be the right thing to do.
Community pharmacies makes up one of the four pillars of our primary care system in England, along with general practice, optical services and dentistry. They must often feel that they are the poor relation—the wonky leg on this particular table, perhaps. I will not list all the contributions that they make to our primary healthcare system because that has been adequately covered by many speakers—in fact, all of them, in different ways—in this debate. They are an important feature and fixture on our high streets, in our rural communities and, often, in our supermarkets.
When Covid struck, community pharmacies did not close; they stayed open and served their communities. They continued to deliver medication to people who could not leave their homes. They have been a huge asset to our NHS throughout this whole period; they have been vital. We depend on them at a local level, in both rural and inner-city communities; as people have said, their expertise saves hundreds of thousands of GP and hospital visits. Indeed, the Government have encouraged people to go to their pharmacy before they do anything else—quite rightly.
I support the housekeeping point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the instrument breaching the 21-day rule, with its provisions coming into place before that. The noble Lord knows that a bit of forward planning would be appreciated, but I do not deny it is clear that, because of the rollout of the vaccine, it was necessary to ensure that no one paid for their vaccine, or any treatment in another pandemic situation, to support the maximum take-up of treatment.
However, why would the Government underfund and behave in such a fashion as to undermine and put at risk these businesses? That is the basis for my noble friend’s regret Motion. I have a further question about the uncertainty over the hub and spoke proposals that were in the recent MMD Act: does the Minister have an update on how implementation work is progressing and when we can expect the consultation process to commence?
I finish by asking three questions. Can the Minister advise the House when community pharmacies can expect a final decision on the reimbursement of their extra Covid costs? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I agree that the likes of Greensill are not an answer to this. Can the Minister explain why the NHS is refusing to increase investment in community pharmacies to support the NHS? Given the vital role they play, as everybody has acknowledged in this debate, they need certainty about their ability to play their full part in tackling the Covid healthcare backlog, for example. Finally, would the Minister willing to meet me, my noble friend Lord Hunt, other noble Lords, and representatives of pharmacy associations, for instance the Company Chemists’ Association, to discuss long-term funding for this sector?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for tabling the Motion on this topic. I also take this opportunity to express our profound thanks to community pharmacies. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put it extremely well. They are an absolutely key part of our NHS family, and they have risen monumentally to the many challenges brought by this pandemic. Community pharmacies adapted early to working in a Covid-secure way. As has been noted earlier, they stayed open and continued to serve their communities by providing vital pharmaceutical services, typically one billion prescriptions per year. My noble friend Lady McIntosh put it very well; they absolutely stepped up when needed, including by opening on bank holidays, implementing a medicines delivery service and, more recently, as part of the Covid-19 vaccination programme and the lateral flow distribution service Pharmacy Collect.
Pharmacies are a trusted resource at the heart of our communities, an easily accessible part of the NHS, and are highly rated by the public. I am saddened by the Motion which expresses regret that the National Health Service (Charges and Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services)(Coronavirus)(Amendment) Regulations 2021 do not address the funding problems faced by community pharmacies. This statutory instrument amends existing legislation to ensure that if a treatment for Covid-19 or another pandemic disease is identified as suitable for use outside hospitals, it can be accessed easily and by as many people as possible without needing to pay a prescription charge or to go to a pharmacy. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that pharmacy contractors will be remunerated for the services in question. Fees for these services, as always, are subject to negotiations with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.
Noble Lord will recall, I hope, that in July 2019 a landmark five-year deal was agreed with the sector—the community pharmacy contractual framework. This deal commits almost £2.6 billion each year to community pharmacy. It is a joint vision of the Government, NHS England and the PSNC for how community pharmacy will support delivery of the NHS long-term plan. Over the period of the five-year deal, community pharmacy will be more integrated into the NHS, deliver more clinical services and become the first port of call for many minor illnesses. This will take pressure off other parts of the NHS, as has been noted by noble Lords. Good progress is already being made on this journey. For example, since 2019 NHS 111 has been able to refer patients to a community pharmacist for minor illness or for the urgent supply of a prescribed medicine. At the end of last year, we extended the service to GP surgeries, which can now also formally refer patients to community pharmacy for consultation. We are exploring extending this service to other parts of the NHS. We also recently introduced the discharge medicine service, enabling hospitals to refer discharged patients to a community pharmacist for support with their medicines. I expect more services to be introduced in the new financial year.
I am very well aware of the pressure that community pharmacists are under, like much of the NHS, particularly during the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, the Government have worked with community pharmacy, putting in place a comprehensive package of support for the sector. Most community pharmacies have been able to access general Covid-19 business support, including business rate relief, and retail, leisure, and hospitality grants. We estimate that community pharmacies have had access to some £82 million in grants.
We have provided extra funding for bank holiday openings and the medicines delivery service for shielded patients and a contribution towards pharmacies adopting social distancing measures. We have provided personal protective equipment free of charge; this provision has just been extended to March 2022. We have also reimbursed community pharmacies for PPE purchased previously. We have provided non-monetary support, such as the removal of some administrative tasks, flexibility in opening hours, support through the pharmacy quality scheme for the sector’s response to Covid-19 and the delayed start of new services.
Between April and July 2020, a total of £370 million in extra advance payments was made to support community pharmacies with cash-flow pressures due to Covid-19. These cash-flow pressures were caused by several issues, including a sharp increase in prescription items in March and April 2020, higher drug prices, delayed payments from the pharmacy quality scheme and extra Covid-19-related costs incurred by the sector.
Acting quickly and providing the sector with £370 million in extra advance payments helped alleviate immediate cash-flow concerns. It also gave the Government time to address the causes of the cash-flow pressures. I hear the calls from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the Government to write off this money and for further financial support for this valued sector, but our healthcare system is under huge financial pressure. We do not have a limitless supply of funds, so I cannot make the commitments he asks for.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft that community pharmacies have been paid for the increased items they dispensed. Reimbursement prices have been increased to reflect higher drug prices, and payments have been made under the pharmacy quality scheme. However, the department is still in ongoing discussions with the PSNC. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, these will cover the reimbursement of Covid-19 costs incurred by community pharmacies. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will take a pragmatic approach. I expect any agreed Covid-19 funding to be deducted from the £370 million of advance payments to be recovered from community pharmacists.
As my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft put so well, in England the 11,192 community pharmacies have played and continue to play a vital role in the response to the pandemic. We need community pharmacies to be financially sustainable to continue to do so, whether for everyday care or in emergencies. I am aware of concerns that the current funding is not enough. The department wants to work with the sector to look at this in more detail.
I have absolutely heard the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about pharmacy closures. I reassure noble Lords that we are monitoring the market very closely. Our data shows that, despite the number of pharmacies reducing since 2016, it must be recognised that there are still more pharmacies active today than there were 10 years ago. Proportionally, the closures reflect the spread of pharmacies across England, with closures tending to be where pharmacies have clustered. We monitor these closures closely. In the most recent 12 months we have data for, we saw that three-quarters of the closures were of pharmacies that were part of large chains. This data aligns with the consolidation announcements by those large chains before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Government data also shows that the increase in homeworking during the pandemic has led to a change in the pattern of pharmacy use, with more people making use of community pharmacies local to where they live. It is important that we protect this access to pharmaceutical services. Therefore, our pharmacy access scheme protects access in areas where there are fewer pharmacies and higher health needs so that no area is left without access to local, physical NHS pharmacy services.
We are about to begin negotiations with the PSNC over service developments for this financial year, having recently shared our proposals. They are confidential negotiations; I will update Parliament once they conclude.
The past year has been extraordinarily challenging for the NHS, including for community pharmacies. They have risen splendidly to the many challenges brought by the pandemic and have shown great resilience. We expect 2021-22 to be the year in which we recover from the pandemic and build on the work already achieved in the previous two years of the five-year deal. Our plans and proposals take the impact of Covid-19 on the sector into account, in terms of both the challenges and the opportunities the pandemic has presented.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the current negotiations, I reassure her that the upcoming negotiations between the department, supported by the NHS, and the PSNC are the opportunity for the sector to raise concerns and discuss what can realistically be achieved. When we talk about the funding of community pharmacy, it is important to recognise that Covid-19 is also an opportunity for it. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on the new ways of working. The pandemic has shown us the value of our incredibly highly skilled community pharmacy teams, and how they can contribute more and receive more funding as a result.
For instance, we commissioned community pharmacies to operate the medicine delivery service for shielded patients. This has been vital to help ensure that the vulnerable in our communities continue to receive their medicines safely. This has since been extended to people who are self-isolating. Another example is that we have delivered our biggest vaccination programme ever because of Covid-19; community pharmacies have vaccinated more people than ever before. Some 300 pharmacy-led Covid-19 vaccination sites are currently live and we are, of course, considering the important role that community pharmacy can play in future phases of the programme. In addition, community pharmacies are now offering a lateral flow distribution service, Pharmacy Collect, making those tests readily available at pharmacists across the country. It is proving extremely popular. These are examples of how community pharmacy is supporting the fight against Covid and how the Government are making better use of the clinical skills of pharmacists, while giving community pharmacies an opportunity to generate more income above the £2.6 billion per year in the five-year deal.
In conclusion, this Government completely understand the value of community pharmacies and this Minister most definitely does. With four children, I am utterly dependent on the Nashi Pharmacy on Westbourne Grove by day and the Bliss Pharmacy at Marble Arch by night. I pay personal tribute to the thoughtfulness and clinical insight of those important resources.
I understand the noble Lord wanting to use every opportunity to raise this important issue and to ensure that community pharmacies are adequately funded. This issue was debated in the House of Commons only last month. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government have heard the concerns expressed today. We are committed to working with the sector on a sustainable funding model for all community pharmacies. We are about to enter negotiations with the sector about what it can deliver this year. I hope that this reassurance is sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very good debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords, and the Minister, for their interesting contributions. Although this was essentially about the funding of community pharmacy, the huge contribution that it makes—and can make in the future—became very apparent in this debate. I hope that this is what will draw us together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, drew an interesting distinction between provision in south London and that in south Lancashire. The irony is that it looks as though community pharmacies are most vulnerable in the most deprived areas and we really have to deal with this.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, had to say about dispensing doctors. When I was the Minister responsible for community pharmacy 20 years ago, we established a joint committee, between the PSNC and the BMA, of community pharmacists and dispensing doctors, to try to resolve some of the tensions. I am not sure whether we succeeded in doing that, but I echo the noble Baroness’s comments about the role of dispensing doctors.
I also thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, gave an interesting analysis of the financial challenge facing the sector. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the EY report. What she said about the general impact that community pharmacy has on high streets was very important and we should not forget it.
We should also not forget what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about the unsustainable financial framework for many community pharmacies at the moment and the Government’s consultation and recommendations for structural financial change. I also echo what she said about resources for training pharmacists in new services.
In her winding, my noble friend Lady Thornton made the important point that community pharmacies did not close; they carried on and were of huge benefit to us. That is why it is so frustrating that there are so many local examples of where the NHS does not see the potential of community pharmacy. I come back to what I said earlier about the need to ensure some kind of statutory provision for community pharmacy representation around board tables, at local level. You could say the same for opticians and dentists; all too often, they are neglected by the decision-making bodies. When we no doubt come to debate these matters on the Queen’s Speech, in a couple of weeks, I hope we come back to the structure of the future NHS that the noble Lord wishes to bring us.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, chided me a little, I think, about using this SI as a way of raising general issues, but what are we to do? We have largely been deprived of Questions for Short Debate over the last year, and I am afraid that this SI is an excellent vehicle to raise more general issues. I have no problem whatever with the SI before us. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he has heard my concerns and that there are discussions and negotiations going on, and that he will report back to us. But—and it is a big “but”—there is a tremendous risk that we will undermine the very fabric of community pharmacy unless we take action, which is what I urge on the Government. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.