House of Commons
Prayers
09:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 40 - Question accordingly negatived.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 View all Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I begin by thanking all Members—some of whom, I am pleased to say, are present this morning—who have been involved in the development of the Bill during its earlier stages. I am also delighted to see in the Chamber both Front Benchers—the Minister and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), who speaks for the official Opposition—who have been involved throughout. I appreciate that some who are present this morning have not followed the Bill throughout in detail, so it might be helpful if I explain what it is intended to achieve.
It is no easy task to create legislation that is intended for millions of people. The Equality Act 2010 made very significant progress in very many areas, but it was not perfect, and I do not suppose that anybody involved in its drafting or implementation would claim as much. We as legislators should always be prepared to look again at our work and consider whether it can be improved on. At present, the taxi and private hire vehicle sections of that Act do not work well enough for all the 13.7 million disabled people in Great Britain.
The fundamental intention of the Bill is to ensure the protections envisaged in that Act work effectively and comprehensively when a disabled person uses a taxi or a private hire vehicle, so that any disabled person has reasonable rights and protections enabling them to book, access and travel in a taxi or private hire vehicle at no additional charge.
As it stands, only wheelchair and assistance dog users have specific rights and protections under the Equality Act in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles. The existing Equality Act taxi and private hire vehicle measures do not, for example, provide clearly expressed rights for a wheelchair user intending to transfer from their wheelchair into the passenger seat of a non-designated taxi or private hire vehicle. They do not provide a visually impaired person with a right to guaranteed assistance to find and locate a booked private hire vehicle. Indeed, current measures fail to sufficiently protect disabled people who do not use wheelchairs or assistance dogs from discriminatory treatment at all.
Currently, section 165 of the Equality Act places duties on drivers to carry a wheelchair user
“in safety and reasonable comfort”;
to carry their wheelchair if they sit in the passenger seat; to provide reasonable mobility assistance; and, of course, to not charge extra for doing all of that. However, in order for those duties to apply, the vehicle must be on a local licensing authority’s designated list of wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and crucially, there is no requirement to maintain such a list; it is a local licensing authority’s choice. As such, if a wheelchair user intends to use two wheelchair-accessible taxis on the same day in different locations, and the first is on a local licensing authority’s list but the second is not, that wheelchair user will have specific rights and protections in their first journey but will not in their second, even if the vehicles and journeys are identical in all other respects. This Bill would rectify that by amending section 167 of the Equality Act to require that all local licensing authorities maintain and publish a list of wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an important addition to the safeguards in this area. Would he note, though, that back in 2018, Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq made 34 recommendations on the wider set of issues, of which this was one? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is time for the Government to bring forward a more comprehensive package of measures to deal with the taxi and private hire trade?
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has shadow ministerial experience in this area. He is right: there is more to be done in relation to the taxis and private hire vehicles that we all use, not just those of us with disabilities. However, the Government have already taken steps in this area. I hope and expect that the Government will support this Bill, and I think there is more to come. I hope, for example, that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the training that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers ought to receive in order to ensure they have basic disability awareness that will help to reinforce some of the duties that this Bill seeks to set out. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should take our advocacy for this Bill as an indication that we believe this is all that needs to be done. Clearly, more does need to be done.
As I have already said, the duties in section 165 of the Equality Act only apply if a passenger is a wheelchair user and is accessing a designated wheelchair-accessible taxi or private hire vehicle. Those are two specific criteria that exclude many. This Bill would level the playing field for disabled people by creating new duties at section 164A for drivers to carry and reasonably assist any disabled person without charging extra. It would also place duties on drivers to carry a disabled person’s wheelchair and mobility aids and provide reasonable assistance. Those duties would therefore apply to a wheelchair user who intends to transfer to a passenger seat of a non-wheelchair-accessible vehicle and, beyond that, to any disabled person who is not a wheelchair user who wishes to access any taxi or private hire vehicle.
The objectives of this Bill would, of course, be diminished if a disabled person were prevented in practice from accessing the vehicle because they could not easily find it when it arrived. Therefore, the Bill would create new duties at section 165A for drivers to assist a disabled person to find and identify a hired vehicle. That would apply to any taxi or private hire vehicle and to any disabled person, provided that the driver is aware that the person requires assistance to identify or find the vehicle.
This Bill would also create new duties for private hire vehicle operators at proposed new section 167A of the Equality Act 2010 by creating offences for refusing or failing to accept a booking from a disabled person.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I very much commend the content of my right hon. and learned Friend’s Bill. For balance, does he agree that, while this Bill is vital, a great many people running taxi and private hire vehicles actually go out of their way to help disabled people? What we are doing is building on the generosity and kindness of that sector to further improve the service provided to disabled people across the country.
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that point with great force and clarity during the Bill’s previous proceedings, for which I am grateful. He is absolutely right: it is necessary to recognise that a huge amount of good work is already being done by taxi and private hire vehicle drivers. No part of this Bill’s provisions is designed to suggest otherwise but, as he will recognise, a minority of drivers and operators do not yet comply with the expectations that we would all have as legislators and, frankly, that the good taxi and private hire vehicle drivers he talks about would also expect as a basic provision for their disabled passengers and clients. It is no reflection on those who do a good job, particularly those who moved people around over the pandemic when they would otherwise have been unable to be moved. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured that we are seeking to strike that important balance, and I will come on to talk about that.
Before I do, I will finish my earlier point about sections 165A and 167A, which provide rights and protections to ensure that disabled people are not, by default, prevented from benefiting from the rights and protections provided in sections 164A and 165. To reiterate an earlier point, the fundamental intention of this Bill is to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 works more comprehensively for the millions of disabled people in this country.
To come back to my hon. Friend’s point, the Bill must also work for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, many of whom already do what this Bill will require of them. The Bill simply would not work if it did not consider the range of people and situations that it could have an impact on, from both a passenger and a provider perspective. I believe that the duties, offences, defences, and exemptions in this Bill effectively balance the rights and protections for disabled people with the reasonable duties on drivers, operators, and local licencing authorities.
For a driver to assist a disabled person to identify or find their vehicle, the driver must be made aware before the start of the passenger’s journey that the passenger requires assistance to identify or find that vehicle. In order to carry a passenger in safety and reasonable comfort, the driver must reasonably have known that the passenger was disabled. For a driver to carry a disabled person’s wheelchair or mobility aid, it must be possible and reasonable for the wheelchair or mobility aid to be carried in the vehicle. The House can be satisfied that where a driver has a genuine reason why they could not fulfil the duties specified in this Bill, the defences provided would be adequate to avoid their being penalised unfairly.
This Bill would also amend driver exemptions from duties under the Equality Act. Currently, drivers can apply for an exemption on medical grounds or grounds related to their physical condition, which exempt them from all the duties in section 165. This Bill would ensure drivers are exempt from the appropriate sections by expanding the exemptions to cover some of the duties that would also be applied in proposed new section 164A.
It would also amend the driver exemptions so that they apply only to the mobility assistance duties in proposed new sections 164A and 165, thereby directly closing a loophole that enables a driver issued with an exemption because they cannot provide mobility assistance, to accept the carriage of a wheelchair user none the less, but to then, in theory at least, charge them more than they would other passengers. That cannot be right or the purpose of the exemption.
It is, as I said, a daunting task to create legislation that impacts millions of people, but the provisions in this Bill intend to do just that, ensuring disabled people have rights and protections when accessing taxis or private hire vehicles that work practically and across a multitude of scenarios. The Bill has been developed with disabled people’s step-by-step use of taxis and private hire vehicles at its core, from the booking stage, to finding the vehicle, to accessing and travelling in that vehicle.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly worked incredibly carefully with disabled groups throughout the development of the Bill. The issue comes into my inbox and I hear from constituents facing these types of problem. Was it a personal issue in his own constituency that first raised his awareness of the issue?
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and she is right. I have spoken to a number of different disability campaign groups, advocacy groups and charities, and I am pleased to say they are all supportive of the Bill’s intention. As she represents a rural constituency, she will recognise, along with those others of us who represent rural areas, that taxis and private hire vehicles may be the only way for people with disabilities to get around. They are an important lifeline, so the provisions of the Bill will have effect particularly in rural areas, such as the ones that she and I represent.
I have come across, as she will have done, constituents who rely on that vital lifeline, not just during the covid pandemic but all the time. They will want to know that they have these rights, that drivers are aware that they have these rights and that they can be carried without additional charge and with the basic consideration that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) mentioned earlier, good drivers already provide, but that all drivers should.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point about availability and accessibility of vehicles for disabled people. In my very urban constituency, availability of wheelchair-accessible taxis is a continuing concern for people who want to be able to get out and about. Will he comment on the idea of a national database—a central record—of where these vehicles are, so that our disabled communities can easily access information about where they can get such vehicles?
Jeremy Wright
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend because I know he is in the process of taking through other important legislation in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles, which will contribute to the better environment that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is right that this is a problem in urban as well as rural areas, and that one thing we can get better at is giving people with disabilities, particularly those who need wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles, better information on where to find them. That is why in this Bill the expectation that local authorities maintain a list of such designated vehicles will change from being optional to being a requirement. That will be more consistent across the country so that wherever people live—in urban or rural areas, wherever they are in the country—they will be able to get that information more clearly and easily, to help them move around. I agree with my hon. Friend that that will make a significant difference.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend for his excellent Bill. Does he have any messages for members of the industry who already fulfil these requirements? I believe we have to give credit to those who are already pushing ahead in this fantastic way. May I ask his advice on how the Bill might not be seen as a blunt tool by those who are already carrying out these requirements?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In addition to speaking to charities that advocate on behalf of people with disabilities, I have taken the trouble to speak to those who operate in the taxi trade. I have tried to make it clear to them that we do not seek to penalise the drivers that my hon. Friend refers to, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South mentioned earlier, who are doing all they possibly can to facilitate the travel of people with disabilities, and to whom we owe thanks and commendation. Rather, we want to ensure that the provisions of the Bill will bite for those who are not doing so. The Bill will, frankly, make no difference whatsoever to the drivers that my hon. Friends spoke about, who already do what the Bill will require of them.
The Bill will not simply make requirements of drivers; it will also require local licensing authorities to maintain and publish a list of wheelchair-accessible vehicles to ensure consistency across the country. The Bill will prevent private hire vehicle operators from refusing or failing to take a booking from a disabled person because that person is disabled, subject only to a limited defence where there is a lack of suitable vehicles. The Bill will place reasonable duties on drivers to carry and assist disabled people without, crucially, charging extra. This Bill will change lives for the better, and I commend it to the House.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Once again, I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and all other Members involved in taking forward this Bill. Its aims are laudable and have the Opposition’s support. I also pay tribute to the hundreds and thousands of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers across the country. During the covid-19 pandemic, they went above and beyond to ensure they provided safe travel for those who needed it.
Taxi drivers still face unacceptable working standards. The Government must tackle head-on the low pay, poor job security and lack of workers’ rights associated with the gig economy. I am pleased to hear that future legislation is in the pipeline, and I know the Opposition will be happy to co-operate on that in Committee. I welcome the agreement between Uber and the GMB, which will provide a vital boost for Uber drivers, but we all know there is much more left to do. Labour would implement much-needed reforms to taxi and private hire services. That would include a review of licensing authorities’ jurisdiction, setting national minimum standards for safety and accessibility and updating regulations to keep pace with technological change.
The barriers that disabled people continue to face on transport are downright scandalous. According to a 2019 survey of disabled people for Scope, 30% said that difficulties with public transport had reduced their independence, and as many as four in five said that they felt stressed or anxious when planning or carrying out such a journey. Those figures sadly come as no surprise when we look at what has happened on the Government’s watch. The costs of public transport have continued to rocket upwards ahead of wages, and services have become less and less reliable. The failed privatised model means that bus fares are projected to be 60% higher by 2024 than they were in 2010. Not only that, but bus routes are projected to fall by more than 5,000. That has led to a reduction of nearly 26% in the number of elderly and disabled passengers. The stark shortfalls in public transport mean that for many disabled people, a taxi is their only option when they go about their everyday lives. Disabled people make, on average, twice the number of taxi journeys each year compared with people without disabilities.
This Bill will give people with disabilities more rights when travelling by taxi and private hire vehicles. We welcome those ambitions, so we will support this Bill today, but the proof is well and truly in the pudding. We must ensure that new rights on the statute book are matched by tangible improvement in the experience of disabled people. For instance, I support making it mandatory for local authorities to make and maintain a list of wheelchair-accessible taxis. However, a decade of cut after cut to our local authorities means that some may struggle to maintain their lists. In my constituency, Sheffield City Council has seen its spending power cut by £215 million since 2010—almost a third of its total budget. If the lists are not regularly updated, disabled people will be unable to rely on them.
For this legislation to successfully meet its aims, it is imperative that the Government work with taxi and private hire drivers to ensure that they are fully aware of their responsibilities. For instance, training on how to assist people with a range of disabilities before, during and after their journeys could help to ensure that drivers have the confidence to provide safe and comfortable transport for all their passengers. We must also ensure that disabled people are fully aware of their rights. Although for many years wheelchair users and those with guide dogs have been protected under law from being denied a taxi service or charged extra, sadly, instances of this do still occur.
Many charities and organisations do excellent work on this, but the Government must ensure that these new changes are given the publicity they deserve. Unfortunately, the Department for Transport seems to have a track record of taking a back seat when it comes to publicity campaigns. The highway code fiasco makes this abundantly clear.
We support this legislation today, which we hope will make a real difference to the lives of disabled people, but there is still so much left to be done by Government to combat the lack of accessibility in our transport network.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I rise today to speak in support of the important Bill promoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). Too often, pockets of our society do not have true equality, or true access, and the Bill will fundamentally change that. Some people may think that this is just a small change, but for disabled people in my constituency and beyond, this will make an enormous, life-changing difference.
We talked earlier about rural areas in particular and how they will benefit from this Bill. Rutland and Melton is an incredible constituency of 462 square miles. I have almost 140 villages and just three towns, so taxis make a fundamental difference to the lives of disabled people living in our communities, but I can attest that we do not have enough taxis. On a Friday, should a surgery run over and I do not have a car, I have sometimes had to wait up to three hours to get a taxi. On a Friday evening, I will be sleeping in my office; I will not be getting home to my family because there is insufficient taxi access. That is how it is for me, as an able-bodied individual. For my disabled constituents, things are made all the more difficult.
At this point, I will talk briefly about how, in future considerations by the Government, this Bill could go further and support women and men who are parents. All too often, I have had a taxi turn up to pick me up and the driver has seen that I am a mum with two children and a pram and they have turned and run—I would like to think that they do this because of the children and not because they have seen my face—and refused to take me. I do not know whether my colleagues have had similar experiences, but the fact is it does happen. I point out, however, that such drivers are a small minority; the vast majority of taxi drivers want to do everything they can to support those whom they carry. However, some are happy to turn around and leave a mother in the rain with two small children under three. That has happened at least four or five times in my lifetime and my children are only three now, so perhaps we could look at this in future revisions of the Equality Act.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. I am very concerned to hear that she has been left by taxi drivers. When my private Member’s Bill, the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill, was passing through the other place, Baroness Brinton gave a very moving speech about how she, as a disabled wheelchair user, had been turned away by a taxi and had had to use her motorised wheelchair in the rain, and how the battery had run out a short distance from her home. Clearly, this is not acceptable.
Alicia Kearns
It is absolutely not acceptable. The fact is that this Bill is being introduced because we have disabled people in our country being charged extra for the liberty, for the joy, for the privilege of being carried, and that is absolutely shameful.
We are very fortunate in Rutland and Melton, because we have two specific companies that are expert at providing support for the disabled. I pay tribute to Claire’s Taxis and Elaine’s Taxis, both in Melton, that do a great deal to support our disabled community. They are truly wonderful. This matter is important, as it affects so many people, not least in rural areas, because of the absence of bus services. In both Rutland and in Melton, Centrebus has put up the costs for its buses, so we will now lose the only bus service—the No.19 bus—between Melton and Nottingham. That bus is so important because it carries people between two major centres of work, it carries people for healthcare needs and it ensures that anyone who supports Nottingham Forest or Notts County football clubs and wants to get to Trent Bridge is able to get there—something everyone should have the right to do, including our disabled friends and family.
It is really important that this Bill will help those who are now suffering from an absence of bus services, although I make clear that I will be fighting for the No. 19 bus service and fighting for the buses within Rutland, and Centrebus will be hearing from me. I put this on the record, and I hope their lobbyists and public relations team are listening: Centrebus, I will be in touch, because it is unacceptable that you are stripping 460 square miles of decent bus services.
The Bill is also important to me for a reason that many of us in the Chamber will have experienced. I, too, have a loved one who has recently become reliant on the use of a wheelchair. She means everything to me, and she is currently suffering from cancer that has riddled the entirety of her body, particularly her bones, meaning that she is unable to stand or to do much travel.
This Monday, I hope for the first time in two and a half years to take my loved one somewhere that is not the hospital. I hope to take her to the British Museum to see the Stonehenge exhibition, but I have been ringing around trying to get a taxi to take her there. It is not far—it is only about a half-hour journey—yet every taxi firm I ring says, “Oh, sorry, we don’t have much disabled provision,” or, “We can’t promise you there’s going to be a disabled-friendly vehicle.” I say, “Do we need to bring a foldable wheelchair? Do we need to use an electric wheelchair? What do I need to do to make this happen?” I want to get her out of the house and to the British Museum for the first time since she had this appalling diagnosis, given the effects it will have on her in the long term.
Not a single taxi company that I have rung so far, in London of all places—it is not rural Rutland and Melton—has been unable to promise me that they will help me to get my loved one just a half-hour’s journey. This Bill will make a difference for all of us caring for loved ones who unfortunately have life-limiting or other conditions.
Jeremy Wright
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. She will know that this Bill will come into effect two months after it is passed by this House and the other place and receives Royal Assent. Does she agree that it is not necessary for any taxi driver or private hire vehicle driver to wait for this legislation to be passed to offer the kind of service she describes? They can do that now, and many already do. I hope that this Bill will change the atmosphere, so that more and more drivers are prepared to offer the kind of services she describes.
Alicia Kearns
Absolutely. That is why the Bill is so important. As Conservatives, we do not want to have to pass legislation to require service providers to provide services to all people. People should not have to sit there and think, “When will Jeremy Wright come and save us all and ensure we can get the access we deserve?”
My right hon. and learned Friend is right; I am sure we will all be speaking in support of this important legislation, and the message should go out from this place today: step forward now. You have a choice, and you can ensure that anyone who is disabled, or partially sighted, or has any other needs is able to get to where they need to. It is welcome news that in two months’ time that will be a requirement, and perhaps I will not be struggling so much to provide basic access and equality of rights to those whom I love so greatly.
During the pandemic, many of our taxi drivers did great things, and I recognise that they have probably become more disabled-friendly as a result of that work. I am grateful for that. It is also important that my right hon. and learned Friend has sensibly included a clause that if a driver can argue that they could not have reasonably known a passenger was disabled, it will not be held against them, because we do not want to see that held against good, hard-working taxi drivers if they did not mean to do it.
Ultimately, however, the point stands that this is an important Bill for rural areas, to give equality of access to all disabled people and those of us who care so much about ensuring that companies step up and do what is right and do their duty. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all his work on this Bill.
It is sad that it has taken so long to get here and sad that it has required legislation, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. For my loved ones, I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Let us hope we can look at what more we can do to ensure that, as I mentioned earlier, no mother or father is ever left in the rain with their children with a taxi driver driving away from them.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who spoke with great eloquence, and to speak in this debate in support of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and his Bill, which I supported in Committee on 9 February.
My right hon. and learned Friend made the point that there has been significant consultation on the Bill—not least by him, in person—and I think that adds great authority to what he has said and what we are considering today. He observed that the Bill will come into effect two months after it is passed, which is an exciting prospect: we are not talking about some Act of Parliament in the distant future, but about an imminent change. Therefore, it is all the more to be welcomed.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for her remarks and her support for the Bill. It is always much appreciated when there is consensus across the House for such a measure —albeit with a few reservations on her part, which is to be expected and is quite understood—and I am pleased that we can all unify in support of the excellent measures in the Bill.
I am keen, in expressing my support for the Bill, to highlight and recognise the fantastic service that many taxi and private hire vehicle drivers have provided. I covered this point in my intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is nowhere more applicable than in my constituency of Clwyd South, particularly in the rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke forcefully about rural areas, and I strongly support her point. My constituency contains urban areas but also a lot of rural areas, so I have seen for myself how important it is to have a taxi and private hire vehicle service to provide help to people, often in remote areas.
Taxis and private hire vehicles have been a lifeline for many disabled and vulnerable people, not least during the covid crisis. Despite that, the Bill is very necessary, and I am proud to support it. In practice, many operators of taxis and private hire vehicles in Clwyd South and elsewhere in the UK already go out of their way to facilitate travel for disabled people, so I suspect that implementing the Bill in full will not be as difficult as some might expect.
We have talked about some of the statistics already, but let me reiterate one or two of them. In 2019-20, 14 million people in the UK—around 22% of the overall population—were reported as having a disability. It is very important to bear that statistic in mind. Around 1.2 million people who are disabled use vehicles in the UK. Another point that has been made already but needs emphasising is that disabled people make twice as many journeys as non-disabled people by taxi and private hire vehicle each year.
Despite that, some disabled people continue to face discriminatory behaviour from a minority of drivers, including outright refusal of service, overcharging, and failure to provide assistance to enable them to board and travel in vehicles in reasonable comfort and safety. Clearly, that cannot be allowed to continue. While the Equality Act 2010 provides disabled people with some protection, it applies inconsistently and only with respect to certain disabilities.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The point has been made very succinctly that we do not have to wait for the Bill to come in before some of these changes can be made. Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that taxi companies can do is to improve the communication with their drivers when people book taxis—especially in advance—when there are additional needs to be catered for, to ensure that they can provide the service?
Simon Baynes
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very valid point. I strongly support what he says. We have heard already that the communication between taxis and private hire vehicle operators and their customers is vital. It is extremely important that disabled people know what services they can obtain from taxi companies so that there is not a tragic misunderstanding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in a slightly different context, has alluded to how dispiriting and upsetting it is for someone to expect a taxi journey and then have it taken from them at the last minute because the taxi driver deems them not to be the kind of client they want to pick up at that time. That level of distress is something that we should go out of our way to avoid, as she rightly said.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is no longer in his place, made an important point about the holistic approach to travel. The Government have said that by 2030 they want to support the creation of an inclusive transport network that enables disabled people to travel to work or for leisure easily, confidently and without additional cost. That is part of the Government’s broader efforts to close the 30% gap between the employment of working-age disabled and non-disabled people. It is really important that we see the Bill in that broader context. It is not just about ensuring that taxi drivers perform in the way we are talking about: it is also the broader subject of how we ensure that disabled people can play as full a part in the life of this country, especially in the workplace, as other members of the population. It is that equality that lies at the heart of this.
As a former member of the licensing committee of Powys County Council, I am particularly interested in the measures in the Bill. One of the many reasons I support it is that it aims to reduce discrimination against disabled people and to address the barriers they face in accessing services. We have talked about the Equality Act, and it is good that the Bill will amend the sections of the Act that relate to the carriage of disabled people by taxi and private hire vehicles. As a Welsh Member, I welcome the fact that that will apply to both England and Wales. It also aims to address the inconsistencies in current legislation and expand the protections currently afforded to wheelchair and assistant dog users to all disabled people, regardless of the vehicle in which they travel. It will create a new duty to ensure that drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles do not refuse carriage to a disabled person, and a new duty will also be created for drivers to assist disabled passengers to identify and find the vehicle they have booked, without making any additional charge for doing so. In a sense, that is related to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) has just made, which is that that will be on the condition that the driver is made aware before the start of the journey that the passenger requires assistance to identify or find the vehicle.
That leads on to another point that I am keen to make, which comes from my experience in my constituency: that taxi drivers become friends to people, especially the disabled, the lonely and the elderly, because they play an incredibly important part in their lives. Many such drivers do a fantastic job already, as we have heard, and they have a close relationship with the people they help, particularly in rural areas.
The point about communication and ensuring that expectations are met, so that people have the service that they require, is vital, and lies at the heart of the Bill. It is one of the key reasons I support it. I would also expect that the provision will be especially helpful for visually impaired passengers and those with learning disabilities or cognitive impairments.
In conclusion, I fully back the Bill and will support it in the remaining stages, as it will safeguard disabled and vulnerable persons from unfair discrimination and will properly address the barriers they currently face in accessing taxi and private hire vehicles. I have great praise for the sector, as others have already said, especially in rural areas, and the Bill will enable us to create an even better service for people. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam on his worthy Bill.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for bringing the Bill forward. I hope that it will make progress and become law. I am delighted that the Opposition are supporting it.
The Bill makes some important changes and improvements to the Equality Act 2010. Those who are wheelchair-dependent or who have assistance dogs have expressed rights in that Act, but others who are in need do not. I am delighted that the Bill will look to address that point. There is currently no requirement for a local licensing list to register and only 70% of local authorities have registered lists. That is a cause of concern for me so I am also delighted that the Bill will make progress to fix that.
Specifically, I draw the House’s attention to proposed new section 167A of the 2010 Act, which brings forward new offences where drivers fail or refuse to accept a booking from a disabled person because of a disability, which is important. I listened intently to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the experiences that she shared. Many hon. Members have also had those experiences shared with them by constituents. It is important that we look to address that and put it right. I cannot commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam enough for addressing that.
A theme that has come through so far in the debate is the effect that the Bill will have on those living in rural areas, where taxi drivers have a considerable impact. In many cases, it is regrettable that there is such a high dependency on taxis. It is incumbent on the Government to take note of the fact that bus services in rural areas have not been the highest priority for a while. I hope that that will be fixed through the recently announced White Paper and the work that the Government are doing. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will update us on that, particularly on the effect on disabled access and those needing it.
The debate is about taxi access, however, and I pay tribute to my local taxi firm Beaver Cabs in Sherborne, which does a wonderful job. Those taxi drivers do much more than just drive someone from A to B: they have a relationship and they are often one of the few people that a resident will interact with over a period of time.
Many hon. Members have large rural constituencies. I listened to some statistics from hon. Friends earlier about the size of constituencies and I know that Conservative Members like to have a bit of a competition, but West Dorset is a constituency of 400 square miles and 132 parishes—it is vast and it has 84,000 electors. It is a considerable rural constituency and there are very high levels of dependency on taxi use. Of course, there are also many hidden needs, some of which my right hon. and learned Friend covers in the Bill.
It is key to build on the generosity and kindness of taxi drivers. We have to take care not to portray all taxi drivers in the same way as the few who are perhaps less kind and less generous with their assistance and help. The majority of taxi drivers already do many things. The good thing about the Bill is that it will legislate to ensure that those who do not do these things as standard will have to do so.
In West Dorset, there is a particular difficulty with disabled access by car and taxi to and from railway stations. There are seven stations in my constituency, only two of which are accessible. The other stations that serve the wider area are not accessible either.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend has great expertise when it comes to all things choo-choo, I believe. Why does he think those stations have not been given the facilities that they need for accessibility? We have the same problem in my rural constituency.
Chris Loder
As in most cases, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I have been actively pursuing this matter at Dorchester West station. Dorchester is the county town of Dorset. Dorchester West is now fully accessible, as a result of one of my many campaigns. However, it has taken far too long. Dorchester South, the county town station from which trains go to London, is not fully accessible. If a taxi for a disabled person pulls up at that station and the train is arriving from London Waterloo, the disabled passenger cannot access the taxi. Yeovil Junction, which is not in my constituency but serves the vast majority of the rural north of it, is not staffed all the time. A disabled person who gets off a train and cannot manage the steps will be stranded. That is unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give due consideration to it—along with many other issues that I must share with her and her colleagues in this context.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
My hon. Friend has great expertise and experience in this field, so I hope he will forgive me if I ask him to acknowledge, at least, that the Government are making investments in our railway network and stations to improve accessibility through the Access for All programme, which will result in £350 million of investment between 2019 and 2024. Perhaps his constituency has not yet benefited from that investment, but he should certainly seek it.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind intervention. I entirely agree with him: I think that the Government’s work in this field is excellent. Regrettably, however, it is not excellent in West Dorset yet. When a county town station is not fully accessible and the second town of Somerset, on the border, is served by a station at which someone who is disabled and arrives after 8 pm will be stranded, that is completely unacceptable. However, I wholly support what the Government are doing through Access for All, and would warmly welcome more of that investment in West Dorset to address this issue.
Peter Gibson
While we are on the issue of railways, on which my hon. Friend is an expert and speaks eloquently, and as we are talking about access to them for disabled persons, may I draw his attention to my campaign for the installation of tactile paving, an essential means of ensuring safety for disabled persons, at Darlington’s Bank Top station? May I also be the first to wish the Minister well with the GB Railways headquarters? We learned today that 42 possible locations had been named; I just want to put Darlington’s bid on record, and to wish the Minister well with that.
Chris Loder
I would welcome investment in the tactile paving that my hon. Friend will be receiving at Darlington. I understand that it is part of a £100 million scheme to develop the whole station. That is major investment for a wonderful part of the world, but West Dorset is equally wonderful, and I cannot remember the last time we saw major investment in one of our railway stations in rural Dorset. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this point. Access for disabled people who need to travel in taxis to and from trains, especially in the absence of rural bus services, is incredibly important, and we often do not pay attention to it.
You may be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in three areas in rural Dorset one has to put one’s hand out for the train driver to stop. Those train stations have only steps, and they are completely inaccessible to disabled people arriving by car. I hope the DFT and my hon. Friend the Minister will pursue a wider piece of work to develop connectivity for disabled people who travel by car and taxi to get on a train.
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Does he take comfort from the fact that Great British Railways will have a statutory duty to make train stations more accessible? And will he support Grantham’s bid to host the headquarters of Great British Railways?
Chris Loder
I am open to being lobbied to support bids. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not declaring at this moment which bid I will support. We need to be careful not to stray from the point.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the future of GBR. He asks whether I take comfort from the fact that GBR will also have the ability to make progress. Yes, I do take comfort, but I do not take comfort from having to wait for it. There is no reason to wait for this to happen to address the very difficult disabled access issues we have today. Many of us, particularly in rural areas, have already had to wait for decades and we should not continually have to wait. I welcome the GBR initiative, which will do great things for the railways of this country. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues for their work.
I am conscious that we are straying into trains and railways. I am delighted to take interventions and questions from my hon. Friends, but I am conscious that I am not at the Dispatch Box. I hope they will bear that in mind.
The absence of rural bus services means that disabled people are much more dependent on taxis. We have to bear in mind the cost to disabled people. It is sad that disabled people, particularly in rural areas, have to pay more to be connected and to go to places because of the nature of their disability. That is something we should note. I am delighted that the Bill looks to address many of those matters.
Alicia Kearns
If we are to reduce the reliance on taxis in the most rural areas, perhaps the Government need to consider improving the local government finance settlement and the funding to rural authorities. Otherwise we will have an increased reliance on taxi services, which sometimes struggle to operate in rural areas. We need that funding to ensure that there are adequate buses. The Government should be stepping forward to provide fairer funding to rural areas.
Chris Loder
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I looked through the revenue support grant list, but I cannot recall how her constituency benefited or not. Dorset did not benefit at all from the revenue support grant—it was zero. That compounds the difficulties we experience, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for meeting my Dorset colleagues and I to look to address that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton that this is a matter of real concern to many of us in rural constituencies. It is important that the balance is now readjusted, as rural areas are important. We have taken them for granted, particularly on disabled access and disabled transport, for too long. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is making good progress on that in this Bill, and I am sure the Department will take it further.
I am conscious of the time and I am very grateful for the time afforded to me, but I will just conclude by saying that the dependence on taxis, because of the absence of rural bus services, particularly for disabled people, is an ongoing concern. For the past two and a half years, or just under, since I was elected, we have seen a considerable reduction in rural bus services. That has put undue pressure on those who do not have their own car, particularly those who are disabled, who need to get to the hospital, who need to go to the doctors and the dentists, who need to go shopping—the most basic of things. I look forward to progress on that in due course.
Finally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has done a sterling job with the Bill, which will make a huge impact and be of huge benefit to many people who maybe do not even realise that we are talking about it today. I am sorry not to see more Members on the Opposition Benches. This House has talked a lot about the issue of accessibility and equality over many years, and I am very sorry that the Opposition Benches are so free and empty. I just say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) that that is not meant to be a political point, but we have talked about this matter a lot in this House. It is important that today we can demonstrate, as the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, that we are making real progress on a matter that will affect a lot of people. I pay tribute, once again, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I rise in support of the Bill and I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for this important piece of legislation which will widen access and improve the Equality Act 2010. I very much welcome that it has support from the Opposition.
As we have heard today, connectivity is a huge issue in rural areas. I do not want to get into Top Trumps on the sizes of rural constituencies, but Penrith and the Border is the largest and most sparsely populated constituency in England. It can sometimes take up to two hours to get from one end of the constituency to the other by car. Having said that I did not want to indulge in Top Trumps, I just have.
Chris Loder
We cannot not respond to such points made in the House. West Dorset is 400 square miles and has 132 parishes. I cannot quite remember the statistics for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), but I think hers is slightly larger than mine. Is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) more beautiful than West Dorset? I am not quite sure on that point.
Dr Hudson
Yes, it is more beautiful. [Laughter.] Let us put the Top Trumps to one side now and get to the heart of this very important Bill.
My colleagues in rural constituencies, and also those in urban constituencies, have highlighted the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend’s Bill in connecting people, in getting them from A to B, in equality of access for all people who need it, and in ensuring that disabled people have equality of access. That is so, so important.
Points were made about there being many, many good taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers who are doing the right thing. Again, I want to thank those drivers for doing the right thing. The Bill will set the balance and get that to be uniform. For too long, unfortunately, disabled people have been facing behaviour that makes their lives very, very difficult. When there is outright refusal of service, it is incredibly distressing. I welcome the Government’s intention to go further and move towards disability training as part of the standards for licensing. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on that point.
I also echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on the importance of having a database, so that people hiring vehicles know exactly where and when they can access them. That is a very important point and I look forward to movement on that.
I welcome the important tenet of the Bill to refrain from charging disabled people extra. It is so important to get that on to the statute book.
I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s work on the Bill. Notably, he has consulted widely with disability groups as well as transport groups, and inserted practical safeguard balances into the Bill so that people providing services will not be penalised. It is well-balanced legislation that will move us forward positively.
As the Bill comes on to the statute book—as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that will be a couple of months after Royal Assent—it will be beholden on licensing authorities to become involved, but as has been mentioned, there are many pressures on local authorities. In Cumbria, we face radical local government restructuring to create two new unitary authorities. I have said many times that I am passionately against the restructuring, which is the last thing that a huge county such as Cumbria needs, and it is the worst possible time to be changing everything as we come out of a pandemic. That said, we are where we are and we need to make it work, but there will be pressures on the Cumbrian system to institute such changes.
I have been concerned about how the restructuring in Cumbria is leading to paralysis and inertia in decision making and in acting on legislation that may come through. To illustrate that, the local Liberal Democrat-led Eden District Council is delaying decisions on waste collections, so some villages in my constituency do not get green waste picked up while others do. The Liberal Democrat administration is blaming the previous Conservative administration and local government reform, and it is blaming central Government for the restructuring, which it cannot do anything about. That is not good enough. We cannot have delays in decision making because of such restructurings.
It is so important that we have connections across my constituency, so taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers are really important in that. It is also important, as colleagues have said, to have connectivity to other services. Rural buses have been highlighted often, and we have many fantastic local services for which volunteers have stepped up, such as the Fellrunner bus and the Border Rambler bus. Unfortunately, over the years we have seen increasing pressure on the rural bus network, so we have lost services.
Sadly, in 2014, Cumbria County Council took the retrograde decision to stop using central Government moneys to subsidise rural bus routes and, accordingly, some routes had to close as they were not financially viable. I urge local and central Government to ensure connectivity by working hard together and using moneys sensibly. In rural areas such as mine, people depend on the bus network, taxis and private hire vehicles.
Trains have also segued into the debate and, in my part of the world, I very much believe that we must improve train services. I have been campaigning for the reopening of Gilsland station and for the extension of the Borders railway from the borders down through Longtown in my constituency and on to Carlisle. We need joined-up thinking. The Bill is so important in improving equality of access to private hire vehicles and taxis, but I urge the Government to work with local government to ensure that our rural bus network is improved, bolstered and supported and that the train network is supported as well.
I raised many of those issues a couple of weeks ago in an Adjournment debate on support for levelling up rural communities. Bills such as this are very much about levelling up society, are they not? It is so important that such Bills come together, but we also need joined up-government to ensure connectivity across all walks of life. I firmly believe that this is an important Bill, which highlights the need to join up people in our communities, whether they are urban or rural.
We have highlighted some of the pressures in rural communities. Last night, I chaired a roundtable of rural stakeholders in my constituency. The pressures faced by such people, including farmers, due to the cost of living crisis include increasing fuel and diesel costs and increasing fertiliser costs. People in rural communities also have the cost of putting oil into their heating systems. I urge the Government to listen to those concerns and hope that, in the coming days, the Chancellor will try to mitigate some of the pressures that face our rural society.
In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam on the Bill, to which I give my full support.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is a no-brainer, and it is nice to speak in support of a Bill where the issue is not contentious. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for all his hard work in getting it this far.
I will be short and sweet. In the UK, 14.1 million people are reported to have a disability, which represents about 20% of the population. Of those, about 1.2 million people use wheelchairs. With disabled people making twice as many journeys by taxi and private hire vehicle each year compared with non-disabled people, discrimination against them appears to be utterly counter-intuitive. The Bill will create a new duty to ensure that drivers of taxis and PHVs do not refuse carriage to a disabled person who could reasonably travel in that vehicle, with no extra charge, and make every effort to ensure that that person feels comfortable and safe while travelling.
Local licensing authorities may currently maintain a list of wheelchair-accessible taxis and PHVs, but only 70% of them have chosen to do so. To address that anomaly, the Bill will require LLAs to maintain and publish such a list. It is also expected that the cost of the changes will be minimal, so what is not to like?
The Bill will mean that licensing authorities can enforce and remove licences from operators who do not comply with the law, and rightly so. In Bracknell, we have a thriving taxi and PHV industry. We have airport runs, the M3, the M4 and runs into London. Taxis and PHVs in Bracknell are busy. However, let us also commend the fantastic work that bus companies and aviation companies are doing in upholding the requirements of the Equality Act and looking after people who are not able-bodied. My thanks goes to all those in my constituency who operate in the transport sector.
I believe that the Bill will enforce the already excellent practices adopted by most operators in the UK, so let us hope that the Opposition and the Government now formally support it.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak about this Bill today and I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for bringing it to the House. It will make a huge difference to the lives of a number of people. As we have stated, let us hope that many of the companies start to take action before the legislation comes into effect. This country prides itself on treating people equally. Although there will always be instances where we do not get it right or could do better, we can nevertheless be incredibly positive about that, and there are many great examples that we can point to.
I am glad that we are getting the opportunity this morning to discuss equal treatment for those with disabilities. When the underground was again grinding to a halt the other week because of strikes, despite the Mayor’s past assurances, we all appreciated the fact that we had alternative forms of transport. When buses are not available, as many are not in rural communities such as Bassetlaw, a taxi or private hire vehicle can be essential. It needs to be recognised that access to those services is sometimes not available perhaps as equally as it should be. As has been mentioned many times, disabled people make twice as many taxi and private hire vehicle journeys each year as others, and the Bill seeks to remedy this and put further protections in place. To do so we need to amend the sections of the Equality Act 2010 relating to the carriage of disabled people by taxi and PHV. There are currently some inconsistencies in the legislation and it is worth bearing in mind that we are not simply speaking about wheelchair users; there are other needs to consider such as those of people using assistance dogs. Nobody should be refused carriage because of their disability when reasonable steps can be taken to ensure they are able to travel, and they have a right to feel comfortable and safe when travelling and should not incur any extra charges. It is reasonable to expect this while also recognising that in some cases transportation in certain vehicles may not be possible.
As has been mentioned, 14.1 million people are reported as having a disability, making up 22% of the population, and it is disappointing that many disabled people continue to report facing discriminatory behaviour from drivers, including outright refusal of service, overcharging and failure to provide assistance to enable them to board and travel in vehicles in reasonable comfort and safety. This should not happen, regardless of the proportion of disabled people in the country of course, as one person being treated unfairly is one too many.
I fully support the Government’s pledge to create an inclusive transport network by 2030 and their broader efforts to close the 30% gap between the employment of working age disabled and non-disabled people. Many found it reassuring that this Government’s existing inclusive transport strategy has highlighted the inconsistent application of the Equality Act in terms of the duties it places on taxi and PHV drivers, and that is why I fully support this excellent Bill. The Government’s 2021 national disability strategy also committed to take forward legislation to strengthen the law on the carriage of disabled people in taxis and PHVs so that they are protected from some of the issues highlighted today. It is disappointing that section 167 of the Equality Act provides only that local licensing authorities “may maintain a list” of wheelchair-accessible taxis and PHVs and that only 70% of LLAs are doing so. Drivers in areas without a list should not be able to continue discriminating against disabled passengers even if their vehicle is technically wheelchair accessible, and this Bill will fix that.
Currently, sections 168 and 170 of the Equality Act create offences for taxi drivers and PHV operators and drivers who refuse to carry, or make additional charges for carrying, a disabled person travelling with an assistance dog, and proposed new section 167A creates new offences where PHV operators fail or refuse to accept a booking from a disabled person because of their disability or charge extra for fulfilling any of the disability-related duties in proposed new sections 164A and 165A and section 165 of the Act.
In conclusion, the Bill will help reduce discrimination against disabled people and help further tackle the barriers they have to face in accessing these essential services by amending the Equality Act 2010. It is important to be balanced, too, which is why I am pleased that the Bill includes defences for where drivers could not reasonably have known the passenger was disabled and/or the passenger required mobility assistance. It is of course helpful for drivers to be made aware before the start of a journey that the passenger requires assistance—as I mentioned earlier, there is a communication issue there as much as anything else—so that they can identify and find a vehicle that is suitable for the passenger’s needs, because then everybody will be a lot happier. This will be particularly helpful for visually impaired passengers and those with learning disabilities or cognitive impairments; this is something they have raised on a number of occasions and I am delighted it is being reflected in this well thought-out Bill. This excellent, well-intentioned Bill will contribute to making taxi and PHV access fairer for all.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on producing this Bill and all the work he has put in; the diligence with which it is crafted shows he cares passionately about the subject. Before I get to the content of today’s Bill, let me put on record my admiration for all the taxi firms across Grantham and Stamford that keep us moving across what is a very rural constituency, whether that is ABC Taxis in Stamford, Grantham Taxis, Smart Cabs in Bourne, Starline Taxis in Stamford, or Excellent Cabs—who are indeed excellent—in Grantham. I thank every one of those firms.
We know the importance of today’s debate, because this is about fairness. It is about ensuring a level playing field for everyone who lives in this country, no matter where they come from, what has happened to them in life, how they are born or where they are born. This is about treating everybody fairly and equally. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) some very interesting statistics that caught my attention, so let me repeat them for additional emphasis: some 14 million people in this country live with some kind of disability—22% of our population in total—and 1.2 million use a wheelchair. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw pointed out, a disabled person is twice as likely to need and use a taxi or private hire vehicle than a non-disabled person.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about a couple of other statistics that arose from some research carried out by the disability charity Scope? It reported in 2019 that two thirds of disabled people had experienced problems using public transport in the previous year, and that four fifths of disabled people felt anxious on public transport. That, I suggest, underlines the reasons why disabled people need to have access to taxis and private hire vehicles. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; no matter the mode of transport, we should make it as accessible as possible. As I mentioned in an intervention previously, this Government are investing in making our public transport network more accessible, whether that is through the £350 million investment in improved accessibility on our train network or the national bus strategy, which has resulted in 99% of buses being acceptably accessible. However, my hon. Friend is right: we should not ignore the fact that people still feel uncomfortable, and there are still modes of transportation that are not accessible. One of the reasons why disabled people use taxis and private hire vehicles is the level of private car ownership, a point that I will come on to in a moment.
We should also acknowledge that when it comes to transportation for disabled people, some improvements are happening in this country. A recent Department for Transport survey showed that 75% of disabled people are satisfied with taxi services, but that figure needs to be 100%, which is the point of today’s Bill. Taxi driver awareness training is also increasing, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, we can and should do more. We should never stop pushing for that.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
A week ago, when I was coming back from Parliament, I got a taxi from Stonehouse station with Apollo Cars, and my driver talked about this Bill. He was very much in favour of it. He has five or six regular clients—a group of Down’s syndrome lads—who he takes to college, and he spoke so favourably about this Bill. As we have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and a number of other colleagues, it is so important that we are supportive of taxi drivers. I think I interrupted my hon. Friend before he could go on to that point, but so many taxi drivers provide an excellent service and really enjoy those trips as well.
Gareth Davies
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I pay tribute to Apollo Taxis, just as I did at the beginning to all those taxi firms in Grantham and Stamford constituency.
I also welcome the national disability strategy, which has already been referred to by one of my hon. Friends and is the first cross-Government effort to improve the everyday lives of disabled people. Again, I praise this Government for the efforts they are making, particularly the disability Minister, who has taken to her brief with great passion and motivation. However, there is clearly an issue, which this Bill is seeking to address. Many disabled people face discrimination when it comes to taxi services, whether that is outright refusal of service, over-charging of passengers, or a failure to provide assistance. None of that should be happening; it is completely and utterly unacceptable. To the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), only 58% of taxis and 2% of private hire vehicles are wheelchair-accessible, which is in stark contrast to buses of which, thanks to the national bus strategy, 99% are accessible to disabled people, so that gap needs need to be filled.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, the Government’s 2018 inclusive transport strategy aimed to support the creation of an inclusive transport network and highlights the inconsistent application of the Equality Act 2010 to taxis. I am delighted that this Bill seeks to address that inconsistency by preventing taxi drivers from refusing a journey, by requiring drivers to assist disabled people, and by requiring local licensing authorities to maintain and publish a list of wheelchair-accessible taxis. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), backed up my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, about transparency and having a register is important, and I hope the Minister is listening.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing those statistics. Just 58% of taxis being accessible to disabled users masks the fact that such vehicles are not evenly spread throughout the country. I imagine that many of them are based in here in London, and constituencies such as ours, some distance from London, do not have the requisite number of accessible vehicles. I also thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the register, which I raised earlier.
Gareth Davies
Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is worth highlighting my second statistic: 2% of private hire vehicles are wheelchair-accessible. In a rural area such as Lincolnshire, where I am from, we do not have that many taxis—London has the bulk of them, as my hon. Friend points out—so 2% is an astonishing and, frankly, disturbing figure. That highlights why it is so important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has brought this Bill to the Chamber today.
This Bill, this initiative and, indeed, this debate with its many contributions from Conservative Members will be met with great appreciation in my constituency. I pay tribute to the Grantham Disabled Children’s Society, run by the incredible Darryl Blair and his team of volunteers, who do so much for disabled children in Grantham. I have spent a lot of time with the organisation, and Darryl in particular, and it does fantastic work to make the lives of disabled children across Lincolnshire a lot easier. He will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts today.
If the House will indulge me, based on conversations with Darryl and the Grantham Disabled Children’s Society I will touch on two important related issues facing disabled people in Grantham and Stamford that are close to my heart. First, while we are talking about taxis today, some disabled people—about 4.2% of the population according statistics I have read—hold a blue badge pass, but many report growing issues with non-passholders incorrectly using disabled parking spaces at petrol stations, supermarkets and other venues or, unbelievably, just abusing them, which I have seen happen on countless occasions. Of course, I appreciate that not all disabilities are visible, but Government statistics show that blue badge theft and misuse is a real problem. In 2021, 4,396 badges were stolen, and the most common reason for prosecution for the misuse of blue badges was when someone uses somebody else’s badge following some undetermined action.
Even if disabled people can get around, my second point is that when they get somewhere, there are insufficient places for changing and bathroom facilities. I have spent a lot of time looking at changing places, and I was shocked to learn that in my constituency and across Lincolnshire we have very few changing place facilities for disabled people. I support our local district council in its wish, and the bid it has put in to the Government, to put in place a changing place facility in each of the three towns I represent, Grantham, Bourne and Stamford.
It is right that we debate this subject and that we put on record our thanks to our taxi drivers across our constituencies, while also recognising that much more needs to be done to level the playing field for disabled people. This is an incredibly important Bill, which has my full support and, I am pleased to say, the support of many across the House. The Government have an important role to play in levelling the playing field; I appreciate all the efforts they have made, but we should never be complacent.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on successfully bringing his Bill to this stage. Having been through the same process recently with my Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill, I know how much work is required, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) can attest to that with the successful passage of his Bill too.
It takes a great deal of effort to turn a good idea into good law. With a private Member’s Bill, it can only done with a lot of help from officials of the House, from all Front Benches and from Back-Bench colleagues across the House, whose support is so important, particularly at Committee stage. Persuading hon. Members with whom we normally disagree of the merits of our Bills is not always the easiest of tasks, but it ensures that the ultimate legislation has been thoroughly considered and, if necessary, improved to address needs that have been identified across the House.
I must admit I had not quite realised some of the tactics that would be needed to ensure that all the procedural niceties were met. I rather suspect the Government Whips were a little jittery when they saw me lurking near the Opposition Lobby more than once in order to get Labour Members to sign the document agreeing that they would serve on the Bill Committee, but it all worked out in the end. I never walked through the wrong Lobby, they supported me in the Bill Committee and I pay tribute to all of them for their support of my Bill. I also pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam for the endeavours he has had to make to bring this Bill back before us today.
Moving on to the substance of the debate, it is fair to say that not only do taxis and private hire vehicles provide a convenient mode of transport, but they can be a lifeline for many of our constituents. Never has that been more apparent than during the pandemic, when cab drivers were tremendously important in my constituency. At a time when so many were working from home, drivers helped to ensure that people could get to urgent appointments, helped to deliver essential goods and prescriptions, and were an absolutely vital link for vulnerable residents. On behalf of all the people of Aylesbury, I thank our local drivers for all the hard work they have put in in what has been a challenging two years.
As we have heard at length in this debate, taxis are especially important for those members of our local community who are disabled. Having a convenient, door-to-door service helps to give them the freedom to travel locally, enriching their lives and helping to combat loneliness and isolation—in short, it lets them do what everyone else does without thinking about it.
That is even more the case for people living in rural areas. Despite my constituency being called Aylesbury, in honour of the proud and beautiful county town of Buckinghamshire, the seat is in fact quite rural. Almost two thirds of my constituency is nestled in villages and hamlets, and for many elderly and disabled residents in those more rural communities taxis are not just convenient but essential.
Furthermore, many of the taxi firms in Aylesbury provide school transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, helping them to access the provision they need so they can receive the best education possible, including at the Chiltern Way Academy. I visited the school last week and, as I was leaving, there was a fleet of taxis lined up to take the children home—children who loved being at that school and who were benefiting in a way they would not necessarily have done elsewhere, but who could only get that benefit because of the taxis taking them there every day. Those taxis, of course, needed to be fit for the children they were transporting, and that is a prime example of why my right hon. and learned Friend’s Bill is so important.
When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), I highlighted worrying figures from the disability charity Scope: two thirds of disabled people experiencing problems using public transport and four fifths of disabled people feeling anxious on public transport. Those figures again underline the significance of taxis for disabled people, yet sadly we still hear of instances in which they face discrimination from drivers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) mentioned earlier.
It is shocking that there are drivers or cab companies that refuse to transport people because they are disabled, say they will take them but then overcharge, or will not help somebody get in and out of a car. That seems astonishing in 2022. Although the Equality Act 2010 provides disabled people with some protection, it is applied inconsistently, so this Bill is absolutely essential.
I was surprised to learn that there is no duty on the driver of any taxi or private hire vehicle to carry a passenger who could transfer from a wheelchair into the vehicle. People who want to show a degree of self-sufficiency where they are able to do so are not being helped by those who could help them, which is quite astonishing. It is absolutely the right time to put that right.
Finally, I want to mention the role of local licensing authorities, because they too can play an important role in helping passengers who need a wheelchair-accessible vehicle to find one. The Equality Act provides that licensing authorities “may maintain a list” of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles, but it does not oblige them to do so. I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council does indeed maintain a list of taxis and private hire vehicles that are fully wheelchair accessible and currently operating within the county. I looked at the list yesterday and it is helpfully divided into sections according to the local areas and districts within the county, and includes useful information on available vehicles so that anyone who is disabled and needs to get around can do so with confidence and full information.
The legislation being introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam is important, necessary and overdue. Taxis and private hire vehicles are convenient, but we must ensure that they are also accessible to the people who rely on them. This Bill will do exactly that. It will amend the Equality Act 2010 so that inconsistencies in current legislation are eliminated, and it will expand the protection that currently benefits only disabled people in wheelchairs or using assistance dogs, specifically and importantly creating the new duties we have heard about, making sure that every effort is made to ensure disabled passengers feel comfortable and safe while travelling. It sounds so simple; it is right that it is now going to happen.
This Bill represents an important step towards the fully inclusive transport network that I, the Government, the Opposition and surely all Members of the House want to see created.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on bringing forward this Bill. I commend him for expertly guiding this legislation through Committee stage to today’s Third Reading.
The topic of the Bill is close to my heart. I was privileged to guide through the House my own private Member’s Bill on taxi and private hire vehicles during this Session, and it is a privilege to be able to be here today to assist my right hon. and learned Friend with his Bill in its final stages. From my own experience, I know what a hugely rewarding process a private Member’s Bill can be, particularly when it stands a real chance of becoming law, but it is also a challenging experience and I congratulate him on reaching this stage.
It would be remiss of me not to mention my noble Friend Lord Borwick, who is ably guiding my Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill as it continues its legislative journey. Throughout his career, Lord Borwick has done extensive work to make taxis accessible to disabled people. In his time as the chief executive and a shareholder in Manganese Bronze Holdings plc, the company manufactured, distributed and financed the traditional London taxi and developed the first mobile phone hailing system in the world, which went on to become the first wheelchair-accessible public transport system. He went on to be chairman of the company that adopted the Mercedes Vito to make a wheelchair-accessible London taxi, which was undoubtedly a significant contribution to making taxis and private hire vehicles accessible to disabled people.
It would also be remiss of me not to mention the good work of the all-party parliamentary group on taxis. We have heard in this debate from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who has done extensive work in respect of taxis. I welcome the APPG’s engagement with me on my Bill, and I am sure that it has been assisting my right hon. and learned Friend with his.
There are more than 14 million people in the UK with a disability. For many of them, taxi and private hire vehicles are a vital and sometimes the only means of transport, allowing them to access the daily freedoms that many of us take for granted. Indeed, I understand that research has been carried out by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which found that the households of 60% of disabled people had no car, compared with 27% for the overall population. Moreover, 50% of respondents said that inaccessible transport had restricted their choice of jobs, rising to 62% for wheelchair users and 86% for those with a visual impairment.
As a society, we should not accept such figures. It is hugely important that drivers of taxi and private hire vehicles are willing to offer the extra help required to make a disabled person’s journey manageable and ensure that they are not denied opportunities because of something that is entirely outside their control. That reality has been impressed on me by Gordon Pybus, who is the chair of Darlington Association on Disability, an organisation in my constituency that is led by disabled people who are taking a leading role in changing the negative attitudes that prevent disabled people from participating fully as equal citizens. I know that he and the association warmly welcome this Bill as an important step forward for disabled people.
In proceedings on my own Bill in the other place, moving speeches were made by Baroness Brinton, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention, and Lord Holmes of Richmond about their difficulties as disabled people using taxis. I am pleased that the Bill will address some of the issues that they raised. We have a proud history in this country of legislating to put in place protections for disabled people. The Equality Act 2010 was undoubtedly a huge step forward, providing specific protections for those who use wheelchairs and those with assistance dogs.
We can always do more, however. The overwhelming majority of our taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are good, decent, hard-working people, and they would go out of their way to support their disabled passengers, but a small minority still refuse to carry disabled passengers, refuse to take their bookings or do not make available the assistance that disabled people need to use their services. I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to right this wrong and broaden the measures in the Equality Act to address the discrimination that many disabled passengers still face.
The Bill will achieve that by amending the Equality Act, specifically the sections relating to the carriage of disabled persons by taxi and private hire vehicles. The Bill is designed to address the inconsistencies in the Act while expanding the protections afforded to wheelchair and assistance dog users to cover all disabled people, no matter the vehicle in which they travel.
The Act rightly requires the driver of designated wheelchair-accessible vehicles and private hire vehicles to carry wheelchair-using passengers at no extra charge. That duty does not, however, currently extend to carrying passengers who could transfer from a wheelchair into a non-wheelchair-accessible vehicle while their wheelchair is folded and stored for the journey. It also excludes from any protection when travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle all other disabled passengers who do not use a wheelchair.
I am pleased that the Bill will right that oversight to ensure that drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles do not refuse carriage to a disabled person who could reasonably travel in that vehicle with no extra charge, and that drivers make every effort to make sure the disabled person feels comfortable and safe while travelling, among other related duties. Those are very reasonable and simple requests to make of drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles. We would not expect a taxi driver to refuse to transport a mother and child with a pushchair, but sadly, as we heard from my hon Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), that does happen. That is simply not acceptable in 21st-century Britain.
The Bill will require drivers to carry more than one wheelchair on any one journey except under certain circumstances. It will also ensure that there are protections for drivers who could not reasonably have known that the passenger was disabled and/or required mobility assistance. The vast majority of taxis and private hire vehicles already seek to ensure that disabled customers are able to travel in comfort and have the support they need. It is likely that many already abide by those measures, but I am pleased that the Bill will ensure that those basic expectations are set out in law and will better protect our disabled citizens.
It is right that offences arising from failure to comply with the duties the Bill establishes will be punishable by fines comparable to those for offences already in law under the Equality Act. The Bill puts in place clear deterrents for those who would seek to discriminate against disabled persons.
The Bill also deals with another issue, arising from pre-booked journeys. It is currently an offence to refuse to carry, or to make additional charges for a disabled person travelling with an assistance dog, but not to refuse bookings. The Bill rightly creates new offences where an operator fails or refuses to accept a booking from a disabled person because of their disability, or charges extra for fulfilling any of the duties placed on it to facilitate a disabled person’s journey.
We must not forget that some taxi and private hire vehicle drivers face disabilities or impairments themselves. It is right that the Equality Act provides for exemption certificates for such drivers from duties under the Act. However, the current exemption provisions are very broad, even exempting drivers with such a certificate from the measures preventing drivers from making additional charges. I am pleased that the Bill amends the operation of those certificates so that a driver with a certificate will be exempt only from mobility assistance duties; other duties, such as to carry the passenger and not to propose additional charges, will still apply to exempted drivers.
My own Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill seeks to resolve a number of issues with licensing. I am pleased that this Bill will complement mine, and that it seeks to right another issue with the licensing system. Current legislation provides only that local licensing authorities may maintain a list of wheelchair-accessible taxis and private hire vehicles, and only 70% of licensing authorities do so. Only drivers designated on those lists are subject to the provisions of the Equality Act, meaning that drivers in areas without a list have been able to continue to discriminate against disabled passengers, even if their vehicle is wheelchair accessible. That is not acceptable, and I am pleased that the Bill will build on other reforms to the licensing system to require all local licensing authorities to maintain and publish such a list.
In the light of my own Bill, I ask the Minister if the Government have considered whether a central database of wheelchair-accessible vehicles might be a prudent move. In Darlington, we face a shortage of available taxis, in large part due to a shortage of drivers, but wheelchair-accessible vehicles for our disabled community are even more scarce. Ensuring the availability of accessible vehicles for disabled people in Darlington remains a problem.
For the last 10 years of her life, my mother was wheelchair bound as a result of a massive stroke that rendered her unable to walk and dependent on the care of others for the most basic needs. On a number of occasions, it was necessary for mum to rely on taxi transport. I am pleased to report that in every one of those instances, mum received the care and attention entirely appropriate for her situation. To my mind, it passed the “mum test”—that is, it was good enough for my own mother. I believe that the measures in this Bill promoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam will help to enshrine the mum test in law for all of our disabled constituents.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
Let me start by saying a huge thank you to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for so expertly steering the Bill through the House. As a Back Bencher, I successfully steered two private Members’ Bills through this place, so I absolutely understand the huge amount of work that he is undertaking.
It is really good to see Members in the Chamber today. I appreciate that Friday is a constituency day, so the fact that Members are here supporting the Bill makes me understand even more how important it is and the amount of support that it has. Members have made it very clear that the Bill will make a big difference to their constituents.
As I have watched the Bill make progress, one key point has stayed with me, which is that disabled people make twice as many journeys by taxi and private hire vehicle as non-disabled people. We were reminded of that by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). Across all transport modes, just 69% of disabled people surveyed by the Government’s inclusive transport strategy baseline study were confident travelling, compared to 90% of non-disabled people. For many disabled people, travelling is often accompanied by fear, anxiety and stress. The Bill would directly address that disparity between disabled and non-disabled people when using a vital form of transport. It would provide rights and protections for any disabled person intending on travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle. It would place duties on drivers to provide reasonable assistance to any disabled person, and prevent them from charging extra for doing so. It would support the Government’s ambition for disabled people to have the same access to transport as everyone else. Those are the reasons why, I am pleased to say, the Government fully support the Bill. I also welcome the Opposition’s support for it.
Currently, if a passenger uses a walking frame to access a taxi or private hire vehicle, there is no specific duty on the driver to assist them in stowing their frame in the boot of the vehicle. Right now, if a prospective passenger has notified an operator or driver at the booking stage that they have dementia and may not be able to identify or find the vehicle when it arrives, there is no specific duty to assist them. At this time, if an assistance dog user books a private hire vehicle, the operator will not automatically break the law if they decide, simply because the person is disabled, to not send a driver. If a wheelchair user wants to use a taxi or private hire vehicle which is registered to a local licensing authority that does not maintain a list of designated wheelchair accessible vehicles, there is no specific duty on the driver or operator to carry them, either in their wheelchair or in the passenger seat. Those are just a few of the real life scenarios that disabled people up and down the country experience today—hon. Members have given other examples in this debate—and the Equality Act 2010 does not currently provide rights for or protections against them. The Bill would rectify that, ensuring all disabled people have rights and protections to access a taxi or private hire vehicle service, no matter where they are in Great Britain.
The Bill would create new responsibilities and amend existing ones for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, private hire vehicle operators, and local licensing authorities. In particular, it would place reasonable duties on drivers to assist and carry any disabled person and, if applicable, their wheelchair or mobility aids, ensuring that no driver can make, or propose to make, any additional charge for complying with such duties. It would also require local licensing authorities to maintain a list of designated wheelchair accessible vehicles, thereby ensuring that the duties in section 165 apply to drivers of wheelchair accessible vehicles across the country—a point that several hon. Members have made today.
Additionally, the Bill would make it an offence for a private hire vehicle operator to refuse a booking simply because the intended passenger is disabled, or to prevent a driver from being subject to the duties under the Equality Act 2010. That will provide protections for disabled people, ensuring they are not refused a service before the vehicle has even been assigned. However, the duties simply would not work without the defences and exemptions in the Bill. As has already been highlighted by Members on both sides of the House throughout the Bill’s passage—rightly, I have to say—the majority of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers in this country provide a first-class service. That has been reiterated today. I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) about his “mum” test, which was a poignant point, but one that actually resonates with all of us, as we always want the best for our own families and loved ones.
The professionalism and dedication of taxi and private-hire vehicle providers to transporting essential workers during the height of the pandemic ensured that the country could continue to function. The Bill is not intended to penalise or put undue burdens on those drivers who already provide reasonable assistance to disabled people. In fact, those drivers would be unlikely to notice any difference at all in how they operate should the Bill pass. Instead, the Bill is intended to ensure that all drivers provide the level of service that the majority already provide.
Indeed, the Bill would not just benefit disabled people; it is also important to consider the wider benefits that it would bring, too. In economic terms, the disability charity Scope estimated that, based on household, below-average income figures, the spending power of disabled people and their households is £274 billion a year, with businesses calculated to lose £2 billion every month by not meeting the needs of disabled people.
The first barrier to people’s access to society—to work, to leisure, to shops, to cafes and restaurants—is transport. If a person decides not to leave the house because they cannot guarantee that the driver will assist them with stowing their walking frame in the boot of the vehicle, then we all, as a society, lose.
There are a couple of extra points that I want to cover in my comments, because these were raised today in the Chamber. The first one was around disability awareness training. The number of authorities requiring disability awareness training for taxi drivers has increased from 44% in 2019 to 49% in 2021. The number of authorities requiring disability awareness training for private hire vehicle drivers has increased from 41% to 46%. The Bill will not overcome all the barriers that disabled passengers face when using taxis and private hire vehicles, nor should it, because this is an important part of a much bigger picture. Requiring drivers to provide appropriate assistance and to prevent them from charging disabled people more than non-disabled people will only be effective if drivers understand the rights and expectations of disabled passengers and feel confident about providing the help that they need. That is why the Government will continue to encourage local authorities to require drivers to complete disability awareness training. We have also committed, as soon as legislative time allows, to require taxi and private-hire vehicle drivers to complete disability awareness training through new national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing. To support the sector in this, in 2020, the Government published their real disability equality training programme to improve the transport sector’s confidence and skills in delivering inclusive journeys for disabled passengers. This training package is underpinned by two really important values: respect and empathy. It also promotes two important actions: ask and listen. It has been developed with the engagement of transport sector professionals and people with lived experience of disability and it is freely available to any taxi or private-hire vehicle driver or operator wishing to improve their understanding and confidence when assisting disabled people.
The other couple of points that I want to touch on are around the broader issue of accessibility, but it is linked in with this debate, although there was quite a focus on railway stations—perhaps that is because I am the Rail Minister. In terms of access for all, I just wanted to say that this programme was launched in 2006, and, since then, £900 million has been released, about 212 stations have been made fully accessible, and smaller scale improvements have been made at more than 1,500 stations. The programme was extended until 2024 and will deliver more than 100 step-free routes and other important improvements at another 124 stations. I am grateful to Members for raising that issue and reminding us of the importance of accessibility. As ever, there is always more that we can do.
The issue of tactiles is also important. Network Rail estimates that 60% of British mainline station platforms have tactile surfaces. We are committed to making that 100%. It has received an initial £10 million to fit tactile surfaces at priority stations; further funding will be announced in due course. That is all important because it is about making improvements to the overall accessibility for those people who need assistance and a bit of support.
We have had an excellent debate. We have covered the differences between rural and urban constituencies, although many face similar challenges around accessibility. There has also been mention of Great British Railways and its HQ competition. I know that several hon. Members present have bids in for that; I will not name them but they know who they are—I think you are one, Madam Deputy Speaker. There were 42 bids and we await the outcome of the competition but there has been some healthy engagement.
The Government fully support the Bill. It will not only level the playing field of services that drivers provide for disabled people, but make a direct contribution to delivering a fully inclusive transport network. I again congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam on driving the Bill so far and I look forward to following its continued progress.
Jeremy Wright
I have no wish to hold up the excellent British Sign Language Bill of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), which I wish every success, but with the leave of the House, I will simply offer a few words of thanks.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), for their support for the Bill throughout, which is much appreciated. I also thank my hon. Friends and the Opposition Members who have spoken at every stage of its progress through the House with great wisdom and common sense. I am grateful to them all, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who has helped to prove that we wait ages for a Bill on taxis and then two come along at once.
I also thank the officials at the Department for Transport, who have helped tremendously in the Bill’s development, and the officials of the House, who have helped to steer it and me through the processes so far. Finally, I thank those who have contributed to the Bill’s development by offering their thoughts on it, including those who work in the charity sector as advocates for people with disabilities, those who represent drivers and vehicle operators, and those who work in local authorities to whom I have also spoken about the aspects of the Bill that will affect those authorities.
I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a fair wind through to the other place where it will be in the capable hands of a former Transport Secretary and where I hope it will get a little further scrutiny and much more support so that we can improve the lives of our disabled constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
British Sign Language Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate British Sign Language Act 2022 View all British Sign Language Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 February 2022 - (23 Feb 2022)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) to move the Third Reading of her Bill, I would like to point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a momentous day for the deaf community. Exactly 19 years ago to the day, British Sign Language was first recognised in a ministerial statement. Sadly for the deaf community, not a lot has changed, so today we have the chance to finally commit that recognition to statute.
Members of the deaf community have been fighting their whole lives for this moment, and many of them are currently in Trafalgar Square watching the debate on a huge display. I realise that the fact that we have got this far is quite astonishing. I have many people to thank for guiding the way and providing useful insights, case studies and reports that have been invaluable in developing the Bill. This has by no means been a solo effort—far from it. I have had help from very many people. Locally, it has been all hands on deck. My specific thanks go to the politics lab group at Edge Hill University in my West Lancashire constituency, who have been helping out by conducting interviews, gathering data and creating a briefing to aid the campaign.
I also want to thank Janice Connolly and everyone at the Merseyside Society for Deaf People. They could not travel here—they could not get coaches to be here—but they are watching this debate at the Deaf Centre in Liverpool. I grew up in that community, running around there, and I owe so much to them all. They have been a huge part of my life. As a child, it was the Friday evening ritual that deaf adults would meet at the Deaf Centre. In those days, it was at Park Way in Princes Park. While the adults socialised, their children, both deaf and hearing, would play together, able to communicate easily and without effort. Being a CODA, a child of deaf adults, gives me a unique position, straddling two worlds with equal access to both. I hope the Bill will bring the hearing and deaf communities together as never before.
I remain incredibly thankful to the Members who have been so supportive of the Bill, both here in the House and in promoting it elsewhere. I echo the words I used on Second Reading in January when I said how fantastic it is that this Chamber is speaking with one voice and that we are doing the right thing.
To come back to this momentous day—one I hope deaf people will celebrate for many years—the recognition of BSL is a landmark acceptance of a language that for far too long as been overlooked and misunderstood. The Bill is a testament to the perseverance of all deaf people and a celebration of deaf culture. We, all of us today, stand on the shoulders of every deaf campaigner who has fought so hard to get us here. Better historians than me can tell that story, but it really is a remarkable one. Every single campaigner who came before or who is still fighting now deserves to be recognised by us today.
In honouring them, I will focus on one campaigner who meant the most to me. That was, of course, my dad. He fought to be treated as an equal human being: to be appreciated and heard based on merit not on deafness. On Second Reading, I spoke of his life experiences and how hard it was for him to show his value and, once he did, how prized and needed his skills were. From that, he was able to provide for his family and enjoy a fulfilled and happy life, which nonetheless, every day, had its communication challenges. He fought for better education for deaf children, and for deaf teachers to teach deaf children. One of my great friends, Mabel Davis, was a very successful deaf headteacher at a school for deaf children. My dad believed that education enabled you to live your best life. He campaigned to make television accessible by using subtitles—what a hard journey that continues to be. On Second Reading, I made reference to Ofcom. It obviously does not read Hansard, because programme subtitles are still dreadful and it is not doing anything about it. Inaccurate rubbish is how I would describe them. I have two hearing aids, so more often than not I prefer to watch TV with subtitles.
To come back to BSL, people assume that BSL is simply sign-supported English and that all deaf people have to do is learn to master the English language. Nothing could be further from the truth. My dad used to say to me, “You can learn a new language; I can’t learn not to be deaf, nor to be hearing.” His words sum up the problem that every deaf campaigner struggles to get across to hearing people who just do not understand the real issue.
That is why this Bill is focused on improving BSL provision. Too often, hearing people have made decisions for deaf people that rely on their conforming to the hearing-centric ways of accessing services. That is just so wrong. Developing guidance for deaf people, integrating BSL into those services, is very important.
There is also a lack of cultural understanding of deaf people and of sign language, which has prevented this change for so long. We are seeing a BSL revolution before our eyes. Deaf people cannot learn not to be deaf, but hearing people can learn BSL, and they are learning. Huge numbers of people are signing up to BSL courses. People at secondary schools and universities are asking to do it, and I am delighted to say that so are Members of this House. Well done.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill to Parliament. Last week I went to a school in Putney where I found out the sign for Putney. [In British Sign Language: “Putney”.] There is a deaf teacher teaching the hearing pupils British Sign Language. The pupils love those classes, and now they are opening up the ability to communicate throughout our community. It is fantastic to see. I have seen the revolution for myself in Putney, and it is great to see it going on across the country as well.
Rosie Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. BSL is such a rich, vibrant, brilliant language, which relies not only on signing but on body language and facial expression. It is great fun. When I was Lord Mayor of Liverpool I got the children to finger-spell 26 letters of the alphabet for sponsorship. The money they raised in sponsorship was used to buy minicoms for deaf people—although mobile phones would soon replace those; none the less in those days that too was a revolution.
Where are we today? Deaf representation in the media is at an all-time high. Just in the last year we have seen a deaf superhero using American Sign Language; Troy Kotsur, a deaf actor, is nominated for an Oscar and last week won a BAFTA, and Rose Ayling-Ellis won “Strictly Come Dancing”. In 1987, all those years ago, Marlee Matlin won the Best Actress Oscar for “Children of a Lesser God”, but it took another 35 years for Troy to become the second person nominated for his role in “CODA”, which stands for “child of deaf adults”—I know, I am one, but sadly I will not be getting an Oscar.
Since 1987, other movies have been roundly criticised for using hearing actors to play deaf roles. A sign of the times is that “CODA” actually cast deaf actors in deaf roles—what recognition! That is magnificent. The times they are a-changing. The country is supporting deaf people, and we cannot let Parliament fall behind. I believe we must capitalise on this revolution by passing the Bill and taking every step we can to push it as far as possible.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend started her speech on Third Reading by paying tribute to all those campaigners who went before her and the magnificent landmark changes that they fought for over the years. It would be remiss of us not to get on the record our thanks to her for bringing this Bill to Parliament and getting it through to Third Reading today, and to wish it Godspeed in the other place.
Rosie Cooper
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. My dad would be really pleased with himself today—not necessarily with me, but with himself.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing such an important Bill before this House, and pay personal tribute to her. I am very moved by what she is saying, especially her comments about her parents.
During the debate on taxis, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about Bills passing the “mum test”, and the hon. Lady has been making very powerful comments about her dad. In the last years of his life, my dad was profoundly disabled with a debilitating neurodegenerative disease, so he really relied on the support of people, taxis and so on. I humbly suggest to my colleagues that when we talk about the Bills we are considering today, we need to talk about them passing both the mum and the dad test.
Rosie Cooper
Absolutely; I will come on to my mum very soon. As with all those things that happened in the ’60s and ’70s, my dad took pole position; my mum took care of home affairs. As Members will see, she played just as much of a role in me being here today as my dad did, but he was more vocal. People would say that I am my dad’s daughter. He did not care; he would just bowl on and try to get what he needed. My mum would be more diplomatic—go it slowly and get there eventually. Sadly, I got too much of the former and a lot less of the latter, but we are who we are.
Before I discuss the incredibly positive things that I believe this Bill will do, I want to address what could not be included in it. Some campaigners have made the fair point that this Bill does not give specific legal rights to deaf people, or feel it does not go quite far enough. To be absolutely clear, this Bill is not a silver bullet for the deaf community that will cure overnight all the injustices they face. As Members of this House will appreciate, this is a private Member’s Bill, one that has been brought forward by an Opposition MP and was drawn 20th out of 20 in the ballot. There are limitations on private Members’ Bills that have to be accepted, but I am pleased to say that working together with the Minister for Disabled People, we have pushed for this Bill to be as strong as it can be. I am proud of the Bill and proud of the work we did. It is going to make such a difference to the lives of deaf people, and they will be proud of it too. They might want it all today, but they can have nearly all of it soon.
Deaf people have long felt that the one-size-fits-all disability legislation that should have given their language the protection it needs is inadequate and disregards deaf culture and heritage. In bringing forward this Bill, I knew that we could not rewrite or replace legislation; instead, we are opening the door for deaf people to have their voices heard and their language protected. With this Bill, we are planting our feet firmly in an open doorway. There are those in the deaf community who used another analogy—they said, “It’s like being in a lift. We’ve gone in the lift on the ground floor; the only way is up.” I really quite like that analogy, too.
The requirements on the Government to produce guidance created by clause 3 of the Bill will be carried out in direct consultation with a non-statutory advisory board. This will be an essential mechanism for deaf people to say, “This isn’t working. This is what would help. This is what needs to change”—and we all accept that a lot needs to change. Since introducing the Bill, I have been contacted by hundreds of deaf people from all over the country, telling me about situations in which a public service has failed them, and I have shared some horrific stories with the Minister. Those stories are truly unbelievable, yet a significant portion of the population faces those issues every day. These are issues that have shaped deaf culture and consequently, I totally admit, make me the person I am today.
Deaf culture is important because it allows individuals to be who they are and live in a way that is unique to them. People who have not been exposed to deaf culture may not know what I mean by that. A simplistic way of starting to talk about it is to say, for example, that deaf people look at each other when they are communicating, but in our hearing culture it is common to look away—to break eye contact. Try keeping up with that if you are trying to lip read! It is impossible. In deaf culture, it is absolutely acceptable to tap another person to gain their attention; it is marked by physical proximity, directness, even thumping on tables and floors—I am not going to go on about that because I will start to recognise my own behaviour. Deaf culture is all about challenging injustices—fighting to be heard and understood through whatever means necessary.
People on the edge of the deaf community sometimes think deaf people are demanding and unreasonable, and sometimes they are, but they need to be—they have to be; they have to challenge in order to be heard. As we know in this place, it is the people who challenge the system who change things, and I am proud to come from a community that does not sit back and complain, but that gets up and challenges perceived injustices again and again and again until they are rectified. That shows why the BSL Bill will be so powerful: if we remove the barriers restricting the potential of deaf people it will be truly amazing to see how much they can and will achieve.
Many years ago my four-year-old niece explained to her young friends, who had never seen people sign before, that her grandparents were actually just the same as them except their ears did not work. When we accept that some people are deaf and accommodate that, rather than just trying to ignore it, deaf people will be able to make so much more of a difference; but before they can make that difference, we must tackle the precise details of the problems deaf people face, and we will tackle that in the guidance accompanying this Bill.
One important matter the guidance must address is the lack of forward planning for BSL use. We must not continually have a system that creates a service for hearing people and then retrospectively and half-heartedly attempts to add the provision of BSL. BSL needs to be a consideration when services are being designed, not an afterthought. This will cut out huge amounts of wasted time and money, because public services have had to scramble to throw some sort of BSL provision together, or, even worse, many do not bother at all. Through this guidance we will start to see the Government becoming proactive in considering deaf people and the need for BSL, specifically with increased and improved interpretation and a wider understanding of BSL as a language.
In every aspect of public service there are failings; I have so many examples to draw on from my own life growing up with my parents, from years of doing casework for my constituents, and from the hundreds of letters I have been sent since introducing this Bill, and, sadly, a lot of these problems are things that a hearing person would never have considered.
In prisons, for instance, frighteningly little is done for deaf people. The isolation a deaf prisoner might experience from not having any other BSL users to talk to, and not being able to watch subtitled TV or make telephone calls, is absolutely terrifying. I have read reports of deaf prisoners committing suicide because they simply could not bear the isolation. This cannot be allowed to happen again and we need to do all we can to stop it. Mental health provision in prisons is already an area of great concern to me; if we add to that the difficulties a deaf person in prison would experience this could be considered a crisis.
As I have said, these are problems that a hearing person would not consider, but a BSL advisory board would be able to draw on its members’ own life experiences to ensure the guidance the Secretary of State issues is much more than just a vague commitment to do more—and it has to be. It will target problem areas and say how they need to be addressed and what needs to be done differently.
I know that a huge focus of the guidance will have to be on education. When I speak to deaf people about what they feel needs to be prioritised, education is more often than not the first thing they mention. Deaf people currently have little faith in the education system. On Second Reading, I explained how my mum would give her three children lessons every day at home, before we were even pre-school age. She would explain, “Because we’re deaf, they’ll think you’re daft.” We had to do those lessons. We had to learn to read and write and to do our sums, and we had to be absolutely proficient before we got to school.
A tale is told that, having had the bit drummed into me that people would think we were not capable because my parents were deaf, when I got to school and found that my classmates could not read and write or do sums as quickly as I could, I came home and expressed, “And they thought we were daft?” I genuinely do not remember that, but the tale is that, when I got home, I could not wait to tell my parents, “It’s not us.” There it goes.
My mum did not trust the system to treat hearing children of deaf parents as capable. I think that, sadly, at the time, she would have thought that deaf children would have even less of a chance than us. That was so very wrong. Of course, that was a long time ago, but while things have improved, many challenges remain. People will simply assume that a deaf student is learning more slowly or struggling when most of the time that is not the case.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. The nub of what she is saying is that this is a battle for equality: equality of opportunity for children and young people going through education; equality of treatment for deaf people, ensuring that they are treated with respect; equality of access to public services, with deaf people treated like everyone else; and equality of language through communication. Alongside English—the spoken word—British Sign Language is how deaf people communicate. Is it not all about equality?
Rosie Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That runs right through the Bill and through my comments. Given an equal opportunity, deaf people can achieve so much. This will make my hon. Friend’s case: I was told about a deaf student whose class was visited by a specialist interpreter. At the end of the day, the teacher told the interpreter that he was amazed, because he had never seen the student talk so much. When the specialist interpreter asked the student why that was, he found that the so-called communicator whom the school employed had only the most basic BSL qualification, so he could not do the job. He could not transmit to the deaf student what the teacher was saying; ergo, the student had the ability but no chance to prove it.
We take simple things like that for granted, but deaf people have to battle that day in, day out. It would be outrageous to think of a hearing person being taught history by someone who had taken only the most basic English lessons, so why do we accept that for deaf people? Why are we allowing deaf students to receive information from their teachers through people who know the bare minimum of BSL and who are not qualified interpreters? We are wasting both taxpayers’ money and the untapped potential of that student.
In the past year alone, we have seen a seismic shift in understanding and acceptance of deaf people and BSL. Continuing to fail them over and over is just not right, and it cannot be ignored any more. It never was right, but at least now people are starting to understand the situation.
With social understanding of the need for BSL inclusion, we must address some shameful and frustratingly obvious oversights.
Throughout the covid pandemic, deaf people have been met with a constant reminder that we are not treating them as equals. Every statement made to the nation, every change in lockdown policy, and every announcement of a support scheme was done without a BSL interpreter on many channels. In fact, interpretation was available on one channel only. We had a simple way to include a sizeable proportion of the population and to prevent people from being left behind, but we failed to do so and must ask ourselves why.
Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on what each Department has done to promote or facilitate the use of BSL in its communications with the public. Any public announcement made without an interpreter or any White Paper released without BSL translation will be reported to the Secretary of State, and that failure will be published for everyone to see. That will be another powerful tool by which each Department will be held to account. Deaf campaigners will be able to compare the guidance from the Secretary of State directly with the published reports. Hiring a registered qualified interpreter for a briefing or to create a BSL translation is an easy commitment with such a minimal cost, so we will soon see Departments make their services and announcements accessible.
That aim is the Bill’s central point: the complete and total inclusion of deaf people. They should be able to watch and understand a national address by the Prime Minister. They should be able to go to a meeting at the jobcentre and talk freely with their adviser. They should be able to have a fully trained and registered qualified interpreter available for them at medical appointments. I have talked at length and could go on and on, but I will not. We are failing at all those things on daily basis, but with the support of Members here today and Members in the other place later, we can start along the road towards fixing such injustices once and for all.
As a nation, we cannot afford to waste the talents of our deaf population. When this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, I say to the deaf community, and to all those watching at home or in Trafalgar Square or wherever, “Now it is over to you to achieve your potential and to live your best possible lives. That will enrich us all.” I thank the Minister for everything she has done to get Bill legislation through, and I hope that we will agree to give it its Third Reading today, and that it whizzes through the other place. I hope that today will mark the end of the campaign to recognise sign language as a language and the start of the campaign to liberate the potential of every deaf person in this country.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is a privilege to be here on a Friday to listen to a fantastic speech from my friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). This place, as you know Madam Deputy Speaker, can be quite confrontational at times, but at other times we come together to right a wrong, and that is what this House has been doing over the past few weeks and today. As a former Disabilities Minister, I congratulate the Minister, because we tried to make this change several times. Promises were made in 2003, and we got things partly in writing, but did it go anywhere? Not really. The Equality Act 2010 did not even mention BSL. When I was Minister, people were worried about costs and this and that, but at the end of the day we are finally here today.
I say to the campaigners in Trafalgar Square, around the country and, indeed, around the world—what we are doing here today will set a precedent for other countries—that disabled people who are deaf or hard of hearing have dreams and aspirations just like anyone else, but those have been held back because we did not understand their language, but expected them to understand ours. No one who is deaf or hard of hearing wants to be deaf or hard of hearing, although I fully understand the community spirit among those people: it has made them what they are today. It has certainly made my friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire who she is today, thanks to mum and dad, I suggest.
We are lucky: we are the ones who can do something about this. As we talk about the different ways in which the Bill will help and will bring BSL more into the open, I have to say not just how amazing it is that in 18 years I have entered every private Member’s Bill ballot and never got anywhere—some would say “Thank goodness for that”, perhaps not least the Front Benchers—but how astonishing it is for a Member to come 20th in the ballot and to bring a Bill that has been tried before, indeed tried by Ministers before, to this point. That has happened because Members on both sides of the House and on the Treasury Bench have worked to make it happen. I have been on the receiving end of some of the lobbying that has suggested that we could have gone further, but we have gone further than I ever dreamt we could go in a private Member’s Bill. We are right on the line between what we can get and what we could not get, and this has been achieved because our efforts have been co-operative.
Perhaps at this stage there is a message for the other House, because the Bill will clearly proceed to the other House. That message should be “Do not delay it, do not try to amend it, do not play party politics with it—just get the damn thing through so it can be given Royal Assent”—a subtle hint from, probably, every Member in this House.
Those who are watching the debate here today may be wondering, “Where is everybody?” This is a day for private Member’s Bills, and this Bill will go through today. Many Members had to be in their constituencies for important events to which they were committed, and I fully understand that: indeed, I shall have to disappear to my own constituency after the debate. The fact that not many Members are here does not mean that other Members are not interested. This Bill is going to go, thank goodness, to the other House, and I say again, subtly, “Hurry up, get this Bill through, because we do not want to lose it.”
I want to say a little about why the Bill is so important. My friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire touched on education. Like the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), I have spoken to young people in colleges. They want to learn BSL. When I asked some of them whether, if I came back in two years, they would like me to find that they had taken an O-level or an A-level in the subject, they answered yes, to a man and to a woman. Why has it taken so long for this place, and the education system, to acknowledge the existence of a whole group out there who want to communicate with deaf people? We are not talking about a one-way street.
We all know the figures. About 80,000 people who are deaf or hard of hearing use BSL, and a total of about 180,000 people use it, but for many more people it could open up many new experiences, and the ability to communicate with a community that they may not really understand at present. They could start with basic BSL, and then progress further. As MPs, we can communicate with our constituents in that way. I sent a message out on Facebook the other day. I had an interpreter for my—half a minute? Five minutes? Who knows? It probably seemed a lifetime to anyone who was watching it. The feedback from people who were not from that community was fascinating. They did not understand why people were not lipreading, for instance, or they asked, “Why do people not look at you more carefully?” or “Why do you not speak more slowly?” The answer to that is “Because they are deaf.”
I have spoken before, on Second Reading, about the military community. Sadly, back in the days when I was in the service, hearing defenders were almost unheard of, which is probably why one of my ears is defective—it was affected by all the explosions that went off when I was in the armed forces. The community has said, “We want to learn”, but they have been prevented from doing so. They could not take up the subject, because there was nothing in the curriculum that allowed them to do so—hint, hint to the Education Department, which, I am sure, will be listening.
As the hon. Member for West Lancashire mentioned, we have also gone through covid. When covid hit this country and the world, deaf people not only could not understand what the Prime Minister was saying, depending on what channel they were on, but had to go for their vaccinations. I was lucky enough to be able to volunteer at my local vaccination centre, and several people who were deaf came in. Some of them had interpreters with them—normally family—but others were completely lost in a service that was theirs, free at the point of delivery. They were being vaccinated to protect them, and they were just petrified because no one had taken the time to think whether they needed that extra bit of support. I do not think of it as an extra bit of support—I have banged on about this for years and years, perhaps not quite as much as the hon. Lady, but I have banged on about it, and it is great that we have got to where we are today.
I am due to go to an out-patient’s appointment next week. No one has asked me whether I am deaf or visually impaired. These things are not asked of people. I find it astonishing that we are, quite rightly, offering services to people, whether it be in education, in the jobcentre or in any other Government-run service—forget about the private sector—and we are just missing the target.
Rosie Cooper
I just want to endorse the comments of my friend, the right hon. Gentleman, by making a very quick point. My father, who is profoundly deaf—born deaf and with no hearing whatsoever—was in hospital and was seen by a senior registrar, who said, “Mr Cooper.” The lady who was visiting my dad said, “He’s deaf”. The registrar raised their voice and said, “Mr Cooper!” The lady said, “He’s deaf”. The doctor walked right up to his ear, leaned in and said loudly, “Mr Cooper!” Now, if medical professionals themselves are not joining the dots, we have an awful lot of work to do.
Sir Mike Penning
My hon. Friend has touched on a very good point. This Bill is not the silver bullet; it is a method of getting somewhere. The hard work will start once the other place gets its finger out. I will, if I may, come back to that story in a second.
We are concentrating on Government Departments, but there is a whole private sector out there, on which the hon. Lady touched, that is missing out on some profits and on people enjoying their services. Clearly, that consultant was not dim, which is what I was described as when I was at school, because I am dyslexic—apparently if you were dyslexic back in the early ‘60s and ’70, you were dim. He was not dim, but he is ignorant—ignorant of what the condition is all about. Clearly, by the sound of it, he was not an ear, nose and throat specialist. I think the House will understand where I am coming from when I say that it is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of understanding and compassion. “Compassion” sounds like an old-fashioned word, but I thought that was what the health service was supposed to be about. Interestingly, my mother, who was a nurse for some 40 years, would tell me that, in many cases, compassion was the best healer, compared with some of the other methodologies.
As we look at the Bill, we should say to ourselves, “We must draw a line in the sand.” That is quite important and it should have happened years ago. We can talk about the 2003 Act, and about leaving BSL out of the 2010 Act, which I have already done, but, as I have said, we need to draw a line in the sand now. Some of the stars of stage and screen have needed to help us increase public awareness, because, sadly, that is the sort of society in which we live. As everyone here can see, I am an expert in ballroom dancing—I think not! But even I watched “Strictly Come Dancing” towards the end because it sent out such a fantastic message to society that we all have the same dreams and aspirations, which I alluded to earlier.
The hard work starts now—I am sorry, Minister, that I am no longer on the Front Bench; I truly wish that I was sitting there now to support the Bill as it goes through. The Minister and I have had many a conversation about the Bill and, as I have said, this is where the hard work starts. The expectation from the deaf community, which will cheer you to the rafters when you go to the rally later today—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, not you, although I am sure they will be cheering you to the rafters. I have only been here for five minutes so you will have to let me off. The deaf community will cheer the Minister to the rafters later, but they will not cheer us if we do not deliver. It does not matter who is in Government; this is a long process. It has taken us this long to get here, but they expect us and the panel to deliver.
Let me touch on the membership of the panel, which is massively important because it will be the voice of the deaf community. I said, I think in Committee or perhaps on Second Reading, that this process should not be completely one-sided. It is absolutely right that the deaf community expect to be on the panel so that we can hear from them, but we have to try to get the balance right so that expectations can be measured and so that we can try to fix this when it goes wrong, although we will not be able to do so there and then. The membership of the panel is very important and should include not just the Minister and members of the different charities and the deaf community.
In conclusion, I am as proud as punch that the Bill will pass through this House today—I am somehow convinced that it will. It has taken a while and the expectation will be high, but let us meet that expectation and allow these people to live their dreams.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on all her work in this area. We heard her speak so eloquently today, on Second Reading and in the Bill Committee about her deeply personal connection with British Sign Language. As I said in Committee, she should be proud of the Bill and the progress that has been made in this area, which will support many young people who shoulder responsibilities well beyond their years.
I also place on record my thanks to the BSL Act Now! campaign and the many disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and charities involved for their tireless work and commitment to this campaign. We all know that getting a private Member’s Bill through Parliament, let alone after being No. 20 on the list, takes resourcefulness, dedication, passion and perhaps some table-thumping sometimes. We can all agree that those qualities have all been shown by my hon. Friend and all those involved. She said that she will not get an Oscar soon, but many people would say that she deserves one.
As we all know, British Sign Language is a primary form of communication for approximately 90,000 UK residents, with around 150,000 users in total. Its vocabulary and syntax do not replicate spoken English and many deaf citizens have a much lower reading age than the general population. Sadly, too many deaf people in the UK continue to face barriers to communication, which affect employment, education and access to healthcare. The Bill will begin to tackle some of those significant issues.
If the Bill becomes law, it will achieve legal status for British Sign Language as a primary language of the deaf community in the United Kingdom. Achieving legal recognition of BSL through an Act of Parliament would be a huge step forward in improving deaf people’s quality of life, their inclusion and autonomy in British society, educational and professional opportunities and even their health outcomes.
I strongly welcome the fact that the Bill also contains provisions for Government Departments and certain public service providers to publish and adhere to guidance, setting out the steps that need to be taken to meet the needs of BSL users. I believe this guidance will include the delivery of many public services and help BSL users overcome the current limitations of the Equality Act that sadly mean that many providers do not know how to make “reasonable adjustments” for them, as so eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire.
As I said, while I welcome the positive strides that this Bill makes, I know many of my colleagues will, like me, see it as something to build on. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire said, it is not a silver bullet for everything, so I want to retouch on a few crucial areas that I hope we can explore further in the future. I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined whether she agrees with them.
The first issue is around data. As it stands, the Government do not capture sufficient data to give us a clear picture of the deaf community. Current statistics capture people based on terms such as “difficulty in hearing” and “hearing impairment”. The use of the word “impairment” is itself unhelpful and outdated and may impact negatively on how BSL users respond. In short, the Government need to know how many deaf people use BSL. This is concerning as the Government use this data as their evidence base for making decisions about how to support BSL users—a group of people who we all know face some of the biggest barriers in society, whether in employment, education, health, wellbeing or other areas.
Secondly, I wish to focus on the non-statutory board of British Sign Language users and associated persons that will advise the Secretary of State. While I warmly welcome the commitment to consult deaf people, why is the body advising on such an important issue a non-statutory board? Does that mean Ministers do not have to listen to or act upon its recommendations? Ministers also need to be clear about how the body will be recruited. It is my sincere hope that it should be made up largely of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I cannot stress enough that the experts by experience must have a clear line to the Secretary of State. It is also vital that that body is fully transparent and that it communicates clearly with the deaf community. Will the minutes and recommendations of the body be made public?
Finally, I hope to see improvements in strengthening the interaction a future BSL Act will have with other legislation and Government strategies. Hon. Members will know the Government’s national disability strategy was recently found to be unlawful by the High Court, as the consultation process failed to engage correctly. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire said, we had no BSL interpretation at important press conferences, as I raised with the Prime Minister on several occasions. Sadly, at times the Government have a poor record when it comes to doing the right thing by disabled people, so it would be remiss of us not to consider strengthening Bills with adequate checks and balances.
As I have said before, when I read the draft Bill I noted with concern that clause 1(2) states:
“Subsection (1) does not affect the operation of any enactment or rule of law.”
Trust in this Government is low among disabled people and provisions such as this will not fill the deaf community with hope. Future improvements must strengthen the Act and give it more power.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire and the BSL Act Now! campaign on the progression of the Bill. It is a good start, but I hope the Minister will agree that we can and should go further in the future.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I too wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). It is great to sit in this Chamber and learn about things from someone with such enormous experience and expertise. I very much enjoyed listening to her speech introducing this Third Reading debate.
This Bill is important because BSL is important. It is the primary language for up to 90,000 of our fellow citizens and residents of this country and it has up to 150,000 users. It is important to re-emphasise the point that has been made a couple of times today: BSL is not a direct translation of English; it is its own language. We cannot assume that BSL users have equivalent comprehension in English, or in fact any other language. If we ask whether BSL users should have the same right of access to Government services as everyone else, the obvious answer is yes. If we can support access to Government services for BSL users, we should and for that reason, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill.
The impact of the Bill will be to encourage increased work to promote and facilitate the use of BSL across Government Departments. The heavy lifting is undertaken by clause 2(1) and (2), which place a duty on the Secretary of State to report what progress has been made by the 20 Departments named in the schedule to facilitate and promote the use of BSL.
At first glance, that seems a rather odd way to achieve the desired result, but from my previous career as a businessman, I know full well that we get what we measure. The requirement to measure and thereafter to report every three years as a minimum on the progress that those Government Departments are making will, in effect, be a very good prod to encourage further work. I note in passing that it is a GB-wide Bill. By focusing on GB as opposed to the United Kingdom, it takes account of the sensitivities of communities in Northern Ireland, which is sensible.
Clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to provide guidance to the Departments on how best to promote and facilitate BSL. Every bit as important as that statutory duty is the creation of the non-statutory advisory body, which will provide a voice for BSL users and people with real expertise on how the language is being used in our community. It will give them access to the heart of Government decision making and will give the right kind of advice to the Secretary of State and, by extension, the 20 named Departments.
Dr Hudson
I rise to congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on this fantastic Bill about equality of access. It is such an important Bill and I wish it well in the other place. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) that this House is at its best when it unites to right a wrong. That is important. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) was making about the requirement for Government Departments to have that guidance given to them, does he agree that the fact that the guidance in the Bill goes across Government will provide equality of access?
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with my hon. Friend. The large scope of Departments affected by the Bill—all 20 named in the schedule—shows that its intention, and I hope effect, is to provide the promotion and facilitation of BSL use across the arms of Government.
We need to consider the Bill’s impact on the taxpayer. The assessment is that the financial impact will be almost negligible, because it works on the attitude and focus in Government. It does not require a large expenditure of money; it requires effective use of the approach that Departments take to BSL use. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire made clear in her opening remarks, it is about not thinking of BSL as an also-ran or an afterthought, but applying forethought to every announcement and all the work of Government. It is about taking BSL into account as part of business as usual, not as a secondary consideration.
It is 19 years since BSL was recognised as a language, and I want to take this opportunity to celebrate this further small, but important, step in support for BSL users. David Buxton, British Deaf Association chair, has said:
“Deaf people in Britain never gave up hope that their language would one day be not only recognised in law, but also protected and promoted so that deaf people are finally able to access information and services and achieve their potential on an equal basis with their fellow hearing citizens.”
I am very proud to support the Bill.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am privileged to have a second bite at the cherry, because I was extremely proud to support the Bill on Second Reading. I again congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on her Bill. She used the word “momentous” and I think it is. I also congratulate the campaigners that she mentioned. After Second Reading, I saw all the campaigners in Parliament Square, and it was joyous to behold them, feeling as they did that tangible progress had been made. I hope that those in Trafalgar Square today feel that further progress has been made today and that, with this Bill, we are taking one of the final steps on this journey.
The Bill has wider implications. Many tens of thousands of people in this country use BSL as their preferred language, and that has a wider implication for society at large. The hon. Member for West Lancashire mentioned equality, and it is of course an issue of equality. It will have an impact on up to 12 million people in this country who suffer from some kind of hearing loss, 50,000 of whom are children. As we have a greater life expectancy—I think it is now up to 82 in the UK—we can expect millions more people to experience some hearing difficulty or loss in the next decades. The hon. Lady movingly mentioned her father, and on Second Reading I mentioned my father, who suffers from hearing loss. The lines between the hearing community and the deaf community are increasingly blurred by people like my father, who uses subtitles and hearing aids. That attitudinal shift to “We are all one people and we can suffer from various degrees of hearing loss at any time, and it could affect anyone” helps to unite and give us that equality of opportunity and experience.
I have joined in a campaign run by a constituent of mine called Turn on the Subtitles. It is interesting to realise that we can learn from the experiences of people with hearing difficulties—the campaign recommends turning on subtitles to help children with their literacy, especially as we come out of the pandemic. It is another example of the symbiosis between our different communities.
By legally recognising BSL as an official language, it will become part of our institutions and a normal part of our society. That is a really good thing to do today. Improving education for children is also important. We invest in this initiative for children with hearing difficulties and hearing loss, and that inclusion will last a lifetime. I could not be more proud to be part of that process. As humans, we should always remember that we do not just communicate in one way. We communicate in many different ways; our gestures and body language have much more of an impact than we realise on a day-to-day basis. As human beings, we can communicate in a variety of ways—we can give thumbs up, thumbs down or the peace sign, for example—and they are all an intrinsic part of our communication. What we are doing today brings BSL and some of those other ways of communicating into the mainstream, and I repeat that it is part of the fundamental imperative for people in this place and outside it to strive for equality—equality of access, equality of opportunity—at every possible opportunity.
Protected language status has already been granted to six languages in our country—Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots, Scottish, Irish Gaelic and Cornish. Amazing as they are, more people currently use BSL than any of those British languages that already have legal recognition. As has been mentioned, 87,000 people have BSL as their preferred daily language, but on any given day up to 250,000 people could be using it. It is a very important part of our culture and our cultural heritage.
It is also worth mentioning one of the longer-term impacts that the Bill might have. A study by Johns Hopkins University in America found that even mild hearing loss can double a person’s risk of developing dementia. The risk is expected to increase fivefold as people experience more and more severe forms of hearing loss, particularly with our ageing population. That is because hearing loss contributes to social isolation, which is a major factor in the development of some of the most heart-wrenching and difficult illnesses, such as dementia. Reducing social isolation may help us to limit some of those wider impacts.
I mentioned on Second Reading that we have two formidable women driving the Bill—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and the hon. Member for West Lancashire. I know that they are both committed to taking it forward, but also to going further. I congratulate them both—and if this is the revolution, then up the revolution! I am proud to be part of it.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I jump on with the revolution. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson)—[Interruption.] I see the Minister getting a bit excitable, so perhaps I will tone it down a touch.
It is a real pleasure to contribute to the debate, as it was to take part in the Bill Committee, and to see such great consensus. I say to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper): more power to your elbow! She came 20th out of 20 in the ballot, yet by the looks of it she has pipped most people to the post in getting her Bill through to the other place.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)—he has long championed this issue, from both the Treasury Bench and the Back Benches—and to the Minister. I echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead: I hope that those in the other place hear this House loud and clear today, and that when this important Bill arrives on their desk—hopefully soon—they ease it through at pace and we do not lose it.
We went into much detail in Committee. Although the hon. Member for West Lancashire—she is my hon. Friend on this occasion—made the point that it is not a panacea or a silver bullet, it is a landmark, and we should be celebrating this significant step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford alluded to the six indigenous languages. Of course, Welsh is one of them, and I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will allow me a quick “da iawn”—“very good”. This is a good step forward. We will have to pick up the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned in the Tea Room later, because the Welsh language is quite significant, but today is about British Sign Language and getting it legal status.
In Committee and in our wider debates, it has been clear that those on the Treasury Bench—in particular the Minister—and the hon. Member for West Lancashire have absolutely worked together. I welcome the non-statutory measures that the Government are introducing at the same time. Significant steps are being taken today, and it is a real pleasure to be in the Chamber. There are no party divides on this Bill, and both statutory and non-statutory measures are going through—it is incredibly significant.
I have to declare my interest. I have not got my hearing aid in my left ear because I have run out of batteries—it is the hearing aid that has run out of batteries, Mr Deputy Speaker, not me—so I find myself part of the 12 million people, or 1.2 million people with a particular level of hearing loss; I am not quite sure of the decibel level of loss in my left ear. The work that the RNID and the British Deaf Association have done to champion day-to-day rights, accessibility, education and skills, and to champion this Bill with the hon. Lady, is terrific. I pay particular tribute to the RNID, because I see through my constituency casework and my engagement with the organisation the very real difference it makes.
Sir Mike Penning
I concur with my hon. Friend’s congratulations to the RNID. I should have declared an interest, in that I am a patron of the Hertfordshire hearing advisory service, which also does a fantastic job.
Craig Williams
I had no doubt that my doughty champion on this issue would have such an illustrious position, and I pay tribute to the Hertfordshire hearing advisory service.
I know that there are other Bills, and that other Members want to speak in this debate, so I conclude by paying tribute to the Bill. We have gone into the details and our additional asks of the Government. I echo what my right hon. Friend has said: we wish this Bill well when it reaches the Lords. We wish for speed and very little amendment, and I look forward to Royal Assent.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
This Bill matters, and the discussion that we are having matters, so I thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) for introducing the Bill. I suspect that too often, our deaf and hard of hearing constituents wonder how often we in this place think of them, and how often we consider the challenges they face and the opportunities, which we perhaps do not appreciate, in their communities. It matters that we can stand here today and say that we are listening, talking and learning, and that we want to do so.
I really enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady, and I think that this is such a tribute to her parents. I hope that they are still with us; if they are, I am sure that they are incredibly proud. If not, what an amazing tribute. The hon. Lady should be congratulated for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. As many of us have said, it is very difficult to do so and to get one to this stage. I do not think that has happened since 1999, and it is testament to her hard work.
I thank the Government for their work, because the legislation would not be making progress if the Government had not given it their full support. I thank all our constituents, and particularly those in Rutland and Melton who have written to me to give their full-hearted support and to ask me to speak in support of the Bill.
There is another reason why I thank the hon. Lady for introducing the Bill. We in this place can sometimes feel quite helpless, because we cannot pretend to be experts on all issues and we cannot always make a difference when we want to. That is particularly true in the context of what is happening in Ukraine, when so many of us are sitting here wishing we could do something meaningful to make a difference and protect lives. I am grateful to her for enabling us to give recognition to such a big community by doing something that shows them we are listening and we will make a difference to their lives. I thank her for giving us this moment of hope.
Recognising British Sign Language as a language is so important. I cannot believe that we are only just having this conversation, or that until the start of this campaign, I spent my entire lifetime not knowing that that was not the case. It is great that the hon. Lady’s work will result in Government being held to account, and that the 15,000 people who use this language every day will know that she has championed their cause and the Government are supporting them.
The hon. Lady spoke beautifully about deaf culture. A number of times in my lifetime, I have found myself captivated watching a beautiful conversation between two, three or four deaf people. The first time was when I was about nine years old, in an airport in Sweden. I had never seen such a conversation before, and it was beautiful to watch, and mesmerising in its own way.
Although the hon. Lady has rightly said that this is not a silver bullet and more can be done—I am sure there will be attempts to do so—I would like to see British Sign Language taught in all schools. It makes me sad that off the top of my head, the only piece of BSL I know is how to say thank you. [In British Sign Language: “Thank you.”] At least I know something, but I would love to know more. We should be teaching it in all our schools. I am sure that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), wants that, too, because she has been taking lessons in British Sign Language. It is also important to look at how we create an opportunity for children in our schools to experience a day in the life of a deaf person. How can they truly understand if they have not had the opportunity to do that? As an MP I, like many of my colleagues, have been blindfolded for the day and we have spent a day being blind. Let us look doing the same for our kids in our schools.
I also look back to when my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) gave an address from the Dispatch Box solely in British Sign Language and how important that moment was. I know my hon. Friend the Minister has also done videos solely in British Sign Language.
I make one further plea, having already set the context of Ukraine: this country does a lot well for deaf people. There is much more we can do, as we have said, but I urge the Minister to reach out to the Home Office and Foreign Office to see what we can do to support deaf individuals and families in Ukraine. For them, this will be an incredibly difficult moment. Perhaps we can provide support for the Ukrainian Government on how to ensure that the alarms, alerts and sirens going out hourly across the country are able to reach those who are hard of hearing and deaf, because they are the most vulnerable at this time.
Today does matter. I hope it says to the deaf community that we are listening and they are heard, and that today will make a monumental difference. I finish by thanking the hon. Member for West Lancashire again for her campaigning and for giving us the opportunity to do something meaningful in the darkest of times.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I start, as all my colleagues have, by congratulating the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on introducing this Bill and for her powerful, passionate and personal speech explaining everything that has led to our being here today. I wholeheartedly support declaring British Sign Language an official language of the United Kingdom and, from that, providing the improved guidance to public services and Departments on its use.
Effective communication is surely essential to building a more inclusive society. We have heard that in the UK there are 12 million adults with at least mild hearing loss, according to the RNID, equivalent to one in five adults. For those with more profound hearing loss, BSL plays a key role. I suggest it is no exaggeration to say it offers a lifeline to those who rely on it, and as many as 250,000 British people use it on any given day.
The current lack of legal protection for BSL means that people who rely on the language do not have access to the vital information and services that are available to hearing people, and that we just take for granted. As I understand it, the only place someone is guaranteed a qualified interpreter is in the courts, so by contrast I was very concerned to hear the hon. Lady’s comments about the additional difficulties that deaf people face in prison.
I speak as a former non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady would be interested in meeting me and perhaps even my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), who is a parliamentary private secretary in the Ministry of Justice, to see whether together we might be able to do some work at the MOJ or with HMPPS to make it more straightforward for those who have hearing impairments and are in prison. She raises an important issue of which I was not aware, despite having spent 15 or 16 years involved in the criminal justice service.
BSL users are, after all, equal citizens who deserve an even playing field and access to the same quality of services as everyone else. They should be able to be heard and to speak and be understood in the language of their choice. As the RNID has pointed out, deaf people possess a wealth of talent that they can and do bring to society, yet so often there are obstacles for BSL users that mean their talent is left locked up, preventing them from fulfilling their potential. I am pleased that this Bill will mean that that can start to change, at least in part.
I pay tribute to Mr Speaker and the staff of the House of Commons for launching a BSL interpreting pilot scheme, which has been in place for Prime Minister’s questions since February 2020. It is also entirely appropriate that, for this particular debate, BSL interpretation is being provided.
It is also good that there has been progress in schools in providing BSL users with greater means to communicate with one another. Many teachers now learn the language, and schools sometimes offer sign language in their curriculum. I am delighted that in my own constituency, Stoke Mandeville Combined School, a primary school, has special facilities for hearing-impaired pupils, but, crucially, they are an integral part of the school community. I have been to assemblies there and joined in with them as they take part fully in the songs and everything that is going on, using BSL. There is even a BSL choir at the school. It is incredibly moving to take part; to see how those children play a full part in the life of their school and, more importantly, that all the other children who are not hearing impaired recognise that this is just a normal part of life—a different way to communicate with different people who have different needs but, ultimately, are all exactly the same as they are. I am also pleased to say that there are other support services for BSL across my constituency of Aylesbury. Buckinghamshire Integrated Sensory Service, run by the council in partnership with Action for Hearing Loss, offers a range of services to support people with hearing, sight or dual sensory loss. That includes access to a specialist staff team of BSL speakers, and there are other special services across the county offering courses in BSL.
I will take this opportunity to highlight another fantastic charity in my constituency that helps people who are hearing impaired. That is the charity Hearing Dogs for Deaf People, which has its headquarters and training centre in Saunderton. It does amazing work, training dogs to alert deaf people to life-saving sounds that they would otherwise miss, sounds that many of us take for granted—things like a doorbell—or danger signals such as a fire alarm. Those dogs make a real difference to deaf people’s lives, helping them to regain confidence in everyday life. That is what we are talking about today, because that is what BSL does, too. It is therefore absolutely right that it gains the legal status that we are all confident it will gain after it completes its passage through this House and the other place.
To conclude, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire on introducing this incredibly important Bill, which has the potential to do so much.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on bringing forward this hugely important Bill. I know only too well what a privilege it is to come out of the ballot, and I commend her on expertly guiding this piece of legislation through the House. It is a hugely commendable Bill that deals with an important issue for many people across the country; I thank her for promoting it, and am proud to be here today to support her. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), not since 1999 has a Member who drew No. 20 in the ballot got to this stage in the legislative process. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her efforts.
I also know that this Bill relates to an issue that is very personal to the hon. Lady. At all stages of this Bill’s passage, she has delivered powerful and heartfelt speeches, and today was no different; the fact that her speech drew on her personal story has only made her words more moving. I also pay tribute to the contributions made on this issue over many years by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). [Interruption.] It seems that my right hon. Friend has crossed the Floor. I think that demonstrates the commitment in this House to cross-party working, particularly on Fridays.
In an earlier debate, I mentioned Darlington Association on Disability, which was established in 1986 as a voluntary and charitable organisation led by disabled people. I know they will warmly welcome this Bill, just as they will welcome the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill. The steps taken to legally recognise British sign language as a language will be welcomed by them.
Alicia Kearns
I recognise that I am taking liberties on a Friday, but I am essentially going to direct my question to Mr Deputy Speaker via my good and hon. Friend. Do we provide BSL tours of Parliament, and if we do not, is that something we could do? It is wonderful to see people in the Chamber today signing to one another, and it would be wonderful if we could ensure we had a BSL tour capability that could be provided to all schools around our country. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Peter Gibson
Having just looked up to the Gallery and cast a wave, I can see that many in the Gallery are waving back. It is fascinating that a Friday debate is receiving so much attention, and my hon. Friend’s point is important; if we were able to introduce that capability, it would be of benefit to deaf people across the country. I am sure Mr Speaker will take that point up.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the Head of Steam museum in Darlington. You may wonder why that is Mr Deputy Speaker, but only yesterday it announced a whole new series of British Sign Language films to illustrate our heritage in Darlington. As we see investment going into our rail heritage quarter, I hope that we will see more of that so that people who are deaf who visit Head of Steam can get that help to see the history and heritage of Darlington—we hope to be the home of Great British Railways, subject to the current competition—and see those films. That is truly tremendous, and I am grateful to Darlington Borough Council for ensuring that that happened before this debate.
For many people, British sign language is a vital lifeline that ensures that they are not isolated from society and can reach their full potential. British Sign Language has been used for hundreds of years. It has adapted over time, and up to 250,000 people are using it at any one time on any day. We have already heard about how the vocabulary and syntax of British Sign Language does not exactly replicate spoken English and that, for individuals who have been deaf from birth or early childhood, subtitles or written English are not an adequate alternative as it is not simply a signed version of written or spoken English. The Bill will help to ensure that deaf people in the UK can lead fulfilling and independent lives.
The UK Government already give protected status to six indigenous UK languages: Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots, Scottish, Irish Gaelic and Cornish. However, despite being recognised as an official language by the UK Government since 2003, British Sign Language—another indigenous language—has not yet been accorded that same legal protection and status. The Bill will mean that British Sign Language receives the same legal status and protection as our other six languages.
Today, we are making clear to deaf people up and down the country that they are equal members of society and that their language will get the status that its long history and usage in the UK deserves. I commend my friend the hon. Member for West Lancashire once again for her efforts and wish the Bill well.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I join everyone in thanking the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) for bringing the Bill to the House. A great many people feel very passionately about it. It touches on many people’s lives, and it is the start of a process that will hopefully lead to real change. As we not only look at the Gallery but think of the other people watching our proceedings, we see how that reflects the importance of the Bill and how thankful the wider public are to her for it.
I will re-emphasise the point that, of course, being deaf is not a choice and, at times, there is a lack of empathy and understanding about what is involved—it is not as simple as learning other languages. I will come to personal experiences in my life and from my family in a moment. Of course, we in the UK are not renowned for being great at learning other languages. I am a fairly well travelled person, and my linguistic skills are appalling. In school, we did not have much of a choice. We learnt French, and I am generally limited to telling people about the weather—they would say, “Il fait beau?” and I would say, “Non, il pleut”, because that is generally how our weather is—or basic things such as asking someone how to get to the bank or how many brothers or sisters they have. I never really saw the use in that, and I really struggled to get motivated. It would have been fantastic to have had the option of something such as BSL back then.
My travels have taken me to various places. When I lived in Sweden, I pretty much gave up at the difference between “ö” and “å”. I could not tell, but apparently there is a subtle difference there. I would have a conversation with somebody thinking that I had just about nailed it, but I normally got the response, “So, where in England do you come from?” I tried the same with Norwegian, which sounded like a bubblier version, but again I did not really get anywhere. At the moment, I have been trying to learn a bit more Romanian, as my wife is Romanian. She speaks about four or five languages and puts me to shame. My little boy thinks it is hilarious how bad I am at that.
Continuing on the theme of family and why today is particularly important for me from a personal perspective, my aunt is deaf and I have an uncle who is deaf, too. Interacting with that has been a big part of my family’s life—we have seen a great deal of changes over the years, and I really hope things will get better in terms of the support available and how society includes people. They grew up in the ’60s and ’70s in inner-city Nottingham with all the challenges of life, but on top of that having those communication difficulties with the rest of society and trying to be included. It is a great regret for me that I have not really learned BSL and been able to have that level of communication with my aunt and uncle, but I will be looking at developing it now. My mother learned BSL and is a qualified signer, so she has been teaching me a little bit and I am kind of just about getting there. I must admit that the first thing I asked was, “What rude words can you teach me?” I tend to learn those a little bit quicker, as I do in other languages.
We really need to recognise BSL in particular, as has been mentioned, when we have 87,000 people in this country using BSL as their language of choice. That recognition is there, but until it has legal status it is maybe not quite the recognition it has deserved. That, for me, is the crucial point. The Bill puts the wheels in motion and a lot more will come of it afterwards.
As I mentioned, I am from a schools background. I have been a teacher and a headteacher, and was teaching right up until I was elected to Parliament. There are many people with hearing impairment in mainstream education, and I would like to see that factored into teacher training more, along with more workshops with those people. With dyslexia, we would sometimes only get a day’s worth of training and the support was not really in place, so I would like to see that support in future.
Schools can choose to offer sign language as part of their extra-curricular activities or put it into the actual curriculum. What is missing, however, is an actual qualification. I mentioned that doing French was not an option—I was forced to do it—but if I had been given a set of options and seen BSL on there as a GCSE, or even been able to take it further as an A-level, I would have been absolutely delighted to do it. The Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), is nodding on the Front Bench. I know the Department for Education is working to introduce that—with Ofqual, I believe—and personally I very much endorse it. It would be a fantastic option that would hopefully get more people to learn BSL, not necessarily because they have family members who are deaf but because it is a fantastic skill to have and it enables us to communicate with more people in society. I wholeheartedly endorse it.
Finally, I once again thank the hon. Member for West Lancashire for bringing the Bill to the House. It is so important and it means so much to all the people watching who currently use BSL and their families. I wish the Bill the very best and thank her again. I will very much support it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just before I call Simon Baynes, I would like to say that I have been informed that BSL tours of Parliament are available if people want them. That is great news.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate in support of the Third Reading of the important private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). Like other colleagues on both sides of the House, I was profoundly moved by her speech, particularly as it was the testimony of the child of deaf parents; it was a revelation for me to learn more not only about her personal voyage but about the general situation pertaining to people who are deaf in this country, and I thank her very much for that.
I am also very pleased that the Government have supported the Bill ever since Second Reading and that the Minister has engaged with the hon. Member for West Lancashire and stakeholders including the RNID and the British Deaf Association. Such a degree of co-operation across the House is, I am learning as a relatively new Member, a welcome feature of private Member’s Bills, and today’s debate and the way in which it has been approached shows Parliament at its very best. The House has looked for consensus rather than division, and discussed in a temperate and knowledgeable way issues that are profoundly important to many in the House, in the Public Gallery and watching within the House and outside. I cannot thank the hon. Lady enough for that.
I too have had experience of this issue in my family from my grandmother’s deafness; we were brought up with that and it has affected my view of the issue and made me much more aware of it. Indeed, I too have been for hearing tests and now have to wear a hearing aid, although I am not wearing it today as I find the audibility to be very good in the Chamber. So I too have had experience of learning about how deafness comes to us, in my case with maturity of years.
Sir Mike Penning
My hon. Friend makes an important point that perhaps I did not stress fully enough in my contribution. There are two groups of people in the deaf community: those born profoundly deaf, and those, like my hon. Friend and myself, who have developed hearing loss during the course of our lives. That is understood in the community but is not fully understood outside it, and this Bill will help tremendously in that.
Simon Baynes
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and for that observation, which he has made far more eloquently than I was struggling to just now. That is absolutely right, and I will address another point he made shortly, because I was struck by his contribution to the debate.
In my constituency there are many organisations that help people who are deaf, such as the Wrexham and Denbighshire Deaf Children’s Society, AVOW—the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham—and the Rainbow Foundation. I pay tribute to them, and want also to quote the British Deaf Association:
“This Bill has been 19 years in the making. Deaf people in Britain never gave up hope that their language would one day be not only recognised in law, but also protected and promoted so that deaf people are finally able to access information and services and achieve their potential on an equal basis with their fellow hearing citizens.”
Indeed, equality has been an important theme of the debate, and I perhaps did not fully appreciate its importance when I was preparing my speech. It is strikingly clear from everything everybody has said that this is not only about helping people who are deaf, but about ensuring equality among all our citizens. The provisions for users of BSL accessing services are covered by equalities legislation and the public sector equality duty.
The Bill seeks to recognise British Sign Language as a language of England, Wales and Scotland. I make that point as a Member of Parliament with a Welsh constituency because for me, it is important that it is a GB-wide initiative. It also requires the Secretary of State to report on the promotion and facilitation of the use of British Sign Language by Government Departments, which, again, is a crucial point that has already been made in the debate.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for outlining that BSL tours are available in Parliament. It is all very well for the Government to have new responsibilities with regard to BSL, but will my hon. Friend allude to how helpful it would be for the deaf community if Members of Parliament had BSL training and BSL interpretation in our surgeries to provide services to our constituents?
Simon Baynes
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I fully endorse training of that nature. I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) said about the educational process, and I was pleased that the Minister for School Standards was nodding in assent to what he said about putting it in the curriculum. We need to set an example here, so my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) is correct that we need to set an example in what we do in our constituencies to help people in that regard.
The Bill will also ensure that the guidance is created in direct consultation with deaf BSL users to ensure that it truly reflects the needs of the deaf community. In the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), I was struck by the fact that he has been working towards that for many years and by his point about methodology, which is incredibly important.
It strikes me that the Bill is part of a process—a point that was movingly made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire when she talked about the experience of her father in hospital. With no disrespect to the consultant she mentioned and so on, it is shocking that that took place and it illustrates how the Bill is important not only for ensuring that British Sign Language is widely used and has an important place in the structure of our government and the way we do things, but for changing people’s minds, views and behaviour. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead about methodology is profoundly important in conjunction with the Bill.
The Bill also introduces a suite of non-statutory measures, which have already been commented on, so I will not go into detail on them. I have touched on the issue of education, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Bassetlaw. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made the point that it is important for British Sign Language to become a part of children’s lives. We all know that if we start with children, they have no preconceived ideas and they can see that it will help with their own deaf friends, which is the way to change things in the long term. I strongly support that.
I have made the point that the Bill has a GB-wide impact on BSL users. As a Welsh MP, I cannot stress strongly enough how much I support that. I fully back the Bill because I am committed, as are the Government, to supporting all people with a disability, including deaf people, to lead fulfilled and independent lives.
I end with what Rose Ayling-Ellis, the winner of “Strictly Come Dancing”, who has already been referred to, said of the Bill:
“I’m backing it because this is my language. The fact that my country doesn’t see it that way is really sad and means we don’t get the respect we deserve and the language deserves. BSL is not an official language, legally, in this country. Which is outrageous. Because it is such a beautiful, rich language with its own structure, its own grammar, its own slang. It’s even got accents.”
I thought that that very vividly made the point. Hopefully, the outrageous element, which is rightly alluded to, will come to be something of the past when this Bill is passed in this House and in the other place.
I end by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for West Lancashire on her private Member’s Bill, which is indeed inspirational and vital for everybody in this country.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
May I again congratulate my new friend, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), on bringing forward this important Bill, and on the commitment and dedication that she has shown, and that she has role-modelled to us all, in championing British Sign Language? I want to emphasise that the Government are not only committed to this Bill, but proud to support it.
Today, Trafalgar Square is filled with BSL signers and members of the deaf community. They have gathered together to celebrate Sign Language Week and mark the 19th anniversary of the recognition of BSL as a language in its own right by the UK Government and in joyful anticipation of the Bill reaching its successful final stage in this House. They want to be part of the symphony.
Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of seeing a rehearsal from Deafinitely Theatre, the first deaf-launched and deaf-led professional theatre company in the UK, producing bilingual theatre in both BSL and spoken English. It was so inspiring to meet the directors and the cast and to see the welcoming space that they have created for deaf people and the bold space that they are challenging audiences with.
Last weekend, we saw sign language elevated again at the BAFTAs, with the film “CODA” winning two awards; the first film with a predominantly deaf cast to win an award, including the first BAFTA, as we have discussed, to go to a deaf actor. That film portrays some of the very challenges that we have been discussing during the passage of this Bill, including children stepping into an adult world to interpret for a parent. It also puts deaf people at the heart of a story about family and community.
Such moments are important. They raise awareness of the challenges faced not only by deaf people and the deaf community, but by deaf workers, in the form of actors, as well as by the sign language interpreters consulting for the film. Cast members learning sign language provide role models for young deaf people throughout our society. Recognising deaf culture in this way sends an important message to the deaf community: we see the challenges you face; we care about what you have to say; and you are a valued part of our society.
The theme for this year’s Sign Language Week is “BSL Bring Us Together” and it certainly does. I am delighted to see how Members across this House have come together to put the recognition of this rich and vibrant language into law and to pass a number of measures that, hopefully, will see an increase in the use of BSL across society.
I wish to place on record that the explanatory notes of the Bill will be updated to extend this recognition to tactile sign language, which is used and understood by some deafblind people, and to reflect the importance of BSL in deaf culture and community. We are all bound together by shared languages and that is especially so for BSL signers.
I wish to thank right hon. and hon. Members for the further issues that they have powerfully raised today, including, for example, that of prisoners and also some points very ably made about the current humanitarian crisis by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns).
Alongside the Bill, we are also developing a suite of non-statutory measures that will help promote and facilitate the use of BSL. These include: establishing a non-statutory advisory board of British Sign Language signers to advise the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on matters relating to BSL; examining how we might increase the number of BSL interpreters; reviewing how we might work in DWP to ensure the Access to Work fund better helps BSL signers; and considering how the Government can further facilitate and promote BSL usage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) mentioned, I am also working with colleagues at the Department for Education to see what more can be done to accelerate the introduction of a BSL GCSE. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), an absolute stalwart supporter of this work, said, this Bill is a means of doing more, and he is so right in that.
I would like to take a moment to deal with the four points put by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). To begin with, she asked about data: what do we know about BSL signers.
The Government collect a variety of data on disabled people who have difficulty hearing, and their outcomes, drawing on the definition of disability as understood in the Equality Act and impairment type as collected in available data. The Office for National Statistics announced that it aims to publish the first results of the 2021 census this summer, which will have updated figures on BSL use. In addition, the Government have set out a comprehensive approach to improving its evidence on disabled people, including the BSL signing population. That encompasses: improving administrative and survey data across Government to ensure they reflect disabled people's needs and the barriers they experience; an annual survey to collect robust information on disabled people’s lived experience; monitoring of public perceptions towards disabled people; and building expertise on disability related evidence.
Moving on to the hon. Lady’s point about the board being non-statutory, that was covered in Committee, but I am happy to reiterate it here. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire made clear in Committee, a private Member’s Bill cannot create new public expenditure, so it is not possible for this Bill to create a statutory board, yet she and I agree wholeheartedly that BSL signers have a key role to play in advising the Government on how we can support them to lead fulfilling, independent lives. That is why, in spite of the constraint, I have pledged to create a new non-statutory board of BSL signers to make sure their views are central to progressing practical improvements—there I go, Mr Speaker, banging on the Dispatch Box as the hon. Lady has told us to do.
The new board will advise the Government on matters relating to BSL and of particular pertinence to deaf BSL signers, which will include helping to formulate the guidance under clause 3. I have instructed officials to consider the composition and remit of the board and will confirm the details by summer this year, when I hope to be able to seek nominations for members, who will be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions. We are yet to determine the board’s terms of reference for the board, which might include publishing minutes and recommendations and we will involve the board of BSL signers in that process.
The third point of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford touched on interpretation at covid press conferences. To be clear for the record, a judicial review on the matter found that the Government were meeting their obligations under the Equality Act for the covid briefings and have complied with the public sector equality duty. The court ruled that our policy of using on-screen BSL interpreters was lawful during the pandemic. There have been over 175 covid briefings to date, and only two were questioned because BSL was not provided on screen. The judge ruled that it is not a legal requirement to provide an in-person BSL interpreter, but we will continue to ensure provision of an on-screen interpreter. Our priority, like everyone’s in this Chamber, was to reach the largest-possible audience with important public information, and we will continue to ensure that BSL is made available in that regard.
The hon. Lady’s final point was about the particular wording of clause 1(2). I am a little disappointed that this matter has been brought up again on Third Reading as though it had not been dealt with in Committee and, indeed, on page 6 of the explanatory notes. It important to get it on the record today—in case we have to do this again—that we do not want to upset the balance of provisions in the Equality Act. I caution the hon. Lady about inciting anybody to tear down the Equality Act. Of course, I do not think that that is her intention, but that is where that line of logic could lead were she to use it again.
We must remember what a private Member’s Bill can achieve. The scope is limited, but none the less this is what such a Bill can achieve, and I do not think that someone would seek to tear down the Equality Act with a private Member’s Bill. Through the hon. Lady, I emphasise to Members of the other place who may be considering amendments that, at this stage in the Session, there is no time for amendments before Royal Assent. Without Royal Assent, there will be nothing, and I think our common aim is to pass this Bill and achieve something really important.
Sir Mike Penning
Perhaps I can say something on behalf of the House. It is not just those on the Treasury Bench who are saying to the other House, “Please do not table amendments—they will wreck the Bill”; it is this House that is saying that. We want this Bill on the statute book. If we delay it, it will not get on to the statute book, and that would be criminal.
Chloe Smith
I entirely endorse the point that my right hon. Friend has just underlined, which was made very clearly by the hon. Member for West Lancashire. It took an enormous amount of hard work, passion and perseverance to get us to this point, and we want to finish the job.
I am grateful for the constructive spirit in which everyone in the Chamber has worked to build cross-party consensus for the Bill. It will make real improvements to the communication options, and the lives, of deaf people. As has been said, however, even harder work is ahead of us. At this point I should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for reminding us that there is a head of steam behind the Bill.
Finally, let me thank all the campaigners—including those involved in the BSL Act Now! Campaign—who have worked tirelessly to get us to this point, alongside the hon. Member for West Lancashire, and thank Members on both sides of the House for their support. I hope we can all agree that today has been a victory for everyone involved, and also that there is more work to be done. I am proud of what we have achieved together with this Bill. We wish it well in the other place, and we look forward to the change that it will bring.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I put the Question, I am sure that we would like to hear once more from Rosie Cooper.
Rosie Cooper
With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few very short remarks.
A Bill similar to mine failed in 2014. Deaf people have waited for this for so long. We are on the point of delivering a huge difference for each and every one of them. For goodness sake, I can almost feel deaf people across the country, and in Trafalgar Square saying, “We are here, we are at the point, stop nitpicking and move on! Please, House of Lords, no amendments—there is no time for them! Give us our voice! for God’s sake, please stop it—just move on!” This is not quite British Sign Language, but it is very simple. On behalf of all those deaf people, all those organisations for the deaf, all the individuals who have helped this House and, please God, the other place—thank you. [In British Sign Language: “Thank you.”]
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Congratulations, Rosie. You rightly have your place in history for providing a brighter future for many generations to come.
Mental Health Provision (Children and Young People) Bill
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a privilege to speak on my first ever private Member’s Bill. Let me start by thanking the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has been working with me on the content of this Bill over the past two years; it was initially an amendment to the NHS Funding Bill, back in January 2020. I also thank Young Minds for its support and input. Together, we are united in wanting to shine a light on children and young people’s mental health services in respect of spending and waiting times up and down the country as part of our collective efforts to improve services.
The Bill would put into statute an annual report to Parliament on the provision of mental health services, with data included on both local spending and waiting times. It would enable young people, their parents and their carers to see clearly and easily the actual investment in children’s and young people’s mental health services in their own areas, and enable them to have a true picture of the waiting times for treatment. Only by having that transparency can we really hold ministers to account for their promises.
The issue of children’s and young people’s mental health is very close to my heart, and I have been campaigning for better investment in services since the moment I was elected. Each week, I hear heartbreaking stories of young people in my constituency unable to access the help they need in a timely manner, and I have been recounting a number of those stories in this place for over two years.
The mental health crisis among children and young people was a problem prior to the pandemic. We all know that it is worse today as a result of the various covid lockdowns, which led to social isolation, anxiety about the future, bereavement and, for some young people, having to live in very challenging conditions, due to either lack of physical space or difficult personal circumstances. In December 2021, the number of children and young people accessing mental health services was 15.7% higher than two years earlier.
With one in six children now having a diagnosable mental health condition, additional investment in services at all levels, from preventive measures in schools and community settings right through to acute and crisis services in the NHS, is urgent. While NHS England spending on children’s mental health has increased over the past four years, in far too many areas the money is not necessarily reaching the frontline, resulting in a postcode lottery in funding across the country.
Figures analysed by the Children’s Commissioner showed that in 2020-21, while spending was approximately £165.20 per child in the Isle of Wight, it was less than a tenth of that in Halton, at only £15.90 per child. Despite a specific commitment to children’s mental health spending growing as a proportion of local NHS spending, in the last financial year, the Morecambe Bay NHS saw a drop of over 15% in child and adolescent mental health services spending, and the Buckinghamshire NHS a drop of 11.6%.
Waiting lists are still wholly unacceptable in far too many areas. Just recently, I was contacted by the mother of a seven-year-old—seven, Mr Deputy Speaker; that is the same age as my own daughter. She is a little girl who should be enjoying school, playdates, parties and playgrounds. Her mother said to me, “She isn’t really living—just existing.” She has been waiting since November 2020 for a CAMHS assessment. That is 16 months.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some really important points, particularly about CAMHS. The delay in getting people assessed is a significant issue in my constituency; it impacts my case load, and it delays access to services for young people in my constituency. However, I know from engaging with my local mental health trust that the problem is not so much funding but recruitment. Will the hon. Lady comment on what we can do to recruit the necessary people to help with the backlogs?
Munira Wilson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Even if there were 1,000% more funding tomorrow, the workforce is not there, as we know it is not in so many parts of the NHS. Interestingly, we know from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, for example, that there are many counsellors who are trained to counsel young people who want to do more work, but I agree that recruitment is a problem in trying to get timely assessments. The story I was part of the way through telling goes on to explain how long that poor seven-year-old girl has been waiting just for an assessment, let alone for treatment. That is why the Bill refers to waiting times to treatment; there is often a long waiting time to assessment and then another long waiting time to treatment. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we need to do a lot more on recruiting the right workforce as well as putting the funding in, because we cannot do very much without the right people.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The hon. Lady will recall from a conversation that the two of us had the importance and effectiveness of counselling in the school environment for nipping potential mental health issues in the bud—particularly those associated with the first and second covid lockdowns. Every Member will have experienced in their patch increased anxiety among teenagers, particularly at secondary school—perhaps not so much in primary school. Does the hon. Lady agree that the focus on counselling in the school environment is particularly important?
Munira Wilson
I agree completely. We need that preventive intervention at school and community level, as well as investment in acute services right across the way. There is a huge need, from low-level intervention right through to acute services, and if we do more at an early stage we will prevent waiting lists from growing at later stages. I absolutely think that we should have a professional, trained counsellor in every school. It is the No. 1 issue that every secondary headteacher in my constituency brings up with me, and although the hon. Gentleman says it is less significant in primary schools, it is still a pretty high priority for my primary headteachers. I have witnessed some pretty scary episodes when I have been in primary schools, so it is a problem across both.
Back to my story about the seven-year-old. Her mother told me that she is not really living, just existing. She has been waiting since November 2020 for a CAMHS assessment, which is 16 months. Recently, her mother was told that she may need to wait a further year still. Since her initial referral in November 2020 she was also recommended for arts therapy while she waits for assessment, but that has not materialised either, with local service providers suggesting it may come through in the next couple of months. My caseload suggests this case is not unusual, sadly. Quite apart from the anguish and stress for the whole family, the child’s condition often deteriorates while they wait for assessment and they then need more extensive intervention. Even worse, they can end up at the back of the queue for a new assessment because by the time they are seen they are on the wrong track or the wrong tier for the level of support they need. Indeed, a few weeks ago I shared the story of a 15-year-old girl to whom that had happened.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady is giving an excellent account of the problem, and I know we all share her thoughts on it. Does she agree that one reason this is so important is that generations have had their life chances held back because they did not get support when they were children that would have allowed them to develop? If we let children down now, we will be letting another generation suffer a problem that we know we can solve.
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. If children are not happy and well in themselves they will not thrive. There is plenty of data and research to show that children who are unwell mentally do not do as well in their GCSEs and A-levels, as well as in their social lives, so it is key.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Over the last two and a half years it has been devastating to see the impact of the pandemic on children’s health. We should never again lock our children out of their schools and we must ensure that we protect them against the appalling pandemic of abuse that we have seen in our households. I recognise that we need to do more for children and their mental health, and I see that in my local secondary schools. I apologise, however, because I am struggling to understand how the proposal would differ from the quarterly dashboard already published by the Department of Health and Social Care that, as I understand it, already presents such data.
Munira Wilson
The dashboard does not go into the level of detail required in the Bill. I will come on to the different bits of data that the Bill would require to be published, especially on waiting times. That is not particularly transparent, although the Children’s Commissioner requests some of that data on an annual basis. On the dashboard, the spending figures that are reported are not always accurate, which is why there have been a lot of independent audits. That is why I want to put it on to a statutory footing, to give some weight to it and to try to drive up the quality, so that we have that transparency and accountability.
When young people are not seen in a timely manner, often their condition deteriorates and then they have to be re-referred and go to the back of the queue. The data on waiting times from referral to assessment and from assessment to treatment by area are not routinely and easily available. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and I have had a long-running battle locally to try to access some of that data, because our case loads on children’s mental health are so high.
Every year, the Children’s Commissioner uses her statutory powers to request information from NHS Digital on referrals, waiting times and spending. The waiting times reporting in that analysis uses a proxy measure of two contacts, even though for a variety of reasons that can be misleading. We should not have to rely on the Children’s Commissioner’s requests, which may not always continue, nor should we have to rely on proxy measures.
Additionally, as the Children’s Commissioner makes clear in her report, the data she is able to access and publish, some of which comes from the dashboard that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referred to, is limited to the NHS and does not include the spending or activity in schools and local authorities, even though those services, as we have heard, are an important part of the vast and complex patchwork of mental health provision for our children and young people. We need a holistic picture.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for being generous with her time. Is she aware that the NHS and clinical commissioning group spend has increased year on year since 2016, and does she welcome that?
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman may have missed it, but I did acknowledge earlier in my remarks that for the past four years, at an England level, the spending has gone up. The problem is that that does not always filter through to the local level. I highlighted earlier in my speech the postcode lottery whereby there is a tenfold difference between what is spent in Halton and what is spent on the Isle of Wight. It is increasing at the national level, but without tracking it and having transparency about what is being spent at the local level, we cannot be sure that it is always filtering through.
Where the NHS is committed, based on what the Government have asked of it, to increasing its spend on children and young people’s services as a proportion not only of NHS spending, but of mental health spending, the data is not very clear and the quality is not always very good, so we cannot track it at a local level.
Jerome Mayhew
Is there not a degree of conflict between the need to ensure that support is put in nationally, wherever the need is, and the real desire to have localism, so that local spending more accurately reflects the priorities of individual communities? I do not know the background of what happens on the Isle of Wight, but it may be right that there should be increased spending there compared with the assessed need in Halton. Does the hon. Lady think there is a more serious problem behind that difference, rather than just different prioritisations from local communities?
Munira Wilson
I applaud a Conservative Member for talking to a Liberal Democrat about localism. I wholeheartedly embrace localism and would like to see much more local accountability for spending, and yes, there will sometimes be obvious reasons for variability. However, I would ask whether £15.90 sounds like a reasonable amount to spend per child on mental health. Unless there is a suggestion that in Halton there are pretty much no children struggling with mental health, which I doubt is the case, that tenfold difference does need investigation. Looking at the figures, Halton is one of the areas that has had a massive percentage increase in the past year, presumably to try to correct for that very low level of spending and the need that is there.
My Bill would make the publication of data on the provision of those services a statutory requirement. As such, we could secure a higher quality of data published in a coterminous way across NHS units—currently clinical commissioning groups, but in future integrated care systems—and local authorities by requiring publication on a regional basis. The Bill would also put a specific requirement on Government to publish spending per head on child and adolescent mental health services, as well as the proportion of overall NHS spending and mental health spending on CAMHS by region.
Clause 2 also requests that a statement be included as to whether the expenditure has met the aims of the NHS long-term plan. That is an important requirement to ensure the mental health investment standard is met. The standard is the Government’s tool to ensure CCGs increase how much they spend on mental health every year and, in particular, on children and young people’s mental health. Reporting on that standard has been of variable quality in recent years, with some areas reporting that they met the standard while including one-off, non-recurring pots of money or dementia and learning disability spending, all of which are specifically excluded.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The hon. Member is being very generous with her time. On the point she made about the CCGs meeting the investment standard, every CCG met that standard in 2021-22. Of course, this is an English Bill, but as a Welsh Member of Parliament, can I reflect that until recently, Wales had a Labour and Liberal Democrat Government? There was a Liberal Democrat Minister for Education until recently, and the data in Wales is so poor compared with the dashboard. If we just had the right level of dashboard in Wales, we could really dig into the detail, so could the hon. Member reflect on why that is not happening in Wales, given that until recently, her party was in government there?
Munira Wilson
I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but I am not briefed on what is going on in terms of the data in Wales. He is correct that every CCG is reporting that it meets the mental health investment standard, but as I am trying to explain—I will touch on this a little later—independent audits have shown that some CCGs inaccurately reported that they met the mental health investment standard because they included spending that they should not have included. That suggests they have met the standard, but they have not. That is why this Bill is trying to put some of those standards, and the explanation of how they have or have not been reached, on a statutory footing, so we can all have the clarity we need to hold Ministers and services to account. These requirements to report on CAMHS spending should not put a significant strain on NHS resources because, as has already been alluded to, a lot of that data is already being collected and some of it is being reported on the mental health dashboard.
I have no doubt that in her response, the Minister will refer to the Government’s amendment to the Health and Care Bill in the other place that requires the Secretary of State to lay a written ministerial statement setting out the Government’s expectation on mental health spending by NHS England for the year ahead. That amendment also requires integrated care boards to publish details of this spending in their annual reports. That is a very positive step forward; I welcome that amendment, and am glad—having been lobbying for it for the past two years—that we are making progress in the right direction. However, nothing on the face of the new legislation specifies that those reports should refer to children and young people’s mental health services in particular. Children and young people’s mental health services have always been the Cinderella of Cinderella services in our NHS, so I strongly believe they should be named on the face of the Health and Care Bill if the Government will not accept my Bill today.
With the retrospective reporting requirement on spending being in integrated care board annual reports, aggregating and comparing that data locally and regionally will be much more challenging. Furthermore, given the question marks I have already alluded to that have been raised about the quality of financial reporting by local organisations, which is why independent reviews of mental health spending have been commissioned for the past two financial years and this financial year, I have concerns that what is being done in the Health and Care Bill—the report of what has actually been spent—is just subject to annual reports by ICBs. Again, a report to Parliament would strengthen the basis of that data and its quality.
As I have said, some CCGs have been found to be erroneously reporting whether they are meeting the mental health investment standard, and although NHS England and Improvement has demanded explanations, I am not clear that any of those explanations are published anywhere. To me, the fact that the quality of the data remains an ongoing concern strengthens the need to ensure an annual report is made to Parliament with regional breakdowns.
To turn to data on waiting times, clause 3 of my Bill draws on the recent consultation on the mental health clinically-led review of standards. I welcome the broad support demonstrated for the proposed standards and particularly a four-week waiting time standard for access to community children and young people’s mental health services. However, as expressed by the consultation respondents, there needs to be clarity on what the four-week waiting time is for. Is it for assessment, starting treatment or another intervention?
My Bill would require a report to Parliament showing exactly how long children are waiting to access non-urgent treatment by region. That would better reflect the reality for so many young people, parents and carers who are beside themselves, waiting months or even years for an assessment and even more until they commence treatment. The statutory report that I propose would allow Parliament to hold Ministers to account for the appalling waiting times that every Member of Parliament has heard about in their constituency.
Peter Gibson
The hon. Lady will know that the Government tabled a number of amendments to the Health and Care Bill to improve transparency. Does she welcome them?
Munira Wilson
Yes, I already have. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman missed that part of the speech, but I welcomed them and pointed out where I thought they were deficient and should go further.
I am introducing the Bill because too many children and young people right across the country are in crisis. Unless our children are happy and well, they cannot learn and thrive. Our children are buckling under the pressure. Last year, a year 11 student at a secondary school in my Twickenham constituency took his own life. Teachers and doctors desperately tried to get CAMHS support for him, but he would not engage, so they said that they could not help. To my mind, that is exactly the sort of person they should work intensively to engage with. When I spoke to the school, they told me that they had five more pupils who were identified as high-risk. Staff in schools are overstretched and trying to provide services that they are neither qualified nor equipped to deliver, nor should they have to do so.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. I am glad that she is talking about children in crisis, because too often, we talk about the softer side of things, including the need for counselling and early intervention. Although that is very important, a significant number of children are very ill indeed and are not getting the help that they need. The number of A&E attendances by young people with a diagnosed psychiatric condition has tripled since 2010. If they are resorting to going to A&E, that means that they are being badly let down by the system. Would her Bill reveal details of how they are dealt with at A&E, how long they have to wait and whether they end up getting treatment?
Munira Wilson
Yes. If the hon. Member looks at clause 3, she will see that it draws on the definitions in the clinically-led review of mental health waiting time standards and mentions both urgent and non-urgent presentations, so that we get data on waiting times for all of them. I completely agree with her point about presentations to A&E; I have heard that from many local NHS leaders in my patch and across London. Indeed, I have heard about paediatric units in hospitals having to look after CAMHS patients—which is totally inappropriate, both for the other children in those wards and the CAMHS patients—because there is such a dire need for beds. We need more provision and intervention from across the lower level that she mentioned right up to the acute and crisis side of things.
Many headteachers tell me that their staff are effectively becoming social workers, trying to support families with their problems outside school and get children to re-engage with schools, as the number of children missing from school has increased since the pandemic. A number of primary schools in my constituency are relying on parental donations to offer therapy and mental health support.
Urgent action and further investment is desperately needed. We should have a trained mental health counsellor in every school, community mental health hubs and additional crisis beds, as has been suggested. We need to track that action and investment properly so that the Government can be held to account. The Bill would be the start of holding Ministers’ feet to the fire on their promises by giving the public, and Members of Parliament as their representatives, the tools to do so. Young people and their parents and carers could ensure that they are no longer short-changed in their own area and see in stark daylight the reality of what is being spent in their area on children and young people’s mental health. We would all have a much clearer idea of just how long those children and young people are languishing on waiting lists.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The hon. Lady has been extremely generous with her time. I very much respect what she is saying and I fully understand her point about the statutory requirements to support mental health. However, to take the discussion slightly to one side, as she has given the matter huge thought and consulted others, how can we help young people with mental health conditions as part of a holistic approach aside from whatever the state can contribute, which is obviously central and vital to the process?
Munira Wilson
I have been arguing for some time that we need a holistic approach, including in schools—there has been a real narrowing of the curriculum and we need more extracurricular activities and other, softer skills to be built back into the curriculum and school time, because that all helps wellbeing—as well as specific services and interventions to support young people who may start to get into either crisis or lower-level anxiety and other issues. We also need provision of youth services. I am sure that we can all cite fantastic examples of projects and things in our constituencies that enable young people to improve their physical and mental wellbeing. There is a whole host of things. The Bill would be just one tool, measuring what is going in right across the board—whether in the NHS or by local authorities or schools—and what the waiting times are. I think there is unanimity across the House that there is a problem and that we need to do more. I have acknowledged that the Government are attempting to do more, but we need to improve transparency and accountability.
Through the Bill, we would have a much clearer idea of how long young people are languishing on waiting lists, often with their conditions deteriorating, and sometimes with tragic consequences. Progress is needed now. Our children cannot wait. I commend the Bill to the House.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Thank you for calling me in the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to contribute to this very important discussion. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). It is important that she has brought her Bill to the House for us to debate, and I am pleased that we can have that discussion.
It is fair to say that some of the most profound experiences that I have had since I was elected in December 2019 are those of helping parents who have had terribly sick children, generally for mental health purposes. It has been so profound to see the extent to which young children who are five, six, seven or eight years old have been in such a desperate place and have had to wait quite some time to get help. I therefore have great sympathy with the hon. Lady’s wanting to bring the Bill to the House for debate.
The Bill very much focuses on the need for more reporting, with the Government to report still further to this House on child mental health statistics. I am afraid that I do not entirely agree with her on that point, and I would like to take the opportunity to explain why. I hope she will not misunderstand me, because I care deeply about this. In Dorset, we have also seen some terrible circumstances. Systemic issues are the core reason why these children have not got the help they have needed; they have fallen down the gaps in provision between the local authority, the education authority and the NHS.
The Government have introduced the extensive Health and Care Bill. I recognise that it does not enjoy the support of the whole House; indeed, I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady has not supported the Bill so far. However, I think the Government’s intention to change the CCG setup and move towards an integrated care system for all parts of the country, and the steps that they have already taken on that in anticipation of the Health and Care Bill, are the single most important thing that will improve children’s mental health. It is one of the reasons why I am such a keen supporter of my hon. Friend the Minister and her colleagues.
We have to take great care before we put more bureaucracy and cost into the system. It is already far too heavy with bureaucracy, which distracts from core delivery. I looked carefully at the notes that the hon. Lady sent me a few days ago—I thank her very much for doing so—and I have read her Bill. We have to be careful not to change the priorities to finances and money, rather than looking after the individual child. I agree that considerable improvement is needed when it comes to holding to account the relevant organisations in the three groups that I have just mentioned. I have found that quite difficult when I have supported parents who have come to me in desperation for help. She is right to highlight that point, and it is right that the Government hear it. I am sure that it is already well heard, although I am hoping that the Bill may be further strengthened to address it.
In a vast number of cases, young children have had to wait not days, weeks or months but in excess of a year to get the help they need. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the challenges with CAMHS, and the difficulties that parents often face with getting the assistance that they require.
Munira Wilson
If the hon. Member is so concerned about those year-long waits—we all have constituents who have experienced them—why is he so opposed to better reporting on that? He complains about bureaucracy, but some level of reporting is required for accountability. It is not just bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake, which I hate.
Chris Loder
The hon. Lady makes a valid challenge, but she misunderstands me. I am not necessarily wholly opposed to changes in reporting and changes in how local integrated care systems approach the matter, but I am not sure it is right or good for the UK Parliament to legislate in that level of detail. I repeat that I fear we run the risk of losing focus on the child or children amid all the bureaucracy of the reporting. That is a concern; I see that today to an extent. I do not want us to always resort to having to wait for annual reports to come out before we can bring up such matters with Ministers and others.
Peter Gibson
I am sure that my hon. Friend engages regularly, as I do, with his local mental health trust and local authority to raise and discuss these issues. Does he agree that it is an entirely appropriate step for a Member of Parliament to take to hold health authorities to account to ensure that the problem of the backlog is delivered on and addressed?
Chris Loder
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is difficult; I sympathise with many of the points of the hon. Member for Twickenham, but in my opinion, we can do that better through some of the considerable reforms that the Government have proposed in their new Bill. As I articulated earlier, with the three components—the education authority, the NHS and the local government authority—it is difficult for us as Members of Parliament to get to the nub of the issue, because we are often pushed to somebody or somewhere else. The parents of the families concerned also feel that. It is absolutely right, therefore, that we look to focus much more on the system and its outcomes and on ensuring that our children, especially those in the greatest need, are much better looked after than they are today.
Simon Baynes
To go back to my hon. Friend’s comment about bureaucracy, apart from reporting, are there any other aspects of bureaucracy that he feels currently mean that we cannot give the level of service that we would like to young people in mental health services?
Chris Loder
From my perspective—I am not an expert in the field—there is a level of bureaucracy that prevents us from getting to the nub of the issue to fix it, which is part of the reason why the Government’s reforms are coming forward, as far as I understand it. The Minister may add to that in due course. My hon. Friend would probably do well to ask an hon. Member who comes from a health profession or who is a practising doctor for some better-informed insight into that area than I can offer based on my relatively brief experience since my election.
This debate also gives us the opportunity to highlight some of the difficulties in the NHS in terms of the provision of services. For example, in Dorset, there have been several situations where those in need of care have been unable to access it because The Retreat centre in Dorchester has been closed because of a workforce difficulty.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. When we talk about the delivery of services to young people, something that has struck me from my experience in my constituency is how they sometimes expect services to be delivered in a different way from us. They expect more digital services and they do not always want to sit in a dusty old waiting room for hours as we have perhaps been used to. Part of the challenge that we face is to look at children and young people specifically and at the different ways that they might want to experience the services that the NHS delivers.
Chris Loder
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind intervention, and I could not agree with her more. She is absolutely right, and her point highlights the difficulties that those of us who represent rural constituencies face when we cannot get on the internet because of a lack of broadband. I am conscious that we are going off on a little bit of a tangent, but NHS services and the other services for children that she outlines are hugely dependent on that.
I was making a point, before the intervention, about the provision of services for young children in Dorset, and I referred to The Retreat, a mental health facility in Dorchester. I also thank and pay tribute to those at St Ann’s Hospital in Poole who look after many children who have great difficulties.
I will bring my remarks to a close by saying that the hon. Member for Twickenham has brought a very important debate to the Floor of the House. While I do not agree with her on all of her points, I thank her for her tireless campaigning. Even if we do not agree about all the Bill’s components, by bringing the Bill to the House of Commons she has enabled us to have a debate that has caused a great deal of interest, as we can tell by the number of interventions that those of us who have spoken have taken. It is an important issue, and I am delighted that the Ministers are on the Front Bench to hear the debate. Having discussed the subject with the Minister, I know she understands fully the difficulties that we face, and I look forward to seeing if there are learning points that the Government can take from the debate to further improve the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I will not detain the House for long, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for bringing this excellent Bill to the House and for her continued cross-party work on the vital issue of children’s mental health.
We in Her Majesty’s Opposition are always happy to support legislation that improves transparency and makes it easier to hold the Government to account on children and young people’s mental health. It is shame that we do not have more time to get this Bill beyond today’s stage—I fear there are more speakers than time allotted, but I hope the hon. Lady, or another hon. Member, brings forward this Bill again in another Session. It is absolutely crucial that we tackle the real problems with children’s and adolescents’ mental health. I and the Opposition support this Bill, but it is saddening that we do not have time to take to the next stage today.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The basic provision of the Bill is to require the Government to report annually to Parliament on mental health provision for children and young adults. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the Bill in detail and do you know what, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is a really good Bill that I think we should be taking forward, and let me explain why.
As we know, waiting lists in the UK for CAMHS range from one to two and a half years, depending on where people live. The fact that our children are waiting so long for a consultation is pretty immoral. The key point for me is that GPs cannot prescribe medication or any form of mitigation for symptoms of attention deficit disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder without a diagnosis from CAMHS, so the two-and-a-half year waiting list for CAMHS impacts families across the UK.
However, in my view three factors weaken the argument of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). First, the Government are providing £2.3 billion a year to expand NHS mental health provision. Such provision is currently provided for 345,000 children, and that will expand. Secondly, £79 million has been invested in children’s mental health services in 2021-22. Thirdly, the NHS mental health dashboard marks progress against the delivery of the five-year plan.
Crucially, the special educational needs and disabilities review is inbound. As somebody who takes a keen interest in this subject and who has been through this myself over many years, I am waiting for the SEND review to come out. The point I want to make in these last few seconds is that the Government need to be on notice if, ultimately, we do not deliver the improvement to the services we need, if we do not shorten the waiting lists for CAMHS, if we do not invest more money in CAMHS and reprioritise across the NHS, and if we do not give these children and their families the solace they desperately need. The Bill has huge merit and I urge the hon. Lady to keep going with it.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I am grateful to have been called for the third time, but with nine seconds to go. I am very short of time—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The House has been deprived, I am sure, of a great speech.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to take this next part very slowly. If people are objecting, make sure you do so loudly. If you are moving a Bill on behalf of another Member, please make that clear.
Goods Delivery Services Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Commercial Rent (Prohibition of Upward-Only Reviews) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Tibet and Xinjiang (Reciprocal Access) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Employment Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Workers (Employment Security and Definition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Crown Estate (Devolution to Wales) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Recognition of Armenian Genocide BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Hate Crime (Misogyny) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Israel Arms Trade (Prohibition) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Clean Air Targets (World Health Organization Guidelines) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (22 October), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
Trade Agreements (Parliamentary Scrutiny and Farming) BilL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
British Goods (Public Sector Purchasing Duty) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
Consumer Pricing Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Broadcasting (Listed Sporting Events) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
PUPPY IMPORT (PROHIBITION) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Employment (Application Requirements) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Public Sector Website Impersonation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Hunting Trophy Import (Prohibition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This Bill has overwhelming support both from the public and in this Chamber. Is there any way of getting it across to the public that the Government, having failed to produce their own promised Bill, are actually blocking this one, and to assure them that this Bill will be coming back in the next Parliament until we can get rid of this vile trade?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done it.
Armenian Genocide (Recognition) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Misuse of Fireworks Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (21 January), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
CLIMATE EDUCATION BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PROHIBTION OF SECOND JOBS) (MOTION) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Conservative party is stacked with MPs lining their pockets with second jobs, but the Tory Government have repeatedly blocked my Bill to bar MPs’ second jobs. What can be done to force the Government to act to ban MPs from having second jobs, as the public wants us to do and as this Bill provides?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sorry, but this is now turning into an abuse of points of order. We all know how private Members’ Bill operate and, therefore, if there is an objection, I have to take the objection.
PLASTIC POLLUTION BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Status of Workers BILL [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Public Advocate Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Seals (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Ministerial Disclosure (fixed penalty Notices) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Social Housing (Emergency protection of tenancy rights) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
IMMIGRATION (HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE STAFF) BILL
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
prisons (violence) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Planning and Local Representation Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Pedicabs (London) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (19 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
Medical Cannabis (Access) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (10 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (4 February), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
Plastics (Wet Wipes) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Mobile Homes Act 1983 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Flooding (Prevention and Insurance) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Climate Change Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Copyright (Rights and Remuneration of Musicians, Etc.) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (3 December), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May.
NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Caravan Sites Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 6 May
Illegal Immigration (Offences) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Green Belt (Protection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May.
Elderly Social Care (Insurance) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government have now killed the Public Advocate Bill, which aimed to prevent families bereaved by public disasters from having to go through what the Hillsborough families have endured, by objecting to it eight times, even though it would have fulfilled a manifesto commitment of theirs from 2017. On 16 September last year, after the Hillsborough criminal trials collapsed, I was told by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), at the end of a Backbench Business debate on helping families bereaved by public disasters that the 2018 consultation on the matter would be replied to, and proposals brought forward, before the end of 2021. That has not happened. In a few weeks it will be the 33rd anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. How much longer will those families have to wait? Can you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how I can now take these matters forward, given that the Bill has been killed and the Government seem intent on doing nothing but repeatedly blocking this essential reform?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice of it. I know which Minister she was speaking about, and I know that she is a doughty fighter for the cause of not only those who have been affected by the Hillsborough disaster, but others in the future. If she were to seek a meeting with the Minister, I should be amazed if he did not readily agree to such a meeting to see how progress can be made in this matter. I wish her well.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we are almost at the end of the 13th and last Friday sitting for private Members’ Bills in this Session, I wonder if it would be in order for us to collectively thank the Clerk in charge in private Members’ Bills, who has done such a great job in encouraging us to participate in this important process, and, more important, giving us cogent advice. Adam Mellows-Facer has been doing this job for several years, and I think that we all owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think it is pertinent to ask for proper recognition of the amazing work that is done on private Members’ Bills, and also of the incredible service that we receive from the Clerks’ department. We are extremely grateful for it, and it is good for that to be said publicly now and again, so I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his point of order.
Accelerated Payment Notices
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the House authorities for giving me the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate, which I have sought for a long time. I am also grateful to the Minister for being here, to my constituents for their help with the drafting of my speech, and to the House of Commons Library for its support.
I know that all Members in all parts of the House support the efforts of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to secure the tax revenues that are necessary for the running of this country’s public services. To that end, we need procedures that enable those in HMRC to be efficient revenue collectors, especially when faced with the spectre of evasion and contrived but ostensibly lawful avoidance schemes. While these mechanisms need to give HMRC the tools that are necessary for it to work effectively, they must also be balanced and fair so that they do not inadvertently create injustices.
During the debates on the Bill that became the Finance Act 2014, I, along with several of my colleagues, expressed concern about the potentially far-reaching consequences of some of the anti-avoidance provisions being proposed. It was a concern widely held among taxation experts. In July 2014, an article in the Financial Times stated:
“The tax authority’s new powers have been criticised as unfair and even unconstitutional by the Law Society and Chartered Institute of Taxation. Concerns relate not only to the payment of disputed tax before any tribunal decision, but also the absence of a right to appeal.”
Our present Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—whom I have notified of my mention of him—wrote a paper on this subject in February 2017. In one paragraph, he wrote:
“The UK taxman has gained new, punitive powers in recent years, which have corroded the basic fairness of the system...New powers include Accelerated Payment Notices…and Direct Recovery of Debts…Such powers undermine the basic tenets of British justice, allowing HMRC to bully taxpayers into paying debts without proper safeguards.”
I have asked my right hon. Friend if he will please make representations within the Government. He went on to argue that HMRC should be subjected to financial penalties when APNs were wrongly used. He observed:
“This would incentivise greater oversight within HMRC and prevent HMRC bullying taxpayers without proper recourse.”
I agree that the application of APNs has fundamentally changed the basic tax rules and the fairness of the system. The Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and our Justice Secretary—as well as me—all warned that APNs would create serious injustices.
I would like to illustrate an injustice by reference to the experience of one of my constituents and many like him. In the 2006-07 tax year, my constituent invested a considerable sum in two enterprise zone projects. At the time, this was uncontroversial; enterprise zones were created by the Thatcher Government specifically to attract private sector capital into the regeneration of depressed regions. That is a subject that should be close to everyone on the Conservative Benches under this Government; we are seeking to level up, and we need to do it with private sector investment.
The first example of such a zone was in 1981 in the London docklands on the Isle of Dogs. Those derelict docks were successfully transformed into Canary Wharf, essential to the success of the City of London as a world financial centre. For 30 years or so, the system worked well, and a large number of new jobs were created in erstwhile depressed regions, many of which had suffered from the decline of traditional industries, such as coalmining and steelmaking. This was levelling up 1980s style, and it proved very effective for decades.
Successive Governments offered 100% capital allowances to individuals who invested their money in projects within enterprise zones. My constituent invested in an office project in the Lanarkshire enterprise zone, which was fully let on completion to John Lewis Partnership and Carillion. His other investment was in a warehouse development in East Durham enterprise zone, initially let to a seafood processing firm and now operated by Biffa as one of Europe’s most advanced plastic recycling facilities—all worthy things. Both projects have been highly successful in creating valuable employment and economic activity in two formerly depressed areas—exactly what the Government sought when offering the tax incentives. However, the outcome for investors has not been at all successful; they have lost the whole of their investment.
Let us fast-forward to the banking crisis of the mid-2000s. Due to concerns about the wider state of the public finances, HMRC was instructed to aggressively pursue all opportunities to maximise tax receipts. Following the Finance Act 2014, HMRC levied APNs on taxpayers to recoup those capital allowances. That meant that they lost both their investment and the tax incentives that the Government had offered to induce them to invest. These taxpayers have no right of appeal against their savings being taken from them, and I am told that HMRC is not even prepared to discuss their cases with them, despite all this going back to early 2007. HMRC, having decided to pursue serial litigation, tells taxpayers that they cannot even begin to settle their cases until the litigation has played out. That could take years or even decades.
The then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, made this argument in favour of introducing APNs:
“The Government will not tolerate tax avoidance and Accelerated Payments has been a real game changer. It is no longer possible for these individuals to avoid tax and sit on the money while their affairs are investigated.”
Here is the problem for the Government: there is a real danger that that is exactly the tactic now being used by HMRC against taxpayers. We must be vigilant in ensuring that HMRC is not seizing taxpayers’ savings and then engaging in the same kind of delaying tactics that HMRC itself found unacceptable. It is the case that HMRC is now sitting on taxpayers’ money, including my constituent’s, while investigating those claims.
My constituent is in his 70s and, having seen his retirement savings taken by HMRC in 2016, has absolutely no idea when he will be able to recoup what has been taken from him. In the meantime, HMRC refuses to give any reason why it deems his enterprise zone projects to be undeserving of the promised tax allowances. To me, this is a really serious injustice.
Most of these taxpayers are just ordinary people—I do not particularly like the term, but they are normal people. They are decent, sensible people who were investing where Governments incentivised them to invest. Any of us could have been drawn into such things when the Government specifically offered tax breaks to get people to make those investments. My constituent is a retired surveyor. Many others involved are professional people in sought-after sectors, including the health service.
In 2014, the chief executive officer of HMRC, Lin Homer, apologised for the seven-year delay in settling these capital allowance claims. Some seven years later, we are no further forward, and we may be saying just the same thing in another seven years. I really feel that my hon. Friend the Minister could agree with me that this is wholly unreasonable and that, in a fair and democratic society, we should see things move on.
I think there is a compelling case for abolishing APNs and, indeed, direct recovery of debts. Although I would like that to happen, I will instead make four modest proposals for reform. First, there should be greater oversight of the APN process to ensure fairness; that is something the now Justice Secretary raised in 2017, and I believe it is long overdue. Secondly, APNs should be repaid to the taxpayer when a test case is lost. At the moment, HMRC is obliged to refund APN payments to the successful claimants in a litigation; however, they do not refund APNs to other taxpayers, despite HMRC citing the case as its basis for contesting those other taxpayers’ claims. That is anomalous, and should be changed.
Thirdly, HMRC should not be permitted to retain APN moneys for more than five years. That is a reasonable timespan over which to settle tax claims, and would act as an incentive for HMRC to expedite the process. If it chooses to take longer, often—as in my constituent’s case—by citing a lack of staff resources, the taxpayer should not be the one to suffer. Fourthly, as the now Justice Secretary recommended in 2017, there must be meaningful penalties where HMRC is shown to have levied APNs unreasonably. That should limit any bullying of taxpayers by HMRC by giving the taxpayer some financial recourse.
The public can only have confidence in our tax collection system if it is honest and fair, and seen to be so. The Government themselves offered investors these tax breaks, and it will look suspiciously like a scam if the system uses delay and unfair tactics to deny investors what they were promised. I believe my constituent’s predicament highlights precisely why some of us expressed concern about the enabling legislation. The basic fairness of the system has been corroded, and we must put that right, not only for taxpayers but for the people who work at HMRC. Having been on the Treasury Committee for a long time, I have seen how hard those people work and with what good intent, particularly during the covid crisis. My goodness, what things they achieved in making sure we built a bridge through this crisis—it is often forgotten that we did so. We need to resolve this system, in the interests of not only taxpayers but everyone who works at HMRC, so we do not end up with Members of Parliament reluctantly standing up in the House of Commons to criticise the work those people do in the public interest.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate and setting out his argument so clearly. I listened carefully to his constituent’s experience, and I take on board the issues he has raised. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, I am unable to go into an individual case at the Dispatch Box, but I will set out the Government’s overall position on the accelerated payment notices that are the subject of this afternoon’s debate,.
The top line—as, in essence, my hon. Friend said himself—is that tax is paid for our public services. Without that revenue, schools could not open, roads would go unrepaired, and the NHS would be unable to treat the sick. Therefore, we all agree it is only right that the Government do all we can to make sure the correct tax is paid at the correct time, and that we clamp down on those who shirk their fair share. That is why the Government continue to take tough action to tackle tax avoidance, and Parliament has granted HMRC a range of powers to do so. Accelerated payment notices are one of those tools. As my hon. Friend mentioned, they were introduced through the Finance Act 2014 with the goal of changing the economics of tax avoidance, because tax disputes can often take years to resolve. Before APNs were introduced, users of tax avoidance schemes could purposely string out disputes and unfairly benefit from the cash generated by their liabilities until the matter was resolved. That situation was clearly wrong, especially when contrasted with the behaviour of the majority of taxpayers, who pay what they owe on time and swiftly resolve any queries with HMRC.
There is not, and has never been, any principle that disputed tax should sit with the taxpayer rather than the Exchequer. APNs ensure that the tax in avoidance disputes sits with the Exchequer while that dispute plays out. APNs have meant that the Government could remove this unjust advantage from tax avoiders, so that instead of enjoying unfairly gained cash, avoidance scheme users would have to hand over any disputed tax to HMRC until matters were resolved. That was a significant change.
In the eight years since their introduction, APNs have brought forward over £5.6 billion in revenue to fund those vital public services.
Mr Steve Baker
Is not the fundamental problem, though, that whether a scheme is an avoidance scheme is often contested? Is not the problem that whether or not this is a just retention of funds, it is often subject to the judgment of courts to see whether something is or is not lawful?
Helen Whately
I absolutely hear my hon. Friend’s point. Let me come to some of the checks and balances, and I take his wider point about HMRC’s powers in that regard.
To take a step back, I recognise, in the specific case we are discussing, how deeply worrying such a dispute can be for the individuals involved. That is one reason why fairness is HMRC’s guiding principle when dealing with such matters and why it is right that although, on the one hand, HMRC has the capability to robustly tackle tax avoidance, that is balanced with checks to make sure that it does not over-reach its powers.
We recognise that tools such as APNs must be carefully targeted. That is why they can be used only in tax avoidance cases and in limited prescribed circumstances, and they have important safeguards. There must be an active dispute between HMRC and a taxpayer either in the form of an open tax inquiry or a live tax appeal. That dispute must be about tax being either underpaid or overclaimed as a result of avoidance. And APNs cannot be issued unless one of the following applies. First, the individual issued with an APN has used an avoidance scheme that has already been defeated in court and they have consequently been given a follower notice—a legal request from HMRC to the individual to settle their avoidance dispute. Secondly, the information on the scheme must have been provided to HMRC under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—the DOTAS regime. Thirdly, HMRC must have taken action to challenge the taxpayers’ use of the avoidance scheme under the general anti-abuse rule—the GAAR. In addition to those conditions, APNs can be issued only with the approval of an oversight board of senior policy, technical and legal members of HMRC.
My hon. Friend correctly highlighted that there is no right of appeal against an APN. However, under the legislation, HMRC must examine any representations against a notice, and nothing is due from the taxpayer until HMRC has finished those considerations. I should point out that an APN does not in any way inhibit a taxpayer’s right to continue their dispute with HMRC or to appeal against its conclusions, and taxpayers who believe that their dispute is not being suitably progressed can apply to the tax tribunal to resolve it. I make it clear that if a dispute against HMRC is settled, any disputed sums paid under an APN will be repaid with interest, providing the taxpayer with redress where applicable.
In short, accelerated payments are a fitting response to the problem of individuals who purposefully spin out tax disputes and unfairly benefit from the funds in question. That has been backed up by the courts, which have examined cases where taxpayers have tried to challenge HMRC’s use of accelerated payments and have found APNs to be proportionate, reasonable and fair. Mr Justice Green said in one case that
“the provisions in the Finance Act 2014 are perfectly fair and adequate. There is no need for the Court even to consider the need for supplementation through the implication of additional duties.”
HMRC continues to ensure that APNs are used appropriately. For example, the implementation of APNs was included in a review of HMRC’s powers and safeguards. Following that review, the published guidance on APNs was updated. I stress that APNs do not increase someone’s tax liability. Instead, they simply require an individual to pay the tax they would have owed had they not joined an avoidance scheme.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. As she goes through her speech, I am reminded of something that I have impressed on Ministers in the past. A problem with DOTAS is that perfectly decent, normal people who want to pay the right amount of tax can get drawn into schemes because the nature of a DOTAS registration is misrepresented. Could we have a boilerplate that firms are required to place prominently before their customers, so that customers can be told, “The reason this scheme is registered with DOTAS is because HMRC thinks it doesn’t comply with the rules. It is not how Parliament intended things to work, and you will probably have HMRC coming after you later”? If normal taxpayers who intend to pay the right amount tax could see such a boilerplate, they would not be drawn into such schemes and we would not have nightmares such as this.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point about how, if I understand him correctly, we can help taxpayers have the information and awareness that they may be taking a tax risk—a risk of doing something that could be seen as tax avoidance. HMRC already takes steps to communicate in that way, and I am happy to take up his specific suggestion with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whose area this is, to see whether more can be done.
Returning to the point I was in the middle of making, I recognise that individuals in such circumstances can face significant bills, which is why HMRC is committed to working positively and empathetically with anyone with an APN facing payment difficulties, including, where appropriate, agreeing more time to pay. HMRC teams are trained to identify customers who may need extra help managing their financial affairs. I urge anyone who is worried about being unable to make a payment to contact HMRC to work out an individual approach.
In conclusion, I emphasise that Ministers cannot intervene in HMRC’s operational decisions and individual cases, but if HMRC is directly provided with information about this case, its officers will look into it. The Government value every penny of tax revenue. That is true at any time, but particularly so now as we recover from the economic consequences of covid-19 and face new demands on public finances. That is why HMRC must continue to tackle tax avoidance and pursue the tax owed to the Exchequer.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robin Walker
The Government meet all training costs for young people aged 16 and 17, and this has been extended to the age of 25 for care leavers. [Official Report, 9 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 387.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker):
An error has been identified in the response to the debate on the National Tutoring Programme and Adult Education.
The correct information should have been:
Mr Robin Walker
The Government meet all apprenticeship training costs for the smallest employers taking on young people aged 16 to 18, and this has been extended to those aged 19-24 who are care leavers.
Mr Robin Walker
We are increasing apprenticeships funding, which will grow to £2.7 billion by 2024-25, and we have already seen more than 164,000 starts in the first quarter of the academic year, which is roughly a third—34%—higher than in the same period in 2020-21 and 5% higher than in 2019-20, before the pandemic. [Official Report, 9 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 390.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker):
An error has been identified in the response to the debate on the National Tutoring Programme and Adult Education.
The correct information should have been:
Mr Robin Walker
We are increasing apprenticeships funding, which will grow to £2.7 billion by 2024-25, and we have already seen more than 164,000 starts so far this academic year, which is roughly a third—34%—higher than in the same period in 2020-21 and 6% higher than in 2019-20, before the pandemic.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
On the subject of Morad Tahbaz, who I spoke to at the end of last year when he was in prison, we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home. That was an important point that we pressed with the Iranian Government. I know from speaking to him that the conditions in prison were abhorrent and appalling, so he is now in better conditions, but of course we will continue to get him home, as well as other detainees who do not want their names released in public.
[Official Report, 16 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 945.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
The correct response should have been:
Elizabeth Truss
On the subject of Morad Tahbaz, we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home. That was an important point that we pressed with the Iranian Government. I know that the conditions in prison were abhorrent and appalling, so he is now in better conditions, but of course we will continue to get him home, as well as other detainees who do not want their names released in public.
Elizabeth Truss
The Tahbaz family and I have spoken today. It is a very difficult situation. Morad Tahbaz is of course a tri-national—US, UK and Iranian—and the Iranian Government treat him as being a US national as well as a UK national. We pushed very hard to get Morad out of prison. I spoke to him when he was in prison and he was in appalling conditions. I am pleased to say that I have been in touch today and he is now back at his house—with security in place—with his family in Tehran.
[Official Report, 16 March 2022, Vol. 710, c. 949.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan).
The correct response should have been:
Elizabeth Truss
The Tahbaz family and I have spoken today. It is a very difficult situation. Morad Tahbaz is of course a tri-national—US, UK and Iranian—and the Iranian Government treat him as being a US national as well as a UK national. We pushed very hard to get Morad out of prison. I am pleased to say that I have been in touch today and he is now back at his house—with security in place—with his family in Tehran.
Written Statements
Standards Committee Call for Evidence: Government Response
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
On 29 November 2021, the House of Commons Committee on Standards invited responses to its proposals for reform of the code of conduct for Members. The Government’s joint response to the Standards Committee in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Leader of the House of Commons has now been published by the Committee.
The joint response reflects the Government’s view that the rules relating to Members of the Executive, in particular Ministers of the Crown, are different from those relating to Members of the legislature, in particular, Members of Parliament. The rules, and the application of those rules, are rightly separate, reflecting the different roles that these offices play and reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
The response makes clear that, first and foremost, Members have a duty to their constituents, and any outside work should be within reasonable limits, in order for an MP’s parliamentary duties to take priority. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment (which the House approved on 17 November 2021) to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant and that outside work should be undertaken only within “reasonable limits”. It is imperative that paid advocacy work is regulated in order that any employers—be they businesses, NGOs or trade unions—do not obtain undue access or strategic parliamentary advice.
The Government are also now considering with interest Sir Ernest Ryder’s review of the House’s current system of investigating and deciding upon breaches of the code of conduct and its compatibility with the principles of fairness and natural justice. The Government have previously indicated that they support the broad principle of a right to appeal.
The Government are grateful to the Standards Committee for its consideration of these important questions, await with interest its final report and look forward to further debate on the issues raised, to ensure that our standards system commands both the confidence of the public and Members on a cross-party basis.
The Government’s joint response to the Standards Committee can be found at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/106952/pdf/.
The Government are also today publishing their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s review of local government ethical standards, setting out the Government’s position on the successful operation of the Localism Act 2011, which ensures transparency and accountability in local government. The Government note their willingness to take further steps to protect the home addresses of councillors, where there are concerns that disclosure could lead to intimidation.
In both cases, the Government have underlined the importance of protecting elected representatives’ rights to exercise free speech within the law. The Government express concern that some of the proposed changes to the Commons code of conduct could have a chilling effect on Members commenting on contentious matters of public policy.
It is important to distinguish between strongly felt political debate on the one hand, and unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence on the other. British democracy has always been robust and oppositional. Free speech within the law can sometimes involve the expression of political views that some may find offensive. A line is crossed when disagreement mutates into intimidation, which refuses to tolerate other opinions and seeks to deprive others from exercising their free speech and freedom of association. But standards rules should not be used to suppress the legitimate expression of different political views.
[HCWS699]
Genome UK
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Kamall, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
In September 2020, we launched Genome UK—the UK’s genomic healthcare strategy, which set out a vision to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world to deliver better healthcare at a lower cost. The first implementation plan for this strategy was published in May 2021, to align with the spending review cycle.
For the UK to remain at the forefront of international competition in genomic research and healthcare, and attract investment, it is essential that we continue to deliver on the commitments set out in Genome UK.
I am therefore delighted to inform the House of the launch of a UK-wide shared commitments document which sets out how we will work together with the devolved Governments to implement the strategy over the next three years.
The commitments included in this document have been agreed by members of the National Genomics Board, a group of senior life sciences sector stakeholders, which I chair with Sir John Bell. We have worked with the devolved Governments and delivery partners over the past six months to identify commitments that we can work together to deliver by 2025.
I am pleased to announce the following UK-wide commitments:
A continued emphasis on keeping the public across the UK at the heart of genomic healthcare research programmes by providing opportunities for representatives to be involved in discussions and decision-making both in healthcare genomics and genomics research.
Ongoing review and appraisal of emerging genomic science, new clinical indications and new technologies on a UK-wide basis to enable all four healthcare systems to stay at the forefront of genomic healthcare.
Delivering on the promise of personalised medicine including in cancer diagnosis and treatment through improved access to clinical trials and targeted therapies.
Building on our successful partnership on SARS-CoV-2 sequencing to develop public health pathogen genomics services across the UK.
Establishing a clear, evidence-based position across the UK on whether and how genomic sequencing may be implemented in the newborn period, for the benefit of newborns and their parents in all parts of the UK to enable earlier detection of disease.
Continuing to explore opportunities that could support a UK functional genomics initiative to deepen our understanding of disease and assist the identification and validation of novel drug targets.
Working collectively to increase access to genomics-enabled clinical trials, linking up across the UK, to ensure research feeds back into clinical services to improve and transform patient care. For example, using “Find, Recruit and Follow up” to better identify and recruit individuals who might benefit from clinical research studies.
Supporting initiatives to link large genomic datasets across the UK to improve access for researchers. Potential examples including the Trusted Research Environments hosted by Genomics England, UK Biobank and Our Future Health.
Working together to establish a joint workforce group across the United Kingdom to share best practice and strategic priorities, ensuring consistency of capability and expertise across the UK.
Given that Genome UK runs over 10 years, some of its 45 commitments are either long term or will be delivered through cumulative action over the coming years, which is why the implementation process is phased. Genomics is a fast-moving field, and the phased approach allows us to review our commitments to reflect emerging science and the latest research findings. Our intention is to continue to align future iterations of this plan with Government funding cycles.
We will continue to work with the devolved Governments and our partners in the NHS, industry and research, including via the National Genomics Board, to ensure that we deliver on our goal to create the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world. I also want to emphasise that engagement and dialogue with the healthcare workforce, patients and the diverse UK population, will be at the heart of the journey to reach the vision set out in the strategy.
[HCWS698]
DWP Workplace Transformation
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Department is committed to continuing to deliver for customers, families and the economy, and yesterday announced its strategic ambition for its back-of-house services, i.e. those that are delivered virtually and where customers are not seen face to face. This will not affect any public-facing roles, or any Jobcentre Plus services.
I want to provide reassurance that this is not a plan to reduce our headcount—where possible, our colleagues in offices due to close are being offered opportunities to be redeployed to a nearby site, or retrained into a new role in DWP or another Government Department. That is alongside our effort to utilise our hybrid working policy to help facilitate more inclusive workplaces, which are capable of adapting to the needs of employees and the Department.
The Department’s plans for transformational change will support delivery of the Government priorities for getting people back into employment, deliver long-term savings and meet Government modernisation commitments. The Department has developed a strategy which will, over the next 10 years, reshape how, where and when it delivers its services. Over the 10-year period the Department will transition to an estate that is smaller, greener, and better—making DWP more efficient. By having a smaller footprint, this helps us to be greener. This type of bold modernisation can support efficiencies, create value for money, reduce fraud and error, build resilience and sustainability, and achieve improved customer outcomes and experience.
To ensure that DWP can continue to build on its success, it needs to make progress over this spending review period to set the foundation for more significant changes in the future. The Department needs to take advantage of shifts in post-covid expectations around customer service delivery and ways of working, build on digital transformations of services and make use of estate lease breaks in 2023 to enable the Department to achieve its future service delivery aspirations.
The Department currently operates from over 920 buildings and employs over 92,000 people. Reducing the Department’s estate footprint will deliver value for money for the taxpayer and enable investment to improve the working environment for colleagues in our remaining buildings. Modernisation will enable a customer-focused, digital-first organisation with more self-serve and automation.
That transformation needs to be viewed alongside the massive recent investment in frontline services. Since the start of the pandemic, we have opened over 170 new temporary jobcentres as part of our rapid estate expansion programme. We have also recruited 13,500 new work coaches in order to provide our claimants with the tailored face-to-face support they need.
The plan also supports three other key Government strategies—strengthening the Union—ensuring the Department maintains a footprint in Scotland and Wales; Places for Growth—by committing to move roles out of London; and levelling up, by retaining a presence in some of the most deprived areas throughout the nations and regions.
This change to our estates will have different implications in different places, so I have sent a letter to each MP with an affected site in their constituency explaining what the change will mean in their specific case. The letters include notification of a virtual surgery I will hold on Wednesday 23 March to hear feedback from hon. Members. I have also sent a “Dear colleague” letter to all Members, which includes the detail of the sites affected.
[HCWS700]
House of Lords
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Freedom of Expression) Bill [HL]
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Freedom of Expression) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (Freedom of Expression) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who has had too many of those pesky little lines on a lateral flow test, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, said from the Government Front Bench:
“Nobody could fail to be moved by the thought of close family living in conflict zones or dangerous situations.”—[Official Report, 10/9/21; col. 1117.]
Indeed, and it is not just the thought. We are seeing images of families separated at the Ukrainian border and of incomplete families without fathers and sons. That must prompt a greater understanding of how important it is that families are together. It is inevitable that some people, including children, will arrive in the UK alone. That is not new.
Whether as a matter of procedure I can thank my noble friend Lady Ludford, I am not sure, but I do. I know that she was very much helped by the Families Together coalition and in the preparation of the Bill by Jon Featonby of the British Red Cross, as I was with my similar predecessor Private Member’s Bill. I wish I could think that this Bill would sail through the Commons to Royal Assent before the end of the Session. I am certain that many British people, shocked by what is happening on our continent, would say the same. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The proper procedure is for the noble Baroness to move the Question that the Bill do now pass and then for Members to speak, but now that it has been moved, Members can speak, if any other Member wishes to say anything.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I regret not having been able to speak earlier. As noble Lords know, I spoke passionately on this issue on the Nationality and Borders Bill. I do not think that it is too late for the Government to think about reintroducing this into that Bill on Tuesday in the other place. I hope that they might do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for bringing the Bill to the House and wish her a speedy recovery. She has provided us with the opportunity to debate the UK’s refugee family reunion policy provisions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving the Motion on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
The Government welcome the generous spirit behind the Bill, but I am afraid that the provisions it would introduce would inevitably create challenging burdens for the Home Office, local authorities and wider public services, as well as risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK.
In particular, I remind noble Lords that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers family and private life, is a qualified right, not an absolute right. The Government are therefore required to carry out a balancing exercise between their Article 8 ECHR obligations in terms of interference with family life and the wider public interest, which will include consideration of factors such as the impact on public services and so forth. This is in line with the internationally recognised principle of proportionality and, moreover, is explicitly provided for in Section 117B(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am afraid that provisions enabling, for instance, children to sponsor their parents and wider family members may well create an exceptionally large burden in this regard and it is therefore not right that we should put such routes into law.
However, in addition to enabling family unity between pre-flight immediate family members, our policy, which is set out in paragraph 352D of Part 11 of the Immigration Rules, does not preclude any refugee sponsoring an immediate family or extended family member who is not in scope of those rules. We continue to retain discretion flexibly to grant cases exceptionally outside the Immigration Rules and believe that that is the right approach to ensure that we are properly assessing Article 8 rights as set against important and serious considerations about the impact on public services.
Our policy also makes it clear that there is a discretion to grant visas outside the Immigration Rules which caters for extended family members in exceptional circumstances, including young adult sons or daughters who are dependent on family here and living in dangerous situations. There are separate provisions in the rules to allow extended family to sponsor children to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances. Refugees can also sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them where, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK. Finally, to strengthen our existing policy, we have committed to providing additional clarity in the Immigration Rules on the exceptional circumstances where we would grant leave to a child seeking to join a relative in the UK.
I conclude by thanking noble Lords for their many and wide-ranging contributions to the debate on the Bill, the Families Together coalition and, in particular, the British Red Cross, for their continued work on this issue.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
Onshore Wind Bill [HL]
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Onshore Wind Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Onshore Wind Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and thank colleagues both there and throughout the House who have supported the Bill, as well as many outside organisations.
This Third Reading comes at a time when the country is deep in an energy security crisis. We urgently need to shift away from reliance on fossil fuels and the volatility of the international gas markets. The Prime Minister wrote this week that
“green energy of all kinds”
will be at the heart of the imminent energy security strategy.
Onshore wind offers cheap, clean, domestically produced energy, but at the moment planning restrictions impose an effective moratorium on its development and the repowering of existing installations. My Bill would end that moratorium and put planning applications on the same basis as others. I hope the Minister will indicate in his response that the Government recognise the need to change current planning policies to enable onshore wind to play a full part in our energy mix and our response to the current crisis. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the issues raised in the Bill—energy and planning—were always important. With recent events they have become even more so and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on bringing the Bill to your Lordships’ House. She is absolutely right: onshore wind delivers cheap, clean, domestically produced electricity. I am sure that in the coming months and years we will come back to the issues raised in this Bill, whether in the Subsidy Control Bill or in many of the other Bills we will discuss. On these Benches we have always been happy to support this.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her Bill, which I fully support. I have long opposed subsidies for wind, but I am not opposed to wind. As far as onshore wind is concerned, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I find windmills quite attractive—although this was not a view universally shared by my constituents.
In the current circumstances we must support the cheapest, most reliable mix of energy we can produce. With high gas prices, clearly wind is more economical. We should support it and not have artificial barriers to its development. But however much wind power we develop, we will need gas to back it up when the wind is not blowing. As well as liberalising the rules on building wind farms on land, I hope we shall liberalise the rules on exploiting gas to go with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for this Bill to revise national planning guidance on onshore wind. While the Government were not convinced that the Bill is the right course of action, we agree with the importance of increasing onshore wind deployment in order to reach our net-zero targets. As my noble friend Lord Lilley implied, recent events have demonstrated how crucial it is that we build a strong, homegrown renewable energy sector to further reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
However, that does not alter the Government’s position here. We welcome the Bill and the opportunity to debate this important subject, although we cannot support it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on bringing the Bill to the House and enabling what has been an excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions at Second Reading, which allowed for an insightful and important debate on the subject. I also thank my officials for their support during Second Reading, which enabled noble Lords to receive prompt and, I hope, comprehensive answers on matters of interest.
The Government are not convinced that this Bill is the right solution to bring forward more onshore wind deployment in England. We continue to keep English planning policy under careful review to ensure that decisions on onshore wind can be taken that are in keeping with our carbon budgets.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful; I shall read the Minister’s comments very carefully. I think he said the Government were not convinced that this was the right way to bring forward more onshore wind. Of course, the moratorium was effectively imposed by a ministerial Statement. If the Government can find other ways, I will gladly cede my Bill in the cause. Beyond that, I was delighted to have a moment of unanimity with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, almost to the end of what he said—but we must take what we can.
Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL]
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this Bill extends the logic of health warnings on cigarette packs to the cigarettes themselves. If implemented, it would require both cigarettes and cigarette papers to display health warnings such as “Smoking kills”. This is likely to be particularly effective for dissuading children, who tend to start smoking with individual cigarettes rather than packs.
While England is undoubtedly among the most successful nations in the world at tackling the tobacco epidemic, we have tended to follow rather than lead when it comes to the implementation of bold policies to address this deadly addiction. The Bill gives us the opportunity to be the first, helping to cement our place as a world leader in tobacco control.
We know that only one-third of the 280 children who take up smoking every day in England will successfully quit, and another third will go on to die from smoking-related diseases. These cigarette warnings were one of the recommendations by the APPG on Smoking and Health for the forthcoming tobacco plan, which we discussed at a recent meeting with Javed Khan, the chair of the Government’s independent review into smoking. We were encouraged by his interest in all our recommendations, including this one, and we look forward to seeing his report, which is due to be published on 22 April.
While we could be the first to implement cigarette warnings, this is not a novel policy. I first proposed cigarette warnings as a Health Minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Government in the late 1970s. By 2024, I will have been in Parliament for 50 years. I hope I will not have to wait that long before this policy is introduced. I beg to move.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his tireless efforts and creativity—over many decades, as we have heard—in tackling the negative effects of smoking on the health of individuals and communities. This is a considered and sensible Bill, and we are happy to support it today.
Additional health warnings at the point where people are about to smoke, on cigarettes and cigarette papers, is not a measure for its own sake; it is a further step towards helping to drive down smoking rates and indeed discourage people—especially the young, as the noble Lord referred to—from starting to smoke in the first place. By our doing this, people will have the chance to live longer and have healthier lives, and health inequalities between the richest and the poorest stand a chance of being reduced. For every smoker who dies, there are another 30 who are suffering from serious smoking-related diseases.
Just this week, on Report on the Health and Care Bill, your Lordships’ House voted in favour of a consultation to explore whether the “polluter pays” principle might be effective in the case of tobacco. This Bill seems to chime well with the mood about the direction that smoking legislation in the UK needs to go in. I wish the Bill every success and once again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham on progressing his Private Member’s Bill to this stage and securing this important debate. I am sure the many numbers of people who wish to quit smoking will also be grateful to my noble friend for his long-standing commitment to this cause, as my noble friend himself said, since his time as a Health Minister in the 1980s.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and at Second Reading, as well as during the debate on the Health and Care Bill when tobacco controls came up. Your Lordships’ continued engagement highlights how important this issue is and how it will continue to be an important issue for this House.
As I have stated before to this House, the Government are committed to reducing the harms caused by tobacco and are proud of the long-term progress that successive Governments of different parties have made in reducing smoking rates, which are currently, at 13.5%, the lowest on record. However, we cannot be complacent. With nearly 6 million smokers in England, smoking is still one of the largest drivers of health disparities and causes a disproportionate burden on our most disadvantaged families and communities.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have acknowledged that, as part of our plans to make England smoke free by 2030, we have commissioned the independent review into tobacco control, led by Javed Khan OBE. The Khan review has been asked to set up focused policy and regulatory recommendations for the Government on an evidence-led basis, including on what the most impactful interventions could be to reduce the uptake of smoking, particularly among young people, but also about how we support smokers in quitting for good. As my noble friend rightly said, we are hoping that this will be ready by the end of spring this year.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have met Mr Khan directly, sharing their ideas and allowing him to consider them and the proposal in the Bill among other reforms to encourage smokers to quit. The independent review will both inform the health disparities White Paper and support the development of a robust tobacco control plan. I have been assured—because I know noble Lords are not always keen on the phrase “in due course”—that the White Paper and the tobacco control plan will be published later this year.
Our plans will have a sharp focus on helping to level up society and support disadvantaged groups. As I hope many noble Lords will acknowledge, this Government are committed to tackling disparities. I am sure that noble Lords will probably get tired of the number of times that I have spoken about the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We have to tackle those disparities. Where we know that the rates of smoking are highest, we truly want to make smoking a thing of the past. We want to have a healthier population as we build back better from the pandemic.
Once again, I thank my noble friend for this important debate. I thank all noble Lords, and I hope we can all work together to help to make England smoke free by 2030.
Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 View all Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 January 2022 - (28 Jan 2022)
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this is a wonderful opportunity for me to take this important Bill through your Lordships’ House. I thank—I do not know if I can call him my honourable friend—the Member for Central Devon, Mel Stride, whom I have known for a while, who guided this Bill through the other place and very kindly asked me to take it through your Lordships’ House. I was delighted to take over the reins, given my interest in these issues in my former role, now so elegantly occupied by my noble friend Lord Parkinson.
Before I get into the meat of the Bill, I thank the excellent Bill team at DCMS—Mark Caldon, Karl Jagdis and Aisling Parrish—as well as the brilliant DCMS lawyer, Lydia Williams. I am sure my noble friend Lord Parkinson will agree with me that he is lucky enough to be working in a department full of the most excellent civil servants who give so much to us.
The Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill is a short two-clause Bill and, I think, relatively uncontroversial. It extends the period of protection for an art object against a court-ordered seizure. It covers an object that is loaned to an institution in this country—a listed institution, which I will come to in a minute—for a temporary exhibition and ensures that it cannot be seized while it is in this country.
That provision was brought in by Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Under Section 134 of the Act, provided that certain conditions are met, these objects are protected from a court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months. It is obvious why the legislation was originally brought in: there were concerns from a number of countries that their art objects were in danger of being seized while abroad if a third party, for example, had brought a claim against that object or indeed if a third party had a dispute with the state, albeit some kind of territorial dispute, and it wanted to use the object as a bargaining chip.
Section 134 of the Act clearly provides protection against seizure, provided that the object is normally kept outside the UK, it is not owned by a UK resident and it has been brought here for temporary public display by a museum or gallery—provided that that gallery is approved under Section 136 of the Act. In order for the object to be protected, the borrowing museum must have complied with the regulations made under the Act relating to publishing information about the loan in advance of it coming to the UK, and also doing due diligence on the provenance of the object.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving the institutions in England—and, indeed, in the devolved Administrations—that come under the provisions of the Act. To gain approval under the Act, institutions have to demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance of the object and the ownership of the object are of the highest standard.
When the Act was passed in 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period of time to allow objects to arrive in the UK and then to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of that Act provides that the protection continues for not more than 12 months, and that begins on the day that the object enters the UK. The only exception to that is where the period can be extended if the object suffers damage and repair work is needed.
The legislation has worked well over the years; it has enabled institutions across the UK to borrow some outstanding objects that the public would not otherwise have been able to see. There are now 39 institutions across the UK that have been approved under the regulations. I could point to many examples where the regulations have enabled an exhibition to take place, but I need only cite two that will be very familiar to your Lordships: the terracotta warriors, loaned from China to National Museums Liverpool in 2018, and of course the “Treasures of the Golden Pharaoh”, Tutankhamun, loaned from Egypt to the Saatchi Gallery in 2019, an exhibition that was seen by almost 600,000 people.
A more up-to-date example is the eagerly-anticipated Raphael exhibition at the National Gallery, which opens next month. The exhibition is unique in exploring Raphael’s complete career, featuring his celebrated paintings and drawings as well as his work in architecture, poetry and design for sculpture, tapestry and prints. But it has loans from abroad: from the Louvre, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, the Prado Museum in Madrid, the Uffizi Gallery and the Vatican Museums. I am sure that it will draw huge crowds.
Many of these loans will of course be protected under immunity from seizure. These include Raphael’s letter to Pope Leo X from the state archives of Mantua, a tapestry of “St Paul Preaching at Athens” from the Vatican Museums and paintings such as the self-portrait, the portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, and “St Michael” and “St George” from the Louvre. One of the star exhibits is featured on the front page of the exhibition catalogue: the portrait of Bindo Altoviti, which has been loaned by the National Gallery of Art in Washington.
I do not know why I am banging on about the Raphael exhibition at the National Gallery, because I have just been appointed as a trustee of Tate. I turn instead to that great institution and commend to your Lordships the new “Surrealism Beyond Borders” exhibition at Tate Modern, which runs until 29 August—so, by my calculation, your Lordships have five months to get across the river. Previous stories of surrealism have focused on Paris in the 1920s. Our exhibition at Tate will reach across the world and over 50 years. It shows how artists around the world have been inspired and united by surrealism from centres as diverse as Buenos Aires, Cairo, Lisbon, Mexico City, Prague, Seoul and Tokyo. Again, many of the loans would not have been possible without immunity from seizure.
The logistics involved in planning and hosting blockbuster exhibitions such as these are immense. With their long experience in managing exhibitions, museum staff are incredibly versatile and adept at dealing with unexpected problems, including transportation delay, but problems can still occur. For example, the Icelandic volcano which erupted in 2010 and, of course, the global pandemic, have both led to delays. Thankfully, travel restrictions have now eased and museums are enjoying hosting and planning future exhibitions with a degree of confidence. However, I say that as the current appalling conflict in Ukraine and sanctions against Russia illustrate that safely moving and returning artwork around the world is never straightforward. That is why this Bill is important.
Where there are unexpected delays in returning protected objects, the Bill allows a period of protection to be extended beyond 12 months, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It will ensure that the protection remains fit for purpose and that foreign lenders continue to lend to the UK. The new power to extend would apply following an application from a museum or gallery, and extensions would be granted for a further three months initially. There is the possibility of a further extension, if considered necessary. The circumstances under which an extension may be considered will be set out in guidance, which is being developed in discussion with museums and the Scottish Government. It will be published before the Bill completes its passage in this House. The measure is strongly supported by the museums sector and the Arts Council. I am also delighted to tell your Lordships that, only yesterday, the Scottish Parliament passed its legislative consent Motion, so the Bill can now have effect in Scotland.
Although Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act provides immunity from seizure, there are currently no approved institutions in Wales or Northern Ireland. During the Bill’s passage in the other place, it was actually amended to remove its application to Northern Ireland and Wales. This was because the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland decided that at the moment, it is unable to prioritise a legislative consent Motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Also, following discussions between the British and Welsh Governments, it has not been possible to reach agreement on how the concurrent power to extend the current 12-month period of protection would apply across the two nations. The Welsh Government have also therefore declined to table a legislative consent Motion for the Bill as it stands. I am afraid those are unfortunate developments; I emphasise again that objects may still be protected under the current immunity from seizure legislation in Northern Ireland and Wales, but without a power to extend the current 12-month period.
We have a very busy day today so I will bring my remarks to a close. I trust your Lordships will agree that this is a worthy measure, ensuring that cultural objects can continue to be protected from seizure from their country of origin. I am sure your Lordships will breathe a mild sigh of relief that I will not be taking the House through the current exhibitions at the museums designated in the Act, from the Ashmolean Museum to the Wolverhampton Art Gallery. I beg to move.
Lord Strathcarron (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am most honoured and grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading today. I must declare several levels of interest. First, I am a trustee of the National Motor Museum in Beaulieu and a director of two of its trading companies. Secondly, I am a cultural realm mediator and a founding member of the ADR panel Art Resolve, which was established to mediate in exactly the kind of dispute which this Bill is trying to prevent, and I am vice-chair of the Society of Mediators. Thirdly, my publishing company publishes with the Art Loss Register, the world’s leading resource and database for lost and stolen art, to which any disputes about provenance that the Bill envisages will certainly be referred. Fourthly, the same publishing company has among its publishing partners the National Gallery in London, the Imperial War Museum, Royal Museums Greenwich and the Royal Armouries, all of which could actively benefit by the provisions in this Bill.
While I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, I am equally grateful to the many kind and courteous people who have helped me over the last month while I settle into your Lordships’ House. As noble Lords will recall, it is a humbling and daunting experience for a new arrival, geographically as much as procedurally. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick who, apart from being my Whip, has taken a considerable amount of time and trouble to show me around the Palace of Westminster and explain many of the House’s more esoteric ways and means.
Likewise, Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments found time in their busy days to explain their roles, my role and the workings of the House. The Registrar of Lords’ Interests was endlessly patient in explaining into which categories my interests should be registered. I must also thank the numerous attendants for redirecting me when lost around the endless red corridors and, most importantly, the doorkeepers, who seem to recognise me before I even arrive and who are, at this moment, keeping your Lordships captive in here while I finish this maiden speech.
The instructions for a maiden speech are that it should be short and uncontroversial. The brevity side of the requirement will soon, I hope, become apparent, and it is hard to think of any Bill less controversial than the one before us. Having consulted the interested parties already mentioned, all are in total agreement that this is a welcome proposal, which will only strengthen England and Scotland’s ability to attract loans from the world’s most significant collections, many of which are appreciated by hundreds of thousands of visitors.
After hearing my noble friend Lord Vaizey extol the virtues of the Bill far better than I can, I would still like to draw attention to a significant benefit of it not so far mentioned. The Bill directly contributes to a cultural environment whereby British and overseas museums and galleries can, with great confidence, contribute to displaying each other’s exhibitions. It is well known that UK soft power plays a major ambassadorial role in promoting British values around the world, and I believe the Bill will succeed in ways which have so far not been envisaged. The Bill can only help to foster the kind of international cultural collaboration which benefits everyone who participates in it—from schoolchildren to curators, from visitors to guides and all the many specialist staff it takes to organise a major international exhibition.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Private Member’s Bill debate. I congratulate my honourable friend Mel Stride, from another place, on introducing this, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who wonderfully introduced it today. He is a man of culture and an ex-Minister for Culture, and he is now the pilot of this cultural objects Private Member’s Bill.
It is an honour to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, a man of culture, an internationalist, a man of travel and, as we have heard, a supporter of the motor museum in the Midlands—more than that, he is a real global traveller and thinker, not least in some wonderful publications, retracing the travels of Mark Twain across Europe and that wonderful journey where he steamed up the Mississippi River from New Orleans. I look forward to spending more time with my noble friend, to understand more about his thinking around such subjects as mysticism and bliss—I am sure that he will find plenty of both in your Lordships’ House. His was a wonderful maiden speech. Today, by the good offices of Hansard, the publisher becomes the published, and I am sure that we would all agree that, in his maiden speech, he has given us a wonderful first edition.
This is a beauty of a Private Member’s Bill—simple, straightforward, clear and concise. I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that it does two things. It gives institutions around the world clarity, confidence, safety and security to lend marvellous cultural objects, not least those that my noble friend Lord Vaizey has set out. It gives the public the chance to see those objects in our wonderful museums and galleries, across the country. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that we have a fine, rich tapestry of museums and galleries, with doors open to everyone, right across the country? This is a simple and straightforward Bill, and I hope that it has a swift and safe passage on to the statute book.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on his maiden speech, and I hope that we will hear more contributions in this particular area of his expertise. The visual arts are of course a feature, in various ways, in creativity and commerce, and together they are a sometimes underrated but hugely important part of our creative industries.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, for introducing this debate and taking the Bill forward. I am sure that all of us here are perhaps planning to visit or will have been—perhaps not recently enough—to exhibitions containing significant work on loan from other countries. It is great that we can have exhibitions again, although I for one will certainly be wearing a mask to visit, until cases are right down.
I am a great believer in the worth of cultural exchange in the wider sense, and engaging with exhibitions is an important aspect of that: it is a way of connecting with other cultures and periods through objects, including artworks, that we would not otherwise have the chance to see in this country. In addition to the list of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, this could also include British art that has been dispersed around the world but brought back for exhibition. It is worth bearing in mind that this will also include contemporary art, which can now be very valuable, with there perhaps being a potential for the seizure of that as much as older recognised treasures. The last exhibition that I visited was the brilliant Hokusai exhibition at the British Museum—“Hokusai: the Great Picture Book of Everything”. All of the original drawings have been purchased by the BM, which is one way to solve the problem.
This is clearly an excellent Bill, designed to instil confidence and trust in lenders and facilitate exhibitions, supported on all sides of the House during what was a very good Second Reading debate last year, in the Commons. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The first is very basic, and there may be a straightforward answer to it. It is simply this: why does there have to be a fixed period of time in the first place in which seizure cannot take place? Once a museum has been approved, following the high standard of checks that it will need to make around provenance and so on, why does there have to be a cut-off point and therefore a necessity for this Bill? Of course, the Bill will very helpfully extend that original one-year time period further, if required, but perhaps the Minister can explain that. I ask this question not just as a matter of clarification but because we now live in very uncertain times indeed—more uncertain perhaps than when the Bill had its Commons Second Reading, in September. There is now arguably the increasing potential for cultural objects not to be returned for a long period, depending on where they might be lent from.
My second question relates to the approval of museums and galleries to participate in the scheme. I counted 39 public museums and galleries on the approved list published on the Arts Council site, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said. This is actually one more than the government website, which lists only one of the two Scottish museums, giving the Hunterian but not the National Galleries of Scotland, which are both on the Arts Council site. It has been 15 years since the original legislation, and 39 feels still quite a smallish number, although many of our major museums are on that list. However, they are mostly from England rather than the devolved nations—Wales and Northern Ireland do not have any approved museums at all, which seems strange. Is this because some museums have yet to apply because they have not yet felt the need to do so or are even unaware of the scheme, or have some applications actually been turned down? It would be interesting to know what the department’s view on that is. Perhaps the Minister can clarify its expectations about extending the list, if that is a concern.
A similar argument applies for Wales and Northern Ireland for inclusion in this extended scheme. Has anything changed with regard to Wales and Northern Ireland since Report, when they were excluded from the Bill? It would be helpful to know whether there has been a development on that front. It seems a shame that this legislation could not apply equally across the whole of the UK, even without as yet approved museums.
A museum’s desire to exhibit art and artefacts from other countries presupposes their existence, and it is distressing when we hear about the destruction of cultural property. The Minister will of course be aware of UNESCO’s huge concern about the threat to Ukraine’s artistic and cultural heritage, and we know that art has already been destroyed and cultural sites targeted, on top of the appalling loss of life that we have seen. I thank the Government for their written reply to my question on this last week; in it, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, outlined some of the action that the DCMS has been taking with regard to this. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a few words about this.
I wish the Bill success and again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on steering it through this House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and today is no exception. From these Benches, I offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on his rich and considered maiden speech. I extend a very warm welcome to your Lordships’ House—we certainly look forward to hearing more from him.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on bringing this very practical and straightforward Bill to your Lordships’ House today. We are delighted to support him in his endeavours. The principle of granting extensions, which will relieve the pressure on cultural institutions should they come up against practical hurdles in respect of returning items, is certainly extremely timely and welcome.
We cannot underestimate the role that public collections in this country play in communicating history, stories and identity to the world. Similarly, as noble Lords have well described, these institutions play a great role in receiving works from abroad, so that an interchange of histories and stories can occur, and be told and shared among the British public. What might seem to be a slightly technical point about protecting the ability to do that actually underpins a huge and important role that we as a nation play in the world. Being able to receive important and globally relevant works of art from around the world allows cities and institutions across our entire country to do their job.
This has a great impact, not just on tourism and the visitor economy, but on the learning in which we are all able to participate, particularly the younger generations. This is profoundly important. I have noticed some discussion of late about the value of school trips, and whether they contribute to examination grades. On this point, it is perhaps an appropriate moment to raise my feeling that it is rather limiting to see the offering of museums, galleries and other cultural houses simply as places we quantify as marks on an exam paper. We do not necessarily need art galleries, museums and other institutions to help with exams, but we do need them to make us think and feel. That is an enrichment of life, particularly for the younger generation.
The reason this Bill is particularly timely is because it takes account of the very challenging year which cultural institutions have faced in respect of the pandemic. We share the view that the Government need to respond to what has been a very difficult time with support and help, and by facilitating the very things which institutions need to get them through such a difficult time. This would also pre-empt any difficulties which may come in the future. The Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, brings to us today is certainly one of those things which would make a contribution.
Reflecting on the pandemic has made us realise just how important arts and culture are in this country, because we had limited access to them. It could have been an interesting thought experiment in the past to imagine what it would be like if we shut down every museum and gallery across our country. Of course, it was not an experiment; it actually happened. Therefore, the Bill shows that if we can make small changes and facilitations to make things easier, we can see better continuity of culture—and that must be a good thing. Our young people deserve access to the best museums and galleries which our country has to offer. Tourism, the visitor economy and the learning which we all experience are absolutely key. We all deserve the comfort and calming influence on our lives of cultural institutions, and we know about the positive impact they have on mental health. To do this, we must ensure that we can play our part. The UK has an incredible place in the world in demonstrating the very best of global culture. We need to ensure that, despite any turbulence now or in the future, these institutions which we so treasure are still able to do that. Therefore, I once again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and wish this Bill every success as it continues its passage in your Lordships’ House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my esteemed predecessor and noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot for bringing forward this Bill which, as he said, was successfully taken through another place by our right honourable friend the Member for Central Devon, Mel Stride. I also take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on his recent appointment as a trustee of the Tate, one of the most important institutions in this country and a principal user of immunity from seizure protection. I am very grateful to him for his absolutely correct words of praise for officials at DCMS, not least the team which has been working on this Bill. We are very lucky to have their support on this legislation and all the other matters with which we deal.
It is a great pleasure to very warmly congratulate and welcome my noble friend Lord Strathcarron to his place in your Lordships’ House. Often maiden speeches show some ingenuity to bring to bear the expertise and experience which new Members have. In this case, his credentials were set out very clearly and have direct application to the matter at hand. We are very lucky to have him in your Lordships’ House scrutinising the Bill, and I look forward to more contributions from him on matters relating to DCMS, and many more besides.
As my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond said, this is a beauty of a Bill. The beauty lies in its simplicity. It is a short, two-clause Bill amending existing legislation in Part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, to ensure that our immunity from seizure provision remains fit for purpose. It will mean that approved museums and galleries are better able to respond to unforeseen obstacles which might otherwise threaten the safe and timely return of the wide range of cultural objects which they so regularly borrow from abroad for the benefit of the public across the United Kingdom. The 12-month limit of immunity from seizure protection is an issue which was raised specifically by approved museums and galleries during the more restrictive periods we all faced during the pandemic. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked why there needs to be a limit at all. In general, the 12-month limit had been sufficient for the normal length of exhibitions, allowing time for those exhibitions to conclude and for items to be returned. Of course, recent events—not least the pandemic but others which have been mentioned—highlight that it is important for this provision to be needed occasionally. There will be no limit to the number of three-month extension periods which can be granted. However, as with all applications, there will need to be a good case for granting each extension. There will be flexibility, as well as protections, in the new system.
As with all sectors, our cultural institutions have faced tremendously difficult times recently, and we recognise the need to support them to recover, thrive and welcome people back across their thresholds as we emerge from the pandemic. As noble Lords have noted, there are 39 museums and galleries across England and Scotland which make use of immunity from seizure protection. As my noble friend mentioned, it is unfortunate that the territorial application of the Bill had to be amended in another place to exclude Wales and Northern Ireland. None the less, as all museums and galleries currently approved for the purposes of immunity from seizure are in England and Scotland, the 12-month time limit is of most relevance in those territories. As my noble friend noted, we are very pleased to see that the legislative consent Motion was granted in the Scottish Parliament yesterday. However, the territorial extent of the Bill remains UK-wide.
As we continue to support the recovery of our museums and galleries from the recent uncertain and challenging times, an option to extend the length of time that objects can be covered by immunity from seizure is a welcome and sensible contingency to have. I am therefore pleased that this Bill looks to ease some of the uncertainties with which our museums have been grappling in recent months, and I am happy to confirm that the Government continue to support this succinct and helpful Bill. The depth and quality of the permanent collections held by these institutions is of course already exceptional, but lending and borrowing objects is also an important core activity for our museums and galleries. Immunity from seizure protection often plays a fundamental role in enabling loans from other countries to go ahead, with many lenders stipulating that such protection is in place as a condition of loan. The Bill will provide a sensible improvement to an already worthy tool used by many of our esteemed cultural institutions across England and Scotland.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey mentioned some of the upcoming or newly launched exhibitions to which we can look forward this year: no less than a visit from one of the greatest artists of the Italian Renaissance at the National Gallery, and a re-examination of surrealism at the Tate. I hesitate to say that my noble friend’s speeches sometimes show the influence of surrealism, but they are certainly rich with cultural allusions on every occasion. Loans help to complement and enhance the stories told by our UK institutions. The British Library recently hosted the excellent exhibition “Elizabeth and Mary: Royal Cousins, Rival Queens”, which I had the privilege of seeing. I was fascinated to view the letter—on loan from archives in Spain—penned by King Philip II, lamenting the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, and declaring his determination to proceed with the Spanish Armada. Immunity from seizure cover enabled this fascinating letter to sit alongside some of the British Library’s most exceptional Elizabethan manuscripts, adding to the tale of the two rival queens and providing a fantastic opportunity for visitors to view these documents in their wider context.
I was one of 600,000 people who had the pleasure of seeing the breath-taking Tutankhamen exhibition at the Saatchi Gallery a couple of years ago. Another show benefiting from immunity from seizure coverage is “Van Gogh. Self-Portraits”, which opened at the newly refurbished Courtauld Gallery last month, which I saw on Wednesday morning. This is the first exhibition dedicated to Van Gogh’s self-portraits, promising visitors a unique insight into the life of the great artist. The Courtauld is home to perhaps Van Gogh’s most famous self-portrait, “Self-portrait with Bandaged Ear”, and this new show assembles portraits of the artist’s own likeness from museums across the globe.
It is clear from the small selection of examples mentioned today that borrowing objects allows museums to stage exhibitions and displays that would not otherwise be possible. These loans enable them to further contextualise their own collections, create opportunities to attract and inspire new audiences, and re-engage their existing visitor base with new offers and insights. It is understandable that many lenders require certainty around immunity from seizure protection when they lend such valuable artefacts, and it is therefore important that we ensure that the legislation that underpins this protection is up to the task. The Bill will help to reduce the risk of cultural property from other countries being left unprotected while in the temporary care and custody of approved institutions. The option to extend the length of time an object can be protected while on loan will allow our approved museums and galleries to continue to co-ordinate and plan important loans with international partners, safe in the knowledge that contingency against unpredictable events is available.
For the reassurance of noble Lords, I wish to take a moment to affirm the Government’s current view regarding the loan of cultural objects from institutions in Russia at present. The Government recommend that museums and galleries should not be borrowing objects or negotiating new loans from state-sponsored or state-funded Russian institutions at the moment, in light of recent events. Indeed, I am aware of several prospective loans that will now not be proceeding, as well as exhibitions that have been cancelled in recognition of the unfolding conflict in Ukraine. Her Majesty’s Government fully support the decisions made by those museums and galleries to take such action. In the case of cultural objects currently on loan from Russian institutions, it is for the borrowing museum concerned to decide whether it is appropriate to keep them on display and to arrange for their return at the appropriate time. I have had a number of discussions with museums and galleries, and I know that they are engaging with this very important issue very thoughtfully, in consultation with their staff, their audiences and others.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked what the Government are doing to protect the cultural property in Ukraine. Like other noble Lords, I was horrified to see the attack on the Mariupol theatre in Ukraine this week—of course, for the fact that children and families were sheltering in it, but also for the appalling destruction done to the building. The Government are working closely with relevant organisations and our international partners to support the Government and people of Ukraine in protecting their incredible cultural property. Russia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom are all signatories to the 1954 Hague convention, designed to protect cultural property from destruction and looting during armed conflict, including monuments, archaeological sites, works of art and other important artefacts. Through UNESCO, we are working to ensure that Russia conforms with its responsibilities under that convention. The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage can be designated a war crime, so officials are also working with non-governmental organisations to record details of where deliberate destruction may have taken place.
In discussing the loan of objects from abroad, I also believe it is important to highlight that the process that sits behind immunity from seizure protection is necessarily robust. To use the protection, museums and galleries must go through a rigorous application process to attain approved status. That addresses the question from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, about why there are just 39; this rigorous process involves demonstrating that they are an ethical organisation, that they follow proper due diligence processes for examining the history of the objects that they borrow, and that they will not borrow items if any suspicion lingers that they were stolen, looted or illegally obtained. For the protection to apply to objects that they are borrowing, approved institutions must also publish detailed information about such objects at least four weeks before the objects enter the UK. This diligent work is all part of the high standard of professional practice that our museums carry out as part of their loan procedures.
It is fantastic that 39 museums so far have achieved immunity from seizure approved status. That is a testament to their excellent track records and their continued commitment to upholding the highest standards of due diligence. Of course, new institutions join their number, and I am pleased to say that the 39th on the list of approved institutions was made as recently as last month, when Strawberry Hill House in Twickenham successfully met the rigorous requirements to achieve approved status ahead of its upcoming exhibition, “The Grand Tour”, which will now feature two paintings on loan from galleries in Italy. As an approved museum, Strawberry Hill House will be in good company, sitting alongside great institutions such as Manchester Art Gallery, National Museums Scotland, Hampton Court Palace, the Natural History Museum, Norfolk Museums, the V&A and many others that have been mentioned this morning.
Layers of hard work, training, rigorous provenance research and meticulous record-keeping go into making immunity from seizure work in practice. This provides assurance that approved museums and galleries borrow items from abroad in an ethical way. While immunity from seizure protection builds the confidence of lenders that their objects are safe, it also builds confidence in our sector that only sound loans are followed through, and this in turn reduces the risk of seizure being likely. There has, in fact, never been such an incident in the UK.
The Bill my noble friend has presented us with today is an excellent recognition of where existing legislation can do more to help the work that our museum professionals deliver. While our approved museums and galleries demonstrate an admirable execution of skill in attending to all the necessary work that sits behind immunity from seizure protection, the measures in this Bill can help them to be more confident that, in the event of the unexpected, the objects they are loaning can stay a while longer in the UK, and that they will remain protected until they are able to be dutifully returned to their owners overseas.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot for bringing this incredibly worthy Bill before your Lordships and for setting out so articulately and clearly the benefits that it will bring. I am very grateful for the support that it has had from all the contributions across your Lordships’ House today.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fantastically erudite and insightful debate, covering a wide range of issues, but coming back always to focus on the importance of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on mentioning school trips, and the controversy, and I commend the article from Maria Balshaw, the director of the Tate, in yesterday’s Evening Standard, in which she agrees with the noble Baroness—as do I—that school trips are absolutely essential to museums and should not simply be seen as there to promote grades.
I am tempted to take up my noble friend’s invitation to compare every speech to a great exhibition. If my speech was a surreal one, may I say that the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron was absolutely excellent. I am going to compare it to the British Museum exhibition on Stonehenge—rooted in tradition, reaching back to the ancients and yet still illuminating us with new and current modern insights. I say this with all sincerity: it is wonderful to have him in the House, and I look forward to partaking with him on many debates on cultural policy.
I would compare the great speech of my noble friend the Minister to the V&A exhibition that opened yesterday, “Fashioning Masculinities: The Art of Menswear”. As we listen to his erudite comments, we simply must acknowledge also that he is one of the most elegant Members of the Front Bench, in terms of how he puts his case and how he presents himself in the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Down Syndrome Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Down Syndrome Act 2022 View all Down Syndrome Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 January 2022 - (26 Jan 2022)
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank Mencap, Learning Disability England, the Down’s Syndrome Association and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, among others, for their engagement with me in discussion about this Bill, including many who identify as having Down’s syndrome, their families and friends. I welcome those who have come in person to listen today, including the right honourable Member, Dr Liam Fox MP, who drafted the Bill so skilfully and steered it through the other place.
Like Dr Fox, I began my medical career as a GP, but I then went on to become a psychiatrist. I declare an interest: my adult son has a learning disability and he has many friends who have Down’s syndrome. I remind the House that most of my medical career as a psychiatrist involved my working directly with people with learning disabilities, including people of all ages with Down’s syndrome. I sometimes say that the most important thing I have ever done is to keep asking the question, “What about people with learning disabilities?” The thing is, unless you know somebody with a learning disability, it probably would not occur to you to ask that question. It is so hard to keep this community of people in mind. We saw it during the pandemic on our TV screens and in debate in Parliament. Care was synonymous with care homes for older people. The protection of people with a learning disability living in the community and of people with Down’s syndrome, who were eventually shown to be in very highest risk category for Covid-19, were largely overlooked.
A few questions and challenges have been raised about the Down Syndrome Bill, and it is important that they are aired. However, I also want to instil a spirit of hope in our debate today. My mentor, Professor Joan Bicknell, who sadly died a few years ago, taught me the art of holding in mind where we want to get to. I will respond to some of the concerns that have been brought to my attention and will consider them in the context of how children and adults with Down’s syndrome, and other people with learning disabilities, are currently living.
The Down Syndrome Bill has passed all its stages in the other place and I am very pleased that I was asked to help steer it through this House. It will require the Government to publish guidance on the specific needs of people with Down’s syndrome and how to meet them, and indeed to lay the guidance before Parliament. The relevant public authorities providing health, education and social care would then have to give due regard to this guidance in carrying out their functions under existing legislation, including the Care Act 2014 and Equality Act 2010. The Bill focuses on those with Down’s syndrome as one of the most diagnosed chromosomal disorders associated with a learning disability in England. There are over 40,000 people living with Down’s syndrome, most if not all of whom have some degree of learning disability.
Some are concerned that naming a Bill after a chromosomal condition is taking things back a few decades to a time when the medical model predominated, and that a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome on its own does not tell us anything about the extent of a person’s learning disability or other associated conditions that an individual might experience. A diagnosis is important to parents, who want to know why this child is different from the one they were expecting—and, for different reasons, a diagnosis is important to health and care professionals. Of course, it is important that any diagnosis does not define the person.
Implementation of the guidance must focus on the people behind the diagnosis, but a diagnosis does provide a framework to understand the common health needs associated with a specific disorder. It is important for health and care professionals supporting people to know and recognise the co-morbid health problems that are either specifically associated with or occur more frequently in people with Down’s syndrome. These include cataracts, hearing loss, obstructive sleep apnoea, low thyroid function, increased risk of leukaemia, congenital heart defects and early Alzheimer’s disease. When I was a young doctor, I remember children with congenital heart defects who were not treated because they had Down’s syndrome; a failure to intervene reduced their life expectancy and, often, their quality of life. A friend of my son had a heart attack and died before Christmas aged just 41—such a loss.
When there is a recognisable characteristic, such as the facial features that make Down’s syndrome recognisable, two problems may occur. The first is that any behavioural changes or health complaints may simply be attributed to the already identified condition. There is the tummy ache caused by a peptic ulcer that is blamed on Down’s syndrome rather than being investigated—this is called “diagnostic overshadowing”. The second is that people with Down’s syndrome are stereotyped as being always happy, docile, eternal children and so on. As Caroline Boudet put it in the Huffington Post in 2017:
“When you have Down syndrome, the first disability you have to face is the way people look at you. It’s based on received wisdom, society conveys misleading information about this extra chromosome and what it is supposed to cause. Each of us has prejudice in mind, this shows no ill-will but just a lack of knowledge”.
The majority of people with learning disabilities do not have a known cause; they and their families do not know the answer to the question “Why?”, just as in my son’s case. Their diagnosis is learning disability of unknown aetiology. Some people have a different genetic cause from Down’s syndrome, and some acquire a learning disability in the perinatal period. Their learning disability may not be recognised as quickly as that of people with Down’s syndrome; it may be their speech or behaviour that, as it were, gives them away, however hard they try to mask the differences to be accepted for who they are.
Let us look at another challenge: that a Bill named after a condition that can be diagnosed prenatally and which could be eliminated, as it reportedly has been in Iceland, means that the Bill is not needed, and may present a challenge to women’s reproductive rights. But whatever noble Lords think about abortion, some of the 40,000 people currently diagnosed with Down’s syndrome will be around for 70 or more years. Life expectancy is getting longer. Even if no more babies were born with Down’s syndrome, every one of those 40,000 deserves a better deal than they are getting now. The Bill is simply about helping those born with Down’s syndrome to have their lives valued the same as those born without it, and to have their strengths acknowledged and their difficulties supported through an improved understanding of how Down’s syndrome can affect people and families.
The timing of this Bill complements proposals in other pieces of legislation currently being debated within Parliament. I welcome the acceptance by the Minister during debate in the other place of having a named person within each integrated care board to be accountable for the implementation of the guidance on the Down Syndrome Act. Her Majesty’s Government had already pledged in both the NHS Long Term Plan and the autism strategy that all integrated care boards will focus on autism and learning disabilities at the highest level; for example, by having a named executive lead for autism and learning disability. Just this week, the Minister in your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, reconfirmed this commitment by saying,
“I confirm our intention that all integrated care boards should have a named learning disability and autism lead and that NHS England proposes to issue statutory guidance on this matter to assist integrated care boards. The Government are supportive of this approach and believe that learning disability and autism leads on every ICB would act as a voice for those with a learning disability and autism in commissioning decisions.”—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 396.]
The Minister also accepted my amendment to the Health and Care Bill, which puts mandatory training about learning disability and autism on the statute book. It is all happening this month. I believe that the passage of the Down Syndrome Bill through the other place last month and Her Majesty’s Government’s support for the Bill has assisted in getting both of these through.
I would like this Bill to go further and to include all people with learning disabilities. However, previous attempts to introduce Private Members’ Bills on learning disability have been unsuccessful, including the LB Bill and my own Learning Disabilities (Review of Services) Bill, which aimed to make provision for the Secretary of State to undertake a public consultation on the provision of comprehensive and integrated services for adults with learning disabilities. In his speech in Committee in the Commons on 26 January, Dr Liam Fox highlighted that, given the logistical difficulties in passing a Private Member’s Bill, a clear focus on one condition was needed to improve the chance of this legislation being passed. Supporting the Down Syndrome Bill is a step in the right direction and something that we can build on. In my view, it is an imperfect but pragmatic way forward and a good model for a PMB, and I believe that, if the Bill is welcomed in this House, it will indeed pass.
The Bill’s supporters expect it to set a precedent that will ultimately benefit the healthcare and support of everyone with a learning disability, not only those with Down’s syndrome. Dr Fox sees it as a bridgehead to open the door to better care and support for the whole community, but some in the wider learning disability community are worried that people with Down’s syndrome will get preferential treatment and that people with other diagnoses, despite having similar health and care needs, will be left even further behind. I ask for the noble Lord’s assurance that there will be transparency in the Bill’s implementation, specifically to ensure that resources allocated to support those with Down’s syndrome are not taken away from those currently supporting other people with learning disabilities.
We all know the financial pressures being experienced within adult social care. Many parents say the stress they experience is not about having somebody with a learning disability or with Down’s syndrome in the family; it is the constant battle with the authorities, whether over EHCPs, respite or something else. My current battle for my son is the cost of sleep-ins to sustain his independence.
It seems that it may be time for a new learning disability strategy, like the Valuing People White Paper I contributed to, with so many others, in 2001: something to tie together all the various pieces of ongoing work, including the soon-to-be-published Building the Right Support action plan, and in the light of the new integrated care systems, as well as the anticipated social care and Mental Health Act reforms. A new, overarching strategy could build on the provisions and benefits of the Bill for the wider learning disability community. I hope the Minister will be open to further discussions about the development of such a unifying strategy. Clarifying these concerns will ensure that the Bill is successful in its goal of improving the quality of life and health of people with Down’s syndrome, to raise awareness and foster inclusivity. There is such enthusiasm to get started on developing the guidance—it feels like the time is right.
In a spirit of hope, I agree with Dr Fox, who said,
“it is entirely possible that, when guidance is given and there is a named person on the integrated care board, the Bill’s provisions and the measures required to apply it would reasonably be applied to”—[Official Report, Commons, Down Syndrome Bill Committee, 26/1/22; col. 5.]
people with similar needs. As awareness of the care and support that people need increases, I hope more resources will be allocated. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—my speakers’ list has me at the end, but I am happy to speak now. I am ready, if noble Lords are.
I say first how impressive the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was in introducing the Bill today. I cannot possibly do justice to this matter, particularly following her, but I will try because I support the Bill and I want to make just a short contribution. I have no direct experience of living with, or even being close friends with someone who has Down’s syndrome, but of course I have huge respect for the battles they encounter with officialdom—indeed, for all parents who have children with learning disabilities and how they have to navigate bureaucracy.
It is hard to explain, therefore, my particular admiration for people with Down’s syndrome. It may be something special about them that elicits a smile and fondness among all of us. Certainly my connection is very tangential, and it is this: my mum had a younger brother called Stuart, who was born in 1945 with Down’s syndrome. It was not called that then, but that is what he had. He also had lots of health complications and did not live much beyond a year or 18 months. Because he was born into a family of eight other children and they were desperately poor, my nana, who was a widow at the time, considered Stuart’s passing a blessing and she encouraged the rest of the family to accept that and move on, but my mum has never forgotten him, and she has always made sure that I know that he was one of her seven brothers.
Thankfully, the world is a different place. Not only can people in situations like that of my nana rely on support not available in the past, but people with Down’s syndrome live longer and we are now seeing their potential to achieve and succeed in lots of different arenas. That brings me back to this Private Member’s Bill. I am delighted to support my right honourable friend in the other place in this endeavour. I have known Dr Liam Fox for 30 years and I know that getting the Bill as far as this stage, with unanimous support in the other place, including that of the Government, is a result of him using all his professional and political skills—and probably a dose of impish charm along the way.
What is critical about the Bill for me is that it will inform a new strategic approach to supporting people with Down’s syndrome before we encounter the situation that my nana could not have conceived of 80 years ago: a person with Down’s syndrome can not only survive and thrive, but they are living longer and, as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, are now outliving their parents. It is vital that the future we anticipate now for people with Down’s syndrome is a positive one, so I commend the noble Baroness for all that she does in the field of health and support for people with disabilities. I support her in seeing this Bill through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, when opening Second Reading in the other place, Dr Liam Fox said that the first question that people have tended to ask about this Private Member’s Bill is “Why?” Why this issue, and why now? He gave three key reasons. First, he said that there is the challenge faced by those of our fellow citizens who have Down’s syndrome and their families. The second reason concerned the intellectual development of a person with Down’s syndrome—an area, he said, where public perception tends to be inaccurate. Thirdly, he said the Bill was timely as the life expectancy of a person with Down’s syndrome is now perhaps 58 years, compared with just 13 years some time ago.
It is more than 50 years since I first became aware of the challenges facing a person with Down’s syndrome and their family. We had just moved house and one of our neighbours had a son, David, with Down’s syndrome. We became friends, and in the next few months my late wife, Jennifer, became involved as a volunteer member of the local Mencap group. She helped to organise weekly gatherings of parents and children at the Glengariff day centre near our home. At first, she thought these evenings were just an opportunity for parents to have a cup of tea and a gossip while she and others organised events for the children; but she soon discovered that, for the parents, this was a time to share experiences and problems and give mutual support, which was otherwise lacking—a much-needed moment away from what appeared to be the pressure they lived with trying to raise a child with Down’s syndrome. She would often tell me about the challenges this or that parent had in gaining education support, welfare support and, yes, understanding and tolerance from others, including other family members and neighbours.
I know friends who became frustrated having to justify seeking support for their son with Down’s syndrome. They had to wait until he was seven to get him statemented. I discovered even more when, as a local councillor, I took up cases of parents with these problems. I would go into County Hall only to be told, “Sorry, Councillor, we can’t do anything; he”—or she—“falls through the net.” But who created the net? We did—we local councils created them, we the Government did, and we in Parliament had a hand in it too.
Many of the challenges that parents faced 50 years ago, when I first became aware of these matters, remain today. My wife went on to help set up a local Gateway club, visiting sixth forms recruiting youngsters to join in the support. It was at Gateway that I met Pat and her mother and father. Pat was a bright and cheerful girl, her parents doted on her, and she was always immaculately dressed and turned out. But when her father was taken seriously ill and her mother had problems managing, she went into local authority residential care. What a mistake. We met Pat wandering alone in Cwmbran town centre looking lost and dishevelled. Pat did not know the difference between 5p and £5, yet she was left without care and support. We were shocked but, thankfully, within a week her father had recovered, and she was back at home. But the experience of what we witnessed remained with us. The system—in this case, the local council—had let a vulnerable person down. She, again, had fallen through the net.
It was no better with care in the community. Cathy, a friend’s daughter with Down’s syndrome, was encouraged to experience independent living. She was placed in a house with two elderly men—both had dementia. One person came in the morning to make sure there was some breakfast; a second person came in the middle of the day to make sure there was a midday meal; and a third person came in the evening to see there was an evening meal. That was not care in the community; that was neglect in the community. Cathy was rescued—and I believe that, rescued—by her family within a week. Again, the system had failed a vulnerable person.
Several years later—it was during the Islwyn by-election—I was knocking on doors, and I came across a family. A family of four young women who had Down’s syndrome and they lived together as a family with a house mother. Now, that is real care in the community; that is doing it the right way.
Liam Fox’s second reason concerned perception and, having spent 27 years working in newspapers and publishing, I can tell you that in my experience perception is more real than fact in what most people believe to be the case than what actually is the case. The wrong perception about Down’s syndrome can also feed ignorance, prejudice and stupidity.
I found that was the case, even with the National Health Service. Some years ago, I served as chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Down Syndrome. I listened in shock to a mother who related her experience of ignorance. She was at the bedside of her young son who was recovering post-op from minor heart surgery. The child appeared distressed, and she became alarmed, and she called the nurse, and the nurse came and looked and told her, “Don’t worry, dear. He is Downs, and they do not feel pain.” Do not feel pain!
Our committee then went on to take further evidence from a young couple. The wife had just given birth to a child with Down’s syndrome, and they were not aware that this was going to happen so they were coming to terms and trying to work out how they would come together and work as a family, and in breezed a doctor. When they spoke about their concerns, and said they were not certain what to do, the doctor told them not to worry, to leave that one here and go home and have another one—ignorance, prejudice and sheer bloody stupidity, all rolled into one.
Finally, Liam Fox’s third reason for introducing this Bill was that it was timely and necessary, pointing out that, in his lifetime, life expectancy for people with Down’s syndrome had increased from 13 years to 58. Timely is right—right in that, no matter how long or how short out lifespan, all have the right to quality of life. Who in this Chamber would deny that? We want it for ourselves—we do. Do we not want it for our children? Of course, we do. This Bill is another step, another building-block, in ensuring a person with Down’s syndrome has just that: quality of life, a life lived to the full in dignity and respect, respect for their human rights. The human rights of a person with Down’s syndrome are no less important than yours or mine. Their lives deserve to be lived, respected, honoured, defended and yes, indeed, cherished by all of us.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and all that she has said today and, indeed, all of her work. I should be brief—only a few minutes—but the alternative, more in-depth look at this would take rather longer than the powers that be would allow. I would like to thank Dr Fox for the time he spent in the briefing, which was very helpful.
In the standard way, I have no interests to declare. But in a rather sort of non-Parliament way, I have two interests that have informed the way I think about this area and this debate. Like many others, when I was much younger, I had contact with a family member—my cousin, Daniel—who had Down’s syndrome. Like many people with Down’s syndrome, he sadly died as a child when he was six, leaving my uncle and aunt totally bereft. But I can certainly remember him as a happy, cheerful child who is very much missed by the family.
Secondly, for three years I was chair of one of England’s larger providers of services for people with a learning disability. There, I began to understand the issues about the care of an adult with Down’s syndrome and the many areas to be considered in their care. Although not interests in the parliamentary way, these two points have coloured what I want to say about this Private Member’s Bill.
This, of course, in the main is an excellent Bill—clear, concise and with the main bases covered. Thinking about the relevant authorities, we should consider the services delivered by the Department of Health and Social Care, the DfE and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—which now goes under the somewhat snappier title of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
I wonder if the Minister could tell the House what areas he thinks the Department of Health and Social Care would have to augment, were this Bill to be passed? Would the Minister tell the House what conversations he has had with officials about this Private Member’s Bill? What changes would need to be made in the unlikely event that it finds its way on to the statute book? We all know it will not, but for the 40,000 people who have Down’s syndrome and their families and carers, could the Minister tell me when was the last “in the round” look that the department made of services for and care of people with Down’s syndrome? When did that last take place? Who is responsible in Whitehall for ensuring they are appropriate? Is Down’s syndrome treated separately from learning disability, or are decisions made about those with learning disabilities taken as all right for those with Down’s syndrome?
One of the things that my time chairing a learning disability provider organisation taught me was that those we supported really valued being involved in decision-making. I discovered that meeting the needs of someone with Down’s syndrome was best done by involving the individuals in the decisions being made about them, along with parents and family. The Bill is silent in its guidance about involving the person with Down’s syndrome in decisions about how they live, with whom and where. We often fail to do this and, were this Bill ever to reach Committee, I would like to lay an amendment which would ensure that people with Down’s syndrome—or any of the other learning disabilities—could say, with their hand on their heart, that “No decision is ever made about me without me.” We would not fail to involve people with a physical disability in legislation relating to them. The Secretary of State should make a provision to involve people with Down’s syndrome—or any other learning disability—in any guidance written by the department.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I must begin with a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who works so hard for people with learning disabilities and other disabilities in your Lordships’ House, as I see in person very often, and I was privileged to see recently in a late-night—or possibly early-morning—stroll up Whitehall during the Health and Care Bill to get some more information one-to-one.
The right honourable Liam Fox—I note he is listening to our debate today—said of this Bill in the other place:
“it is about people who deserve the same ability to demand the best health, education and care as the rest of our society.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/21; col. 579]
Of course, nobody could disagree with that aim, but it is true for people with other chromosomal abnormalities, people with learning disabilities and many other people with special needs in our society. The fact is that our society is profoundly discriminatory. People are disabled by the barriers society puts in their way. Physical barriers, as we have just heard from powerful testimony from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, are attitudinal barriers which are frequently still, sadly, awful.
There are 1.5 million people with learning disabilities in the UK and about one in 50 babies are born with a chromosomal abnormality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has often drawn the House’s attention to, men with a learning disability have a life expectancy of 66 years—14 years below that of the general population —and females 67 years, which is 17 years below the general population, reflecting some of that discrimination that I referred to.
It was not my intention to speak on this Bill—your Lordships’ House may know that I have rather a large number of Bills on my plate—but I received large numbers of representations from people concerned about it, which is what led me to be in your Lordships’ House today. Some of those concerns reflect what the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just said. When I looked into this, I was quite surprised that in a press release about the Bill, the Down’s Syndrome Association said that it had not been
“invited to be involved in the development”
of the legislation. That very much provoked me to think of the phrase that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just used: nothing about us without us. If the noble Baroness is going to table an amendment along those lines, I would certainly be interested in supporting it.
The first concern that families and groups of parents with children and adults who have Down’s syndrome have come to me about is that the Bill will have no substantive effect on the rights and lived experience of people with Down’s syndrome and their families because the duties in it are narrowly drawn; demand very little of public bodies; crucially, attract no new funding; and provide no meaningful mechanisms for enforcement or redress.
There is a really serious concern that the Bill implies that a diagnosis predicts how a person’s needs should be best met, rather than people’s personal, individual and unique needs, characters, gifts, talents and aspirations, and the idea that it is possible to generalise about a highly diverse group of people based directly on diagnosis alone. The families have said to me that they are concerned that this approach risks reinforcing rather than overcoming prejudice and discrimination, while undermining decades of progress in moving towards personalised support across the fields of education, health and social care.
I note—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, addressed this in her introductory remarks—that it has been argued that the Bill offers a model for others to follow to address other conditions and people in other circumstances, but it is very hard to imagine that we could see a whole procession of Bills addressing people with different health needs and disabilities along this model. Surely it would be better to make sure that people’s needs as an individual, whatever diagnosis they might have, are addressed.
At this point, I should declare my position as vice-chair of the LGA and NALC. The crucial issue here, surely, is resources. I am aware that the Bill was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, but there are questions I would like to put to the Minister if the Government are backing it. How do we know that it will have the intended impact? How will it be enforced? We talked about ensuring that there was full consultation on the guidance, but what role might Parliament play in producing the guidance? Crucially, without further resources, how could public bodies conceivably implement this new guidance?
I come to one final area of concern, looking at the discussion of the Bill in the public realm and the way it has been discussed in the press and online, about what people advocating for it or pinning their hopes on it believe it is designed to achieve, particularly around issues concerning maternal health and reproductive rights. The Bill, of course, very directly addresses the needs of people with Down’s syndrome, which legally applies only to people who have been born and therefore does not relate to the needs of pregnant women who may have received an antenatal diagnosis but do not themselves have Down’s syndrome. So I ask either the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to confirm that, in the Department of Health and Social Care, the intention of the Bill is not to plan to develop new guidance or amend any existing guidance concerning antenatal care and existing reproductive rights as a consequence—save as it may apply, of course, to the needs of women who have Down’s syndrome.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and congratulate my right honourable friend Dr Liam Fox, who is with us today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on bringing it to this House. I also thank the Minister for his correspondence to me on this legislation, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him more widely on reaching the end of Report on the epic Health and Care Bill yesterday at 2.15 am, when I was with him. It was an early baptism of fire after entering this House, and a much prolonged one at that. The Bill and Front Bench teams, including my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord Howe, are also to be commended for their energy, stamina and courtesy—as, of course, are the Opposition Front Bench teams. It was a marathon.
I confess to mixed feelings about this Private Member’s Bill, despite its laudable aims, because with the mapping of the human genome, many other genetic disorders have come to light. Though not as common as Down’s syndrome, they are not incredibly rare “black swan” events in our population, although they can seem so to the individuals and families coping with them. As I understand it, the Bill seeks to educate the public particularly about the opportunities technology now avails individuals with Down’s syndrome to have a better and longer life than many realise is possible; to ensure that Down’s syndrome is properly considered in service provision across different sectors; and to plan for future impacts of longer life expectancy for people with this condition. All these aims are just as relevant to individuals with other genetic disorders, yet they can struggle additionally to those with Down’s syndrome because there is still so little public and clinical awareness of the ramifications of their chromosomal abnormalities, hence my ambivalence. What guarantees can my noble friend the Minister provide that the Bill will not widen this inequality further?
I will illustrate the complexity of what these genetic conditions can entail by focusing on the second most prevalent after Down’s: 22q11 syndrome, the APPG for which I am a vice-chair of. But there are of course others, such as Prader-Willi syndrome and Smith-Magenis, or 17p, syndrome. 22q syndrome is caused by a genetic deletion on the longer q portion of the 22nd chromosome, meaning a small part of genetic material is missing from the DNA in every cell of the body. It is the most common microdeletion syndrome in humans. In most cases, it occurs de novo in a child’s very early development, but it can be inherited. Doctors have struggled to diagnose it due to the very wide variety of symptoms and conditions which arise from the same missing genetic material. It was only relatively recently discovered to be the one root cause for multiple diagnoses, including DiGeorge syndrome and velocardiofacial syndrome.
22q manifests itself in nearly 200 different physical and mental health issues spanning the cognitive, endocrinological, behavioural, immunological, cranio-facial, sensory and cardiac. That can mean hearing and speech problems, facial abnormalities, scoliosis, calcium deficiency, eye problems, seizures and constipation, with poor development of various bodily “tubes”, as I will describe in a moment. Some 50% to 85% of those with 22q have congenital heart disease, 10% have cleft palate, 30% have kidney anomalies, 1% have severe immunodeficiency and 60% to 90% have psychiatric disorders.
One family whose baby was diagnosed within a year of his birth describe 22q as the Pandora’s box, because they were never sure what new medical nasty would emerge. He nearly died at five days old because the end of his bowel had not formed properly, and sepsis took hold when he could not void meconium. Thankfully he survived, but twice a day the exhausted parents had to wash out his bowel using tubes and suction; I will not dwell on that. After several months, he was admitted for an operation on his bowel, but the anaesthetist was concerned that his throat was as narrow as a newborn’s. Basically, it and his larynx had not formed properly either, which explained why he never cried but made slightly strangulated coughing noises.
Again, thankfully, he was admitted to Great Ormond Street Hospital, where they widened his throat and removed the laryngeal web which would have prevented him ever speaking. Although his parents had to travel a long way within the UK to get there, they met families who had come from other countries for the same operation, because Great Ormond Street is a centre of excellence. We cannot take such provision for granted. His heart and the vessels to and from it were also giving the many medics looking after this little boy cause for concern, and they decided to do some genetic testing. To cut a long story short, he was diagnosed with 22q.
He continues to risk becoming dangerously ill when there are colds about, due to his compromised respiratory system, so the pandemic was a tough time for his family, and he will probably always have to attend a special school because of cognitive delay. Facially he looks quite normal to the untrained eye, but his life and his parents’ experience have been anything but.
Every 22q child presents in a completely unique way, and many do not get diagnosed until much later in life because of the variability in severity. Hence one of the top asks from Max Appeal, a support group for parents with 22q children, is that 22q be part of the newborn heel-prick test. A 2017 study in the Journal of Clinical Immunology concluded that
“the clinical characteristics, diagnosis, management, and treatment of 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome have been shown to meet the criteria for new-born screening programmes and support the need for earlier diagnosis.”
Far less prevalent conditions such as cystic fibrosis are included, but they, like Down’s syndrome, are in the mainstream of medical consciousness. Without screening it is very hard to determine prevalence accurately, although some studies estimate that one in 2,000 children are born with it, which would make it half as common as Down’s syndrome.
I mentioned my ambivalence, but my optimistic ambition for the Bill is what has been mentioned already: that it will provide an awakening for the Government and the public to this world of genetic disability. The medical establishment also has some catching up to do although, thanks to grass-roots pressure from organisations such as Max Appeal, significant progress has been made in treatment and raising awareness, which is of course what I am trying to do right now.
What guarantees can the Minister give that this Down Syndrome Bill will lead to a floor of provision for genetic disorders on which to build, not a ceiling on our aspirations for helping these unique and uniquely precious individuals and their families cope and indeed flourish despite the lifelong implications of immutable chromosomal disorders? In the meantime, I welcome the Bill and support its passage through the House.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing it to the House in such a comprehensive manner and I thank Dr Liam Fox, of course, for having introduced it in the first place in the House of Commons and for steering it through to get this far.
I draw attention to my registered interest as a vice-president of Mencap, which very much welcomes the Bill and the powers that it gives to create new guidance to reinforce the provision of services at local level. Perhaps I should also mention that we lost two boys with severe learning disabilities, although not with Down’s syndrome—rather, they suffered from one of the mucopolysaccharide group of disorders. They died at the ages of 12 and 13. We too had to make the 500-mile round trip to Great Ormond Street on many occasions, and I pay tribute to the tremendous work that is still being done there.
I have spoken many times in the House about the level of health inequality suffered by people with a learning disability. A report by Bristol University in 2020 showed that, on average, men with a learning disability die 23 years younger than those without such a disability, and women die 27 years younger than their peers in the population as a whole. They die not because of the direct impact of their specific disability but from other conditions which their disability prevents being adequately addressed. I served as a member of a special inquiry into this some 15 years ago. All sorts of promises were made at that time about improving this appalling situation, but here we are in 2022, still unable to close the gap.
This basically comes down to ensuring that everyone, whatever their learning disabilities, can access the services they need. This is the crux of this short and straightforward Bill. It is not a Bill which imposes new rights and new support on people with learning disabilities; it is to ensure that these people actually get the services to which they are entitled and which they should be getting under existing legislative and executive provision. The fact that they are falling through the net and are not getting such support is the basis for putting forward this short piece of legislation.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to a number of public authorities with regard to the additional steps which they should take to ensure that they are meeting the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. The public authorities who come under the provisions of the Bill are those related to the National Health Service, social care, housing, education and youth offending. By using the mechanism of guidance, the Bill latches on to a lever which Secretaries of State already have for driving forward the policy of their Government, but it extends the application into a specific sector.
The Bill applies to England only, and noble Lords may well ask why I am involved. It is for two reasons. First, every step forward which helps people in one part of these islands can be a catalyst for similar progress in other parts, as was the Wales plastic bag legislation. Secondly, if the Bill can help people with Down’s syndrome in England, why on earth should I not be supporting it?
The Bill has been criticised for addressing Down’s syndrome people specifically, when there are many other conditions generating learning disabilities which will not be covered. I would merely respond that it is better to get this provision rolled out now and to use it as a lever that may secure similar improvements for other groups of people with learning disabilities. Indeed, the ministerial guidance provided by the Bill may act as a trigger for other groups as well.
Others will argue that a small Bill such as this is a wasted opportunity for getting a major piece of legislation to support people with disabilities on to the statute book, and they usually point to Acts such as Alf Morris’s Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Well, it is great if an MP can get the top slot in the ballot and then gets the support of a Government willing to provide the necessary money. I came across that problem in taking through the Disabled Persons Act 1981; it was modest and limited in its scope, but it opened the door to the Tom Clarke Act of 1986, and the momentum generated undoubtedly contributed to the public mood, which demanded the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We should never disparage small steps, as they move us forward, even in a limited way, and they can pave the way for more ambitious legislation in due course. So I am delighted to support the Bill.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. His words echoed not only throughout the Chamber but throughout the country with mothers, families, and the individuals on whom I hope this legislation will impact.
I also support the Bill. It is a privilege to be able to take part in this debate where there is so much consensus across Parliament. I am grateful to the right honourable gentleman Dr Liam Fox in the other place and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who has long been a heroic champion of disability rights. I remain in awe of her continuous work.
I am blessed with a 43 year-old son who lives with autism and learning disabilities, and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, touched my heart. My family has long battled with serious challenges within services. If I spoke about the experiences 40 years ago I would still be wailing, as I wailed then, battling institutional discrimination against disability rights. We as a family long resisted my son being called mad, bad or handicapped, as once was acceptable, despite legislation being in place.
I also have a son who recently became an amputee—a traumatic and heartrending experience. I cannot really say that I have learned how best to describe the impact of his traumatic incapacitation and disability as yet. I agree with so many parents and activists who have taken time to write to remind me that language is very important, and that there are no hierarchies of disabilities or of the experiences of people who are born with different abilities. So many of our loved ones face a level of discrimination and struggle for equity and social justice, even with the basic rights of education, housing, employment and social care provision. Noble Lords have already spoken eloquently and described some of the discrepancies in services and provisions, so I will not go into that. Nevertheless, although we have mostly developed more respectable language, shortfalls remain the norm in all institutions. They should uphold the dignity and equality of people who live with disabilities.
As has been said, the Bill would require the Secretary of State to give guidance to relevant authorities to meet the appropriate needs of people with Down’s syndrome, have due regard to and require consultation with people with Down’s syndrome, and, more importantly, publish a report and lay it before Parliament. However, all that could be just rhetoric and written reports if the Government do not take it seriously and local authorities and all the health and social care institutions are not mandated to do so.
The Bill has rightly received positive responses from many organisations, with the aspiration that it will support provisions, including health, education, employment and care needs, for people with Down’s syndrome throughout their lives. It is expected to pave the way for more equitable services for people with Down’s syndrome, which may result in greater parity of services and care available to other people with disabilities who benefit from statutory care provision.
It would be remiss of me not to bring the House’s attention to the discussion on the Bill which has highlighted the worrying level of disparity experienced by people who live with disabilities. Regardless of the fact that many have achieved a high level of education, it appears to make no difference to their life chances, including access to employment. I know that; I am not just speaking from the reports and representations I have received. I have worked in the profession as a social worker and with families and small NGOs in my locality. I have direct experience, so these are not just words from reports; I am highlighting the experiences of many others who are unable to be in the House or the other place.
Only around 6% of people with learning disabilities are in employment so far; we have not achieved beyond that. We have a long way to go. The Down’s Syndrome Association, the National Down Syndrome Policy Group and Mencap are the experts and, while welcoming the legislation, they are rightly asking how the Government will address the worrisome statistics on outcomes for all people with disabilities with regard to education, employment and so forth. For example, how will the postcode lottery of statutory and voluntary-led services be addressed?
From my personal experience over 40 years, I know that mainstream schooling for children who need specialist support remains the purview of the most elite parents. Despite the fact that I sit in this House, I never had the privilege of being regarded as one of the elite who can advocate for my son, even all those years ago. Whenever I spoke, I was regarded as if I was so mentally challenged by the fact that I was an Asian woman and my firstborn was a child with learning disabilities that, somehow, that scarred my mental ability to fight for the justice that he as an individual deserved. So many people still say that that is the case, and that is something that all Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place should be concerned about. Given the many decades of inertia that have persisted in local health authorities—supposedly working in the best interests of the individual child—how will the legislation bind statutory services to their obligation to provide the necessary resources and funds?
I am pleased that Dr Liam Fox in the other place and the Down’s Syndrome Association have raised important and outstanding matters of the deepest significance for these debates, so that we can meaningfully impact the lives of people with Down’s syndrome. This legislation is indeed an important milestone, and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, when he asserts that it will be a small stepping-stone to much advancement on disability rights. We all hope that the Bill will enable more people with Down’s syndrome to live with dignity and respect.
As has been stated, the House should know that Mencap supports and welcomes the Bill. It feels it could be the foundation for legislation to support people with learning disability more widely and sees this as a defining moment to set up a bigger conversation that will, hopefully, lead to a cross-government learning disability strategy.
Alongside the Down’s Syndrome Association and the Down Syndrome Policy Group, the LGA is seeking urgent government assurances that they will complete their ongoing review of the special educational needs and disability system, setting out reforms and increasing mainstream inclusion, providing councils and schools with long-term certainty of funding to meet the needs of all children, and giving councils the power to hold education and health partners to account if their provision to identify and support children with SEND is inadequate. I hope the House will agree with the LGA; it has been more than a decade since the last strategy, Valuing People Now, was published. With all this good will in place, what plans are afoot to formulate a new national disability strategy?
Finally, in recognising that there are parents such as me from what is termed a minority group, although our children are ethnically British in every way, one report after another of late has finally conceded that there is discrimination and disparity across all institutional services for minority groups. In the experience of people with Down’s syndrome and their families, who are not a homogenous group, discrepancies have been highlighted by groups such as Include Me TOO, a member organisation that advocates on behalf of ethnic-minority families who care for loved ones who live with disability. The organisation feels totally excluded from all aspects of decision-making in the mainstream, and it is clear that many of the family members seeking the organisation’s support and advocacy continue to feel disadvantaged by their gender, race, ethnicity and faith while journeying through statutory and NGO services. That has left many scarred, with lifelong adverse impacts on their life chances, and negative outcomes for countless individuals and broken families. It has caused untold long-term physical and mental health damage for individuals with disability and impacted on their carers’ and loved ones’ well-being.
I ask just two quick questions. How will the diversity of people with Down’s syndrome and their families be recognised in the legislation and the guidance? How will the Government ensure that the voices of the individuals and NGOs that are consulted come from wide-ranging backgrounds and reflect adequately the needs of gender, race, cultural and faith aspects of people with Down’s syndrome? Will the Minister commit to leading a robust equality impact assessment before commencing the development of guidance to inform the process, and ensure that the consultation and guidance address people with Down’s Syndrome in all their diversity?
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I speak on this Bill because of my membership of the all-party group and my strong interest in genetic conditions. I have a godson now reaching maturity who has a genetically-based severe learning disability which is not Down’s, and whose parents have had to fight hard for the whole of his life for access to the provision of services, particularly social and educational, which the rest of us take for granted will be available to us as and when we need them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said in introducing the Bill, its aim is to improve the provision of services and bring to an end discrimination in practice against individuals with Down’s syndrome—of course, we know that it is not actually legal to discriminate; the issue is what happens in the real world. And who would not wish to see this happen? If you or your child has Down’s syndrome, the Bill offers real hope. However—I am afraid that there is a however—this prospect has given rise, not in this House, where I recognise that the Bill has received a warm welcome, but outside to divergent and worried views about the Bill’s merits and about the desirability of it reaching the statute book.
On the one hand, there are those who argue—if I might say so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, represented this view—that, while the Bill is exclusively concerned with Down’s syndrome, it will in practice open the door to people with other genetic conditions getting better treatment than is currently the case. “Better to start somewhere than do nothing”, especially as, in a Private Members’ Bill, the scope has necessarily to be narrow. I do not dismiss any of these considerations, nor do I dismiss the argument, but in a hard world it does not offer any guarantees of success.
On the other hand—and I am afraid that this is where I tend to stand—there are those of us who see the great danger that this Bill, which uses the device of guidance which has to be followed, to give preference in the provision of services to those with Down’s syndrome, with the possible result—indeed, the likely result—of those with other, less well known but equally disabling genetic conditions being denied equality of access to provision and becoming worse off than before, because funding is limited and unlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. My noble friend Lord Farmer set out in detail, with eloquence that I cannot match, that this is not a tiny minority but an increasing number of people with other disabling genetic conditions, some of which are very severe indeed, who are not included in this Bill.
What are the consequences of one group, on the basis of a pretty traditional categorisation of diagnosis being favoured, being preferred, while a large number of others are left out of account? It could give rise not to the idea that this is just a door-opener but that this is discriminatory and divisive among a community of people who face the same challenges. That would be a pretty undesirable outcome, were that to occur, dividing people with genetic conditions between sheep and goats. I put it pretty starkly because we cannot hide from the realities of life, which is that there is not enough money. That is where, if some are preferred, others are likely to get less.
I search for possible ways forward. In Committee in the other place, the Minister said something to the effect that the Government recognise that people with genetic conditions other than Down’s syndrome experience problems similar to those with Down’s syndrome and will therefore consider the overlaps and linkages between such conditions and Down’s syndrome, through the consultation on the development of the guidance. Your Lordships can see where I am driving. Clearly, the wording of the guidance is crucial because it is a directive to those who implement it, and therefore what it says will be followed. I take a commitment to consult on the terms of that guidance seriously but, given the potentially dire consequences for those outside the zone of preference, such a commitment is not, by itself, enough to quell my doubts about the desirability of this Bill reaching the statute book. It promises a process but not an outcome.
The timetable is now short to decide the fate of this Bill, so I appeal to the Minister. I hope that when he speaks, my noble friend, who appears to be backing this Bill, can offer some comfort on the score of non-discrimination between genetic conditions, regarding access to funding, based on fair assessment of real needs. I do not often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but she was right on the money in that the issue is assessment of real needs; it is not between one category of diagnosis and another. I hope that the Government provide us with some way forward to guarantee non-discrimination. Will the Minister be willing to issue instructions, if necessary, to prevent discrimination between people with Down’s syndrome and those with other genetic conditions?
In 2022, this House cannot pass laws which we have reason to believe would have discriminatory effect. If we do, we can be sure that, after passage, our legislation will be challenged in the courts by an aggrieved party. I am sure we all agree that it would be best to avoid this. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend either now or, if he needs to consider the matter, before we are in Committee, on what the Government have in mind to avoid discrimination by category of genetic diagnosis and instead promote access to provision of services based on assessment of real needs.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate and I am grateful for the chance to contribute.
Most noble Lords who have spoken have supported the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, wanted more. I understand that. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, but the fact that we cannot have everything should not mean that we have nothing at all; rather I am glad to add my voice to the chorus in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, called “small steps”, for three main reasons.
First, this Bill can be transformative. Investing in children with Down’s syndrome is demonstrably worth while. I know this from my wife’s experience. For most of the last 18 years, Olivia has supported a girl with Down’s syndrome. Lizzy is a wonderful person, now a multiple medal-winning international swimmer, on the threshold of adulthood, with the prospect of a high degree of independence.
Secondly, this Bill is urgent. When we were children, a baby born with Down’s syndrome had an average life expectancy of less than 20 years. Now, a baby born with Down’s syndrome has an average life expectancy of nearly 60 years. This is the first generation of children with Down’s syndrome expected to outlive their parents. This new fact needs a new policy response.
Thirdly, the Bill could enhance the UK’s international reputation. Last week, President Zelensky told Parliament that Britain was a great nation. These days, soft power is a large part of Britain’s impact in the world. The Bill would blaze a necessary trail, as the first of its kind anywhere in the world; it will be an example that other countries will want to follow. The Bill deserves a Second Reading and, when it becomes law, it deserves to be funded.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to add my support to the Bill and to acknowledge that the question of “nothing about us without us” is very significant.
I began teaching in 1973, and would never have found a child or young person with Down’s syndrome in a classroom in front of me, but things have changed and moved on significantly. When I told my daughter, who now teaches a year 4 class, that I would be in the House of Lords today to hear a debate on guidance about services for people with Down’s syndrome, she said, “That will be really exciting, and so necessary”. One of the things she said to me was, “There just aren’t sufficient representations of the vast range of people that there are in our society available to us to use in our classrooms”. She is a young person who definitely wanted to go into teaching because she felt that it was important to be in a classroom with a range of people with different conditions.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and I share her concern that, at a time of constrained resources, there might be a tendency to say, “We have to do this; we don’t have to do that”. But I hope we are better than that. It is so important that we fund the services as they are assessed—that we fund for need, not because a particular person happens to have a particular diagnosis or condition. On that basis, even though this is a small step and there is a risk—unless we fund everything properly—that some people may feel there is privileged treatment, I wish the Bill well.
However, since some of the “relevant” bodies that appear here are school governing bodies, the providers of early years services and academy proprietors, I want to be absolutely sure that the Government will be very clear that all those institutions have a big responsibility to read, understand and follow the guidance. That is an education matter, rather than a medical one.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and Dr Fox for their time in answering questions at yesterday’s helpful briefing, and the various people and groups who have written to me and other Peers. It was also a pleasure to support the amendments to the Health and Care Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on mandatory training for staff working with people with learning disabilities and autism. I am delighted that the Government agreed. I too pay credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her outstanding campaigning over many years for people with learning disabilities.
My Spanish nephew Alex, now in his late 30s, has Down’s syndrome. As a family we have seen this baby grow into a fine young man, hampered only by the perceptions of others. My sister has had to fight for his rights, be it for a Covid vaccine this year or for his medical needs over many years. She had to take on the education authorities because there was no integration at all in schools: “children like that” went to a special school that was, in reality, a hospital, with locked doors and staff in white coats. She won her campaign and he was the first child with Down’s syndrome to go to mainstream primary in Majorca. But the most important part of his story so far is that he is a fantastic sportsman. Twelve years ago he won a European championship in karate; he has also swum in national competitions, and I cannot tell you how proud we are of his achievements. Yet too many people do not see past the condition, nor understand that every person with Down’s syndrome is an individual and has differing needs.
Another Alex, the same age as our Alex, is the daughter of our very close friend. She went to primary school and Sunday school with our children, and now lives happily in a house near her mum, with support from carers. She is non-verbal and needs constant support when awake. She loves her house, her daily routine and her family. As with almost all people with Down’s syndrome and their families, it has not been easy, but for this Alex, it works.
So when I read this ambitious and laudable Bill, my first question was: how will this help people with Down’s syndrome and their families? Our role in the Lords is to make sure that legislation delivers the intention of a Bill and does not create unintended consequences. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, that inadvertently this Bill will create a hierarchy of disability that risks doing harm to the rights of other disabled people, particularly people with learning disabilities, which may also be discriminatory.
By their very nature, the Bill and subsequent guidance will create a unique and separate focus on the needs of people with Down’s syndrome, as well as duties and rights that are exclusive to this group, which risks undermining the principles of equality and non-preferential access to resources across education, health and social care, and employment. There is also a danger that it may disadvantage individuals with other disabilities who do not have the same legal recourse if providers fail to abide by the guidance. Can the Minister tell me what work will be undertaken to ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage people with disabilities other than Down’s syndrome? If the Minister believes that no such work is required, what is the purpose of legislating to provide exclusive duties relating only to people with Down’s syndrome?
I am also concerned that the Bill lacks power to achieve its aims, which risks causing confusion among public bodies and people with Down’s syndrome and their families about their duties and their rights.
In common with people with learning disabilities generally, people with Down’s syndrome and their families face significant inequalities and discrimination in our society. The current framework of legislation that we have to address this includes the Care Act, the Children and Families Act, and the Equality Act. However, they have been systematically weakened by underfunding and by removing mechanisms through which people can secure redress.
Understandably, expectations have been raised very high by the Bill, yet I see evidence from the Minister that it and the resulting guidance have no power to address these deep-seated problems. For example, can he explain how it will ensure that people with Down’s syndrome can secure appropriate and adequate social care and that our classrooms include additional teaching assistants? The Bill does not say that. Can the Minister provide examples of the differences he believes that this Bill will make in the context of health, social care and education?
Dr Liam Fox commented that the Bill
“sets a precedent that can be followed later on in other areas.”
That has been commented on by noble Lords this morning. Will the Minister tell me whether it is the intention of the Bill to set a precedent where each diagnosis will require a new set of guidelines and, if so, what continued role the Government see for the existing legal duties which underpin disability equality? In Committee in the Commons, Gillian Keegan said at the Dispatch Box:
“We recognise that people with genetic conditions other than Down syndrome may experience problems similar to those of people with Down syndrome, so we will consider the overlaps and linkages between such conditions and Down syndrome through consultation on the development of the guidance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/22; col. 8.]
I know that by giving one group rights when resources are scarce, others will not get them. I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer: what happens to those who have other genetic conditions, or none, but have learning disabilities, who must rely on the good will of Ministers in the future, and to those with learning disabilities who may not fall into this category? Here in Watford, our CCG decided some years ago to close the children’s respite centre, Nascot Lawn, because in its view respite care was not statutory. Children eligible for respite care have multiple and profound needs, and personal care for them has to be delivered by nurses or by family members trained by hospitals. Twice the Nascot Lawn families won High Court judgments against the closure and the removal of that respite care and the lack of proper provision.
The CCG repeatedly said that its resources were scarce and it had to prioritise just statutory services. It closed in 2018, and these children and their families have struggled ever since to get the support they need. It did not matter that their EHCPs said that these children and families needed respite care; it was all about resource. At least one family could not manage to look after their child without that respite care: being on duty 24 hours a day and every night had taken its toll. Will other people with high levels of need but who are not people with Down’s syndrome move even further to the back of the queue?
There is also concern that the Bill and guidance risk undermining principles concerning person-centred assessment and support, embedded in law, whether in relation to support for children and families or support for adults, by elevating the condition and suggesting that this predicts needs. That is why I gave the illustration of our two people named Alex. This not only represents a regressive step politically, by advancing a medical model of disability and elevating diagnosis over individual needs; it will also create considerable legal and regulatory complexity for local councils, the NHS and schools at a time when they are already stretched in meeting statutory duties. Will the Minister recommit to the principles of person-centred rather than diagnosis-centred assessment and support and tell me what work will be undertaken to embed this person-centred approach at every stage of the development of the guidance?
Given that it was announced in the Commons that there may be a “named person” on integrated care boards, which we have discussed at some length during the passage of the Health and Care Bill, what role will they have in ensuring the compliance of public bodies with the guidance? Will that be solely for people with Down’s syndrome, especially in the light of the past practices of CCGs, which I have outlined?
I will make a brief point on the proposed guidance. As my noble friend Lady Jolly said, will Ministers ensure that the principles of “No decision about us without us” ensures that the voice of people with Down’s syndrome is represented? Although the Commons has a mechanism to scrutinise guidance, that is not true in your Lordships’ House, so will the Minister undertake to ensure that there is time for a debate on the guidance, as it is published and debated in the Commons? As the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Uddin, outlined, government resources have been a real issue. The net is full of holes not through a lack of guidance, White Papers and good will but through a lack of government investment and strategic leadership for over a decade.
I think that everyone who has spoken at Second Reading today and in the Commons is passionate about ensuring that people with Down’s syndrome and their families can remove the current structural and social barriers that they face. The concerns that a number of Peers have raised today are important, and the Lords needs to be able do its job and to have responses from the Government in Committee and on Report to ensure that the Bill can deliver its aspirations and that it will not penalise others with learning disabilities because of a new hierarchy of resources. So will the Minister agree to meet those who have spoken of their concerns today prior to Committee, when it is clear we will be looking at a number of amendments?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate, in which the passion for supporting people with Down’s syndrome is absolutely undoubted in this House. I pay tribute to and congratulate Dr Fox, on bringing the Bill forward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on her tireless work for those with learning disabilities over many years. These Benches have often been pleased to follow her lead and support her in this endeavour. I do not doubt that many of the 40,000 people with Down’s syndrome and their families will be watching and listening to this debate today, so I am happy to assure them that the Labour Benches will support the Bill at Second Reading.
We recognise that there are questions that will need to be answered during the Bill’s passage, and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is aware of that. Of course, the first, identified by several noble Lords, is that singling out Down’s syndrome potentially misses the opportunity to ensure that authorities consider other conditions: autism, Rett syndrome and Williams syndrome. Indeed, the Genetic Alliance has contacted me to express its concern about other conditions being relegated. We do not want to create a hierarchy.
For example, as has been mentioned, antiviral Covid treatments have recently been approved for people with Covid-19 who are at the highest risk of becoming seriously ill. Down Syndrome is at the top of the eligibility list whereas other genetic conditions that confer the same or similar risk of becoming seriously ill are not mentioned at all. We do not want to be involved in something that inadvertently creates those kinds of problems and challenges for other learning-disabled people.
However, I welcome the department’s commitment that new guidance will be formed in consultation with key stakeholders. As your Lordships’ House may know, the Health and Care Bill, which many of us here have been involved in, sometimes late at night, has finished its Report stage. I need to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on the commitment that she gained only this week, and I quote her from Hansard:
“I am very grateful … to the Minister and to all those working behind the scenes for reaching this point and accepting my amendment, as well as for committing to include a learning disability and autism lead on integrated care boards.”—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 398.]
My first question is that I wonder whether the noble Baroness may have inadvertently made the Bill a redundant piece of legislation because of the success that she has already had in raising the issue and getting it included in the Health and Care Bill, which we have had before us for what seems like quite a long time—the last month or so. That is my first question to the noble Baroness and the Minister. My second question to them is that I would like to be assured that the work being undertaken will not disadvantage other people with learning disabilities. I would like to be assured by the Minister that if the Bill proceeds, people with Down’s syndrome, in their diversity, and their chosen advocates will be meaningfully involved at every stage of the co-production of the guidance.
I am concerned about some of the rhetoric that has surrounded the Bill. I would like the noble Baroness and the Minister to confirm that the Department of Health and Social Care has no plans, as a consequence of the Bill, to develop any new guidance or amend any existing guidance concerning maternal healthcare and reproductive rights.
I wish the Bill the best, and I look forward to the discussions that we shall have about it in Committee in your Lordships’ House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my friend, the right honourable Member for North Somerset, Liam Fox, who was here earlier; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing the Bill in this place; and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.
Many who have spoken today have talked about their experiences of their own contact with people with Down’s syndrome. When I was a child growing up in Edmonton in north London, there were a couple of children in our neighbourhood who I sometimes used to play with who had Down’s syndrome. It is interesting to note that the words we used to describe them in those days would today be considered offensive. It is absolutely right that, as language evolves, we learn how to describe people with different conditions.
On that note, I take this opportunity to thank Rachel Ross from the National Down Syndrome Policy Group for sending me and other noble Lords the appropriate language and terminology. It is important that we get this right, and I know that there is cross-party consensus on that. If noble Lords have not received that, I have a copy in my pack and I will be happy to forward it on to them.
I want to be clear at the beginning that if there are no amendments, the Government will be able to give time to the Bill to support it. I should be clear about that from the start.
We agree on the need to improve life outcomes for people with Down’s syndrome; that case is compelling. It is very common for people with Down’s syndrome to experience compounded health risks compared to the general population. Some noble Lords have made the point that people may have more than one condition. We should be aware of the statistics: nearly half of children born with Down’s syndrome have a heart condition. People with Down’s syndrome face an increased risk of early onset dementia, and the NHS recommend regular check-ups to look for these signs from the age of 30. People with Down’s syndrome are also far more likely to experience recurring infections and become seriously unwell. This can be life threatening. Sadly, although life expectancy has increased, the risk of death for adults with Down’s syndrome can be around five times higher than for the general population. Despite this, people with Down’s syndrome are living longer. In 1983, the average person with Down’s syndrome lived to 25 years old. Life expectancy is now typically around 60 and has increased substantially in recent years.
There are existing legal frameworks in place which require health, care, education and housing authorities to consider a person’s individual needs regardless of their condition. However, there is evidence to suggest they have not always worked as intended for people with Down’s syndrome. That can be due to the lack of understanding or appreciation by commissioners and providers of services of the unique needs of people with Down’s syndrome, reducing the quality of care they receive and their overall life outcomes. For example, children with Down’s syndrome may remember and learn information in different ways from other children. This Bill is a significant opportunity to drive forward important changes, raising understanding and awareness of the needs of people with Down’s syndrome.
For the first time, legislation will require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to health, care, education and housing authorities about how to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Those authorities must consider the guidance; the relevant authorities will not be able to ignore it, and they must provide strong reasons for not following it. The practical impact of this guidance should not be understated. It will raise awareness and understanding of the needs of people with Down’s syndrome, and it will support authorities to recognise how to adapt services to meet those needs, ensuring that people with Down’s syndrome, their families and carers can get the support they need. That is why the Government support the Bill.
I recognise that there are concerns that a condition-specific Bill may be divisive. I hope that I can gently disagree, but also reassure noble Lords. This Bill is not about enhanced rights for people with Down’s syndrome; it is about making sure these identifiable and unique needs are not overlooked when planning, designing and delivering services. The Government have committed to develop the guidance through inclusive consultation with all interested parties, including some of the organisations named by noble Lords and, of course, people with Down’s syndrome and their families, those operating services and the organisations and individuals that represent people with Down’s syndrome. In the other place, as noble Lords have acknowledged, the Minister of State for Care and Mental Health made a clear commitment that in developing this guidance we will consider the links and similarities that Down’s syndrome has with other conditions. This consultation will make sure that all the available evidence and experiences can be considered to identify what support and interventions will best meet people’s needs.
We anticipate that the guidance will be published within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, should it do so. At that time, Members in the other place and your Lordships will have the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance when it is laid before Parliament. Of course, people with Down’s syndrome and their families need to feel confident that this guidance will not be ignored—that it will result in action, and there will be avenues available to them if they do not believe they are receiving the appropriate care and support. There will be accountability at local level to make sure that this guidance is implemented. The Government made the commitment in the other place that statutory guidance relating to the Health and Care Bill will require ICBs to have a named person overseeing how the guidance is implemented and taken into account in practice.
I reassure your Lordships that this does not restrict the oversight to health and care authorities. ICBs are required to work with local authorities to establish integrated care partnerships, which bring together organisations to decide how to best address public health needs, including housing and education provision. The guidance will be subject to regular review to make sure that it remains current.
If noble Lords will allow me, I shall try to address some of the specific questions that were asked. It is important that I try to answer them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, officials are talking to stakeholders about this Bill, including the Down’s Syndrome Association and the National Down Syndrome Policy Group, to understand how it fits in and alongside wider policy on learning disability. We will keep the guidance under review and expect to update it periodically as policy and practice changes. I hope that this will be living, learning guidance, rather than just something that sits on dusty shelves for years. If we think about how our language and understanding has evolved, of course it is only right that we update that guidance as research increases and we learn more about this condition and other genetic conditions.
I am afraid that the reality is that it is difficult to say when an in-the-round look at services for people with Down’s syndrome was last done. In some ways, the fact that we cannot directly answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, highlights the need for this Bill and to shine a light on this issue. It is through wide consultation that we will determine the appropriate and best practice of this service for people with Down’s syndrome. I hope that noble Lords will contact me, as the Minister responsible, if they are contacted by any organisations which say that they have not been included in the consultation. I know that sometimes, noble Lords kindly apologise for writing to me, but that is my job as the Minister, and I accept that I should be held to account in this place. I hope that noble Lords, if they feel that any organisations are being ignored, will write to me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, rightly raised concerns, which we have received, regarding how this relates to abortion. For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill is limited to the needs of a person with Down’s syndrome after they are born. This means that it does not address abortion. This Bill gives authority to the Secretary of State to produce statutory guidance which will clarify existing frameworks and practices. Statutory guidance cannot be used to amend primary legislation such as the Abortion Act. By setting out in statutory guidance the steps that would be appropriate for health authorities to take when providing services and support to people with Down’s syndrome and their families, we believe there will be a wider positive impact for expectant parents who are told their unborn baby may have Down’s syndrome. However, the Bill is still about the child after they are born.
I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for engaging with me on this issue. The Government rightly recognise that people with other conditions may experience similar problems. This is why I reiterate the commitment made by the Minister in the other place that we will consider the overlaps and linkages, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said. We recognise the concern about services prioritising different groups of people in a way which is not focused on assessing people’s needs. I point out that any preference of which noble Lords may be fearful would be unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. The guidance is about making clearer the steps that could be taken to meet the unique needs of people with Down’s syndrome. This is something the guidance could emphasise strongly. We will engage and consult upon this in detail when developing the guidance.
Turning to one of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, I hear the concerns expressed about consulting with people with Down’s syndrome and other conditions. We are committed to ensuring that this guidance works, and that it evolves as we learn more. We believe that the best way of addressing this is to do it once the Bill has passed. Issues were also raised about the completion of the SEND review. Unfortunately, it has been delayed due to the pandemic. Also, the pandemic has highlighted some very real issues, and exacerbated some of them. Therefore, even though it is irritating that it has been delayed, it is only right that we take advantage of the light which has been shone upon the exacerbation of those conditions to ensure that we have appropriate guidance.
The Department for Education plan to publish proposals arising from the review of a public consultation by the end of this month. It is important to hear from a wide range of people, including the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, given her years of experience, as well as the many organisations with which she has worked over the years. I emphasise that this is not about giving preference to people with Down’s syndrome. It is clear that to do so would be illegal under the Equality Act 2010.
In conclusion, I know that there are noble Lords who have concerns about this, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her commitment that she will support the Bill. I make a plea to all noble Lords. Given, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, the time frame and the amount of legislation we trying to get through, if this Bill is amended, it may well fall.
Some of your Lordships may have read the Robert Caro biography of Lyndon B Johnson. In that book, it talks about his amazing career and at the end, one of the things it covers is the 1957 Civil Rights Act. That was criticised by a lot of people for not doing enough. Johnson’s plea to them was, “Let’s take this, bank it and build on it”. That led the way to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Now I am not saying that I want to equate those Acts in any way with the Bill, but they are about recognising issues that ought to have a spotlight shone upon them.
I therefore make this plea to noble Lords: let us together take this step. Please let us support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for all the work she has done and for the way she has pushed the Government during the Health and Care Bill and highlighted many of these issues. One of the things I find as a Minister in this place is how much I am still learning daily, about not just my portfolio of technology, innovation, life sciences and international relations but the many conditions that people have, and what more we can all do to help them. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and not amend the Bill, otherwise we risk not taking that first step.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, on the basis of what my noble friend the Minister has just said, is he open to further discussion on the Bill between now and Committee? I did ask, but I do not think he said whether he was ready to talk further. I think there are perhaps others in the Chamber who might be interested.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness will not take this personally and I am sorry I forgot to answer that specific question. I am sure noble Lords will recognise that a number of questions were directed at me. I hope they will also recognise that I always try to answer as many questions as I can, and we go through Hansard to make sure that we sweep up afterwards, as it were, and write to noble Lords. I will of course be happy to have further conversations. It may be me or the relevant Minister at other times, but I am very happy to make sure that there is a Minister who will consult with the noble Baroness, and with any other noble Lords who feel that their concerns are not being heard enough; we can make that commitment.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank all speakers today for such a stimulating and informed debate, and others who were unable to be present, including my noble friends Lord Crisp, Lady Watkins and Lady Campbell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who had hoped to speak. I also thank David Nuttall, the Department of Health and Social Care civil servant who leads for learning disability, for his advice and help in preparing for today, and the Minister for his assurances.
I hope to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that there is no intention or possibility of this Bill affecting women’s reproductive choices. The Bill gives authority to the Secretary of State to produce statutory guidance which will clarify existing frameworks and practices. It cannot be used to amend primary legislation, such as the Abortion Act. The noble Baroness also mentioned that the Down’s Syndrome Association was not involved in drafting this Private Member’s Bill. I have spoken to the chief executive of the association at some length. When I asked her about the Bill, Mrs Boys said it would be more divisive to stop the Bill than to let it pass, and that it would be more constructive to work alongside others to ensure this guidance is as effective as possible. She told me that she supports it.
If amendments are laid, the Bill will be killed. If there are no amendments, Third Reading will take place on 1 April. If the Bill does not pass, it will fall into oblivion—yet again, out of sight and out of mind. There will not be another Bill for learning disability to replace it. The desire for the perfect is so often the enemy of the good. People who know me well know that I am absolutely committed to empowering people to be fully involved—it is absolutely “Nothing about us without us”. Would it not have been good if somebody with Down’s syndrome could have stood here today to speak about it?
In the other place, there was a commitment to ensure co-production of the guidance. The co-production and co-delivery of training is embedded in the Oliver McGowan mandatory training amendment, which we have spoken about and which was approved just two days ago. I believe assurances from Ministers that the consultation on the development of the guidance will be fully inclusive.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke about 22q deletion syndrome. I know that the Minister in the other place specifically acknowledged that people with similar needs as people with Down’s syndrome would also be considered in the guidance. I believe that the Bill is another step on the way to improving access to the health, care, education and housing that all people with Down’s syndrome are entitled to in their desire to live fully participating lives in our shared world.
The former US President Calvin Coolidge said:
“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.”
I commit to continuing my drive to see people with Down’s syndrome and all people with learning disabilities lead full and healthy lives—ordinary lives—in inclusive communities. I believe that the first step to increase awareness and support for person-centred care for people with learning disability is to talk about it. The discourse in Parliament itself on this Bill is part of the jigsaw. Noble Lords will know that this was my approach in raising the issue of mental health up the agenda— first, get it on to the agenda. I am an optimist. I beg to move.
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 View all Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, this is a very straightforward Bill and I trust that it will be uncontroversial. It was introduced in the other place by my honourable friend for Wellingborough, Peter Bone, but there was, before that, an excellent debate—which I commend to anyone who wishes to read it—in Westminster Hall on 22 September last year, which was led by my right honourable friend for Chipping Barnet, Theresa Villiers, whose speech I will refer to extensively.
The essence of the Bill is that it removes EU rules that were created by an ECJ judgment in the Vnuk case. For background, if I might explain, Mr Vnuk was the victim of an accident involving a reversing tractor inside a barn in a farmyard in Slovenia. He took his compensation claim to the European Court of Justice. In the United Kingdom, an incident of this nature would be covered by our compulsory employers’ liability insurance regime, but not all EU member states have such a scheme to protect employees in the workplace.
In its 2014 judgment, the ECJ therefore shoehorned Mr Vnuk’s compensation claim into the EU’s motor insurance law. In so doing, it extended the scope of compulsory motor insurance to accidents on private land involving a very broad range of vehicles—essentially, anything with wheels and a motor that does not run on rails, no matter where it is used or for what purpose. This is, of course, manifestly different from the compulsory motor insurance requirements in the Road Traffic Act 1988, which applies to all vehicles that are permitted to be used on our streets and roads.
The UK’s approach to compulsory motor insurance has been consistent since the 1930s. It is proportionate and it works. However, Vnuk had direct effect in EU law, which means that it forms part of the retained EU law that we imported on to our domestic statute book via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As a result of cases in the UK courts, such as Lewis v Tindale, the UK’s compensation fund for people injured by uninsured drivers will now be obliged to pay out in the circumstances covered by the Vnuk judgment. For those who are not aware, the UK compensation fund is covered by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, to which I am grateful for its advice. Every driver who takes to our roads funds the scheme through his or her motor insurance premiums.
The combined effect of the Vnuk and Lewis cases and the 2018 Act is that the scheme now has to bear very significant costs for which it was never designed, and motorists are of course left picking up the bill. Let us be clear: we are talking about accidents on private land, in private gardens, in farmers’ fields, on golf courses, inside supermarkets, banks and offices—the list is long. These are places where what has happened, or even the fact that anything that has occurred at all, will often be difficult to establish with any clarity, which gives rise to worrying opportunities for fraud.
Now, if this ruling stands, the Government Actuary’s Department estimates that the annual costs to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau—and, therefore, to every driver in the country—could rise to over £2 billion. This equates to £50 on every vehicle insurance premium. Probably, of course, it would be more on younger drivers, who are seen as a bad risk.
This situation, and the ruling, have been heavily criticised. The EU is currently changing the rules—it is in the period of, I think, two years in which it has to change them—and changing the law, and the European Parliament’s rapporteur described the case’s consequences as “absurd overregulation”. It is a huge irony that we in the UK, having left the EU, are still stuck with a piece of law that the EU has changed. This is because it is now part of the retained EU law at the end of the transition period. It is an unfortunate and probably rather foolish omission on behalf of the UK Government.
This Bill puts that right. I want to be clear that this current law—the Vnuk law—covers mobility scooters, golf carts, sit-on mowers, quad bikes, the lot. I mention the last because a Conservative MP was fined a decade or so ago for driving his quad bike 100 yards along a public road, so the law works. He had no insurance; he was photographed by hunt saboteurs and prosecuted—I will tell people who it was if they want to ask me later.
I repeat that employers’ liability insurance is compulsory. As a farmer, for instance, I have third-party liability insurance, as do almost all farmers and as do golf courses and people like that. This Bill restores the situation, the status quo ante, before the Vnuk judgment. Various road traffic accidents will determine the insurance requirements. If we wish, at some stage, to determine that change is needed in the future, that will be achieved by proper legislation properly considered by Parliament. The Bill was not opposed, nor amended, in the other place. It has the support of the Government and, as I understand it, of the Opposition. Indeed, I shall close with the comments of the honourable Member for Bristol East—Kerry McCarthy, the shadow Minister for Transport—from 22 September:
“we have operated under the scheme set out in the Road Traffic Act for many decades. It is proportionate and it works.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/9/21; col. 181WH.]
I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said, the aim of this Private Member’s Bill—introduced in the Commons by the Conservative MP Peter Bone—is to reverse a 2014 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union that expanded the types of vehicles required to have compulsory third-party motor insurance. It received government support and, indeed, the Minister has written to me—for which I thank her—confirming the Government’s support for this Bill in the Lords and encouraging me to support it likewise.
Judging by the length of the list of speakers, I think that it could hardly be described as a Bill which has got the pulses racing in your Lordships’ House. Three speakers are listed and all three of us are here because we have to be here. This Bill appears, so far, to have been met with one long yawn in your Lordships’ House.
The Road Traffic Act 1988 limits compulsory insurance to drivers of vehicles on roads and in other public places. This legal position, as has been said, was altered by a decision in 2014 by the Court of Justice of the European Union which extended the requirement for compulsory motor insurance to include vehicles used on private land and to vehicles not constructed for road use. The ruling continued to have effect after the UK left the EU as part of retained EU case law.
According to the Government, the ruling would have led to a rise in motor insurance premiums because claims resulting from the expanded range of vehicles specified in the ruling are admissible by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, the MIB being a statutory body that operates a compensation scheme for victims who have suffered injury or loss as a result of uninsured or untraced drivers. The scheme is funded by a levy on motor insurance companies, with the costs of the levy ultimately capable of being passed on to motorists through increases in insurance premiums. The MIB is also responsible for meeting claims made by victims of accidents arising from the use of vehicles on private land, hence the significance of the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union as far as the MIB is concerned. As a result, an increase in the scope of claims payable by the MIB, such as that brought about by the ruling we are discussing, could increase insurance costs for motorists.
In her response, can the Minister clarify whether—and, if so, from when—the 2014 CJEU ruling has been applied in the UK? If it has—I am not sure it has—what has its impact been on insurance costs? If it has not, from when would it have become applicable had we not left the EU? The Government say that the ruling could lead to an average increase in premiums of £50 for each motorist.
In the Commons, the mover of the Bill stated that the CJEU ruling had led the EU to revise its European directive but that:
“The revisions it has made will fail to protect motorists in the EU from the associated costs of the compulsory insurance requirement on private land.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/22; col. 1209.]
As the Government are supporting the Bill, can the Minister confirm that the EU’s recent revisions to its European directive do not affect the Government’s assessment that the ruling could lead to an average increase in premiums of £50 for each motorist—in other words, that the £50 figure relates to the EU directive as now revised and not as it was at the time of the CJEU ruling?
The Association of British Insurers has stated that the additional insurance cover brought about by the CJEU ruling was not necessary in the UK because the claim would already have been covered by other insurance policies, such as compulsory employers’ liability and public liability. The Minister’s letter to me states that the Bill
“provides only positives: savings for motorists without any real reduction in consumer protection due to existing protections such as employers’ and public liability”.
What is the significance of saying “any real reduction”, as opposed to the completely unambiguous “any reduction”?
Would the CJEU ruling have led to greater protection for vehicles covered by the ruling—that is, vehicles used on private land; and a potentially greater range of vehicles, including non-roadgoing vehicles—than is provided at present by compulsory employers’ liability and public liability? In the context of that question, I refer to paragraph 19 of the impact assessment, which states:
“Bespoke insurance arrangements exist in the GB (and predate the Vnuk decision), such as employers’ liability and public liability insurance policies that cover some of the risks on private land. However, these do not provide as much cover as the Vnuk decision, but we consider that these are more appropriate forms of insurance to cover these risks, rather than motor insurance.”
Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but to me that paragraph suggests that the CJEU decision would provide greater cover than the existing arrangements under employers’ liability and public liability insurance. I would be obliged for a government response on that point.
This Bill will not reduce insurance premiums for motorists. The argument is that premiums will not go up as much as would otherwise have been the case if the CJEU ruling was implemented and that the additional cover provided by the CJEU ruling is already covered in this country by other insurance policies. If that is the case—and I have asked questions on that and on other points—we are not opposed to the Bill, and that stance is in line with the position we took when the Bill went through its Commons stages.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Robathan for bringing forward this Bill, which, as he noted, has already had a successful passage through the other place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his considered and thoughtful contribution. There is not much more that could be said about the Bill, but I am here as the Government and so I will put our view on record.
This is an important issue, and the Government have been clear since 2014 that they do not agree with the European Court of Justice’s ruling in the Vnuk case. That is why the Government support the Bill. The Vnuk decision created an unnecessary extension of motor insurance to private land, as well as to a potentially greater range of vehicles that could include everything from motorsports to agricultural and light vehicles. The excessive liabilities that this would place on the insurance industry and the potential increases to motorist’s insurance premiums are simply unacceptable and unnecessary. These liabilities and potential increases are not trivial. As noble Lords have pointed out, the Government expect that it could cost the industry about £2 billion a year.
Furthermore, if Vnuk had been implemented in full, it would have had a catastrophic impact on the motorsports industry. Drivers would have been likely to be required to purchase motor insurance to compensate injury caused to other drivers, stewards and spectators. Motorsports in the UK are safe and highly regulated. Employers’ liability and public liability already provide a high level of protection. Adding a motor insurance requirement would have brought little benefit at a very high cost—some £458 million per year—had Vnuk been implemented.
Stakeholders have consistently informed us that this would have been prohibitively expensive for the sector, effectively making most of the sector unviable. The sector turns over almost £3 billion annually and generates full-time employment for around 38,000 people and part-time work for a further 100,000 people.
This is why we announced in February 2021 that we will remove the effects of Vnuk from GB law. We said that this would include removing the associated financial liability imposed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau via the decision in the England and Wales Court of Appeal case of Lewis v Tindale.
I should note that colleagues in Northern Ireland are also progressing legislation in this area, and the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Bill completed its legislative passage in the Assembly earlier in March and is expected to become law by May this year.
There are other positive elements to the Bill. It will ensure that there is consistency across GB and, if the Northern Ireland Bill becomes law, which looks extremely likely, across the UK, which would be very welcome. It also heads off potentially enormous enforcement complications. Had we implemented Vnuk, the police would potentially have been required to monitor newly in scope vehicles never intended to go anywhere other than someone’s garden. The difficulty in gaining access to sites of collisions on private land may have led to the need for additional police powers and could also have had the practical effect of lowering the enforcement rate of uninsured vehicles and encouraging crime.
Implementing Vnuk would have meant that a huge range of newly in scope vehicles would suddenly have been required to be registered on the DVLA database, with license plates required—imagine having to register and stick a license plate on your ride-on lawnmower.
Turning to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I will write to him with further details because I sense that I probably do not have full answers to his questions, and they are very good ones. When we were a member of the EU, the Government continued to work on implementing the binding Vnuk judgment, which would have required very complex changes to our law. While the Government have always been clear about our dislike of Vnuk because of its significant negative impact, we have been equally clear that we had a legal obligation to change the law to reflect Vnuk, and we took a number of steps to respect those obligations. This included a consultation in 2016, which analysed the implications of the ruling and explored policy options. In parallel, we negotiated with the EU over what form the binding Vnuk judgment would take in its translation into the 2009 EU motor insurance directive. As soon as the transition period ended, the Government moved quickly to address this issue, but the pandemic and other challenges have combined to impose unique pressures on the Government, and resources have needed to be deployed accordingly. That is why I am so pleased that this Bill is likely to get the support of your Lordships’ House today.
On the second area that the noble Lord raised, I am afraid I will have to go back to Hansard and read his question about the £50 and whether it applies to the previous EU law or the current proposed EU law. I will write to him with more details.
On the phrase “real reduction”—rather than any reduction—of course, in any of these circumstances there will always be very small considerations. You could say, “Ah, but what about this and what about that?” That is why the Government are very pleased that we can look at those circumstances, now that we are outside the EU. We will keep our regulations relating to insurance under review, because we are always looking to improve the protection of victims and to improve safety, and will consider what else we might do should any gaps become clear. But it is the case that the Vnuk judgment resulted in an overbearing requirement for insurance in areas and on vehicles that it should not have.
The Bill does not have retrospective effect, and it will come into force two months following Royal Assent. All the provisions in the Bill will comprehensively remove the effect of Vnuk and Lewis from GB law. For these reasons, the Government support the Bill and welcome the great progress that it has made to date.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Government’s position, which was most useful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, from the Opposition Front Bench, for what I thought were very sensible questions. I think it has all been said, so I feel no requirement to detain the House any further. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House.
Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill
Friday 18th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 View all Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am delighted to be sponsoring this Bill here in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. It was steered successfully through the other place by my honourable friend Andrew Rosindell MP, who, as I think many Members in this House will realise, is a real champion of animal welfare.
The Bill will be part of the landscape of change that our farmers, animal keepers and animals deserve. I do not think I am speaking out of turn when I say that our high standards of animal health and welfare are something of which we as a nation are rightly proud. The Bill introduces a valuable addition to our enforcement tools to promote early redirection and positive behaviour change for those failing to meet these standards.
Let me give some context to the intention of the Bill. I apologise to noble Lords: I am normally very keen on making speeches as brief as possible, but I think it is worth getting as much as possible on the record—words I used to hate when I was a Whip—because not everybody will be here today to hear these words and it may give them some reassurance before we go further. I want to give an overview of the cross-compliance scheme, which currently sits under the EU common agricultural policy. Cross compliance is a system linking CAP payments to regulatory compliance, because the major vehicle for enforcement of standards on farms and its application of payment deduction is widely regarded as disproportionate. In this scheme, automatic and sometimes swingeing financial penalties can be imposed for non-compliance. Agricultural strategy and policy have been shaped by the CAP for more than 40 years. Now we have left the EU, we have an opportunity to replace this regime with a more proportionate and flexible approach.
As CAP payments wind down and with cross-compliance ending in 2024, there will be a wide enforcement gap between issuing advice and pursuing criminal prosecution. This would allow many offences to slip through the net without appropriate and proportionate recourse. We have an opportunity here to close this gap, improve enforcement on farms and provide new, more consistent penalties. The reason I say “more consistent penalties” is that, with this Bill, we have extended beyond farm animals to include all kept animals, including companion animals and zoo animals, as well as animal products and by-products. Penalties have been designed as the proportionate approach to redirect behaviour when animal keepers and businesses are falling short of the standards required of them. Defra Ministers have given assurances in the other place that penalty notices will not be appropriate for more serious offences—that is important. For these offences, prosecution is still the most appropriate course.
Just as the animal health and welfare pathway will provide advice and positive incentives to produce even healthier, higher-welfare farm animals, it is important to note that enforcement action starts with advice and guidance. It is important to give individuals a chance to comply before financial penalties are issued. The framework for penalty notices in the Bill will apply across animal health, welfare and biosecurity legislation. The measures in the Bill form part of a broader approach to maintaining and enhancing high domestic animal health and welfare standards, enhancing productivity and giving confidence to consumers and, indeed, international trading partners.
The Government published an Action Plan for Animal Welfare in May 2021, which sets out a range of reforms to ensure that the welfare of all animals builds on the UK’s high standards of animal welfare. These penalties are not intended to replace or substitute any of the other enforcement options we currently have, nor does the Bill introduce any new offences. It is not a stand-alone tool and we expect penalty notices to be used after or alongside advice, guidance or, indeed, an improvement notice. A financial penalty highlights the importance of complying with the rules and rectifying the issue. The use of the penalty notice does not mean that an individual can pay to shirk their responsibility: they would still need to put the issue right.
I shall give a brief overview of the content of the Bill as it is written. Again, I apologise for going through this, but it is important. Clause 1 defines the scope of legislation covered by the Bill and the role of enforcement authorities in issuing these penalties. It also sets out who the enforcement authorities may be. The Bill states seven pieces of primary legislation that it covers. I want to be clear that the Bill does not alter or create any new offences. Only the primary legislation and any subordinate legislation under that will be covered by these penalties. It covers only kept animals—so, for example, if something is not an offence already, this Bill will not make it an offence.
Clause 2 details the role of constables in issuing penalty notices under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Clause 3 is the workhorse of the Bill: it sets out the structure, including the maximum penalty, which is £5,000—I emphasise that that is a maximum penalty—with a reduction of 50% if the fine is paid within 14 days. It also specifies the burden of proof, which sets out that the enforcement authority must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in order to issue a penalty. Clause 4 details the measures in place to ensure that the Bill is a reasonable one. It sets out the matters that must be considered consistently by enforcement authorities to give protection both to the enforcement authorities and the individuals who receive penalty notices.
Clauses 5 and 6 state the responsibilities of enforcement authorities once a penalty notice has been issued. This includes the need to surrender any profits to the Consolidated Fund and the need to report annually on the usage of those penalties. In doing so, enforcers will be able to fund their enforcement of the law, but they will be unable to use these penalty notices as a revenue-raising tool—that is important.
Clause 7 emphasises that this is an enabling Bill and the usage of penalty notices will be determined by government, as it continues to engage with stakeholders, many of whom have acknowledged that this will be where the detailed work begins. It is also very important to emphasise that.
Clause 8 gives key definitions, including for local authorities, which by definition also includes unitary, district and metropolitan councils. Finally, Clause 9 gives information on the extent and commencement of the Bill.
I will refer back to a point I made about the type of offences that would be suitable for penalties. I have said that these financial penalties will not be suitable for the most serious offences. I know that officials in Defra have discussed this at length with key stakeholder groups. Animal cruelty offences are severe crimes that should face the full force of the law and the Bill does not intend to dilute their severity. The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act introduced longer prison sentences for crimes against animals and the Bill will not impede its operation.
As has been stated in the other place, these penalties are not to be used for severe offences that should be dealt with by the courts, if there is a concern that the Bill might water down the seriousness with which we respond to severe crimes. I reassure noble Lords that that is not the intention of the Bill; in fact, it is drafted to avoid this. The farming community understandably has a strong desire to understand how penalty notices will be used in practice. As I and others in the other place have said, penalty notices will not be issued for acts that should be prosecuted.
If noble Lords do not mind, I will talk through an example of where a financial penalty would be appropriate; it relates to bovine tuberculosis and the movement of animals. Post-movement tests are mandatory for cattle moved into parts of England with low TB risk from higher-risk areas. This is an important control that helps to protect the east and north of England. Within the areas in England with low TB risk, there may be less awareness of the implications of having to live with the disease because it is currently not a major concern for most who farm there. In many cases, a reminder of why it is important to comply with statutory disease controls will have the desired effect—but, for some individuals, that may not be sufficient. So although not testing is an offence, it is often not a proportionate measure to prosecute. A notice would be issued to the farmer to resolve the issue in a timely manner by carrying out the test. If it is not resolved, a penalty would be issued to highlight the importance of complying with the notice and reducing the risk of spreading the disease. I trust that this gives both noble Lords and indeed farming NGOs a greater understanding of where penalty notices will add value to our enforcement abilities.
I reiterate that the Bill extends beyond animal welfare alone: it covers legislation spanning health, welfare, biosecurity and animal by-products. The majority of offences captured by it fall under those other areas. For these offences, there is currently a gap in our enforcement options between advice and prosecution. Penalty notices are an additional tool, to be used alongside other tools to influence behaviour change.
Penalty notices are not a new introduction to the world of enforcement and, as many of your Lordships will know, they are already used in both civil and criminal enforcement regimes. England uses financial penalties for minor environmental offences, such as littering: a person who drops a cigarette butt on the floor may find themselves receiving a £50 fine. Although all environmental offences are wrong, we can see how this offence, compared to more serious environmental crimes, would be suited to a fine instead of pursuing a court case as a first step. This is the aim of the Bill: to introduce a financial penalty system that works for animal health and welfare offences too severe for just advice and guidance, yet not severe enough that pursuing a court case is an appropriate first step.
The devolved Administrations are also introducing financial penalties in the animal health and welfare space: Scotland introduced powers in 2020 to be able to introduce financial penalties in secondary legislation, and Wales has published a White Paper with proposals to use civil sanctions for relevant animal health and welfare offences. The Government are proposing criminal financial penalties in England so that we can have the option to still pursue court action in the event that an individual chooses not to pay the penalty.
The Bill itself introduces enabling powers, and much of the detail will be determined in the secondary legislation and formal guidance that is yet to come and which will be laid before Parliament. This Government have committed to ensuring that penalty notices are applied fairly by building on the matters to be considered in Clause 4; this is one of several safeguards in place.
It has been reiterated many times in the other place that officials are committed to working closely with stakeholder groups to make sure that these penalties are applied fairly and proportionately. I wish to highlight that commitment here, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister will do later. I make particular reference to my honourable friend Victoria Prentis MP, for her commitment in the other place.
It has been identified that the farming sector could benefit from a consideration period of two weeks, during which the inspector or enforcement authority takes some time between identifying the problem and issuing the penalty notice. This consideration period would allow for the issue to be put right and, if it is not, a penalty would be issued. After this consideration period and the issuing of a penalty, there is an additional safeguard in place: if an individual disagrees with a penalty they have been given, they have the option simply not to pay it. In this case, the enforcement authority would choose whether to pursue court action or not.
Let us not underestimate the significance of this safeguard. Enforcers would need to ensure sufficient evidence was collected to prove the guilt of the individual in order to take the case to court. This is no small task, and it is an extremely powerful safeguard, which I trust reassures noble Lords that these penalties will not be applied over-zealously. Although officials have identified the farming sector as one that would benefit from a consideration period, that does not mean that every offence or sector would benefit. The framework will allow for the issuing of on-the-spot fines and more delayed issuing if there is a consideration period in place.
I highlight that penalty notices will be tailored to fit the offence, and the animal sector in which it applies. Defra has committed to engaging fully with industry and other experts to decide how penalties will be used in practice. The general public, as well as noble Lords in this House, care greatly about animals in this country. This Bill is a small but important step towards improving the way in which we positively change behaviours that are harmful to the health and welfare of animals, as well as the biosecurity of our nation. The current enforcement toolkit needs additional options to tackle offences that are too severe for just advice and guidance, yet not severe enough for immediate criminal prosecution. This is a strong but simple tool that will clearly communicate the importance of following the rules we have in place.
To sum up, the Bill is broadly supported by the House, by animal health and welfare organisations and by the public. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register, and my membership of the National Farmers’ Union, which broadly welcomes and supports this Bill.
Like the noble Lord, I welcome this Bill, which fills an important gap in animal health and welfare legislation. My one concern—and this is the same issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Randall—relates to the lack of a defined appeal procedure in the primary legislation. Happily, the Farming Minister in the other place has now provided some clarity and assurance that discussion with involved parties will be at the centre of any enforcement proceedings and will be covered in secondary legislation. This will enable farmers to give reasons for an appeal before facing the blunt instrument of a penalty notice charge, which is important in cases where there is a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on either side. Without this assurance, the farmer has a choice only of paying the penalty or facing prosecution. A simple, specified appeal process before a prosecution would save a lot of time, aggravation and money for all concerned. Could the Minister reconfirm that that assurance will be covered in secondary legislation?
I make one other observation in relation to animal cruelty and the application of penalties. Like other sheep farmers in the Chilterns, we have faced an increasing number of attacks—including the horrific gouging out of newborn lambs’ eyes, and their consequent deaths—by ravens and red kites, both of which, despite their growing numbers, are protected birds and for which farmers cannot obtain a licence to kill. Only this morning—I do not exaggerate—I witnessed such an attack on a lamb by a raven. Surely, licences to shoot these birds should now be considered.
It seems a terrible irony that a farmer can be prosecuted but not those kites and corvids. Perhaps, however, the Minister could consider penalty action against those who introduce or release previously extinct and dangerous species, whether bird or mammal, into our countryside without also introducing the means to control them. Perhaps this could be covered in the animal sentience legislation, like the suffering of crustaceans. Surely, lambs have feelings too?
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward this Bill to your Lordships’ House today; I believe it to be a most worthwhile Bill. I, too, was initially approached by the Whips’ Office to promote it, but, thank heavens, my noble friend, who is always most knowledgeable and a stalwart on matters concerning animal welfare, pipped me to the post—I use that expression as it is a racing day, the Cheltenham Gold Cup. He possesses a much wider knowledge of these issues than I do.
I declare an interest as a non-farming member of the NFU, and as a member of BASC and of what was the Game Conservancy, the GWCT. I have a lifelong interest in domestic animals, agricultural animals and horses. I am a member of the APPG on horseracing and bloodstock.
I must say that I am not always supportive of the actions—or, sometimes, lack of them—of the RSPCA. In that respect, I have a couple of questions to pose to my noble friend Lord Randall or the Minister. Many years ago, my wife and I owned a child’s pony. The poor thing contracted African horse sickness, which is nearly always a fatal condition. We spent much time, effort and money on caring for him and treating him. A neighbour reported us to the RSPCA, which sent someone to look at the animal. He told us that we should have the pony dispatched, totally contrary to the advice of our expert horse vet. In such circumstances, under the terms of the Bill, would the RSPCA be able to issue a fixed penalty fine, even in the knowledge that we were sound on animal husbandry and were following the vet’s advice?
Secondly, when our daughter was at university, we loaned out her horse to someone who took the animal to DIY stables. Two years on, we were tipped off that the mare was not being cared for and was in an appalling condition, so we collected the animal and had to spend a great deal of money to bring her back to normal health. I reported the person to whom we loaned her, and the DIY yard, to the RSPCA. I have been in horses and racing all my life, and I have never seen a worse case of lack of adequate welfare. However, the RSPCA inspector who visited refused to take any action whatever, stating to me that he had seen pit ponies in worse condition. Under the terms of the Bill, would the person to whom the animal was loaned and the DIY yard where the animal was kept be liable for a fixed penalty?
I make one further point. I believe what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about corvids and red kites taking out the eyes of newborn lambs to be absolutely correct. These matters should be proportionate. When you reintroduce birds and various animals into the countryside environment where they have been either extinct or close to extinction, there should be a method for controlling them. At home, we have buzzards, so many we cannot count; originally, we had very few. The Wildlife and Countryside Act did a great deal of good, but we are now over-buzzarded and they are nothing but a nuisance and cause major problems.
I believe that the RSPCA carries out a very good job in general, and I applaud and wholly support the intention of my noble friend’s Bill. It provides a most sensible change to the current situation and an enhancement, and it will serve to ensure that this country’s enviable record worldwide on animal welfare goes forward successfully.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on his very detailed introduction to the Bill, which I understand has government support. I shall not repeat the rationale that the noble Lord so eloquently stated.
It is important that everything is done to protect animals, both farming and domestic. Most animals are well cared for but occasionally there are lapses either of care or of recording on farms. A system of penalty notices is an excellent bridging gap between providing advice and guidance or the prospect of a criminal prosecution.
In many debates over the last two years, the UK’s reputation as a world leader in animal welfare has been mentioned on many occasions. This is a reputation we should be justly proud of and protect into the future. The way in which both livestock and domestic pets are treated says what kind of a society we are and how we wish to be treated.
Occasionally there will be lapses due to the inaccurate completing of forms. In 2019, there were 45,000 farmers keeping cattle and 61,000 sheep farmers. Every movement must be recorded to protect public health. This is vital. I lived in rural Somerset for over 40 years but recently moved to Hampshire. Last week we received through the post a notice telling us that we were in an area where avian bird flu had been detected and advising us to keep any poultry we had inside—we do not currently have any. This was a first experience of such a notice for us. Only by keeping accurate records will such information be available to the general public. It is, therefore, quite right that action should be taken against those who either accidently or deliberately record details inaccurately.
A penalty notice is an excellent stepping stone to make farmers aware of their lapses and bring the constant offenders into line. The threat of a criminal prosecution should be a sufficient deterrent, but used for minor offences it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Far better to head this off for minor offences but to keep it for serious breaches of animal welfare where animals are suffering as a result of neglect or cruelty.
It is important that there are measures to ensure that those selling kittens and puppies must include their licence numbers on any online adverts and that microchipping of animals takes place before rehoming. Sadly, there are still those who seek to import puppies raised in puppy farms and not given the attention and care that we would expect when buying a puppy. A penalty proportionate to the harm caused is important to act both as a deterrent and as a measure to help safeguard vulnerable young animals.
On the detail of the Bill, which I suspect will not be debated in Committee, Clause 3 lists the various offences covered in the Bill. However, I note that it does not cover the Dangerous Dogs Act, which will continue to be within the remit of the police. However, some concern has been expressed by the public and the animal charities that the breeds of dogs covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act need reviewing and that some dogs are covered which are not believed to be dangerous. Are the Government considering reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act?
Clause (1)5 refers to
“persons who may be specified by regulations”
and paragraph (c) indicates that
“any other person that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
may enforce these regulations. This is very wide. Can the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, give an indication of just what kind of appropriate person this might be?
According to Clause 3(3)(a) the fixed penalty notice may not exceed £5,000, and paragraph (b) states that
“the maximum fine for which a person convicted of the offence is liable on summary conviction.”
Can the Minister say why this is not £5,000 and/or paragraph (b) instead of both? Can he also say whether the fixed penalty fine is a flat £5,000 or whether there is a sliding scale of fines up to a total of £5,000?
Clause 8 gives a list of the enforcement authorities and the explanation of what a “local authority” means—the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to this. Local authorities are currently under severe financial constraint. I am somewhat concerned that the fines imposed are to be paid into a consolidated fund, less expenses. What is the consolidated fund to be used for? This could appear a somewhat obscure tax and is likely, therefore, to be resisted. Is the consolidated fund to be used to reimburse local authorities for the work and expense that they will incur in carrying out the function of issuing fixed penalty notices? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has given some information on this.
This is an excellent piece of legislation that should make it easier for culprits to be brought to proportionate justice and to understand the implications of their actions in terms of animal cruelty. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and fully support the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for taking over the baton from his colleague Andrew Rosindell, who presented the Bill in the Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has been a doughty fighter for animal rights and the environment and he has made the case for the Bill very persuasively today. Of course, we recognise that this is effectively a government-sponsored Bill; it would not have got this far if it were not, so the issues that I raise today are ones to which we hope the Minister will be able to respond as much as the noble Lord who has sponsored the Bill.
In essence, we support the Bill. Anything that adds to the arsenal of measures that can be taken against those who transgress animal welfare legislation should be welcomed. However, as my shadow Defra colleague, Daniel Zeichner, made clear in the Commons, this applies only if these are additional measures that do not lead to a watering down of existing legislation. There is a danger that fixed penalty notices could be seen to trivialise more serious animal welfare abuses.
The Minister in the other place has already made clear that the new penalty notices framework is intended to be applied to existing offences already subject to prosecution—so they were judged worthy of prosecution by those drawing up the previous animal welfare legislation. These new fixed penalty notices also allow the offender to remain anonymous rather than publicly being held to account in the way that they would be if the case went to court. I am keen to seek assurance from the Minister that the application of fixed penalty notices will be only for administrative offences, such as failing to microchip a dog or indeed the examples that we have heard this afternoon about the movement of animals, rather than any animal neglect or abuse issues. This issue has been raised by the animal welfare charities and it would be good to get assurance on it on the record.
It is also clear that one reason for the Bill is to help tackle the backlog of court cases, which the Government have allowed to reach unacceptable levels. If this is the case, we would hope that the total number of cases for breaches of animal welfare legislation, either through fixed penalty or court hearings, should increase in total. I hope that the Minister can confirm that this is the Government’s intention. This point has been reinforced by the RSCPA, which rightly points out that, as the Bill is drafted, the number of fixed penalty notices issued by local authorities will be anonymised and/or amalgamated, so we may never know exactly how many have been issued. It is also important that enforcement bodies can share data and information, particularly when it comes to the movement of animals around the country and the need to track persistent offenders.
Our concern about the unintended consequences of the Bill have been raised by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Its concern is that the burden of proof in issuing fixed penalty notices is “beyond all reasonable doubt”, which is a higher test than the original legislation. Is there a danger that offenders will be let off for offences where they would otherwise have been found guilty? Does this mean that the number of successful cases will drop rather than rise?
There is also a more fundamental concern about the Bill: we do not know which offences in which Bills will be covered by the fixed-penalty provisions, as that is all to be set out in subsequent secondary legislation. There was some discussion in the Commons about a grid being produced to make clear what the intent is, so I am sorry that that suggestion has not yet reached fruition. This is the sort of issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee have raised concerns about in the past. We really are sailing in the dark in understanding the scope of the legislation before us today, and indeed when it comes to having a chance to influence the detailed provisions in the future. So while we understand the good intentions of those putting forward this legislation, there remains a nagging concern that it could result in a less rigorous and effective regime.
The RSPCA has raised some points of detail that I would be grateful if the Minister could address. Can we be assured that the enforcement officers given the powers to award fixed-penalty notices are appropriately trained and assessed as competent? It would certainly be easier if the powers were limited to use by animal health or welfare officers who have already reached a level of training and competence.
Is it intended that prosecutions for the same offence could still occur if the fixed-penalty notice is not paid or the behaviour that resulted in the notice is not rectified? Otherwise, fixed-penalty notices might become discredited and allow repeated breaches of the animal welfare legislation to carry on unchecked.
The maximum fixed-penalty notice fine is set at £5,000, but is it intended that guidance will be issued, setting out the breaches of legislation that could incur this maximum fine? Otherwise, enforcement officers might opt for trivially small sums that did not match the seriousness of the crime.
There are many questions that still need to be resolved and I hope the Minister will be able to address some of them today. I also hope that, in taking the legislation forward, he will agree to work closely with the animal welfare charities, so that we end up with legislation that strengthens our existing legislation and drives up animal welfare provision in this country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for his sponsorship of this important Bill and for his continuous and totally reliable championing of animal welfare, both in this place and previously in the other place. Supporting the Bill is part of the Government’s continued commitment to improving animal health and welfare. While the Sentencing Act allows for higher sentencing for the worst cases of animal cruelty, the Bill will allow for the introduction of financial penalties to address less serious offences.
We in this country are rightly proud of our high standards and strive to maintain and improve our position as world leaders in animal health and welfare. As a society, we continue to demand these high standards from all those who keep animals, whether they are companions in our homes, work by our sides or help to produce the food that we eat. The Government are therefore committed to addressing not only the most abhorrent acts of cruelty but those less serious offences that, when ignored, could escalate, posing a greater risk to our nation’s animals.
We currently lack an enforcement option that will sit between and work with warning letters or improvement notices before criminal prosecution is undertaken. The Bill introduces a new system of financial penalties for animal health and welfare offences. It is simple but vital, as it will allow enforcers to deliver an effective and proportionate penalty to those who break the rules. Though straightforward, this measure has the potential to have a significant impact on how our standards are enforced.
A useful example of that might be if a pet breeder fails to include their licence number in online adverts for puppies and kittens. Businesses that breed animals must have a valid licence. Accidentally missing the licence number from an advert or forgetting to microchip animals before rehoming them might seem trivial and unimportant, but proper registration is critical to ensure that people can buy pets with confidence from a legitimate source and with the high health and welfare standards that they rightly expect. That is where a penalty notice is useful.
We must look at the bigger picture when it comes to enforcement and, of course, we must get the balance right. We want to provide early redirection to guide people towards compliance but not arbitrarily penalise those who have made genuine mistakes. I am sure that we can all appreciate the need for a different approach for someone who has accidentally forgotten to log an animal’s movement, for example, and the cruellest acts of animal abuse. This Bill will support that early redirection, so we can reach our shared goals of protecting and improving the health and welfare of our animals.
I will briefly answer one of the questions put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, whom I thank very much for her constructive words. I will make it clear that criminal prosecution will always be the most appropriate course of action for the most serious crimes. The introduction of penalty notices absolutely will not water down our ability to prosecute those who commit them. It will, however, provide a means for enforcers to consider less serious transgressions. I will return to this point in a few moments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has so eloquently explained, this Bill covers a vast range of legislation. It will create a practical and consistent tool for enforcers across the animal health and welfare space. Other offences in comparable areas can lead to a £5,000 penalty, such as offences under the eggs and chicks regulations, and offences for fishing under the Marine Management Organisation. We consider it to be proportional, therefore, for penalty notices to have an equivalent maximum of £5,000. The Bill also provides enabling powers and allows offences to be “turned on” via secondary legislation. This ensures a targeted approach which considers the differences across sectors and species. Determining which offences will have options for on-the-spot fines, versus consideration periods, will be part of the discussion officials have with NGOs, subject matter experts and enforcement authorities, should this Bill pass and become law.
I will now respond to a comment raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. In some sectors, like farming, there will be a period of consideration for the inspector and the animal keeper—as the noble Lord acknowledged in his remarks. This will sit in between an inspection and an offer of penalty notice. It will allow the farmer or animal keeper the time they need to present additional information, or a chance to rectify the issue in a reasonable timeframe. As the noble Lord also acknowledged, this commitment was made very clearly at Third Reading in the other house by the honourable Member for North Oxfordshire on 4 February. In her speech, she used bovine TB testing as an example of how this option might be used.
I turn now to the appeals process more broadly. I will avoid going into the minutiae, but I am happy to do so if noble Lords ask me to. Penalty notices have been designed with the safeguarding of farmers, animal keepers and animals themselves in mind. The Bill establishes that an enforcement authority can withdraw a penalty notice at any time before payment, allowing for any misapplication of the penalty notice to be rectified. One imagines that this makes the appeals process much smoother, less bureaucratic, less cumbersome and more doable. To encourage a consistent approach to enforcement, the Bill makes it a mandatory requirement for enforcers to follow the guidance that will be laid before Parliament.
I will briefly return to another of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about engagement with stakeholders. I absolutely commit that we will engage fully with industry and other experts to determine the way penalties are applied to each relevant offence. I hope that in my earlier remarks I reassured the noble Baroness following her concerns that this might lead to watering down. It is absolutely not designed, in any way, to lead to watering down. However, in response to the second part of her question, penalty notices are not designed to replace any of the existing enforcement tools which we have already. That is not the purpose. Clearly, they will not be appropriate every time an offence is committed. Instead, they are designed to complement the existing enforcement for animal health and welfare offences. Enforcement authorities will be required to consider a set of factors when determining whether a penalty notice is appropriate, and the level of that penalty. The correct place to do this will be through secondary legislation and guidance. We have been clear that we will deliver a targeted and tailored approach to meet the sector’s needs. I reiterate the reassurances which have been made in the other place in the strongest possible terms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a number of questions. The first was simply in relation to the £5,000 fine. I hope that I have already responded implicitly in what I have said so far. This is not a set fine but the maximum—as my noble friend Lord Randall pointed out. It is, therefore, a sliding scale. Not every fine will be £5,000; some will be very much less than that. Clause 4 outlines the factors which the enforcement authorities will need to consider when determining the appropriate level of penalty. Enforcers will be required to follow the guidance which we will lay and publish when deciding the level of the fine.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Consolidated Fund. The enforcement authorities will be able to retain the costs incurred from issuing penalty notices, but any surplus will be surrendered to the Treasury. It is not a revenue-raising exercise. That is not its purpose. The costs will be recovered.
I thank my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for his remarks generally and his support for this. He gave an example of his own pony suffering from African horse sickness. Clearly his actions were designed to be and were compassionate. It is impossible to imagine that they would fall foul of the rules that we are legislating for today. It would not be appropriate for me to go into details and rule de facto on specific cases, but his starting position and assumptions are entirely right. We have committed to work with a very wide range of stakeholders, including the enforcers, on precisely which offences would qualify for penalty notices. He mentioned one or two charities, such as the RSPCA, which I think, as he does, does a great job. They do not always get things right, but the legislation that we are putting in place here does not require the Government to include charities as enforcement authorities. There are currently no plans for the Government to do so, but it is possible under the Bill’s provisions. Obviously, this will need to be done with full consultation and enormous care, but I struggle to imagine that the examples which he gave would not pass the test that he himself has just set.
I hope that I have covered most of the questions put to me by noble Lords. If any remain, I am very happy to follow up in writing. I know that my noble friend Lord Randall has also made himself available to talk to noble Lords if there are any issues that have not been covered in this debate. In the meantime, I conclude by thanking noble Lords again for their involvement in today’s debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Randall. It is testament to his commitment that he is here, having just pulled through Covid. He cannot have enjoyed standing and speaking for as long as he did earlier, but I am thrilled to see him back. I also thank the NGOs, including the RSPCA and the National Farmers’ Union, which have been instrumental in supporting the Bill to this stage.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the consideration and contributions that they have given today. I sincerely thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s continued support for this Bill and for endeavouring to answer some of the questions. I am sure that between us we can reassure on some of those other questions that have remained not quite answered. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its remaining stages.
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He was almost enticing me to go down the path regarding kites and ravens but it is not in this Bill and, as a council member of the RSPB, I do not want to get completely taken down there. However, on that issue, which my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury also mentioned, the populations of some of these have grown exponentially. Only a couple of days ago I heard the first raven over suburban Uxbridge. We do not have many sheep farmers there, but these things are growing; I hear kites regularly. Although it is not in this Bill, we must have a mature discussion about this, otherwise farmers and other landowners might take the law into their own hands and do illegal activities which make the whole situation worse. I echo that.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is far too modest. If I had known that he could have taken this through, I would have been only too delighted to defer to him. As we have heard, his experience with horses and other things far exceeds my own—so I will see if I can find him a job somewhere.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, wanted to take us a little bit down the path of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which I do not think is in this Bill. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for some pertinent questions and will give her the reassurance I can: when it comes to secondary legislation, I shall keep a close eye on this as well. Statutory instruments are not always the thing that people like to get involved with, but they are probably some of the most important things. I often think that some of the strangest measures, certainly in the other House, are passed on a wet Wednesday afternoon when nobody is watching. So we will have to keep an eye on that.
Anyway, I again thank my noble friend the Minister very much. I also extend my sincere gratitude to those outside the House who have given unrelenting commitment to working with officials to take the Bill to where it is today. As my noble friend the Minister said, I know that officials have engaged particularly with the RSPCA and the National Farmers’ Union, and I am thrilled that constructive meetings have brought us to a place of agreement and contentment—he said hopefully. Officials are fully committed to continuing this engagement when we move to the next stage, which will include, importantly, writing the official guidance and drafting the secondary legislation.
I also thank very much the officials in Defra and the Government Whips’ Office who helped with the preparation for the Bill’s Second Reading and gave me more eloquence than I would normally exude. I close by once again expressing my gratitude to all noble Lords here today. I very hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.