House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Mr Speaker, I thank you and the team at the Houses of Parliament for the unveiling this morning of the plaque recognising Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson.
We cannot allow the Northern Ireland protocol to continue to prevent the free movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is why we have introduced legislation that will allow businesses to trade freely again. We are providing reassurance for business by continuing to operate the standstill arrangements, and we will work with businesses on the details of any new models.
Nick Fletcher
Does the Secretary of State agree that trade between our Union is of the utmost importance and that we should do all we can in this place to make sure it is not hindered in any way?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely—the Government are steadfastly committed to Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom. We will never be neutral on the Union. The proposed legislation we recently introduced will fix the practical problems the protocol has created in Northern Ireland, avoiding a hard border, protecting the integrity of the UK and safeguarding the EU single market.
Dr James Davies
Businesses based in Great Britain, such as the Snowdonia Cheese Company in my constituency, tell me that while it is possible for them to trade with Northern Ireland, doing so can be very involved, costly and restrictive. The current application of the Northern Ireland protocol is therefore hampering business growth and success. Will my right hon. Friend confirm how businesses like Snowdonia Cheese stand to benefit from the provisions in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point on why the Bill matters. Freedom to move products within the UK’s internal market without impediment is critical. The proposed legislation will enable businesses to trade freely once again by delivering new green and red lane arrangements. It will remove unnecessary costs and work for businesses trading within the UK, while ensuring the necessary checks are done, quite properly, for goods entering the EU.
Alexander Stafford
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will continue to work closely with businesses to ensure that we address all their needs, so that trade with Northern Ireland and Rother Valley boom?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. We want to see trade booming across the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom. We will continue to work closely with businesses. The purpose of the secondary legislative powers in the Bill is to allow us to flesh out precise technical details in our proposals, working with business, who we will always engage with, to ensure that our solutions work and deliver for them and for the people of Northern Ireland. We will be doing that with them, as well as with other stakeholders, both in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, over the next months to ensure that the new systems address their needs.
Caroline Ansell
As my right hon. Friend says, there are huge opportunities for trade within the Union, including with spaceports in Cornwall and Scotland. Given Northern Ireland’s expertise and strength in the manufacture of spacecraft components, can my right hon. Friend assure me that when it comes to procurement, businesses in Northern Ireland are as well placed as any to bid for these—I cannot resist this—stellar opportunities?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is always fired on rocket-powered fuel when asking direct questions like that—and I am afraid that, no, I cannot top that.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Northern Ireland has real expertise in advanced engineering, manufacturing and aerospace. It is right that we take measures, in taking the Bill through, to ensure that businesses across the United Kingdom—and yes, from my point of view, obviously, predominantly those businesses in Northern Ireland—can absolutely benefit from the opportunities that are there for the UK, bringing UK businesses together in a global way that can see their business grow and create more jobs.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Government claim that their protocol Bill is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement, while being in the middle of a demolition derby of its core values, creating regression and polarisation that will take us years to fix. The Secretary of State should know that the Human Rights Act is a cornerstone commitment of the Good Friday agreement. What legal advice has he received and what representations has he made to Cabinet colleagues about the compatibility of the Bill of Rights and the 1998 agreement that he is charged with protecting?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important that we deliver and protect all aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement; I have made the point several times at the Dispatch Box over the past couple of years that we have to ensure that we protect all three strands, not just one. I am pleased that the hon. Lady recently said:
“I do not love the protocol”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 374WH.]
There is no doubt that there are a lot of challenges for businesses, so I hope that she will support the Bill, which seeks to fix those challenges.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The latest business to report disruption to its supply is a photo-framing business in Newtownards whose supplier has said that the profit margin is not worth the hassle of sending its order, so it has been cancelled. That is another of the 200 companies that trade between England and Northern Ireland; the tale is repeated for businesses in every postcode. The Government must do the right thing and restore our position, not just constitutionally but financially for businesses. Will the Secretary of State give a date for the withdrawal Bill’s Second Reading?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot confirm the exact date at this point, but we have introduced the Bill and he can be reassured that the Government are committed to resolving the problems with the protocol, restoring the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and restoring sovereignty and territorial integrity for the whole United Kingdom. It is imperative that we ensure that people in Northern Ireland have the same benefits, laws and courts as everybody everywhere else in the United Kingdom. I have been very clear that, as part of that, we want to ensure that we deliver strand 1, which means the reformation of the Northern Ireland Executive as soon as possible.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Even a fool now knows that Brexit has damaged UK trade and GDP, but do the Government have any assessment of the GDP gain and the benefit to business that the protocol has given Northern Ireland, especially as it is the only part of the UK outside London to record growth, and the only part of the UK inside the single market? It is no coincidence that it has seen growth.
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman does a bit of research, he will see that it is actually quite a complicated picture. It is good to see Northern Ireland growing back quickly: with a larger proportion of the economy in Northern Ireland based on the public sector, and with the phenomenal support that the Chancellor has put in, that is to be welcomed. We want to see Northern Ireland’s economy growing; it was struggling before covid. We are making sure to put that support in, but I have to say that that would be even easier were it not for the protocol, which is preventing some of the Chancellor’s measures from benefiting the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given that so much policy that affects and benefits business is devolved, is not the best support that politicians of all stripes could give Northern Irish business to get Stormont back up and running?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all want to see Stormont back up and running. It is important that we see all the Ministers back with their full powers. We have caretaker Ministers in place now, thanks to legislation that we passed recently, but having Stormont making spending decisions, getting money out the door and supporting businesses and people in Northern Ireland is the right thing to do.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues about issues affecting Northern Ireland more widely, including the Northern Ireland protocol.
Justin Madders
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which represents 14 industries, released a statement last week stating that
“there are significant concerns about the introduction of an all-encompassing dual regulatory regime.”
I understand that dairy farmers have similar concerns. Having heard about those issues, can the Secretary of State tell us what consultation the Government did with businesses before introducing this regime?
Brandon Lewis
We are in continual engagement with business. We have had more than two meetings a month with the wider group, and the Minister of State and I have made more than 30 visits to businesses that are members of those groups. We are in constant communication with business. It is important that we design the details in conjunction with business to ensure that businesses that are doing well and sectors such as dairy that benefit from the economy across the island of Ireland do not lose out. We must also ensure that we deliver for the businesses that are so detrimentally affected by the problems with the EU’s implementation of the protocol.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The EU is rightfully focused on protecting its own single market, but may I respectfully request that we first and foremost protect the single market of the United Kingdom? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the practical and durable solution set out in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill will do just that?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is spot on, as ever. Our legislation will restore the balance inherent in the objectives of the protocol, avoiding a hard border, protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom and safeguarding the EU single market. It is right that we are doing the right thing by the businesses and citizens of Northern Ireland, who are businesses and citizens of the United Kingdom and the UK internal market.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
When the Government introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the Secretary of State was quite honest about his lawbreaking, and here we are again. The man who resigned over his actions, the former head of the Government Legal Department, says that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is “next-level” lawbreaking. Based on this Government’s track record, why should anyone believe what the Minister claims about this Bill’s legality?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman tends to make a habit of standing at the Dispatch Box and taking the side of the EU over the UK, which is disappointing: what he should be doing is supporting the UK economy and supporting businesses and people in Northern Ireland, who want to see a resolution. We have set out a package in this legislation that is within the law and delivers for the people of Northern Ireland by delivering on what should be the priority for all of us: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, in all three strands.
Peter Kyle
The Secretary of State mentions the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, but the Foreign Secretary argues for unilateral action on the protocol because it does not have the necessary support in one of the communities in Northern Ireland. I say that the EU must show more flexibility and listen to the Unionist concerns, but if cross-community support is so important to the Government, can he confirm that the current plans also have the support of the nationalist community?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman talks about the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but his tweets in the last couple of weeks have highlighted that he has possibly not even read it; I suggest that he at least gets equipped with who the signatories to the agreement are, so that he understands who the co-guarantors are.
We are focused on delivering all three strands of the agreement. One thing that has been common and clear from the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland is that, in one form or another, they all—nationalists and Unionists—want to see changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. They all acknowledge that there are problems with it and that it is not working for businesses and citizens in Northern Ireland. Eventually, if we are not able to get an agreement with the EU, we will have to take forward measures to secure a resolution of the problems that all those people and businesses are outlining. We would rather do that by agreement with the EU, but it is right that we take action.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The EU has threatened to remove access for Northern Ireland businesses to the single market. To police this, it would have to create a hard border on the island of Ireland; that is the only consequence of its actions. Does the Secretary of State agree that such a threat from the EU indicates that, far from wanting to protect the Good Friday agreement and peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it simply wants to punish Northern Ireland businesses because the UK Government want to protect the UK internal market?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is right that we are looking to deliver on all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We will never be looking at any sort of infrastructure; there cannot be a hard border on the island, in the same way that there should not be a hard border between east and west. That is the issue of the three strands. We recognise that the EU’s focus is on its single market. We recognise that we will ensure that its single market is protected, but we will defend all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The Secretary of State will be aware that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has stated that the protocol presents a real risk to the Good Friday agreement. Does he agree that the agreement and the political institutions can operate only on the basis of cross-community consensus and not the majority rule that some in this House are now advocating? Does he also agree that in order to achieve that cross-community consensus, the Government need to proceed with legislation that will resolve the real difficulties that the protocol is presenting for the people of Northern Ireland and our place in the Union?
Brandon Lewis
Yes; the Government have been clear that we are determined that the political settlement in Northern Ireland is based on respect and understanding between all communities and the consent of those communities. The protocol is clearly undermining that, and that has to be resolved. That is what we are seeking to do through our legislation. We would like to get an agreement with the EU, but we need to move on and get this legislation in place as we have been unable to secure that agreement with the EU, in order to protect the internal market of the UK, the people and businesses of Northern Ireland and all three aspects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Government invested a great deal of good faith in signing the protocol and they were entitled to expect the same good faith in return. It is now pretty clear that the protocol, in practice, has not proved to be compatible with the Good Friday agreement. Will the Government now consider triggering article 16, particularly given the casual, if fleeting, use of that measure by Ursula von der Leyen?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about how the EU has already triggered article 16, for example, to create disruption with the vaccine roll-out during covid, which highlighted how it views the north-south potential and the potential of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are determined to resolve the issues overall. As we have said previously, we do not want to trigger article 16. We take nothing off the table, but we are very clear that our proposed legislation resolves the issues that the protocol is creating and it is the right move to take.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Our preference remains to resolve the problems with the protocol through talks. Our door remains open to discussions, but the EU has so far not been willing to make meaningful changes to the protocol, which are necessary to deliver the solutions needed.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the Government walked away from negotiations. By rejecting negotiation in favour of lawbreaking and, in doing so, disregarding the wishes of the majority of MLAs, businesses and the Northern Irish public, the UK Government have utterly destroyed the trust that not only the EU had in the UK, but that Ireland and the United States had too. Trust is easily lost and hard won, so how do the Government plan to be seen as a good faith partner in international negotiations ever again?
Brandon Lewis
Last year, we published a Command Paper that set out solutions, with which the EU has never properly engaged. It did publish its ideas in October, which the business community in Northern Ireland said did not work. We have continually been in engagements and negotiations with the EU. It has been clear that it is not willing to show the flexibility needed to resolve the protocol issues, which is why we have introduced this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman might want to look back at Hansard to see the statement from the Foreign Secretary when we introduced the Bill. We are very clear, as I have said today, that we will continue to negotiate with the EU. We would like to seek a resolution by agreeing with the EU, but it is right that we table this legislation at this point as well to resolve the issues.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Belfast harbour has reported levels of trade and increase in turnover of profits of 17% to £73.3 million from 2021, with pre-tax profits up 13% to £34 million. Can the Secretary of State advise the House why their Government would jeopardise 25.6 million tonnes of cargo, a 9% increase on the 23.5 million a year earlier, which was up by 5% on the previous record levels of 2019, by unilaterally changing the Northern Ireland protocol?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman should read the full article, because then he would realise that, between the easements, the standstill and the grace periods, we are not actually fully implementing the protocol let alone the other business that Belfast harbour takes in that has nothing to do with the protocol. What we do know is that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Docherty-Hughes, I think those whippets that you own need a little walk. That is where you will be going shortly.
Brandon Lewis
I will leave the hon. Gentleman to read the article, so that he can realise just how wrong his question was.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Many of the issues related to trade and movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are plant and animal-related. What progress have the Government made in trying to secure an arrangement between the UK and the EU on veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary matters? That would address these issues and also enhance the UK’s biosecurity.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One frustration with this failure by the EU to see the flexibility that we need is that, by resolving some of these issues, we could have avoided the need for us to legislate and to take this period of time to resolve things. Our legislation will resolve all of these issues and create a method that not only protects the EU single market, but, importantly, works for businesses, works for citizens, and works for all three aspects of the Good Friday agreement, dealing with those very issues that he raises.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
One of my predecessors in Redcar was the political giant Dr Marjorie Mowlam, most notable for her work in securing the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Can the Minister confirm that any arrangement we reach with the EU in relation to the protocol will take account of and address the issues that are disrupting the delicate balance of that agreement?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we respect the balance in that agreement. It is important because it has given us peace for 24 years, and that is where our focus is.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I have to remind the Secretary of State that it was this Government who signed up to the trade and co-operation agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol as it currently stands. It might not be necessary to try to renegotiate had more time been given over to this Chamber to allow Members to scrutinise it before it entered into law. Does the Secretary of State regret the decision taken by the Government to curtail the amount of parliamentary time available to Members to scrutinise that before Brexit was done?
Brandon Lewis
I think the hon. Gentleman is arguing to go back in time and take even longer to get Brexit done. I am not sure the British public or anybody would thank him for that, but of course the business of the House is generally agreed through the usual channels; that is always the case.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Conor Burns)
The challenges faced by the public across the United Kingdom in terms of the cost of living are the dominant issue facing British politics. The Government are acting decisively to ensure that we provide support to the most vulnerable households. The biggest thing we could do in Northern Ireland would be to restore devolved Government, so that we have a Government who can act for the people of Northern Ireland, as the Government of the United Kingdom are acting in England, Scotland and Wales.
Liz Twist
The Minister will be well aware that the energy price cap does not exist in Northern Ireland, leaving households vulnerable to the price hikes of up to 33% we have seen in recent months. The Treasury said in May that it was urgently working to step in to provide direct support due to the lack of an Executive. Can the Government now lay out how the £400 energy discount will be delivered in Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
We are very clear on this. The way that it should be delivered is through restored devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the impediment to that, as the hon. Lady will know, is the interpretation and application of the Northern Ireland protocol. As I have said clearly to Members from the Democratic Unionist party, that is a matter for the United Kingdom to negotiate with the European Union, or we can take legislative measures in this House, as we are doing. They should be back in Government delivering for the people of Northern Ireland on the mandate delivered in May.
Chris Elmore
An Ulster Bank report last week contained the worrying result that Northern Irish firms are the least optimistic of any firms in a UK nation or region about activity in 12 months’ time. What further support can the Government offer to businesses in Northern Ireland that are struggling with this Tory cost of living crisis?
Conor Burns
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is an international challenge that has been exacerbated by the situation in Ukraine and Russia, and the Government are delivering decisive action and interventions to help people through this incredibly challenging situation—probably the most challenging situation that we have faced for a generation. In Northern Ireland, we have New Decade, New Approach funding, city and growth deals, the levelling-up agenda and the community shared ownership funding. We are making a plethora of interventions in Northern Ireland to make life for ordinary people better than it is already.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have listened to one of the most able members of the Government and his thoughtful response. If the problem really is the Northern Ireland protocol, how on earth are we going to get the EU to see sense?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend asks some of the most devastating supplementary questions. We are very straightforward on this: we are simply saying to the European Union—I have been explaining this on behalf of the Prime Minister in the United States—that goods that are moving within the United Kingdom’s internal market and destined for sale and consumption in Northern Ireland, and that will never see dawn or dusk in the Irish Republic, pose absolutely no risk whatsoever to the integrity of the European single market. I spent time two weeks ago with Tony Blair, who has produced an amazing report that says that the European Union needs to find the room to move. Vice-President Šefčovič needs to be given a broader mandate. I say to my hon. Friend that it absolutely remains the determination of the Government to reach a conclusion on the protocol in negotiation, friendship and partnership with the European Union.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Because of the Barnett formula—something that the SNP would do away with for Scotland—our whole United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, will benefit from the £81 billion household support fund, including £14 million for Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will help the most vulnerable households in Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
As almost always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I met Jonny Petrie, chief executive of Ulster Rugby, about the club’s plans to apply for levelling-up funding to improve sporting facilities, including for community clubs across Northern Ireland, that would support the health and wellbeing of local people. Will the Government commit to considering funding development of these facilities so that Northern Ireland can attract major sporting and cultural events that would deliver much-needed tourism, jobs and money to the people of Northern Ireland?
Conor Burns
I am delighted—[Interruption.] Thank you for that thunderous welcome back to the Dispatch Box. I am happy to say to the shadow Minister that we will absolutely do that. Only yesterday I was in Carrickfergus with the son-in-law of an hon. Gentleman on the Benches opposite seeing a new 5G pitch. We are absolutely committed to levelling up. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, levelling up is the mission of this Government. It is not about north-south; it is about improving life opportunities in communities across the whole of the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker
That must be the loudest cheer any Minister has had—well done, Minister!
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
To mark Windrush Day, today sees the unveiling of a national monument at Waterloo station that acknowledges the Windrush generation’s outstanding contribution to British society and will also be a permanent place of reflection.
As part of Armed Forces Week, I was delighted to host a reception yesterday in Downing Street. Members across the House are immensely proud of our armed forces and we thank them and their families for their service to our country.
I know the House will welcome the deal that we have signed with Moderna, which will see it build new facilities in the UK, including around £1 billion of new investment in research and development.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today. I will be travelling thereafter to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, and I will then be attending the G7 leaders summit and the NATO summit, Mr Speaker, so a full budget of news for you there.
Chris Elmore
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments in relation to the armed forces and other comments?
Has the Prime Minister ever considered the appointment of his current spouse to a Government post or to any organisation in one of the royal households? Be honest, Prime Minister—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I know why Labour Members want to talk about non-existent jobs in the media—because they do not want to talk about what is going on in the real world. I am proud to say that we now have 620,000 more people in payroll employment than before the pandemic began, which would never have been possible if we had listened to the Leader of the Opposition.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion this type of approach, which makes a real difference to people’s lives and people suffering from mental health issues, helping them to find a route back into work. That is why we are commissioning more initiatives through funds such as the life chances fund, helping those people in society who face the biggest barriers to have happy and productive lives.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Windrush, and pay tribute to everyone who is serving and has served in our armed forces? Can I also pay tribute to everyone standing for election tomorrow and in particular the plucky Conservative candidate for Wakefield? He is standing, even though his own colleagues think he is so useless that they held a vote of no confidence in him. Does the Prime Minister hold any personal interest in seeing if the public will vote for a Tory who even his own side do not think is up to it?
The Prime Minister
I have absolutely no doubt that the people of this country, and the people of Wakefield and of Tiverton and Honiton, would much rather vote for a solid Conservative Government than a Labour party and its enablers and acolytes in the Liberal Democrats—the karma chameleons of British politics—when the leader of the Labour party has not even got the gumption to speak out against the rail strikes that have caused so much damage to the people in the north of this country and up and down the country. There is unbelievable silence from the leader of the Labour party.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister has obviously not been to Wakefield recently. He has crashed the economy and he has put everybody’s tax up. The last Tory he sent up to Wakefield was convicted of a sexual assault. That is not much of a pitch, Prime Minister. Talking of people not up to the job, while the Transport Secretary spends his time working on his spreadsheet tracking the Prime Minister’s unpopularity, thousands of families have had their holiday flights cancelled, it takes forever to renew a driving licence or passport and now we have the biggest rail strike in 30 years. If the Prime Minister is genuine—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Both sides, let us calm down. We have only just started. The problem is, it will go on forever, and nobody wants that, I assure you, whoever is speaking or asking questions.
Keir Starmer
If the Prime Minister is genuine about preventing strikes, will he tell this House how many meetings he or his Transport Secretary have had with rail workers this week to actually stop the strikes?
The Prime Minister
This is the Government who love the railways and who invest in the railways. We are putting £96 billion into the integrated railway plan. I am proud to have built Crossrail, by the way, and we are going to build Northern Powerhouse Rail, but we have got to modernise our railways. It is a disgrace, when we are planning to make sure that we do not have ticket offices that sell fewer than one ticket every hour, that yesterday the right hon. and learned Gentleman had 25 Labour MPs out on the picket line, defying instructions—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer, even if some Members do not. I think they ought to show some respect to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
There were 25 Labour MPs and the shadow deputy leader out on the picket line, backing the strikers, while we back the strivers.
Keir Starmer
I am surprised the Prime Minister is giving me advice about my team. If I do need advice, let us say, about a £100,000 job at the Foreign Office, I will ask him for a recommendation.
There you have it, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister of this country and his Transport Secretary have not attended a single meeting, held a conversation or lifted a finger to stop these strikes. But I did note that on Monday they found time to go to a lavish ball, where the Prime Minister sold a meeting with himself for £120,000 to a donor. If there is money coming his way, he is there. When it comes to the country, he is nowhere to be seen. Rather than blame everyone else, why does he not do his job, get round the table and get the trains running?
The Prime Minister
We are making sure that we do everything we can to prevent these strikes. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is up to the railway companies to negotiate—that is their job. We spent £16 billion looking after the railways throughout the pandemic. That has cost every household £600. We know why he takes the line he does; we know why he will not condemn the strikes; and we know why, even now, he does not have the gumption to call out his MPs who are going out to support the pickets. The reason his authority is on the line in this matter is that the Opposition take £10 million from the unions. That is the fee that he is receiving for the case he is failing to make.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister cannot help himself. There is a huge problem facing the country, and all he is interested in doing is blaming everyone else. Can he not hear the country screaming at him, “Get on with your job!”? While he blames everyone and anyone, working people are paying the price. This week, his Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that there is a “society-wide responsibility” for people to take a pay cut. At the same time, his chief of staff, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), is trying to change the law to get bankers’ bonuses increased. So come one, only one of them can be right: is it his Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who says that every worker needs a pay cut, or is it his chief of staff, who says that every banker needs a pay rise?
The Prime Minister
Actually, under this Government, 5 million public sector workers are getting a pay rise. We have increased the living wage by £1,000 and we have increased universal credit so that people get £1,000 more. Thanks to the fiscal firepower that we have, we are putting £1,200 more into every one of the 8 million most vulnerable households in the country. That is what we can do because of the tough decisions that we have taken. But meantime, what we are also trying to do is cut the cost of transport, which is a big part of people’s weekly outgoings, by reforming our railways. That is what we are trying to do, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is standing with the strikers and lifting the cost of transport for everybody. That is the reality.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister’s chief of staff says that removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is
“reflective of the new approach”.
Pay rises for city bankers, pay cuts for district nurses—that is the new approach. I did not see that on any leaflets in Wakefield. But this has not come from nowhere, because according to the Financial Times, on 7 June last year, the Prime Minister was directly lobbied for the cap to be lifted. Rather than help working people, he has rolled over on bankers’ bonuses, has he not?
The Prime Minister
What we are actually doing, thanks to the decisions we have taken, is putting more money into the pockets of people up and down the country—£1,200 more for the 8 million most vulnerable households. The reason we can do that is because we took the tough decisions necessary to come out of the pandemic faster than any other European country. That is why we have unemployment at or near record lows. None of that would have been possible if we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We have more people now in payrolled employment than we had before the pandemic began. That is what the British people know, and that is what this Government will continue to deliver.
Keir Starmer
Fifteen tax rises, high tax, low wages, low growth—that sums the Prime Minister’s Government up. Working people are paying more tax under this Government, and now they are told to take a pay cut. He is having meetings about increasing bankers’ bonuses, but he cannot find time for a single meeting to end the strikes crippling the country.
It is Armed Forces Week. Under this Prime Minister, those serving our country are facing a real-terms pay cut. Why are his Government more focused on increasing bankers’—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr MacNeil, your voice is not quiet—it is like mine; it carries. The best thing to do, if you want it to carry, is to try standing on the Terrace for a while.
Keir Starmer
It is Armed Forces Week. Under this Prime Minister, those serving our country are facing a real-terms pay cut. Why are his Government more focused on increasing bankers’ pay than the pay of those who are running the country?
The Prime Minister
How absolutely satirical that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should talk about our support for the armed forces when we have increased our funding for our armed forces by a record sum since the end of the cold war, and when eight of the shadow Front Bench team—eight of the shadow Front Bench—actually want to get rid of our nuclear deterrent, including the shadow Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] Yes, it is true. We are helping people up and down the country: £1,200 will be coming into the bank accounts of the 8 million most vulnerable households. The cut in national insurance will be coming into their bank accounts as a result of the steps my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken. But what we are also doing is reforming our systems so that we cut costs for people up and down the country; reforming our energy markets, building a new nuclear reactor every year rather than one every 10 years; getting people off welfare into work—half a million people off welfare into work—because we have cut the time people are waiting on benefits; and cutting the costs of transport for working people by delivering reforms. We are doing that while they are out on the picket line, literally holding hands with Arthur Scargill. That’s them: it is worse than under Jeremy Corbyn. This is a Government who are taking this country forward; they would take it back to the 1970s.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knares-borough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend knows exactly of what he speaks, and we are doing just that. We are reforming train driver training to make entry into the sector simpler, while continuing, of course, to make sure that we meet vital safety requirements.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party as we mark Armed Services Week? We thank all our service personnel for the services that they give.
On Windrush Day, we celebrate all those who have made Scotland and the UK their home. My party backs calls for a major commemoration for the 75th anniversary next year so we can properly mark the valued contribution that those who came here have made.
This morning, it was revealed that UK inflation is now at a 40-year high. Families right across these islands are seeing their incomes squeezed as prices rise, bills soar, and Tory cuts and tax hikes hammer home. After 12 years in government, the Tories have left the UK economy in the doldrums and pushed millions of people into poverty, so can I ask the Prime Minister: does he think his Government bear any blame for the fact that the United Kingdom is doing so much worse than our European neighbours?
The Prime Minister
Actually, as I think the whole House knows and the whole country knows, we have a global inflationary problem, but this Government have the fiscal firepower to deal with it. That is, I think, of benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, as we have seen throughout the pandemic, and I think it is a matter of fact that taxes are actually highest of all in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
Well, actually, that is not true. Of course, the Prime Minister can make all the excuses he likes, but the fact is that the UK economy is lagging behind on his watch. If he looks at France, inflation is less than 6% there. This morning’s report from the Resolution Foundation and the London School of Economics is the latest in a string of devastating reports on the outlook for the UK economy. The report could not be clearer. The Tory Government’s disastrous Brexit is driving wages down, pushing inflation up and will make us poorer over the next decade, but instead of reversing course, the Prime Minister is recklessly threatening a trade war at the worst possible time. Will he finally come to his senses and negotiate an economic agreement with the EU, or is he going to wilfully—wilfully—push the UK into recession?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants a trade war, nor is there any need for one. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is underestimating what this country is currently achieving—not just the Moderna investment, but record venture capital investment in this country, which has now overtaken China as a venue for venture capital investment, to say nothing of what we are getting in tech, and of course the benefits of that are being felt throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent piece of lobbying. Certainly, the Department for Transport is working with Transport Scotland on the possible extension of the Borders railway to Carlisle. On the A1, a decision is to be made later this year.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It has emerged that there is a backlog of 23,000 applications under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, with just two of 3,000 applications for refuge by Afghans who worked for Britain having been processed since April. At the same time, since December, staff working on the ARAP scheme have been slashed by a quarter. This is an incredible betrayal of the Afghan people who put their lives on the line to work for our country. I still have casework, including many people from the Chevening Alumni, for example, who have been promised support since September, so can I send those cases to the Prime Minister? Will he put more resources into the scheme? Will he lift the cap on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme so that we can finally do our best for the people of Afghanistan?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Member is underestimating what the country is already doing for the people of Afghanistan. On Armed Forces Day, we should celebrate Op Pitting, which brought 15,000 out. Of course, I am happy to look at the cases that she wants to raise, and we will do our best for them and for their families, but the House should be in no doubt of the generous welcome that we continue to give to people from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong. We have a record to be very proud of.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that other Members do want to get in and, the longer the question, the fewer of them will get in? Your friendships will dwindle if you carry on like that.
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend very briefly that it is 13,576 more police officers, with 200 more in Cheshire. They are also cutting neighbourhood crime—already by 31%—and our streets are getting safer as a result.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman will just wait for the Justice Secretary’s statement, which follows shortly, I think he will find that he is in error in what he said.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is probably the best Member for Rother Valley we have ever had. I thank him very much and we are going to continue our agenda of levelling up across the whole country, through all the difficulties this country has faced, which will get young people across the country, including in Rother Valley, into good jobs for generations to come. That is our ambition.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady wants to support the working people of this country, I suggest she gets off the picket line, has a word with her party leader and supports the travelling public of this country, who want to see a reduction in their transport costs, which this Government are delivering.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We can all be proud of the way we have reduced CO2 emissions in this country, but plainly it makes no sense to be importing coal, particularly for metallurgical purposes, when we have our own domestic resources.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is probably the first sensible question from the Opposition Benches, and I can tell the hon. Lady that we do actively support gigafactories because I believe they can be a huge advantage for the UK economy. That is why I am proud to see one now in Blyth, and we are working with the authorities in the west midlands, in Coventry, to make sure we also get a successful result there.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know how much my hon. Friend cares for the students in his constituency and I can tell him that no exams have been cancelled as a result of the strikes so far. We expect schools and colleges to have contingency arrangements in place to manage disruption. If students arrive late, schools should allow them to take the paper, and exam boards will determine if that paper can be marked based on how late the student has arrived. I am also told that if a student misses an exam completely, the school can apply for their grades to be calculated from the other assessments they have completed in that subject. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware of the problems that arose in Paris at the European cup final. Does he agree that both the French and UEFA authorities’ attempts to blame Liverpool fans for the failure to keep order at the stadium has been comprehensively disproved, and will he ensure that the French failure to police the event is roundly condemned?
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House will have seen how those initial accounts of what took place were completely debunked and proved to be incorrect in respect of the Liverpool fans, and I think it was right that the French authorities and, I think, UEFA issued a full apology for what had happened.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I think my right hon. Friend should wait for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to say a little about that in just a moment, but I can tell him that when it comes to the Rwanda policy that we are pursuing, that policy has not been ruled unlawful by any UK court or, so far, by any international court, and we will continue with that policy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The father-in-law of my constituent Ibrahim is a former Supreme Court judge in Afghanistan. He successfully prosecuted and put behind bars hundreds of terrorists associated with the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS. Seven months after he submitted his ARAP application, there has still been no progress, and he is living in hiding. His only option is a perilous journey to Pakistan, where, if his visa is refused, he will be deported back into the hands of the Taliban. Will the Prime Minister meet me and the former judge’s family to see how we can save the life of a man who I have no doubt has helped to save hundreds of British lives?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. It does sound extremely meritorious. I will make sure that she has a meeting with the Ministry of Defence, which runs ARAP, and that we do our best to expedite that application as fast as we can.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will introduce legislation to change the inflationary index used in the calculation of the annual pitch fees to the consumer prices index. I am told that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has undertaken research on the impacts on residents and site owners of a change in the 10% commission that is currently paid on the sale of a park home.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I am sure the Prime Minister is as thrilled as I am that you, Mr Speaker, signed the Wellbeing of Women menopause workplace pledge last week to show support for women in this place. Will the Prime Minister follow that example and ensure that women in England have better access to treatment by introducing a single annual payment for hormone replacement therapy now, rather than making them wait until April 2023, a full 18 months after the payment was first promised?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much for raising a very important issue that is understood keenly in all parts of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is accelerating the work of the HRT taskforce to give people up and down the country the reassurance and the treatment that they need.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I was incredibly grateful to the Prime Minister for coming to Watford to launch my initiative to train 1,000 mental health first aiders in awareness more than a year and a half ago. Since then, it has been delivered successfully by Watford and West Herts chamber of commerce and many amazing volunteers. I know that the Prime Minister understands the importance of mental health and wellbeing, but, sadly, bullying can have a long-lasting effect on it. Today, the Diana Award is raising awareness of bullying in schools and online with its “Don’t Face It Alone” campaign. Will the Prime Minister please join me in encouraging any young person experiencing bullying to speak up and speak out?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his own campaign on this issue. I think everyone understands that bullying is an appalling experience, and something that we should not tolerate in our society. I am delighted to see so many colleagues—so many hon. Members—wearing their blue ribbons today. We should all speak out against bullying, but we should also make sure that we give everyone the courage to speak out against it.
Bill of Rights
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Deputy Prime Minister to make his statement, I have to say to him and the Government that I am extremely disappointed that, once again, an important Government policy has been presented to the media before being presented to this House. Why the BBC and Sky News are more important, I will never know. I say again that this is simply not acceptable.
One thing that did not change in the recently revised ministerial code is this important statement:
“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament.”
Yet again, the media have been the first to know.
I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister is making this statement, but he should have done so before speaking to the media. I would certainly have granted an urgent question, and I thank Mr Bone for tabling one just in case the statement had not been forthcoming. The Government should be aware that I will always do this in similar circumstances. I have to say that I nearly granted both, and I do not want to be put in that position again, so please respect this House and respect Members of every political party. They are elected to hear things here, not via the news.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)
We strived to make sure we kept within the trammels of what had been in the consultation document, but I heed your advice as ever, Mr Speaker.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the publication and introduction of a UK Bill of Rights as we take the next steps to fulfil our manifesto commitment and deliver human rights reform across the country.
We have a proud tradition of freedom under the rule of law in this country, and I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that it dates back centuries to Magna Carta, not just to 1998. This Bill of Rights, published today, is the next chapter in the evolution and strengthening of our human rights framework, and it is available online and in the Vote Office.
I now turn to the key strands of our reforms. First, as I said when we launched the consultation back in December, the UK intends to remain a state party to the European convention on human rights. It is a set of common-sense principles, and the problems we have encountered stem from its elastic interpretation and expansion, absent meaningful democratic oversight, particularly as a result of the procedural framework set out in the Human Rights Act.
The key objective of our reform is to reinforce quintessential UK rights such as freedom of speech, the liberty that guards all the others. We will also recognise the role of jury trials, mindful of how they operate in different parts of the United Kingdom. Jury trials are not prevalent on the continent, but they are very much part of this country’s heritage and pedigree. These liberties are part of our proud history, but they are also critical to strengthening our place in the world as an open, vibrant and rambunctious democracy.
We will also strengthen the separation of powers in this country, affirming the supremacy of the Supreme Court and making it explicit that UK courts are under no obligation to follow Strasbourg case law and, indeed, are free to diverge from it. I am proud of our world-beating judiciary, and what is the point of a Supreme Court if it bows in subordination to a European court?
We have seen the goalposts on human rights shift over time through expanded judicial interpretations, licensed by the Human Rights Act, which has tended to magnify overweening rulings from Strasbourg, although it is worth noting in fairness that there has been more judicial restraint in Strasbourg on occasion in recent times. Nevertheless, what ebbs may flow, and we will ensure in our Bill of Rights that any expansion of human rights law—as opposed to its interpretation—is subject to proper democratic oversight by elected Members in this House. Our reforms to sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act in particular will squarely address the flaws in the current framework.
We will be crystal clear that when it comes to the laws of the land, and the legitimate, necessary and constructive dialogue we have with Strasbourg, it is Parliament that has the last word. Much has been said by the judiciary in Strasbourg about an age of subsidiarity, with greater respect for the will of domestic democratic institutions, particularly since the 2012 Brighton declaration, which the UK spearheaded to promote reform. Our approach is crafted with that in mind in order to facilitate that dialogue between the UK and Strasbourg, and to avail ourselves of the margin of appreciation within the bounds of the convention. Equally, as a matter of basic democratic principle, we will reaffirm and reinforce the democratic oversight and control exercised by this House.
Our Bill of Rights sets out a range of important reforms, including a permissions stage in the UK courts to assert greater checks over frivolous claims at an earlier stage, reflecting the Strasbourg Court itself, which has an admissibility stage. We have included provision to ensure that the behaviour of anyone claiming a breach of their human rights is taken into account when our courts consider compensation; it is a principle of law in this country that those who come into equity do so with clean hands, and I think that should be reflected in human rights claims.
We will expressly provide for greater weight to be given to Parliament’s determination of the public interest, as set out in primary legislation, when considering the interpretation of rights in order to ensure that we are better equipped to protect the public. That will reinforce our ability to, for example, deport more foreign national offenders, particularly those claiming ever more elastic interpretations of article 8 on the right to family life to frustrate the deportation process.
Our Bill of Rights will ensure that we can deliver our reforms to the parole system, so that when it comes to finely balanced assessments of risk in decisions on the release of potentially dangerous offenders, public protection is the overriding priority. It will also prevent well-meaning but counter-productive and onerous straitjacket regulatory burdens from being placed on our public services as a result of rulings determined by lawyers in court rather than regulation on such sensitive matters being set by elected lawmakers in this House. That is particularly important with respect to finely balanced assessments of social policy, and matters with a financial impact—the bread-and-butter issues that it is for this Parliament to decide.
We have consulted and engaged widely across the whole United Kingdom, and will continue to do so. This is a UK-wide reform, but we want to work with all the devolved Administrations on these essential reforms, so we will be seeking legislative consent motions—noting, nevertheless, the status of the Human Rights Act as a “protected enactment” under the devolution settlements, meaning that reform, replacement or revision can take place only from Westminster.
Our Bill of Rights will strengthen our proud tradition of freedom, demarcate a clearer separation of powers, ensure greater respect for our democratic institutions, better protect the public, and restore a healthy dose of common sense to the justice system, which is essential for commanding greater public confidence. Ultimately, it will make us freer and help to keep our streets safer. I commend this statement to the House.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), who, following the death of his father last week, cannot be here today.
This is a very dark day for victims of crime, for women, for people in care—for everyone in this country who relies on the state to protect them from harm. This is not a Bill of Rights; it is a con. The Lord Chancellor knows this because he has been working on it for more than a decade. We know from the Queen’s Speech that the Bill will take away the duty of the state to protect everyone from harm by removing the positive obligations set out in the Human Rights Act. It will force victims of crime seeking justice to schlep to Strasbourg, creating endless delays and red tape.
Sir Peter Gross and the review panel do not think the Human Rights Act undermines parliamentary sovereignty or that the UK courts are undermined by the European Court, so why proceed with this Bill? Because this Government look to pick a fight to cover up their own failures, and then find someone else to blame. We have seen a succession of Conservative Members blame the European Court to deflect from their bungled and unworkable asylum policy. Shamefully, some have even demanded that the UK withdraw altogether from the European convention on human rights. For members of the party of Churchill, who inspired the convention, to want to do away with it altogether is quite something. I gather that the Deputy Prime Minister does not want to withdraw from the European convention, not least because he knows it would fatally undermine the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland, so will he condemn members of his own party who have made that dangerous and reckless demand?
Labour Members are proud of the gift that Churchill gave to the world in the universal declaration and in the European convention that followed, but we are prouder still that it was a Labour Government who, in 1998, brought rights home from Strasbourg. The Human Rights Act is held up around the world as an exemplar of modern human rights legislation, which is why the European Court very rarely overrules our judges, as the review panel recognised in its report. It is a beacon of hope for people in countries where basic human rights are trampled over by strongmen and dictators. There is no better example than Ukraine, where the rights of millions are being crushed under the jackboot of Vladimir Putin. What stunning hypocrisy from this Government to preach to others about the importance of defending rights abroad while snatching away British people’s rights at home. This is a Government gimmick by a party that seeks headlines for botched policies and then blames others when they fail.
The answer to fixing the mess that this Conservative Government have made of the immigration and asylum system is not to take away British people’s rights given to them by the Human Rights Act. That Act has allowed people to object when doctors put “do not resuscitate” orders on their bed without their consent. It has allowed people with learning disabilities imprisoned in locked units to be reunited with their families. It has allowed families affected by major disasters such as Manchester or Hillsborough to seek justice when public bodies have let them down. It has allowed elderly married couples in residential care to object when care home managers try to separate them, and it has allowed victims of rapists such as John Worboys to force the police to investigate cases of rape.
This Bill of Rights con is not just an attack on victims of crime whom the state has failed to protect; it is an attack on women. Women have used the Human Rights Act to challenge the police when they have either failed or refused to investigate rape and sexual assault cases. We saw that in the case of John Worboys, who is thought to have assaulted more than 150 women. It should come as no surprise that this Bill has been brought forward by a Conservative Government who have effectively decriminalised rape. [Interruption.] Last week’s scorecard showed pitiful progress on the record low—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. People who have been wanting to catch my eye will not do it by shouting when somebody is speaking.
Ellie Reeves
Last week’s scorecard showed pitiful progress on the record low rate of convictions under this Government. The typical wait for cases to complete in court has reached three years, and a fifth have seen waits of four years—and that is if the case even gets to court. The number of rape trials postponed at a day’s notice in our Crown courts has risen fourfold. It is no wonder that rape survivors are dropping out of their cases in droves. Will victims even bother to report their case at all when they learn that the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill of Rights will stop them forcing our under-resourced police to investigate? It says everything about a Lord Chancellor and a Government who are soft on rape, soft on rapists and hard on survivors, that they want to take away the final backstop available to victims to get justice. Women will be in no doubt that this is a Government who let off rapists and let survivors down, and today is the proof.
The Bill will see enormous amounts of red tape for victims of crime seeking justice. It is an attack on women and it undermines peace in Northern Ireland. It is the hallmark of a party out of ideas that can no longer govern.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say to the Front Benchers that there are times given, so can we please stick to them? I do not want to stop Ministers or shadow Ministers, but I will in future. You must stick to the allocated time.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in what she said about the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I extend my sympathy and my condolences to him.
I listened very carefully to what the shadow Justice Minister said. I think I disagreed with everything she said, but then again, she said very little about our Bill of Rights. When she gets a chance to read it, I look forward to debating it with her further. May I just correct a couple of the obviously flawed things she said? She talked about whether or not we will leave the European convention on human rights. When she gets a chance to read the Bill of Rights, she will see that not only are we staying a part of the ECHR, but that it is incorporated in the Bill of Rights. I have to say that the comparison with what Russia or Putin does shows, I am afraid, a lack of a moral compass on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches.
The hon. Lady then diverted into a monologue on a very serious subject in relation to rape. Let us be absolutely crystal clear: there is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights that will do anything to weaken the protections of victims; far from it in relation to the deportation of foreign national criminals, the release of dangerous rapists, and what we do inside our prisons. It will strengthen our protection of victims and public protection. Again, for the record, on such a serious issue—I agree with the hon. Lady on its importance—she might get her facts straight. The volume of rape convictions has increased by two thirds in the last year alone. I am working very closely with the Home Secretary, the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and we are absolutely determined and restless to go even further and faster.
I suspect, however, that that was really a distraction from the fundamental issue, which is the Bill of Rights and human rights reform to get the right balance. The hon. Lady and the Labour party are blind to the flaws in the Human Rights Act in the way that its architects are not. Jack Straw said back in 2007 that he wanted to rebalance the rights set out in the Act, adding explicitly that responsibilities should play a role. They are all in here in our Bill of Rights. He went on to say, in an interview in December 2008, that
“There is a sense that it’s a villains’ charter”.
Mr Speaker, I have not used that language, but I will just say how far the sense of critical self-evaluation on the Labour Benches has gone when the hon. Lady cannot talk about anything that could possibly be reformed.
The model we have taken is based on a textbook that I read back in 1999, written by a very learned authority. He said, on the relationship between the UK and Strasbourg—the hon. Lady mentioned that, not with any specific points—that the role of the Strasbourg Court is
“primarily concerned with supervision and its role is therefore subsidiary to that of domestic authorities”.
Subsidiary, not superior. It has no role unless the domestic system for protecting human rights breaks down altogether. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asks from a sedentary position who the author is. It was the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his seminal textbook on the subject. All I would gently say is that I think he made a more convincing lawyer than he does a politician.
This week we have seen Labour shadow Ministers line up with picketers against the public. Today, the shadow Justice Minister has confirmed that the Labour party will stand in the way of our common-sense reforms that will ensure a better balance of human rights, so that we can stand up for victims—it is always against that when it comes to sentencing or extra police recruitment—deport more foreign national offenders and safely incarcerate the most dangerous people in our prisons. Whenever Labour Members are asked the big questions, they duck. Yet again, the Labour party is showing it is simply not fit to govern.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Thank you for your statement earlier, Mr Speaker. I think the vast majority of Members of this House agree entirely.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. The issue is really very simple: this sovereign Parliament makes laws and our courts interpret them. We should not have the judicial creep of a European Court not interpreting laws, but making new laws. I am willing to support the Bill, but if in practice it fails, will the Secretary of State be willing to support my private Member’s Bill, the British Bill of Rights and Withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his tenacity in all these matters. I always listen to him, and I will study his private Member’s Bill. He makes two points. First, there is really no point in having a Supreme Court if it is subordinate to Strasbourg in the interpretation of law. He must be right about that, and our Bill of Rights will expressly address it.
My hon. Friend’s other point is more subtle, but very powerful. I remember our jointly participating in many debates on prisoners’ voting rights, a very clear example of the goalposts shifting. When it comes to legislative functions, it ought to be a point of common agreement across the parties that those matters must be for hon. Members, who are accountable to our constituents, to decide in this House.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
This Bill of Rights and the removal of the Human Rights Act are the culmination of multiple pieces of legislation that have gone through this place in the past year. They are all about one thing: removing human rights from human beings. First, the Government came for the refugees with the Nationality and Borders Act 2022; they told them that their lives did not count. Secondly, they came for those who need to question decisions made about their lives by public bodies, including this Government; the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 stopped them being effectively able to do that. Then they went for the voters with the Elections Act 2022, and what do you know? The voters they were targeting were the ones least likely to vote Conservative—the sensible ones, in other words.
The Government then went after the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. They told them that their way of life was unacceptable—well, it is not unacceptable to us. When the Government did not get their way on public order with that Bill, they repackaged it and brought it back in the Public Order Bill, which will take away the rights of anybody to fight for the rights of anybody else. Who would go to a protest when they could be stopped and searched without any suspicion?
It is all about one thing: removing human rights from human beings. This policy, the culmination of it all, is about removing everybody’s human rights. Human rights are not about one group of people, the group the Secretary of State likes to pick on; they are about everybody living on these islands.
I will ask three quick questions and leave the rest to my colleagues. First, why is there a lack of prelegislative scrutiny? What are the Government so afraid of? Secondly, why is the Secretary of State telling people that this policy will bring rights home, when it will actually force people to go to Strasbourg to get justice? Finally, the Scottish and Welsh Governments have made it clear that they are completely against the policy in its entirety. We have a tale of two countries: Scotland is embedding human rights law in all its legislation, while this Government are stripping it away completely. How would the Secretary of State advise the people of Scotland who want to retain human rights law in their legislation to vote in next year’s independence referendum—yes or no?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, but clearly I disagree. First, no country has been more big-hearted when it comes to those fleeing persecution, from Hong Kong British nationals overseas to the 17,000 who were evacuated out of Afghanistan and the 125,000-plus visas in relation to Ukraine. The hon. Lady talks about standing up for those people; when our Prime Minister addressed the Ukraine Parliament, Union Jacks were flying and people were singing “God Save the Queen” in towns and villages across the country.
When it comes to protecting human rights, we should be big-hearted, but we should also stop the trade in human misery across the channel, which is a real threat to human rights. We should also make sure that we stand up for victims—the hon. Lady does not seem to care too much about that—in relation to the deportation of foreign national offenders. That is something that I think the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland all agree on. Why would the hon. Lady not support common-sense reforms and a rebalancing of the system to allow us to stand up for victims, stand up for the public and remove serious foreign criminals?
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I welcome this statement, which builds on the work that I and Sir Peter Gross did with his important review. Sir Peter’s balanced committee did not say that all was well with the Human Rights Act 1998. There were issues to be dealt with, and in accordance with our manifesto commitment to update the Act, the Bill of Rights is timely. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, over and above domestic action that we can take to reform and improve legislation, there is a strong case for international work to be done—on the same basis as the work we did in Brighton 10 years ago—in order to deal with issues such as extraterritorial jurisdiction? That is a common concern not just in this country, but among our judges and many other member states of the Council of Europe.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for the painstaking groundwork he did in the Ministry of Justice, and to Sir Peter Gross and his panel. All that work substantially influenced the shape of the reforms that we are able to announce today; they would not have been possible without the hard work that my right hon. and learned Friend put in. He is right to point to the 2012 Brighton declaration, because the Strasbourg Court under Róbert Spanó—its latest President, who is Icelandic—has talked about shifting from an age of a living instrument to an age of subsidiarity. People talk about our relationship, and it is important that we stick to the convention, but it is also important that the European Court follows its own strictures.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned extraterritorial jurisdiction. I will certainly follow up on his advice, as the issue is also addressed in the Bill of Rights. Again, I thank him for his contribution.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister is right about the priority that must be given to public protection, but may I urge him to proceed with care in reforming parole arrangements? Ministers have already taken measures that will give them a veto over the transfer of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences to open conditions, and he will know that there are real concerns that, as well as being procedurally unfair, such measures may increase the risk to public protection. Will he reassure the House that he will make public protection a priority over political gimmickry?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said. I certainly agree that public protection is our overriding concern. The proposals for parole reform that we have published for consultation make it clear that, in the context of convicted murderers, rapists, terrorists and child killers, we want to ensure that there is a ministerial check in finely balanced cases where there is genuine risk to the public and to public confidence but it is hard to predict. If we agree on the principle of putting public protection first, I hope she will agree that that should command cross-party support.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am frankly disgusted by what the shadow Minister had to say. To suggest that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches would be soft on rapists—she sits there shaking her head now—is a shameful thing to say, and it undermines women’s confidence in our judicial system across this country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the centuries of experience in our UK judicial system, we can be incredibly confident that it is able to represent the interests of everybody in this country? Does he share my sadness that so many on the Opposition Benches would throw away our sovereignty to anyone else who would have it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. She is right that there never seems to be an opportunity to throw away the powers and authority that we have in this House that the Opposition do not grasp with total alacrity.
Rape is such a sensitive issue, and we have seen convictions increase by two thirds. There is a whole range of other work, including Operation Soteria, pre-recorded witness evidence under section 28, and the disclosure reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) is looking at. We ought to be trying to build on the progress that we have made, not do it down, because that is the stuff that undermines women’s confidence in the justice system. We know there is a longer road—[Interruption.] Hold on. We know that there is much more to do, but that work is not going to get done with the hyperbolic language used by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves).
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As acting Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I wish to remind the Secretary of State that we have completed two in-depth, unanimous cross-party reports, which concluded that the Human Rights Act is working well and does not need to be repealed or replaced. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the independent review, which the Secretary of State commissioned and then ignored.
When we visited Strasbourg last week, we were told that UK Government Ministers have given repeated assurances that the UK will remain in the ECHR, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that assurance this morning. However, the Prime Minister did make some veiled threats in the opposite direction last week. If we are to stay in the ECHR, it needs to be done with integrity. We cannot pick and choose which convention rights we want to observe or for whom we want to observe them. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the United Kingdom’s disengagement from the ECHR—make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is what this Bill is about—risks giving encouragement to populist Governments in eastern Europe who have scant regard for human rights or, indeed, the rule of law?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. and learned Lady, not least because I do not see how she can sustain the argument that we are dislocating ourselves when not only are we remaining a state party, but it is in the Bill of Rights as well.
I pay tribute to the work of the hon. and learned Lady’s Committee. I appeared in front of the JCHR on 8 December. The noble Lord Wolfson appeared on 2 February, and I am attending again on 20 July. We will pay great respect to the role of the Joint Committee, but, of course, we know that there are likely to be objections and we will try to assuage those held by her and her members as best we can.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be many who will be extremely glad that he has now introduced his Bill of Rights? It means, as he said just now, that our Parliament and our judges will have the last word. We look forward to seeing the text of the Bill, and we trust that it will ensure that the European Court in Strasbourg will never again be able to frustrate the United Kingdom’s right to deport illegal immigrants and, at the same time, override our own judges.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the long-standing work that he has done, on the constitutional dimension in particular. I can give him the direct assurance—I have a copy of the Bill of Rights here and it is also available in the House—that we address squarely the issue that he raises. We want to make sure that elected Members from both sides of the House have the last word when it comes to resetting or expanding the laws of this land.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This morning, the distinguished legal commentator, Joshua Rozenberg, summed up this Bill not as the biggest constitutional tour de force in more than 300 years or the apex of the Justice Secretary’s career, but as a ragbag of restrictions. It will undoubtedly cause harm to many thousands of our citizens, especially those who are the most vulnerable and have suffered discrimination by an unchecked state. It will also cause harm to this country’s hard-won reputation as a champion of international law. As a constitutional document, is it not a damp squib and a legal nonsense that sets up confusion and conflict between domestic and European courts?
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am quite fond and with whom I have debated these issues many times, it cannot be both ripping up human rights and a damp squib? May I suggest that he reads what people have to say on this—including Jonathan Fisher QC, who has written a very thoughtful piece about reform; Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court; and John Larkin, a former Attorney General in Northern Ireland? He might get a slightly more sober analysis.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the letter that he wrote to the Justice Committee this morning. In it, he said “The Bill will prevent human rights from being used as a way to bring claims on overseas military operations”, but does he recall that some of the gravest crimes of the Iraq war were revealed only through recourse to the Human Rights Act, enforced in our domestic courts? I think particularly of the systematic torture of detainees by British soldiers in Basra which was revealed in the Baha Mousa case only because of the Human Rights Act, after the Ministry of Defence had declined to investigate. Can he provide reassurances to the House that the new Bill of Rights will not operate to suppress such serious human rights abuses coming to light in the future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Of course, we need to have proper accountability when anything goes wrong. The professionalism of our armed forces is second to none, but mistakes can happen and there needs to be accountability. The reality is that we have the international law of armed conflict, which is designed to do that. It has been unhelpful, and indeed has created legal uncertainty, to layer an extra tier of human rights obligations on top of that. It has created uncertainty as to the state of the law, and huge uncertainty for our armed forces. We will make sure that there is the accountability that she seeks, but we will also deal with the extraterritorial jurisdiction, which, frankly, has encouraged litigation and many spurious claims, as well as the ones that she mentioned.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Paragraph 2 of the human rights chapter of the Good Friday agreement provides that
“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights…with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention”.
Can the Justice Secretary tell the House whether the Bill constitutes a unilateral repudiation of that, or is that something that he has negotiated with the Government of Ireland?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, although he is right to reference the Belfast agreement. We remain a state party to the convention. Not only that, but the ECHR remains incorporated into UK law through the schedule. [Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position; I genuinely enjoy debating these issues, as we have on many occasions. If he reads the Bill, I will be very happy to address any other questions he has.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Secretary of State and Attorney General are to be commended for taking seriously the task of taking back control of our ancient legal entitlements from unelected, unaccountable foreign judges, and of rooting them in the people’s Parliament here in Westminster. In doing so, will he challenge the assumptions that underpin the Human Rights Act, which are that rights are more important than responsibilities and that injury to interest is more important than duty? That is the fundamental issue. Will he challenge and, at last, dock the long tail of Blairism?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for, as ever, the colourful and eloquent way that he presents the issue. When it comes to collective interest, social policy and finely balanced judgments around public protection, I do think that adjudication in court by lawyers, rather than a broader discussion and debate among elected Members of Parliament accountable to their citizens, is a mistake. We will protect the fundamental freedoms that make this country great—they existed long before the Human Rights Act and they will exist long after. He is right about the balance between protecting individual liberty and freedom under the rule of law, of which I am immensely proud, and making sure that elected Members of this House can protect the public, take finely balanced judgments on social policy, and take judgments that affect the public purse.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of our constituents have seen the benefits of human rights, such as the bereaved unmarried widows who had to take the Government to court to make sure that their children were not ignored when it came to pensions, or the women in Northern Ireland who are counting on us to support the statutory instrument to make sure that they have the human right to choose what happens to their own body and to have an abortion. They will be reassured by the Deputy Prime Minister saying that we will remain signatories to the European convention. Can he confirm to his colleagues, who might want to think about the implications of that, that because we will remain signatories and bound by the convention, the European Court of Human Rights will remain the ultimate judicial decision maker on human rights in this country? He is not getting rid of Europe; he is just wasting our time.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right about the first point, but wrong about the second. That is clear from the Bill of Rights.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My right hon. Friend started by talking about the 2012 declaration on subsidiarity. He will remember that that flowed directly from action in this Chamber to push back against prisoner votes, of which I think he was a major part. We have not seen the detail of this Bill of Rights, but there are two Conservative tests for it. First, the Conservatives do not believe in an overmighty state, therefore the state has to be curbed by an independent body. Secondly, our fundamental freedoms, such as free speech, jury trial or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) mentioned, freedom from torture, are not the gift of the state but the birth right of our citizens. As such, they all have to be protected by powers vested in an independent judiciary. At the end of the day, the test will be whether the Bill of Rights delivers better protection for those things than the European process.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is too generous: he was really the architect of the campaign to defend this House’s prerogative to decide on prisoner voting. Interestingly, he did that with Jack Straw, the architect of the Human Rights Act, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that it was this House that pushed back in 2012 and sought the Government to ensure that the Strasbourg Court was reflecting and following its mandate, which was at the heart of the Brighton declaration process.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his tests, and I hope I can reassure him on this. When he gets a chance, as I know he will, to study carefully the Bill of Rights, which is now available, he will see that our fundamental freedoms are not being trashed, but that they are being preserved and safeguarded. He will see that judicial independence is being strengthened, because the Supreme Court in this country ought to have the last word, to cherish and nurture this country’s common law tradition, which is ancient.
Finally, my right hon. Friend missed one point, but I hope he agrees with me on this. In broader terms, beyond individual rights, there is a whole realm of public policy—whether it reflects collective interest, social policy, the public purse or public protection—on which it must be this House and its elected Members, who are responsible to our constituents, who have the final word.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State share with me the level of support he has for this legislation from the people who will make it work—the lawyers, judges and other professionals? I am not a lawyer, but because I have campaigned with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on miscarriages of justice, I have mixed with a lot of lawyers; I have to say that I am worried about the number of lawyers who do not understand the reason for the Bill at this moment.
There have been three Queen’s Speeches with a promise for a royal commission into the justice system, but that has never appeared; it has not gone anywhere. The last thing I want the Secretary of State to remember is that the justice system is in a mess. The barristers are on strike, we cannot get criminal lawyers to represent anyone and the fact is that the Department of Justice has had the biggest cut in budget since 2010 of any Department.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I enjoy engaging with the hon. Gentleman, but he is simply wrong. We have had the biggest increase for over a decade in the spending review, so he is simply wrong on the facts, but I am happy to write to him on that.
On lawyers, of course different lawyers will take different views, but I do not think there are any greater authorities than Lord Sumption, the former justice of the Supreme Court, or Jonathan Fisher QC— [Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but he has just asked me to point him in the direction of some lawyers and I am giving him the most authoritative ones that have recently written on this subject. Jonathan Fisher has written about this today, and there is also John Larkin, the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman peruses those opinions and that recent commentary, he might get the reassurance and clarity he needs.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
This Parliament is the main guarantor of our rights and liberties; it created them in battles over many centuries for the benefit of us all. Would not this great role be strengthened if our Supreme Court were indeed supreme and not answerable to foreign courts that do not understand the mood of the British people and what they expect of their legislators?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I know that when he gets a chance to peruse the proposals, he will find those principles and that spirit reflected in the Bill of Rights, and I look forward to discussing these matters with him further.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has asserted that 70% of successful human rights challenges are brought by foreign nationals who cite a right to family life in the first instance when appealing deportation orders. Can he give the House the source of that assertion?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The consultation document gives hon. Members the precise source; it was published back in December.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the siren voices in this House and outside telling him to withdraw from the European convention on human rights altogether. His decision to stay in it is in the best traditions of pragmatic, sensible, one nation Conservatism. Will he also confirm that the permission test he talked about to stop frivolous uses of human rights legislation simply inserts into the British courts a right already available to the Strasbourg Court under article 35 of the convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is correct on all those points. This is a principled and pragmatic reform. It retains membership of the European convention. I have heard various arguments against that, but looking at what we would gain from leaving the ECHR, because of the UN convention against torture, which we are party to, and various other conventions, it would not solve all the problems. It is not the magic wand that some people suggest it is; I say that with great respect. We have made sure that within the bounds of the convention we can get the maximum leeway—the maximum marginal appreciation—in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) suggested.
On the permissions test, it is extraordinary that people have criticised doing something that the Strasbourg Court itself does. Making sure that whether they are trivial or frivolous claims, we have a filter early on to make sure that there is significant disadvantage, would, I think, just feel to many of our constituents like old-fashioned common sense.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The UK Government’s scrapping of the Human Rights Act shows a callous disregard not only for the essential universality of human rights but for devolution in Wales too. The Human Rights Act is woven directly into Wales’s constitutional settlement. Changes to the Act will undermine our efforts to promote human rights and equality. When—when, not if—Wales refuses legislative consent to this erosion of human rights, will the Minister use legalistic bully-boy tactics to trample on our democracy too?
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, of course not. The right hon. Lady talks about “callous disregard”. Conservative Members, certainly, want to stand up for victims of crime who do not understand why, based on the most elastic interpretations, foreign national offenders who have committed some of the most abhorrent crimes cannot be deported.
On parole, I think of the victims I have met recently. I do not want to politicise this, but they expect us to stand up for them. As regards protecting not just those within the prison regime but the public from serious ideologues spreading their poison or those who commit terrorist offences, we should stand up for the public, not for the criminals.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear in his statement, and has indeed reiterated in his answers since, that the Government intend that the United Kingdom shall remain party to the European convention on human rights, so it is hard to see the reason for the confusion on the part of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). Does he agree that judges of the United Kingdom Supreme Court are more than qualified to determine issues arising under that convention and that the intervention of a supranational court is not always necessary or welcome?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The irony, with regard to case law, is that there is nothing in the European convention that requires the doctrine of precedent, which does not apply in the continental system—let alone in the Strasbourg Court—to somehow be transported, in relation to European case law, to the UK. That is not required. I have been very clear, when we have these debates and when we look at the text of the convention, that I am very proud of the judiciary we have in this country.
Speaking as Lord Chancellor and as a member of this Government, of course there will be difficult decisions, and from time to time Governments do not agree with them, but we have a judiciary renowned the world over and they should have the last word when it comes to interpreting the law of the land. It is extraordinary that Labour, which changed the name of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to the Supreme Court, would abrogate those rights and that authority.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that the Supreme Court has reversed seven of its decisions in the past two years thanks to the bullying of the Government—[Interruption.] Check the record. So if we remove the protection of Strasbourg, do we not have a situation where things that are regarded as human rights abuse and illegal in Europe will become permissible in Britain? If it is okay to have rights not applying in the UK, is it okay for other countries not to apply certain rights, such as in eastern Europe and Russia—in which case human rights become optional instead of universal, and Winston Churchill would turn in his grave?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman betrays a fundamental lack of trust in the UK judiciary that I do not share. He talks about a lot of false premises that a cursory reading of the Bill of Rights will clarify.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I firmly believe that freedom of speech is an indispensable British value. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this essential right will be protected and safeguarded by this very welcome Bill?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend who, as ever, nails a very important part of why the Bill of Rights is a human rights enhancing innovation. If he looks at section 4, he will see that not only do we prize free speech but we are reinforcing its role in protecting journalistic sources and balancing the rights to free speech and privacy. We do not want to see continental-style privacy laws creeping through the back door, and we have seen some evidence of that of late. We want to make sure that the tradition of openness, transparency and accountability is preserved, and the Bill of Rights is explicit on this at various points.
Other countries may disagree. There is a pluralism on human rights that is often lost in debate, but our tradition is to preserve freedom of speech because it is the liberty that guards all the other freedoms we cherish.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I do not think the Justice Secretary has fully thought through the implications for mutual extradition arrangements across Europe, including those under the trade and co-operation agreement. It is important to stress that the Good Friday agreement applies the full effect of the convention, not the convention in name only. Does he understand that confidence in the new policing and criminal justice arrangements in Northern Ireland, including on legacy cases, is very heavily predicated on full adherence to the European convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is why I hope I can squarely give him the reassurance that we are not only remaining a state party to the convention but that it is properly enshrined in the Bill of Rights. That ought to answer all the consequential questions he raises.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
From what I can see, this very focused intervention is about making it easier to kick out rapists and people who have broken the law and to stop people arriving here illegally. The elephant in the room is border control, which the people of this country have repeatedly voted for and is bitterly opposed by the Opposition, whatever they say.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the Bill of Rights is so important because it will enable us to control our borders and deliver the Rwanda policy, and that it should be expedited? I do not mind doing all-nighters, and I do not mind staying up until 2 am. I think most people in this country who want border control would want this Bill of Rights because they can see how it links to that.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s restlessness to proceed with all due speed, because we have been talking about this for a long time. I wrote about it in a book in 2009, and it was in our 2010 manifesto. The consultation process is important, and we had a 12-week consultation on the consultation document, which included clauses. We are publishing it now, but there will be space for further scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Justice Committee and others, including Lords Committees. It is important to garner cross-party support to ensure we have the scrutiny that will make our reform more robust when it enters into force.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Justice Secretary wrote recently that all
“UK citizens should be able to enjoy the same essential protections.”
I return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Will all the human rights that the Justice Secretary wishes to cover in his Bill apply to all people in the UK or only to UK citizens? Should not human rights apply to everyone?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will give the hon. Lady an illustration. We have an international obligation not to make people stateless, so I do not think UK citizens are in precisely the same legal position as a foreign national offender. I think most people think we should have freedom under the rule of law and that we should be consistent in applying the law, but that people who have been welcomed to this country should come here through lawful routes and that people who commit serious crimes in this country should be removed. That is common sense, and I think the people of Scotland will not understand how hon. Members who purport to represent them can stand in the way of such a common-sense measure.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am reassured by the intentions behind this Bill of Rights, and by two things above all: by the Justice Secretary’s absolute commitment that we will remain party to the European convention on human rights, and by what the former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption wrote at the weekend:
“modifying its operation here need not mean abrogating human rights. We can have all or any of the rights in the convention under ordinary domestic legislation”.
However, will my right hon. Friend help me to understand why he is proposing not to apply interim measures on courts in the UK and make them non-binding, because surely this would be a breach of international law, and would it not be better instead to focus on winning an appeal against any interim measure that the Government do not agree with?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is always sensible and judicious about these matters. On interim orders, he may recall that rule 39—which is the basis—is a rule of procedure of the Strasbourg Court, it is not part of the convention and the rules of procedure are supposed to govern only the internal workings of the Strasbourg Court. Indeed, that is not just my view—it was the Strasbourg Court’s view until 2005. It is not right that a judicial institution abrogates a power, whether at home or abroad, that has to be given to it by the legislators of state parties or Members of Parliament here. Therefore, we will be clear about the impact on the UK courts and under UK law. The Bill of Rights is right to address that squarely. It is a good example of the creeping, shifting goalposts, which are contrary to any democratic oversight, and that is important. Finally on that point, I want to be careful not to impinge on matters subject to legal proceedings, but, as a matter of principle, it cannot be right that the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court address these issues and see no realistic risk to those being removed, but have that trumped by the Strasbourg Court on a vague basis.
Mr Speaker
Order. Could the Deputy Prime Minister look this way now and again? That would be helpful. If not, it is hard to hear him.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Two things do not surprise me today : the continuing utter disrespect shown to you, Mr Speaker, as Chair of this House, and the utter dearth of historical knowledge on the Government Front Bench and among their Back Benchers. I remind them that there is no such thing as UK law. There is the law of England and Wales, the law of Northern Ireland and the law of Scotland. On the point the Deputy Prime Minister made, I wonder whether, in his next discussion with the Justice Minister of Ukraine, which is a signatory to the convention and a defender of the convention against the Russian Federation, he will say which parts of the convention he thinks Ukraine should leave.
The Deputy Prime Minister
May I give the hon. Member some reassurance? First, the Human Rights Act is a protected enactment and a precise example of UK-wide application. I have met the Justice Minister of Ukraine, and I will tell the hon. Member what he said. He said “Thank you” from the bottom of his heart for everything that this country has done on sanctions, for our support for Ukraine’s military and for the role that we are playing, alongside the Attorney General, in supporting the International Criminal Court prosecution and investigations on the ground in Ukraine to hold the commission of war crimes in Ukraine and hold those responsible to account.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituent Mr Lindop, who is trying to recover his kidnapped children from Poland, will be one of many who will be pleased to hear the Government’s continued determination to uphold these international standards.
When I visited the European Court of Human Rights last week, I heard from the UK judge, who was interviewed for his post by Members of this House, that the UK continues to have the lowest number of cases per capita referred to the Court and the lowest number of cases per capita to go against it of any country that is a member of the convention, and that our commitment to upholding the rule of law provides enormous moral authority for our international leadership role. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm once again that, with this new Bill of Rights, the UK will continue to uphold the highest possible standards of human rights and continue to be an example to other member states?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he expressed and articulated his point. He is absolutely right. People talk about the UK’s record and, of course, we have one of the highest levels of compliance with the ECHR compared with many of our European friends and partners. However, rarely but on occasion, there will be moments of mission creep where the goalposts shift. Prisoner voting was an example where we said, “Actually, that is not something that Parliament would accept.” I was the Justice Minister in 2015 who went to the Committee of Ministers and said, “We believe in staying in the European convention, but we feel that the ruling is wrong on principle. We are not going to give prisoners the vote.” We will maintain our high standards of compliance, but when it comes down to it, the final word must stay with this House on critical issues of national importance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. At present, for many Christians, the UK courts have dealt more harshly with cases such as that of wearing a cross in work than the rulings of Strasbourg. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the right to have a religion and freedom to live our belief, inasmuch as it is not harmful to others, will be protected in the Bill of Rights, and our right to speak the name of Jesus and respectfully preach the gospel will be upheld?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right. He alludes to the harm to others principle and the great John Stuart Mill tradition of liberty in this country, and that is precisely what has infused the Bill of Rights. I think he will see the principles that he has articulated reflected in the Bill of Rights, and I look forward to continuing to discuss the details with him over the weeks and months to follow.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I was one of those who shared the frustrations of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke when we saw the Rwanda flight grounded and the deportation of foreign national offenders frustrated, which is why I was one of those who openly said that we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights. However, having engaged with my right hon. Friend, and I am very grateful for his time, I am satisfied wholeheartedly that this Bill of Rights and reform of the interpretation of the European convention on human rights with our UK Supreme Court is the appropriate way to go. I am happy to cede, therefore, that on this argument I was wrong—something that I know does not happen in this place very often. So can I get reassurances from my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box for the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that this Bill of Rights will help the deportation of foreign national offenders and illegal economic migrants who come from safe mainland Europe?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think that was an almost unprecedented intervention, but wholeheartedly welcome. My hon. Friend fights very tenaciously, but he also engages very forensically. I can give him the reassurances. I think the right thing to do is for us to discuss the Bill of Rights, the particular provisions and how they will apply, but certainly in relation to rule 39 interim orders, it is squarely addressed in the Bill of Rights.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
We all support human rights, but my right hon. Friend will agree that human rights have been given a bad name in the past by cases brought by people, often offenders, who have shown absolutely no regard for the rights of others. Rights go along with responsibilities, so could my right hon. Friend set out how the Bill of Rights will make sure the courts address responsibilities as well as rights?
The Deputy Prime Minister
One of the ways in which the courts can do that is to make sure—for example, when it comes to compensation—that, where someone has done harm or contributed to their own harm while claiming breaches of human rights, that is something the judges can take into account at the remedy stage. Of course, that is a principle of law in this country already. We often say—I remember studying law as a graduate—that there is a principle that those who come to equity must come with clean hands. It must be right, it must be consistent and I think for many people it is just common sense that we apply that principle in the context of human rights claims.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Over 11,000 people have made the dangerous cross-channel journey this year alone, and it is undoubtedly the case that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that led to the grounding of the Rwanda flight has raised considerable concerns in my constituency of Dover and Deal that it will simply encourage the people traffickers—people who have no respect for the rights of others, including to human life, or the laws of our land. So can my right hon. Friend expand on how this Bill of Rights will ensure that there is not such overreach by the European Court of Human Rights in future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I think many people, but I suspect particularly my hon. Friend’s constituents, will think the real threat to human rights is allowing, and not cracking down on, this trade in human misery. She asked about how we will reform the relationship with the Strasbourg Court. First, it will be by freeing the UK courts to diverge from Strasbourg case law, and being clear that they do not need to take it into account. Secondly, it will be by making sure, in the way I have already articulated, that there is the equivalent of a democratic shield, as we relied on in relation to prisoner voting, but reinforced and made clearer, so that when it comes to the shifting goalposts, whether under judicial interpretation at home or abroad, Parliament has the last word. Finally, it will be in relation to rule 39 interim orders, and she will find all those expressly and explicitly addressed in the Bill of Rights.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
There has been much talk of Winston Churchill and the authorship of the original convention by British Conservative judges. The fact is that the text of the original convention is absolutely fine, and it is the application and extension of the convention’s original meaning by Strasbourg judges over the decades since that is the problem. I therefore very much welcome the commitment to raise the bar for article 8 judgments.
I also welcome the commitment to give UK judges the right to diverge from Strasbourg case law. My concern, however, is that some UK judges do not want to diverge from Strasbourg case law. In fact, in some cases they want to go further; I think of Baroness Hale, of blessed memory to Members here. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will genuinely be free of Strasbourg case law, and is it worth thinking about strengthening the obligation on judges to disregard Strasbourg cases that do not apply in our context?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, if my hon. Friend reads clause 3 of the Bill of Rights, I think he will find that all his concerns are addressed squarely and fully; I urge him to have a look and come back to me.
My hon. Friend made another important point about people talking as if the European convention was the exclusive authorship of Churchill and the United Kingdom. That is a perverse and neo-imperial reading of history that is totally at odds with the way in which the European convention was negotiated, which was by a mixture of European countries, including the UK—we were centrally involved—and other countries with a civil law background. The convention reflects a mix of those traditions. As a result, it is unobjectionable, but the challenge has come in relation to interpretation and application. My hon. Friend’s points are valid, but the idea that the convention was a British creation is almost neo-imperial myth making.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
People in Stoke-on-Trent are sick and tired of human rights laws being abused by serious criminals and illegal migrants. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South that the British Bill of Rights will restore the authority of this House and British courts?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents precisely that assurance. The Bill is not anti-human rights. We are strengthening our tradition of freedom, including freedom of speech. It is pro judges; we want our Supreme Court to have the last word on the law of the land, when it is interpreted. It is also pro democracy, and that is the bit missing from the other side’s critique. We believe that, when the goalposts shift, it is elected Members—accountable to his, my and everyone’s constituents—who must have the last word on the law of the land.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The residents of Blackpool were absolutely furious at the European Court’s move to block the first removal flight to Rwanda last week. They desperately want that policy to work and will warmly welcome the measures outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister today. What assurances can he give them that the reforms will allow our relocations policy to be a success?
The Deputy Prime Minister
There is no silver bullet that can solve that issue and the small boats issue. Even pulling out of the European convention will not provide a silver bullet. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend—I am happy to talk him through this—that, when it comes to deportation of foreign national offenders or public interest in removals more generally, there will be respect and greater deference to primary legislation passed by this House. In addition, our approach to rule 39 interim orders will mean that we can give him and his constituents the assurances they need.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is rather curious that he is being criticised for acting on the democratic mandate given to him by millions of our fellow citizens who voted on our manifesto. Millions voted, in both the Brexit referendum and the general election in 2019, for control of our borders and to prevent illegal immigration. It is the job of courts to interpret the will of Parliament, not to invent law themselves. Therefore, the Bill of Rights will not only protect the fundamental rights that we all enjoy; it will give the democratic voice of the British people a role in the decision-making process.
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a democracy, we command, rule and govern by consent. We are at risk of losing public confidence in our immigration controls if we cannot take the common-sense measures that they expect. We are also at risk of losing public confidence in human rights if we do not restore a healthy dose of common sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We now move on to the statement from the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency.
EU Retained Law
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about EU retained law.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out that:
“The United Kingdom’s uncoupling from the rules, regulations and institutions of Brussels was never simply about the moment of our departure; the act of Brexit was not an end in itself but the means by which our country will achieve great things.”
Now that we have left the European Union the sovereignty of Parliament has been restored and we are free once again to legislate, regulate, or deregulate as this sovereign Parliament redux pleases. As we maximise the benefits of Brexit and transform the UK into the most sensibly regulated economy in the world, we must reform the EU law we have retained on our statute book. Only through reform of this retained EU law will we finally be able to untangle ourselves from nearly 50 years of EU membership.
In September 2021 my predecessor the noble Lord Frost announced a review into the substance of retained EU law. The purpose of the review was to catalogue which Departments, policy areas and sectors of the economy are most saturated by European law—law that was imposed upon us in a time when Parliament was unable to refuse consent. The road to reform remains a long one; not all Brexit freedoms can be grasped at once. I am pleased to report that Whitehall fired on all cylinders to complete this review. As a result, Members across the House can properly appreciate the extent of EU law on our statute book and the extent of the opportunities that reforming this law provides.
In the 2022 “The Benefits of Brexit” announcement, the Prime Minister committed to making the outcome of this review available to the public. It is right that the public know how much retained EU law there is and that they should be able to hold the Government properly to account for reforming it. The public have already shown great interest in the EU law that remains on our statute book, as evidenced by the huge amount of correspondence I received in response to my request for details of EU legislation that still burden them—and I am grateful to readers of The Sun and the Sunday Express for their many replies. I am also encouraging some competitiveness between my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, and hope that this spirit will inspire rapid reform, with returns published every quarter by Departments.
Therefore, I am pleased to announce that today we publish an authoritative catalogue of over 2,400 pieces of legislation, spanning over 300 individual policy areas. This catalogue will be available on gov.uk through an interactive dashboard. It will be updated on a quarterly basis so the public can “count down” retained EU law as the Government reform it. I commend the Cabinet Office officials who developed this dashboard; it is a fascinating resource in its own right, and is of both political and—in my view—historic constitutional importance.
The pertinence of publishing the dashboard today should not be missed. Six years ago tomorrow—that day of legend and song—the United Kingdom voted decisively to leave the European Union. The public voted to take back control, and while it took some time to get there—two general elections and some constitutionally fascinating parliamentary prestidigitation between 2017 and 2019—the Prime Minister has delivered such control in spades. His Brexit agreement, which guaranteed regulatory autonomy for Britain, means that the publication of this dashboard offers the public a real opportunity: everything on it we can now change.
The author E. M. Forster once said
“two cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety, and two because it permits criticism.”
Therefore, as I did earlier this year, I am inviting the public from across the country—whether in Wakefield or in Tiverton and Honiton, or in other places selected at random for the purposes of illustration—to once again share their ideas of reform and to look further into pieces of retained EU law that have an impact on their lives. By using this dashboard, the public can join us on this journey to amend, repeal or replace retained EU law. Together we will make reforms that will create a crucial boost to productivity and help us bring the benefits of growth to the whole country.
Of course, Her Majesty’s Government are legislating to seize the opportunities of Brexit and have been since 2020. From introducing our points-based immigration system and securing the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market to boosting growth and innovation by allowing gene-edited crops and recognising high-quality professional qualifications, we are already showing—among others—the benefits of Brexit to the British people.
There are countless other opportunities for reform ahead of us. Members will know that the recent Queen’s Speech was full to the gunwales with the opportunities of Brexit, ranging from financial services to agriculture, data and artificial intelligence, transport, energy, and restoring sense to human rights law. This Government will work to develop a new pro-growth, high-standards regulatory framework that will give business the confidence to innovate, invest, and create jobs.
Those are the big, headline-grabbing issues, but the dashboard is, I hope, an opportunity to tackle hundreds of matters. They may seem marginal on their own, but all these measures in the margin will combine to usher in a revolution: not a French- style revolution with blood running in the streets and the terror of the guillotine, but a British-style revolution whereby marginal improvements move inch by inch so that soon we will have covered the feet, and the feet will become yards, and the yards will become chains and then furlongs and miles, until the journey is complete. With inflation running high, we need to search everywhere—under every stone and sofa cushion—for supply-side reforms that will make products and services cheaper, will make things easier for business, and, ultimately, will grow the economy and cut the cost of living.
The dashboard, therefore, is the supply-side reformer’s El Dorado, and, naturally, I am pointing to the treasure trove of opportunity that this publication represents. It highlights unnecessary and disproportionate EU regulations on consumer goods, such as those regulating the power of vacuum cleaners—why should that trouble Her Majesty’s Government?—and the expensive testing requirements mandated by REACH—the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—for the plastics that make up items we use every day, requirements that shut out the newest and most innovative materials. Thankfully, we left the EU before it decided to mandate what sort of phone chargers we can have, a typically short-termist and anti-innovation measure which will only have a long-term negative effect for consumers.
The dashboard includes the overbearing reporting requirements which add costs to businesses and slow down progress, whether by building new developments in areas that need housing the most or by making it more expensive to hire people at a time of a labour shortage and to respond to militant strikers. We will continue to work with Departments to cut at least £1 billion of business costs from EU red tape to secure greater freedoms and productivity. Ensuring that we have the right regulation is crucial. Excessive and unnecessary regulations which burden business or distort market outcomes, reduce productivity, pushing up prices and negatively affecting everyone’s cost of living. Using our new-found freedom to address the over 2,400 retained EU pieces of legislation on our statute book, the Government will be able to remove and amend regulation that is not right for the UK. This will make a real difference to the process of reducing the number of unnecessary EU regulations that contribute to the cost of living.
Some—perhaps dozens—-of these rules we might wish to maintain. That will be a decision for the Queen in Parliament, our Parliament, rather than the European Commission. We will preserve retained EU law that is required for our international obligations. We will preserve high standards, such as those for water, and we may even be able to go further in some ways to move ahead of the European Union.
The publication of this dashboard will mark a pivotal step towards reform of our statute book and those 2,400 pieces of retained EU legislation, ahead of the introduction of the “Brexit Freedoms” Bill. That Bill will allow the United Kingdom to take the next step in reclaiming the sovereignty of Parliament. It will address the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which preserved and incorporated too much EU-derived law at too high a status, giving much of it the same status as an Act of Parliament. That is clearly mistaken, and means that many changes to retained EU law require primary legislation.
Undoing this vandalism to our constitutional order policy area by policy area would dominate the legislative agenda for Parliaments to come, which would affect the Government’s ability to deliver more fundamental domestic reforms and the opportunity for the UK to reap the benefits of Brexit. The “Brexit Freedoms” Bill will create a targeted power to allow retained EU law to be amended in a more sustainable way, and will go with the grain of the British constitution. This will help us to deliver the UK’s regulatory, economic and legal priorities.
Ahead of the Bill’s introduction, I invite Members to review the dashboard themselves, and to delve into the legislation that affects the communities that they serve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement.
This appears to be simply a vanity project. It is quite extraordinary that on a day when inflation has topped 9%, when the cost of energy is soaring, when families are facing massive pressures and wondering how they will put food on the table, and when prices are rising at the fastest rate in 40 years, the Government’s offer to the British people is a digital filing cabinet of existing legislation that the right hon. Gentleman describes as “marginal”—his own word.
While the Government plan to cut 20% of civil servants, the Minister for so-called Government efficiency is running his own make-work scheme in the Cabinet Office, creating tasks for it to satisfy his own obsessions. How much has this exercise cost the taxpayer? How many civil service hours? Perhaps we could have a running meter counting them up on the dashboard so that we all know. What is the expected number of users among the general public? Is the dashboard even active? I am an eager beaver, but I could not find it on gov.uk this morning.
The reality is that gimmicks do nothing to address the real challenges that the public face today. For all the Government’s talk about changes that we can make outside the EU, they still refuse to make the one concrete change that the Labour party has demanded for months, with the overwhelming support of the British people, and the Prime Minister himself has promised: the removal of VAT on home energy bills.
Other changes that are now possible post Brexit and which Labour has called for but the Government have refused include a ban on the import of fur; the imposition of VAT on private school fees to fund a transformation in the provision of mental health; and the introduction of US-style bans on the import of goods from China produced using slave labour. Those are all changes that the Government could make right now, but they were not mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman’s lengthy oration.
As for the regulatory changes that the Government propose, I have not heard a single example today of a specific change that depends on the passage of the planned Brexit freedoms Bill, nor have we heard an example of additional changes that will follow in due course as a result of that Bill. What is that Bill for? In the absence of any answers, it is only right that we are cautious about what the new legislation will mean and whether it could be used as a mechanism to fast-track changes that could, for example, impinge on the devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, threaten workers’ rights or threaten the environmental protections and food standards that the British people were repeatedly promised would be maintained post Brexit.
It is also vital that we ensure that any changes proposed under the legislation are subject to the proper processes for scrutiny, consultation and impact assessment. Anyone in doubt about why that is necessary need only look at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s proposals, included in the paper “The Benefits of Brexit”, to ditch the UK’s current data protection standards. That one move, which has been confirmed in recent weeks, would jeopardise tens of billions of UK exports that depend on the ability to sell services online to EU customers quickly and easily. However, there has been no mention whatever of that threat, let alone a full assessment of its impact, and it did not feature today. That is all further evidence of a Government entirely driven by rhetoric and increasingly detached from reality.
Could it be that the dashboard is designed not only to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman’s obsessions, but to distract members of the public from the Government’s shambolic handling of the Northern Ireland protocol? All this self-congratulation comes from a Government who are now trying to convince people that what they described as their flagship achievement was not a negotiating triumph, but a deal so flawed that they cannot abide by it. Not only is their Northern Ireland Protocol Bill a blatant breach of international law, but it risks the integrity of the Good Friday agreement, risks causing divides across Europe when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and risks causing trade barriers in a cost of living crisis. We need negotiation, graft and statecraft, not unilateral action or gimmicks.
Those are just some of the very real and serious problems that will affect the lives of ordinary people in the UK and beyond for years to come. The dashboard that the right hon. Gentleman described will provide little comfort. A Labour Government would make Brexit work by unleashing the potential of British businesses and entrepreneurs so that we can lead the world in new industries. We would seize the opportunities of the climate transition to create well-paid, secure jobs in all parts of the country. Rather than pursuing vanity projects, the Government should focus on the real problems facing the British public.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to thank me for an advance copy of my statement; it is a pity, then, that he did not read it, because so many of his questions were answered there. He wants to know what the purpose is—the purpose is supply-side reforms that are essential for dealing with the cost of living crisis. [Interruption.] He quotes “marginal”, so he did pay attention to one thing, but he then wrenched it out of context to use it in a way that shows he was not following the argument. Each individual item is marginal, but cumulatively they are fundamental. That is how we have supply side reforms.
There are endless obstacles in the way of doing business—hundreds and thousands of them—and our job is to find them, expose them and remove them and to have a Bill that makes that simple. If you had to have primary legislation to remove every stone from your shoe, Madam Deputy Speaker—no doubt they are very elegant shoes that no stone would dare enter, but nonetheless, should a stone enter and we needed primary legislation to remove it, that brave stone would remain there almost permanently. What we are doing is speeding up the process so that stones may be removed from shoes.
Then the socialists complain that the agreement was not up to scratch. Bear in mind that at that point the Labour party still did not want to leave the European Union. It was still arguing about things such as a second referendum. Labour Members did not want to follow what the British people had voted for, and now they want slavish acceptance of EU laws. Have we not had a socialist recently calling for the single market to be where we should end up again? That is where they want to be: under the yoke of Brussels, ignoring the referendum and the will of the British people.
The hon. Gentleman also thought that this dashboard should be released before my statement to Parliament. Some people may remember that I used to be Leader of the House, and in that role I was regularly hearing from Mr Speaker about information being given out before it had come to the Floor of the House. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) nodding—he would be the first to raise a point of order.
I am glad that there are a few socialists in today, rather than being on picket lines. It might be that when they are on their picket lines, they could read a bit of “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders of this place to understand that things are meant to be announced here first, which is what we are doing.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having made this statement? It is quite right that we need to get on with this. To those who complain about not having absolutely everything done now on the Floor of the House by primary legislation, I say that so many of these rules and regulations were imported without so much as a single element being dealt with on the Floor of the House, so we need to ensure we get this in balance.
Can I press my right hon. Friend on general data protection regulation rules? One of the problems we have is that many charities, small businesses and start-ups face real cost problems and regulatory detail problems that they cannot cope with, and they have cried out for changes to be made. Will he confirm to me that this is one of the areas that the Government will look at to make sure that those charities, companies and individuals do not face anything like the terrible bureaucratic mess that is the regulations today?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend makes two very good points. The first is that it is important to note that most of these laws came in using the section 2(2) power under the European Communities Act 1972. The vast majority were not subject to a parliamentary process, despite the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. When we asked for debates on the Floor of the House in that Committee, they were often not given, and the debates that were held in Committee could not refuse or block a European law—even the ports directive, which everyone was united against. This great flood of regulations came in without so much as a by-your-leave from this House, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is right to point that out.
My right hon. Friend makes a good point on GDPR, and it is worth bearing in mind that Australia has a general exemption from GDPR for smaller businesses. Whether we can go that far, I do not know, but I will certainly take his point up with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I know that the Minister speaks with passion as a Brexiteer, as I speak with passion as a remainer—at least we can both having conviction in our belief, unlike those who have slightly changed their minds. As I listened to his statement, replete with the usual—forgive me—flim-flam about Brexit Britain being liberated from the European yoke, I found myself wondering whether he really believes that this Palace is the only place capable of promulgating rights and laws. From listening to him speak, and from what we know about the Brexit freedoms Bill, it is almost as if those on the Government side have forgotten that there are other legislatures across these islands that have a role in making laws and that may wish to express an opinion on whether the laws and rights that we accumulated during our membership of the European Union should be snatched away by whatever whimsy this Government are attracted to in a given week.
Given that Scotland’s governance and destiny cannot be decided without the sovereign will and consent of the people of Scotland, not this place—this Government continue to ignore us at their peril—could the Minister tell us whether the Government will seek a legislative consent motion from Pàrlamaid na h-Alba, and from other devolved legislatures, and if so, whether they intend to respect the decisions of those Parliaments? We need to ask the question: do we actually live in a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or in a greater England, where the wishes of only one of the constituent nations need to be respected in order for such Bills to be carried?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that he and I have been consistent in our views on this matter, and therefore it is interesting, as always, to cross swords with him. He brings us to an important issue, because obviously where there are devolved consequences from laws coming back from the European Union, the power to amend will be with the devolved authorities. We have already seen a great flow of power from Brussels to the devolved Administrations so that the Scottish Government have received powers. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 provided a great swathe of extra powers to the devolved authorities, and that will continue under this Bill and will provide benefits for all the devolved authorities to take back control for themselves. We will indeed ask for legislative consent motions, which is the habit of this Government. I cannot promise whether they will be granted; in that instance, he will be more influence than me.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the enormous progress he is making with respect to the freedoms Bill, and the opportunities that it will give the United Kingdom to regain its sovereignty, its self-government and its democracy? Does he agree, given his experience and having been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, that one of the most extraordinary aspects of EU retained law is that for about 50 years the laws were made by majority vote in the Council of Ministers—Ministers of other countries—behind closed doors and without even so much as a transcript, unlike in this House, so people did not even know the basis, let alone who had actually voted for them? Does he not regard that as so extraordinary that he would be surprised if anyone could possibly justify legislating for a country in that way, and particularly for a country such as the United Kingdom, with its freedom and democracy? It is completely unacceptable for it to have continued for so long?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the way legislation was made in Europe was entirely undemocratic. It was unscrutinised and then became our law automatically, and if we did not turn it into our law properly, we could be told to jump to by the European Court of Justice. The situation was entirely unsatisfactory. However, because we are a democracy and we believe in the rights of Parliament, we are ensuring that the process of reversing that is done in a proper parliamentary manner, and I hope that he will play his part in that manner.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It was widely reported that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce a sunset clause under which all EU retained law would disappear after four years unless Government Departments had decided that they wanted to keep it. However, having listened carefully to his statement, it seems to me that he has suffered a defeat at the hands of his Cabinet colleagues—we should pay tribute to the Environment Secretary, who I think described that approach as “messing around”. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about trying to remove constraints on businesses, what is he going to do about the barrel-load of red tape, cost and bureaucracy that has fallen on British businesses since the beginning of 2021 when they are trying to export to the EU? That has had a huge impact, especially on small businesses, some of which have just given up trying to sell goods to Europe.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about sunsets. I think I once called him the high priest of remain. Yesterday, there was a marvellous picture of the latest sunset over Stonehenge, where those who like the sunsets coming late had all gathered to celebrate the longest day. I am surprised that the high priest of remain was not there joining in on the celebration.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he will have to wait and see what the Bill has to say about that. He mentioned EU regulation. This great lover of EU regulation does not realise where the blame lies. The EU runs a fundamentally anti-competitive closed market, which was affecting us. It was making goods and services in this country more expensive because we could not trade freely with the world. Now the EU is applying its regulations to us—that is what we are getting out of. That is the economic opportunity: to be free from all of that which slowly strangles the European economy and to have an economy that can grow globally.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing to advance UK prosperity and growth, including this Bill. The common fisheries policy sunk many of our fishing boats. Can we have a policy to replace that fleet? The EU policy ripped up many of our orchards with grants. Can we have some UK money and a policy to replant our trees? The EU imposed VAT on us and has left us with a burden on our energy. Now surely is the time to use our freedoms and cut VAT.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is right: it is one of our freedoms. In his spring statement, the Chancellor announced some amelioration of VAT. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend’s suggestion is passed on to the Chancellor.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As someone who supported Brexit, I welcome the statement today and the fact that the Government are going to monitor and identify ways in which we can make our economy more dynamic, more innovative and more competitive. But as a Unionist, I have concerns about the statement. The regulatory freedom that is being sought cannot apply to many aspects of law in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland will still remain under the dead hand of EU regulation, which will smother innovation and entrepreneurial dynamism. Will the Minister give an assurance that, in order for the freedoms that he is announcing today to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Government will make every effort and take every step to remove the dead hand of the protocol?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and share a lot of his views on this matter. It is fundamental that the benefits of leaving the European Union are for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am pleased with the Bill that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has introduced, and I hope that it will go towards ameliorating the problems that have arisen. Our single united country cannot be ruled by the dead hand of the Brussels bureaucracy, as we voted to leave as a single nation.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it remains a priority for this Government to use our newfound Brexit freedoms to develop a pro-growth, high standards regulatory framework that gives businesses such as mine in Guildford the confidence to innovate and invest?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need is regulations that work rather than ones that require a lot of form filling. The Procurement Bill has been introduced in the other place, and that will replace 350 EU regulations with one British law. That is what we must be aiming at. We are not moving to the wild west. We are not going to have no regulation. However, our regulation must be understandable, simple to effect and accountable to this House. The best check on regulation is Members of this House coming forward and saying, “I seek redress of grievance for my constituent who is being harmed by this regulation.” The Minister at the Dispatch Box is then put on the spot and has to go back to his or her office and ask, “Why are we doing this to the Great British people?” That is how our democracy works, and that is how we must make regulation work.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right that it makes a refreshing change from the practice of his colleagues that he came to this House first to tell us about the dashboard, but he might have tried to see whether it works on a mobile phone, because it does not. I know that he is not a fan of being able to simply charge one, but he might accept that most of the British public who want to use the dashboard will have one. No matter—with some assistance, I have been able to log on to the dashboard and I can see that on the list of items that he has put up for grabs are the length of maternity leave and the duty to pay statutory maternity pay. He said in his statement that everything on the dashboard “can now change”. Will he assure the thousands of women in this country who rely on the protections of maternity leave and maternity pay that they will not change? If so, what is the point of this? If not, will he be honest that it is really about reinventing the Beecroft reforms?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The dashboard worked perfectly well on an iPad, so I would have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Members of this House to get it to work. In many cases, the protections that we have in employment law in this country predate the European Union or we are ahead of the European Union. That is true of maternity rights, where we are ahead of the base rights in the European Union under our own law. To say, “Are we going to repeal bits that are not even EU law, but domestic law?” is missing the point of the statement.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Over a long time in this House, I have noticed that when the Government have done something well, the number of Opposition Back Benchers present for a statement is very few. I spy no Liberal Democrats at all—DUP Members are here, of course—and just four Labour Back Benchers were here at the start of the statement. They do not want to be here to listen to Brexit opportunities and the savings and benefits to this country. The able Minister said that there will be quarterly reporting, which I hope he will come to the House to do. Will he publicise that in advance, so that Liberal Democrats and Labour Members will know not to attend?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise and witty suggestion.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Minister mentioned in his statement that he hopes that today’s proposals will reduce the cost of living, but is it not the case that the British Government’s post-Brexit policy is leading to reduced investor confidence and weakening the currency, which further fuels inflation? Would not a responsible Government, given the serious problems faced by households across the UK, stop shredding European regulations and rejoin the single market?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No. The hon. Gentleman knows that I will not agree with that suggestion, because it would negate the referendum where a majority of people in Wales voted in favour of leaving, as did the majority of people in England. This is about reducing costs and taking burdens off. The single market is an extraordinarily regulatory organisation that boosts the costs of services and manufactured goods. To go back into it would make life more expensive and make things worse for British consumers.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and say how much I welcome the publication of the dashboard, because it no doubt provides a revealing snapshot of the extent to which the body of United Kingdom law has been infiltrated by frequently undemocratically formulated EU law. I echo the words of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson): the big exception is Northern Ireland, which is continuing to receive a stream of laws because of the Northern Ireland protocol. I urge the Government to press ahead with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is urgently needed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is beginning to sound like business questions. I will make sure that his request is passed on to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the British economy: they drive forward innovation and they create jobs, but they do not have huge departments to help them with the mountain of red tape that is suffocating them because of the Government’s botched Brexit. Can the Minister set out specifically what his plan is to reduce that mountain of red tape so that those SMEs can be supported rather than crushed by the form of Brexit that he supports?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Is it my right hon. Friend’s view that most of the bureaucracy placed on British businesses that are trying to export comes from the requirements made by other EU countries? They seem to be making it a lot harder for us to export to them than we are making it for them to export to us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is a very important point. Free trade benefits the receiver of free trade. Just because the EU makes it harder for us to export to it is no reason to retaliate in kind. All that does is make things more expensive for our consumers and our businesses. That is why, on 1 July, we will not impose the full set of controls that the EU imposes on us. We are looking to a single trade window by the end of 2023, which will lower the barriers to trade from around the world and improve the fluidity of our borders. Why? Because that benefits our economy, even if we do it unilaterally, and that is fundamentally important. The EU has never understood that, and it is why it is such a high-cost area.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I thank the right hon. Member for the statement. I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, to which he gave evidence on this subject a couple of months ago. The Treasury has announced reforms to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as part of this package. In the current economic climate, it is imperative that vulnerable consumers be adequately protected, particularly when it comes to credit agreements. Will the Minister confirm how the Government expect to ensure full consultation with traditionally hard-to-reach groups?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not know if the hon. Lady will particularly want a compliment from me, but she is one of the most assiduous attenders in this House. She fights for constituents who face difficulties, holds Ministers to account, and ensures that people’s concerns are brought to this House, and while I may not agree with her overarching political philosophy, that is what we Members of Parliament are here to do. We are the champions of hard-to-reach people; we hold Governments to account; and we ensure that the result is included in Bills as they make their way through Parliament. The hon. Lady, dare I say it, is a model of how this can be done.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for giving a summary masterclass, in his usual way, of what the Brexit freedoms Bill will mean. I think that the British people have not realised how we got to our legislative framework; there is primary legislation in this place, directives, regulations, and the override of the European Communities Act 1972. Nobody can be sure of the position, be they manufacturing something, providing services or doing anything else—this goes for anything that moves—because we do not have consolidated legislation that says, “These are the rules on the manufacture of paper,” for instance. That cannot be fair. Does he agree that this proposal will be a refreshing opening up of our legislative framework, so that we can make it better, more streamlined and, most importantly, accountable to this place and the British people?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, indeed. Putting the information online, and opening it up to people—including, of course, to Members of Parliament—will make it much clearer where the blockages, obstructions and difficulties are for businesses. Once we know where they are from the detail of the legislative instrument, it becomes much easier to remove them.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is increasingly clear that the right hon. Member’s ministerial title refers to the political opportunities that the Government see in reopening Brexit wounds as often as possible. His pointless statement today ignores the wishes of the British people, who want the Government to stop banging on about Brexit and start tackling the issues that they face in their daily life. It ignores the wishes of business, although we know what the Prime Minister’s view is of business—it is summed up in a four-letter expletive. Was not the Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Environment Secretary, right when he said that “messing around” with retained law wastes officials’ time,
“costs businesses money and is unlikely to make much difference”?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary has been extremely helpful in this process, so the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in second-tier publications. This is not about opening wounds. It is the Labour party that always wanted to oppose what the people had voted for. It thought its voters did not know what they were doing. It treats its electors with contempt and the results were reaped in December 2019. This is about getting the advantages from Brexit. This is about the agenda set out in the 2019 manifesto, but also in 2016 at the time of the referendum, of how we benefit from leaving the European Union. We do not now want slavishly to follow the diktats of the EU. That would be a way of losing all the advantages. This is the way of making the economy more efficient, getting supply-side reforms, and making goods and services cheaper.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is great that we are finally moving forward with the task of optimising conditions here in the UK for businesses and individuals. Does he agree that this is an essential part of moving on with the process? A number of times I have had friends who might have voted to remain say to me, “What was the point of this? Show us what the point was, because we want to change things now. We actively want to change rules in the City and in agriculture.” Will he drive this forward with every effort?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Both of us represent rural constituencies in Somerset and one of the great advantages of Brexit is taking away the red tape that ties our farmers and simplifying processes to make it easier for them to get on with the business of farming. It is not surprising that a very large number of retained EU law Acts are within the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because that has been a primary responsibility of the European Union. We need to be able to clear away the thicket to make life easier. He is absolutely right.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
They remove our businesses from a single market of 500 million people. They remove our collective right to live, work and travel across the European Union. They are delivering the slowest economic growth in the entire G20—aside from Russia, of course. And what do we get in return? We get an interactive dashboard and potentially more powerful vacuum cleaners. The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case for Scotland to choose a different path, does he not?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is a compelling case for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, which is what people voted for in 2014. There seems to be a remarkable short-sightedness about the length of a generation, which as I understood it was going to be the period before there was another vote. What we have done is what the British people voted for. The truth about the SNP is that whenever the people in the United Kingdom vote, they do not give the result the SNP wants, so the SNP goes off in a sulk and wants them to vote again and again and again in the hope that one day they might give the right answer. But life is not like that. We have had the referendum and it is all about proper opportunities. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen on Europe, just look at the spreads on bonds in the eurozone at the moment. Would he really want to be in an organisation that has that degree of fragility in its bond market?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement. Northern Ireland’s section on the dashboard should be incredibly simple. The Northern Ireland protocol has given the EU the final say without any elected input from Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister’s statement today, but I would love to welcome the statement that allows Northern Ireland to operate as part of the United Kingdom in terms of our own legal place, so will he confirm the date for the withdrawal legislation, which I believe he is very eager to give but perhaps some of his colleagues are less so?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I was sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber earlier when we unveiled the shield to Sir Henry Wilson. I understand that he was, of course, in Westminster Hall, but it is about the only time I have ever been in this Chamber without his beady eye looking down upon me. He is, of course, right. We want the benefits for the whole of the United Kingdom, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, too. This is a United Kingdom activity. The whole of the United Kingdom left the European Union and we cannot allow Northern Ireland to be a satrapy of the EU.
Bill Presented
Bill of Rights Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Dominic Raab, supported by Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart, the Attorney General and James Cartlidge, presented a Bill to reform the law relating to human rights.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 117) with explanatory notes (Bill 117—EN).
Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill: Allocation of Time
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill:
Timetable
(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills), on any financial resolution relating to the Bill;
(c) on the conclusion of proceedings on any financial resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chair shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chair or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (11)(a) of this Order.
(5) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chair or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(6) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chair or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(7) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (4)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chair shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Other proceedings
(8) Provision may be made for the taking and bringing to a conclusion of any other proceedings on the Bill.
Miscellaneous
(9) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(11)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(12)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(13)(a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings on that day to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.
(14) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(15)(a) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at a time falling after the commencement of proceedings on this Order or on the Bill on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order of the House, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.—(Dr Coffey.)
Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 June 2022 - (22 Jun 2022)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the House that the reasoned amendment in the name of Kirsty Blackman has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The cost of living challenge facing many families right now is being driven by forces beyond their control. The aftershocks of covid on global supply chains, and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, have caused a hike in prices and a spike in bills, particularly for energy costs. As a result, household budgets are being stretched further than at any time in recent memory, so just as we did during covid, the Government are stepping up at this challenging time to help families who are feeling the strain. It is because we got the big calls right that we have the fiscal firepower to take decisive and direct action to help millions of people across the country.
Although we have always been clear that the Government cannot cover every situation or solve every problem, we are providing financial support to every household to help relieve some of the pressures that people are under, and to help them cut costs across their household expenditure. Approximately four in five households—all those living in band A to band D homes—are receiving a £150 discount on their council tax, with millions already benefitting from the money landing in their bank accounts, and all households that are domestic energy customers will get £400 towards their energy bills this autumn, in the form of a grant with nothing to repay. We are, however, principally targeting help at those who need it most, helping ease the squeeze for those on low and fixed incomes, who we know spend a higher than average proportion of their income on energy.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
There is an issue with people who live in park homes—I have a few sites in my constituency—because the energy rebate does not make it through to them. Are the Government looking at innovative ways of addressing the issues faced by those individuals and households?
Dr Coffey
My understanding is that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), is aware of that particular channel. I am led to believe that a solution is being developed so that people will benefit from that cost even if they do not receive the money directly, because a lot of park home owners do not pay their energy bills directly. I know that my right hon. Friend is aware.
Returning to what we are doing to help people, we are providing a direct cost of living payment of £650—split into two payments of £326 and £324—to over 8 million families who already get help through means-tested benefits. This includes people on universal credit, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, income support, working tax credit, child tax credit and pension credit—both guarantee and savings credit recipients. On top of that, we are providing a £150 payment for approximately 6 million people with disabilities who are on qualifying benefits, and giving 8 million pensioner households an additional £300 alongside their winter fuel payment. Combined, that is extra support of at least £1,200 this year for the majority of households that are least able to absorb rising costs, which takes our total support package to £37 billion.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I just want to check one point. At the moment, about 150,000 working-age people who receive universal credit have their benefits limited by the benefit cap. Am I right to say that these additional payments are not constrained at all by the level of the benefit cap?
Dr Coffey
Yes, that is the case. I was planning to cover that later. For the record, I will still make that point.
Our household support fund administered through local authorities in England and the money given to devolved Administrations are further avenues for people to seek help with the cost of essentials. From October, the Government are adding an additional £500 million to the fund, extending support through the winter. That equates to an additional £421 million in England and £79 million for the devolved Administrations, and that will take total funding for this UK-wide household support to £1.5 billion.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
One group of people who receive universal credit and are in some difficulty are those who lose some of their universal credit because they received a universal credit advance for the first five weeks. Some 92,000 households in that situation in Wales are getting about £60 a month less, and that comes to a total of about £5 million being denied to them. I hope that the Secretary of State is prepared to reconsider her position on that. Obviously, that is not in the Bill, so she has taken a decision in the short term, but I press her to reconsider.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that money is denied to people. The whole point of receiving an advance is that there is phasing and, instead of receiving 12 payments in a typical calendar year, 13 payments are made. We extended that recently so that people can choose whether to have 25 payments over 24 months. It is not a case of people being denied.
The Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill before the House is a short Bill of 11 clauses that gives us the powers necessary to administer payments to families on means-tested and disability benefits. As one-off new benefit payments, they will be delivered by the UK Government to eligible households right across the United Kingdom in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The timing of such payments will vary, starting with the first payment of £326 for DWP means-tested benefit claimants from 14 July. The second payment will arrive in the autumn for those eligible. Those on tax credits who do not receive DWP means-tested benefits will get each instalment later to avoid duplicate payments.
People not eligible in time for the first £326 payment because they were not getting a qualifying benefit in the month before the announcement may get the second £324 payment if they have a qualifying entitlement to a benefit in the month before the next eligibility date. We have deliberately not included the next eligibility date in the Bill to try not to change claimant behaviour. Instead, there is the power to set a date through regulations.
Those on qualifying disability benefits will get their £150 as a single payment from September. Where eligibility for any of these cost of living payments is found retrospectively—for example, someone who had applied for personal independence payment but not yet been awarded it—people will still receive that disability cost of living payment; it will just be at a later date.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
In opening, the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that 6 million disabled people would qualify for the additional disability support payment of £150. Does she acknowledge that some disabled people—particularly those in receipt of disability living allowance, PIP or attendance allowance—who no longer qualify for the warm home discount since her Government changed the rules, will lose out? In effect, they have taken away £150 through the warm home discount, and the additional £150 really does not do anything to meet the extra costs for people who have already lost out.
Dr Coffey
The warm home discount is not relevant to the Bill, but I understand the point. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I do not know that the intention was—[Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Lady’s question. My understanding of the policy rationale is that because PIP is not means-tested—it is not income-based—a decision on warm home discount eligibility was made to include many more households on the basis of income rather than PIP eligibility. I am sure that she will welcome the fact that we have included £150 in this legislation.
These one-off tax repayments do not count towards the benefit cap and will not affect existing benefit awards. They will provide a budget boost for millions of the lowest-income households right across the United Kingdom.
Dr Coffey
No, I will not.
This Government have supported and continue to support those most in need. I am proud of our record of lifting people out of poverty.
Anyone listening to Opposition parties could be forgiven for thinking that poverty was going up. The fact is that in 2021 there were 1.2 million fewer people in absolute poverty, before housing costs, than when we came into government in 2010. Between 2019-20 and 2020-21, every measure of poverty, whether absolute or relative, saw a reduction in poverty. In terms of statistics, on absolute poverty, our preferred measure, the number of working-age people in poverty is down by 100,000, the number of children in poverty is down by 200,000, and pensioner poverty is down by 200,000.
We know from the latest available data that for most families the best way out of poverty is through work.
Dr Coffey
I will not take any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman, because he has already intervened. I am sure that if he wants to contribute to this debate he will have put in to speak.
In 2019-20, children in households where all adults were in work were about six times less likely to be in absolute poverty than children in a household where nobody works. That is why our economic priority during the pandemic was to protect, support and create jobs through the furlough scheme and the many other measures we took as part of our plan for jobs.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will of course know that her figures on absolute poverty and relative poverty are disputed by the various stakeholders who work in this field. One of the issues that is concerning people with regard to poverty is the failure to uprate benefits this year along the lines of this year’s levels of inflation. She has rightly said that pensions and benefits such as disability benefits and universal credit—and, hopefully, the minimum income guarantee and pension credit—will rise in line with inflation this September. She is coming under some pressure on that now. Can she give us a guarantee that she will not resile from that position?
Dr Coffey
The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I cannot make any declaration about the rises in benefits; I can only point to our policy in terms of, for example, the triple lock for pensioners. That is because I am required by law to undertake a review of the benefits once a year and I have not yet done so. I am sure that he will judge us on past performance, especially in following the regular legislation.
The unemployment rate is now below the low level we saw before the pandemic—close to the lowest since 1974—and we have more people on payrolls than ever before, but we are not resting on our laurels, particularly with a record number of vacancies in the labour market. We want people to get into work and to boost their incomes, which is why we launched the Way to Work scheme, quickly connecting claimants with employers looking to fill vacancies. Having turbo-charged jobcentres into super, almost dating, agencies in the way that they match people looking for work to people offering work, I am confident that we will achieve our target to move half a million people into jobs by the end of the month. There are hundreds of thousands more people benefiting from a pay packet, along with the prospect of a better job tomorrow and a future career.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the payments in this Bill, to almost 25,000 of my constituents, are on top of the support that has already been put in place, with the £1,000 that families will benefit from through the taper rate, the living wage rise and the £330 that most of those in work will get through raising the national insurance threshold, meaning that tens of thousands of people in North West Durham will be better off as a result of these changes and showing that we are providing support now, just like we did during the pandemic, during the cost of living issues due to international factors such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out the additional measures. I do not know exactly how many people in his constituency will be affected, but I rely on his excellent local knowledge as a great constituency MP. Absolutely—I am setting out additional measures to those that he has outlined.
The Bill will deliver one-off additional payments responding to the challenges faced by people in every part of our country over the coming months. I thank the usual channels and the House more broadly for agreeing that it can make its necessary progress today. Its provisions are intentionally straightforward and will enable a straightforward approach for claimants, with no complicated forms, no bureaucracy and nobody having to make an additional claim, as payments will automatically go into people’s bank accounts.
The actions in the Bill will boost the budgets of millions of stretched families in every part of the United Kingdom, helping them through the cost of living challenge. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Jonathan Ashworth.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by being clear with the Secretary of State: we do not intend to divide the House. We understand that the Government need to put in place the architecture to make these arrangements swiftly. None the less, we want to put on the record a number of points, on which I hope Ministers will provide some clarity in their response to Second Reading and throughout proceedings today.
Like many Members, the message that I am hearing up and down the country could not be clearer: for many of our constituents, these are the toughest times that anyone can remember. More than a decade of underwhelming economic growth has meant that today the cost of living is skyrocketing and pay packets are failing to keep pace with inflation. By next April, wages will be worth £2,000 less in real terms than in 2020, with real pay in the UK falling at the fastest rate for 20 years, leaving household finances stretched to breaking point. Prices are up in the shops and the cost of petrol is through the roof. Energy bills are sky-high, and the lifting of the price cap later this year means that they will increase further. Families everywhere are saying, “Enough is enough!” It should be no surprise that today’s statistics show a 12% increase in those with council tax arrears.
The Secretary of State took great care to explain why she is taking action to help those in need now, and the measures are welcome as far as they go, but the House has to understand that the future is bleak: energy market expert Cornwall Insight is warning that the energy cap could rise by a further £1,000 in October; inflation is at 9.1% today, with worse on the way; the cost of living will rapidly rise further; pensioners will see the value of their pensions and savings attacked by inflation; and working families will be left desperate to protect the value of their wages from the ravages of inflation—and the edict of Ministers tells them to take a pay cut.
Ministers hope that interest rates and tax increases will dampen demand in the economy, and thereby slow economic output. Pain today and pain tomorrow is their policy to get inflation under control, even though the Office for Budget Responsibility warned, following the spring statement, that we are heading for the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s, with more children set to be pushed into absolute poverty. Labour was clear that taking no action following the spring statement would have amounted to the wilful impoverishment of many of our constituents—a price that we never believe is worth paying. We therefore proposed a windfall tax on North sea gas and oil producers to help families and pensioners, and we are pleased that after some months the Government finally listened to our representations.
We recognise the extra support that the Government are allocating today, but in reality this legislation—important though it is—is a short-term sticking plaster because of a series of long-term policy failures to grow our economy sufficiently, and to address the longer-term problems and hardship that have been growing over the last 10 years due to attacks on social security and unfair pay settlements.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that missing from the Bill is any support for unpaid carers, and does he share my hope that the Government will bring forward proposals in the near future to help that group?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman anticipates a point I am going to make, which is why now is a good moment to turn to the specifics of the Bill. I want to raise a number of points that I hope Treasury Benchers will address throughout proceedings this afternoon, particularly regarding how the Bill impacts on four groups: the self-employed on universal credit; disabled people and carers; pensioners; and larger families.
First, on the self-employed who claim universal credit, the minimum income floor will reduce universal credit payments for some self-employed people to zero. Could the Minister clarify, in responding to the debate, whether self-employed universal credit claimants whose UC payments are zero purely because of the minimum income floor will be entitled to these cost of living payments?
Secondly, on how this impacts on disabled people, the disability charity Sense has warned today of the increasing numbers of disabled people pushed into debt as a result of the rising cost of living. Those on the Treasury Bench must surely understand that many disabled people have needs that make heating and electricity to power equipment particularly central to their wellbeing, so that economising on energy can bring severe hardship.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) raised a few moments ago, disabled people on non-means-tested benefits will get £150 as a minimum, and indeed those on means-tested benefits will get the £650. I appreciate that the Secretary of State says this is a responsibility of the Business Secretary, but Ministers did recently change the rules on the warm home discount scheme so that 290,000 people on disability living allowance, PIP and attendance allowance are no longer eligible.
For people on PIP, that means that the Government are giving £150 to them after it was taken off them through the changes to the warm home discount scheme. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it suggests that one hand of Government does not know what the other hand of Government is doing. How can that be justified?
Marsha De Cordova
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and he probably articulated it even better than I did. Does he also agree with me that the whole premise of DLA, PIP and attendance allowance is to help meet some of the extra costs faced by disabled people? The Secretary of State has stated that this is a different Department—it is BEIS—but she must none the less acknowledge the purpose of these benefits, and taking away one payment and giving some money back with another is actually going to leave nearly 300,000 disabled people worse off.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can assure her that she speaks with an eloquence on these matters that I rarely muster, and I thought she put her points powerfully.
Even though many disabled people have been given an additional £150, for many of them that will not cover the additional cost of inflation when applied to disability-related benefits. For example, for those on universal credit, the supplement for someone unable to work or engage in work-related activity rose by about £240 a year less than if it had been uprated in line with the consumer prices index. In addition, someone receiving the daily living component of PIP is worse off by £185 on the standard rate and by £274 on the enhanced rate as a result of the sub-inflation upratings later this year.
That is one of the reasons why many people out there are particularly concerned that the Secretary of State—I understand that, in legislation, she has to review these matters—and the Government may well resile from their commitment to inflation-increase benefits and pensions this September.
Equally, the hon. Gentleman who sits for a Welsh constituency that I cannot remember, and I am not sure I can pronounce it either—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) raised carer’s allowance, and people claiming carer’s allowance will not get any extra support. Carers often have higher energy bills because of their caring responsibilities, yet people in receipt of carer’s allowance—remember that they provide care for at least 35 hours a week and earn less than £132 a week—are likely to be hit hard without additional support. Why were carers left out of this package?
Thirdly, I want to talk about pensioners. We have 2 million pensioners in poverty, and the number is rising. The Prime Minister promised that pensions would keep pace with wages and prices, but, without any thought as to how hard pensioners are finding it to make ends meet, Ministers broke that promise by removing the so-called triple lock. That meant a real-terms cut of about £500 in the basic state pension—the biggest real-terms cut, I believe, for about 50 years. I was pleased to see Ministers commit to honouring the triple lock for next year, but we can see the pressure Ministers are coming under and we hope the Secretary of State does not break that promise for the next financial year.
We also need clarity from Ministers on whether the standard minimum guarantee of pension credit will be uprated in line with the consumer prices index in September. Pensioners on pension credit will receive the £650, as the Secretary of State knows, but pension credit uptake is not what it should be. If we could drive up the uptake of pension credit, Loughborough University estimates than an extra 440,000 retirees could be lifted out of poverty. With approximately 850,000 pensioners not claiming pension credit, a huge number are set to miss out. Failing to do more to increase pension credit uptake could mean that two thirds of the poorest pensioners will not get the extra £650.
I recognise that the Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion—the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is not in his place—has been leading a campaign to drive up the uptake and has even been ballroom dancing with Len Goodman. However, the Bill’s impact assessment, which the Government have published today, shows that 1.4 million pensioners are benefiting, but in the second round it is estimated that 26,000 fewer payments will be made to pension credit recipients. Can the Secretary of State or the Minister responding to the debate—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley)—explain why that is and what it says about the success, or otherwise, of the Government’s pension credit take-up campaign?
Families with children are poorly served by flat rate payments. Families in the bottom half of the income distribution with two or more children spend twice as much on food, essential household goods and services, clothing, footwear and transport. Families with three or more children are likely to spend an additional £500 on energy, but the support on offer is not adjusted for size of family.
We recognise that the cost of living payment, combined with the £150 council tax rate, will provide £1,200 for working-age households in receipt of means-tested benefits. However, that will not cover the whole increase in energy bills, especially as further large increases in the price cap, perhaps of £1,000, are expected in October. Nor will it provide much mitigation of the wider price food rises.
Let me spell it out. We know that there will be another rise in gas and electricity prices, possibly of £800 to £1,000, for a family who have already faced an increase of £850. That family will therefore need to find at least £1,650. They will get the council tax deduction of £150; they will get the energy bill loan, turned into a grant, of £400; and they will get £650, paid in two instalments, supposedly to cover the year ahead. That is £1,200 in total, which will still leave them £450 worse off because of the energy price rises this year. As that comes on top of last October’s £20-a-week cut in universal credit, that family’s standard of living will be down by £1,450 on last year—£28 a week. That is even before we take into account the food shopping bill, which Kantar has today predicted will go up by at least £380. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned of “apocalyptic” increases in food prices.
Surely more Government action is needed. Ministers will retort that they are helping families to find employment; employment should indeed be the best defence against the rising cost of living, but under this Government, 8 million people in work are in poverty and are picking up food parcels for their families because of low pay and family circumstances. Some 2 million working families are on universal credit and have suffered similar losses to those who are out of work: they have lost the £20 uplift, they faced a real-terms cut in universal credit in April, and their wages are being outpaced by inflation, even after the national living wage increase.
I recognise that the Minister will respond that the Chancellor has reduced the UC taper rate and increased the work allowance, and that those with the highest earnings who qualify for universal credit gain the most from the reduced taper. However, for those with very low earnings, the gains are much less than the losses elsewhere. A lone parent with two children would lose £1,200 if they were not working, but would lose £1,300 if they were working 10 hours, nearly £700 if they were working 20 hours and £400 if they were working 30 hours. These families have already lost substantial amounts, and the package that the Chancellor has announced does not make up for it. Those examples are not exceptional. They will have a familiarity to every Member who speaks to their local food bank or citizens advice bureau. The problem is that the flat payment system takes no account of family size or special needs.
I hope the Minister addresses those points this afternoon, because we need more than quick fixes to protect the living standards of our constituents and tackle the chronic injustices of poverty. We entered the living standards crisis not just on the back of years of underwhelming economic growth, but after years of cutting, freezing and restricting access to social security, which left us with a threadbare system and an explosion in food bank, baby bank, bedding bank and fuel bank usage. The real-terms value of out-of-work benefits is the lowest for years. We have seen the pernicious two-child policy, caps on support, inadequate help with housing and council tax, and real-terms cuts to universal credit—real-terms deductions to the amount that people on universal credit are forced to grapple with.
That is why child poverty is rising on its way to 5 million, with half a million more children destitute and 500,000 children going without a decent bed at night. The outcry from our communities forced the Government to take short-term action, but we need a long-term plan to rebuild social security, grow the economy, raise living standards, and defeat child and pensioner poverty, so that the victims of poverty can participate fully in society. That is what I am determined to build.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022. The Ayes were 215 and the Noes were 70.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a great privilege.
There will be no surprise that I welcome this Bill, which will help millions of families during these very difficult times. The Labour party thinks that the only way to help families is to just keep increasing benefits, but working-class people in places such as Ashfield are a bit more savvy than that. They realise that we make families better off by increasing opportunities through the job market, and education and training, which leads to promotion and better job prospects.
For the purposes of this debate, we need to go back in history a bit, to the end of the ‘90s, when Tony Blair came into government and introduced something called the tax credit system. Although at the time it seemed an incredibly kind thing to do, we are now feeling the unintended consequences. It has damaged businesses and damaged the prospects of millions and millions of people throughout the UK. I will give the House a good example.
A friend of mine refused to work more than 16 hours for over 10 years because she was a single parent. However, that backfired when her daughter got to 18 and my friend lost all her tax credits, her child benefit and her child support. Now we have a lady in her 40s who has, overnight, just lost half her weekly income, and she is stuck in a low-skilled, low-paid, minimum-wage job. She has never upskilled, despite her employer wanting her to upskill for years and years, so she has missed out on that career development, which could have led to a better job and less dependency on benefits, all because she did not want to work more than 16 hours a week.
This Government are trying to fix things like that with the universal credit taper, which will now allow people like my friend to work more hours and get a better paid job without it affecting their income as much as it would have affected hers all those years ago. That is the way to tackle poverty and help to people achieve their goals, but what Labour did is trap people—millions of people—into just having 16-hour—[Interruption.] Opposition Members can shake their heads and chunter away, but it is true. I know hundreds of people in Ashfield who were trapped in 16-hour-a-week jobs, and what good has it done them, years later? Ten years later, they are still in a minimum-wage or living-wage job, they have not upskilled and they have not moved any further, and they lose all their benefits when their children leave school. That is not progress.
The answer that the Labour party had, when all these people were stuck in 16-hour jobs and we could not get them to work a full-time job, was simple: open the floodgates and import cheap foreign labour, which is what happened. Twenty years later, we have a failed migration policy and a failed benefits policy, which has led to millions of people being trapped in a poverty cycle. We have spent the last 12 years trying to put right this mess and it is not easy when people are trapped in a poverty cycle —[Interruption.] Lots of Members on the Opposition Benches are grinning, but I will crack on.
Our benefits system in the UK is very generous—[Interruption.] It is generous. I will give an example. If my friend was a single parent now, living in Ashfield with two children and working 16 hours a week on the living wage, she would be getting £18,000 a year in universal credit and £6,000 or £7,000 a year in wages, which is an income of about £24,000 a year. She would not be paying any income tax, which is a bonus. To have that sort of income, a person would have to earn about £30,000 a year, which is a good wage in Ashfield.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that is very generous, how does it compare with benefits systems across the EU, for example, that are significantly more generous?
Lee Anderson
I will tell the hon. Lady what is generous: a single parent, like my friend and I were all those years ago, getting £24,000 a year for working 16 hours a week. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can shake her head, but I think that is a pretty generous payment. That person would not be paying any income tax. Come to Ashfield and ask if £24,000 net is a good income. It would be a struggle to find people who are earning that sort of income so, yes, it is a generous income.
As we level up the country, we need to level up the skills of people who are trapped in this life of benefit dependency caused by the Labour party—I will stick to my words. In the meantime, this caring Government realise that families need extra support, which is why we are providing £37 billion to support families. Remember this is taxpayers’ money. There is no magic money tree, so hard-working people are having to pay for this.
This Bill will ensure swift action by providing the power to make two cost of living payments of £650 to 8 million households throughout the UK. This is real, targeted help for real, vulnerable people. The £200 rebate on energy bills has been doubled to £400, and it is now a grant, so it will not be paid back. The living wage is up, the national living wage is up, the universal credit taper rate is up and national insurance has been cut, so 70% of those who pay national insurance will pay less and more than 2 million people will pay no national insurance at all. We are doing all we can to ensure we help to keep people’s head above the water by spending more than £80 billion on universal credit and legacy benefits, which now represent 3.8% of our GDP.
We cannot keep asking the hard-working taxpayer to put their hand in their pocket to pay more and more. We must all do our bit. Although I welcome that the Bill will get immediate support to families, we must all work hard to make sure every single person in this country has the chance to support themselves. The benefits system should be there to help people in their hour of need; it should not be a way of life.
If it were left to Labour, everyone would be sat at home feeling sorry for themselves, but I am different. I want people to have a good job, to earn more money and to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson, Kirsty Blackman.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak for the SNP on the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill. The Chancellor announced this uprating a number of weeks ago, having dragged his feet for so long. He announced the energy loan at the Budget, after announcing it earlier in the year, with a “Ta-da! Look at this! This is wonderful. We are giving you all this.” It was never sufficient. We called immediately for the energy loan to be a grant and for it to be increased.
The big announcement at the Budget was, “Hey, look, you can have cheaper solar panels!” That does not help my constituents, who are literally unable to buy food. We called for these changes then, and the Chancellor waited and waited until the end of May to make this announcement.
It has been a few weeks since the end of May, and we saw this Bill only last week. Parliamentarians have been able to scrutinise this Bill for only one week. The Government, or the Secretary of State, may say that this is because the Bill is so complicated, but they had weeks beforehand in which to decide what it would look like, and they have had weeks since the announcement in which to present it and give us an opportunity to see it. We should not be doing this in a single day. I appreciate that there is a tight timescale and that the Bill must be put through now in order for the payments to be made; what concerns me is the time during which we have not been able to scrutinise it effectively.
My other concern about process involves the money motion. It is drawn as tightly as possible. No doubt when we reach the Committee stage the Government will say what they say in every Finance Bill Committee: “All the amendments are about having reports. All the Opposition want are reports, rather than any actual changes to the Bill.” However, such a tight money motion makes it impossible for us effectively to put forward the asks that we have and to make it clear that this is wholly insufficient and that there are massive changes that we want to introduce.
Nevertheless, I congratulate the House on the fact that we are actually debating spend. That is very exciting—it is wonderful—because we never debate spend. We get the estimates for five days a year, or is it three? For a handful of days a year, we are allowed to debate those. To be fair, we are now allowed to debate spend, but it does not happen. We have the Budget, and then we have the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is entirely about taxation: it is not about spend. We do not get the opportunity to debate and scrutinise spend properly, so it is very nice to get the chance to do so today—albeit with a money motion that is so unbelievably restrictive that we cannot put forward any amendments that make any sense or assist our constituents in any way.
Before I proceed, I want to thank Chris Mullins-Silverstein and Linda Nagy, who have been incredibly helpful in putting stuff together very quickly to enable me to make a speech that makes sense—or, I hope, largely makes sense.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), in October, energy bills will be up by £1,500 for the average household, which is far more than the amount that the Government propose to provide for people—and that is before we take into account the other increases that we are seeing. According to the Office for National Statistics, pasta is up by 50%, bread by 16% and rice by 15%. I pay tribute to Jack Monroe for the huge amount of work she has done on the “Vimes Boots” index, which allows inflation to be measured not just in the way in which it has historically been measured, but in a way that relates to how people shop—the people at the lowest end of the income spectrum, who count every single penny in the supermarket to work out whether they can possibly afford what they have put in their baskets. Inflation for those lowest-income families has increased by significantly more than inflation for the families who are earning more. It is even worse for disabled householders, who are seeing even more significant increases in energy bills, and the same goes for pensioners.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) suggest that things are very generous. He cannot have the same inbox as me. According to my inbox, things were dire before Brexit, dire before covid, and dire before the massive increase in inflation that we are seeing now, and they have only got worse. The fact is that the impact of Brexit has increased our food prices. Less migration means less money for the Government to spend, while net migration reduces net public sector debt and increases the amount that the Government have to spend. The former Chancellor George Osborne’s Red Books make that explicit. It is clear that he was seeking to crack down on migration, and that doing so would reduce the amount of money that the Government had to spend. It costs money for us to reduce migration. It means that we will have less to spend on people who stay here, who live here, who work here.
The announcement that this is a £37 billion package is genuinely a joke. In the Government’s calculation of the £37 billion, they have included the fuel duty changes. A significant number of my constituents, especially the poorest, do not drive. They are impacted by the price of supermarket vans having to drive around and small businesses’ costs increasing, but the fuel duty does not make a difference to their daily lives. They do not fill up their fuel tanks because they do not have fuel tanks. They cannot afford cars. So including the fuel duty rise in the £37 billion is ridiculous. Including the freeze on alcohol duty is one of the cheekiest things I have ever seen in this place, and I was here all the way through the Brexit debates. The Government cannot include an alcohol duty freeze and say that they are helping with the cost of living. “We are helping the poorest people to save money on their alcohol.” People who cannot afford pasta are not helped by freezing alcohol duty.
These things that are being included in the £37 billion are listed on the factsheet on the Government’s website, by the way. The £37 billion also includes lots of already planned stuff. It includes what has happened with national insurance, and it includes things that were put in place when the Government thought that increasing benefits by 3.1% in April 2020 was sufficient. It includes a massive chunk of that. The Government cannot stand up and realistically say that this is a £37 billion package, because it is not. These are not the positive changes that my constituents and people across Scotland and the UK want to see.
I am pleased to hear that disabled people are getting an additional amount of money. That is a good move by the Government, but it does not take into account the increased costs that disabled people are seeing, including the massive increase in scarcity affecting gluten-free diets, for example. More disabled people have specialist diets than people who will not get the £150 increase. Disabled people spend more time at home, and it is the same for pensioners. The increases that are happening for those two groups are not sufficient to cover the increases they are facing in their energy costs, particularly, and in specialist diet costs.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments, and she is making some important and useful points, but I have to disagree with her. She cannot honestly stand up here this afternoon and almost dismiss this enormous sum of expenditure that the Government are making by saying that it is not sufficient and that she wants more. Perhaps she could explain where all this extra resource is going to come from. I personally believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened and took on board arguments that many of us were making earlier this year about the rising cost of living, and that he has done everything possible to make his pounds go as far as they can in providing relief to those on low incomes.
Kirsty Blackman
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did listen to the arguments that were made, and I absolutely welcome the fact that he came back and said, “What we did before was not enough.” I do not know if he actually said that, but he said that he was going to do more and bring forward more. I am pleased that we are discussing this today, and I am pleased that these increases are happening, but I am making the case that the additional payments that are being made do not cover the cost of living increases. I do not think they are sufficient. and I do not think they will assist our constituents who are already struggling. The right hon. Member asked where the money would come from. We have always said that the windfall tax should be applied more broadly than just to oil and gas companies. We have always said that it should be for all those who made excessive profits during covid. Why should the Amazons and the Sercos of this world get away with making so much money during the pandemic and not have the Government look at that?
The reality is that the UK Government do not have to run a balanced budget. That is how the UK Government budget works. The Scottish Government have to run a balanced budget by law; the UK Government do not. There is far more flexibility in the budget than the Chancellor explains. When he stood up on 27 May, he was already looking at an additional £30 billion of fiscal headroom in the next few years, compared with his earlier projections and targets—compared with what he had hoped to get. There was already extra space, before he made the decision to introduce the supplementary tax on oil and gas companies. There is money there to do the additional payments and the additional requests that we are asking for today.
The UK Government have failed in a number of places. For example, they have failed to keep the triple lock for pensioners. They failed to keep the universal credit lifeline. They failed to implement a pension credit take-up strategy. They failed to come forward with cost of living measures as early as they should have during the course of the Budget. They have failed to scrap the evil sanctions regime. They have failed to produce a strategy to tackle child property. They have failed to bring in a minimum child maintenance payment. They have failed to uprate benefits by anywhere close to inflation this year. They have failed to scrap the rape clause. They have failed to bring in a real living wage that people can actually live on. They have failed to bring forward the long-promised employment Bill. They have failed to end the Department for Work and Pensions vicious loans clawback.
In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government running that balanced budget is delivering for people in Scotland. In Scotland, we are mitigating the bedroom tax. We are doubling our game-changing Scottish child payment. We are uprating benefits by double the level that the UK Government are. We are paying carer’s allowance supplement to people who are carers. We are paying £200 child winter heating assistance to families with severely disabled children and young people. We are increasing our school clothing grant, which is not available across the board in England and is at the discretion of local authorities here. We are offering 1,140 hours of childcare to all eligible children, no matter their parents’ working status. We are providing five new benefits worth up to a maximum of more than £10,000 by the time a first child turns six. That is £8,200 more than that provided in England and Wales. We are also providing additional money for subsequent children that is significantly in excess of the amount being provided here.
I therefore have some calls for the UK Government. I would like the UK Government to now uprate all social security benefits by 10% and backdate that to April 2020. The Chancellor stood there and said that uprating benefits would be less than the additional payment he is making—I want him to do both. This is a sticking plaster. Giving this additional one-off payment does not solve things for next year. It does not undo the fact that this year’s increase was woefully insufficient.
I would like the UK Government to make an additional £25 a week uplift to universal credit and to extend that to all legacy benefits to undo the harm done by cancelling the £20 a week increase last year. I would like them to cancel the rape clause, the two-child limit and the bedroom tax. There is only so much mitigation that the Scottish Government can do within our balanced budget.
I would like the UK Government to produce a child poverty strategy and to make tackling child poverty a national mission, as it is in Scotland. I would like the UK Government to bring in the long-promised employment Bill. They promised 28 times that they would bring in an employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech, and no employment Bill appeared in the Queen’s Speech. I would like them to match Scotland’s commitment to dignity and respect for those claiming disability benefits. I would like them to bring in a real living wage and to scrap the ageism in the pretendy living wage.
From day one of the Chancellor’s energy loan, which he announced earlier this year, we called for it to be a grant, rather than a loan. In May, the Chancellor U-turned. He changed it from a loan to a grant and he increased it, like we had asked. Now, we must see a U-turn on the five-week wait for universal credit. We must see that payment become a grant for those who get universal credit. We must not see those payments being clawed back.
The UK Government have 85% of the powers on social security. They have all the powers that relate to energy, all the powers that relate to the minimum wage and all the powers that relate to national insurance. We are being failed time and time again by the UK Government. We have asked for these measures to be devolved. We have amended things for these measures to be devolved. We have voted for these measures to be devolved. We have called, at every opportunity, for devolution of employment law, for devolution of energy, for devolution over the minimum wage, and for devolution over national insurance. The UK Government refuse. The UK Government are continually refusing and clawing back powers from the Scottish Parliament—in their United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example. The Brexit Freedoms Bill is set to remove powers from this Parliament and centre it even more in the Executive than it already is. This is not the way to run a democracy.
People are struggling. Even with these payments on the horizon, people still struggle to see how they will get through the year. The only choice is for Scotland to become an independent country. Only by having the full powers of independence will we be able to protect people and help them through the cost of living crisis, in contrast to the UK Government who refuse to do so.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased that the Bill is in front of us. The Select Committee has been clear in the past few weeks that, without a big measure on this kind of scale, low-income families would be in very serious trouble indeed in the coming months. I echo the tribute that has just been paid by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to Jack Monroe and her campaigning on this. She gave very compelling evidence to the Select Committee at our meeting on 9 March.
The package that has come forward has been widely welcomed. We put out a call for evidence on the cost of living in May. In response, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that,
“the package provided much-needed support for households, which will protect many of them against rising costs over the coming year.”
Citizens Advice welcomes the targeted support to low-income households and hoped that it would
“start to reverse the worrying trends we have seen in our data, including record-breaking food bank referrals.”
Unlike the previous announcements, this May package is properly targeted on low-income families, as it needed to be. The Resolution Foundation described it as offsetting
“the poor targeting of previous announcements.”
It also described it as “serious redistribution”. It is, I think, a serious response to a serious problem. I also welcome the Chancellor’s change of heart over the windfall tax to fund some of the help that is needed.
However, we need to be clear: the reason the Bill is needed is that the system for social security uprating has failed. It is a long-standing system. There is nothing new about the way it is done, but the unforeseen burst in inflation means that it simply has not worked this year. On this occasion, the decision has been taken to replace adequate uprating with ad hoc payments from the Treasury, which will certainly help us through the next few months. We need now to rethink the uprating system to make sure that it does not let us down again.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have a question for my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. Is he aware that, in 1976, the then Social Services Secretary, Barbara Castle, came to the House and uprated benefits and pensions for a second time in a year—there was a cost of living crisis then as well. The policy of the then shadow Secretary of State, Norman Fowler, was that uprating should take place twice a year. I wonder whether the Select Committee will consider the arguments that were made in the 1970s.
Sir Stephen Timms
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Select Committee will certainly be looking at that. We are conducting an inquiry later this year on the question of the level of benefits, and the issue of how benefits should be uprated will certainly feature. I am intrigued to learn that the Secretary of State was able to do that in the 1970s given that we have been told that the IT systems in the 2020s cannot cope with it. I am certainly interested in seeing more on that.
Stephen Crabb
The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and important point about how we do upratings. I urge him not to get drawn too far down the path of looking at the system in the 1970s, which was in very different circumstances. There is an issue about the timing of uprating and the figures that are used to calculate it, but the bigger practical issue is the different IT systems and the plethora of different benefits that are still in play. Does he agree that we need to find a way to rationalise and simplify them?
Sir Stephen Timms
That would help—just modernising the old systems would help, and I will say something about that in a moment.
We are getting ad hoc payments from the Treasury to tide us over. The Secretary of State rightly spelled out to the Committee the downsides of one-off ad hoc payments such as those that the Bill enables. In oral evidence in February last year, she told the Committee that there were higher risks of fraud attached to one-off payments and that they can make it difficult for claimants to budget effectively—both quite telling points. She said that one-off payments were not
“one of the Department’s preferred approaches”
for providing that financial support. She noted:
“There are some challenges about fraud”
and that there would be difficulties if people claiming tax credits received a one-off payment and then moved to universal credit shortly afterwards. On the question of what might work best for claimants, she told us:
“Previous experience would be that a steady sum of money would probably be more beneficial to claimants and customers, to help with that budgeting process.”
I think she is right; it is not ideal for the Treasury to provide lump sums instead.
Why was proper uprating not done in this case? The Chancellor pointed out that legacy benefits cannot be quickly uprated because they are run on antiquated IT systems, as the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) referred to, so uprating takes several months. The Chancellor told us that that was why he was unwilling simply to uprate benefits: it could have been done quickly for universal credit, as we discovered in the pandemic, but not for legacy benefits.
In an earlier debate, I recall the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) brandishing a document from an IT company, perhaps Oracle, about the front end that it had built for the Department’s legacy systems, which it said enabled changes to be made to them more quickly. I wonder whether the Minister, in closing, could tell us the truth behind that claim about the front end that had been provided. I know that the Department has certainly commissioned such front ends for the legacy systems over a long time, so I am interested to know why, notwithstanding what that brandished document said, it is apparently still the case that uprating takes four or five months. Are front ends in place? Why have they apparently not made faster changes possible?
In our June 2020 report on the Department’s response to coronavirus, the Select Committee recommended an increase in the speed with which changes could be made to legacy benefits. We said:
“People will be claiming legacy benefits until at least September 2024, the Government’s most recent estimate for completing the rollout of Universal Credit. It is simply not tenable for the Department to continue to operate antiquated systems that prevent Ministers from making timely changes to the rates at which legacy benefits are paid. We recommend that the Department work to increase the speed with which changes can be made to legacy benefit rates.”
In its response in September that year, the Department said that it
“recognises the need to be able to respond to events flexibly which is why we are investing in Universal Credit which is more agile than the systems that support legacy benefits.”
While substantial numbers of people depend on legacy benefits, the Government surely need to keep the systems that support those benefits fit for purpose. They are clearly not fit for purpose at the moment, and that ought to be addressed.
Kirsty Blackman
On that note, the new systems that we have created in Scotland under Social Security Scotland are doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman asks. It has the ability to make those extra payments, because we set up the systems. Does he agree that the Government need to just invest to sort that out for many thousands of people?
Sir Stephen Timms
It certainly does need to be done. I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that on Monday the Select Committee will visit Social Security Scotland and that our vice-chair, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is in his place, will be part of that group. We look forward to that visit.
The reason why benefit uprating has not worked this year is, of course, the six-month gap between September, when the inflation figure forms the basis of uprating for the following year, and April, when increases take effect. In response to our call for evidence on the cost of living, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation called on the Government to
“commit to a much shorter timeframe for annual uprating between measuring inflation and uprating accordingly, to ensure benefit uprating genuinely reflects inflation for the year in question.”
Lloyds Bank Foundation told us that the Government should
“consider uprating benefits in line with inflation in the autumn to ensure they more accurately reflect the true cost of living.”
That sounds like what was done in the 1970s. The Legatum Institute also suggested reducing the delay between CPI measurement and the application of uprating as well as introducing a mid-year uprating review. Citizens Advice called for a more sustainable, responsive uprating approach, which means
“addressing the lag between benefit uprating decision-making and implementation and the exclusion of the benefit cap from wider uprating.”
It says that while the one-off payments to be made under the Bill
“are more generous…for some households than if uprating had been brought forward”,
there are problems. For example, as we were reminded by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, the one-off payments are the same amount regardless of family size. They also have cut-off dates, which risks arbitrarily excluding people from support.
Flat-rate payments being irrespective of family size appears to be pretty unfair to larger families. Overall, the package is somewhat more generous than early benefit uprating would have been, but it is less generous for larger families. The justification for that is not clear.
The North East Child Poverty Committee told us that
“a flat-rate £650 payment for all households on means-tested benefits, regardless of household size, additionally fails to recognise the clear link between family size and essential outgoings, with many larger families (already at much greater risk of poverty, a situation compounded by the two-child limit) facing intolerable financial pressures as a result of rising household bills.”
I will make one final point. One great advantage of the Chancellor’s package for low-income families, compared with a straightforward benefit uprating—I was grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming this—is that the benefit cap does not apply. It is striking that when it appears that the headline rate of social security benefits is likely to be raised by perhaps 10-plus per cent. next year, there is no indication at all about the benefit cap being lifted at all. That means that the growing number of families whose benefit has been capped will receive no increase in their income at all at a time when inflation is likely to be over 10%.
In evidence to the Select Committee, the Child Poverty Action Group Told us that
“the Government has made a welcome commitment to increase benefits in April 2023 in line with prices. However, not all price-related elements of the system are included in the annual uprating exercise and the benefit cap means a substantial minority of claimants—an estimated 150,000—will see no increase at all and face another real terms cut to their benefits.”
At a time when inflation is so high, surely at least the level of the benefit cap must be reviewed. Will the Minister give us any encouragement that it will be, ahead of April next year? For now, and in the context of the Bill, it is welcome, and quite a significant precedent, that the benefit cap will not apply to these additional payments.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is vital that we provide additional support to those in receipt of disability and means-tested benefits who are covered under this Bill, but in itself it is not an adequate response to the depth and breadth of the cost of living crisis we are currently experiencing. The Chancellor is already hammering families with an £800 tax hike this year, more than wiping out measures in this Bill for those who will benefit from it. The national insurance rise and the freezing of income tax thresholds are unfair tax rises, making the cost of living crisis worse for millions of families across the UK by decreasing employees’ take-home pay. Households are facing the highest tax burden in 70 years; the typical family will see a hit of £1,200 a year through a combination of Conservative party tax rises and soaring energy prices, according to the Resolution Foundation. We welcome the Bill’s provision creating the £650 payment, but call for it to be paid in full in July instead of being paid in two instalments in July and October, because people need that support right now—although more support might still be required in the autumn.
The simplest way for the Government to help people right now would be to scrap the tax hikes to which I have referred. What we most want is an emergency VAT cut. Cutting VAT from 20% to 17.5% for one year would save families an average of £600; it would put money back into people’s pockets right now, boosting the economy and supporting struggling businesses. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the Treasury is due to take in an extra £8.6 billion in VAT due to inflation, which is £430 per family, so we think the Government could afford to fund that.
Cutting VAT would help to address spiralling inflation as well as keeping costs down for families. A similar VAT cut in 2008 boosted retail sales by about 1% and aggregate expenditure by 0.4%; that shows the difference it could make to struggling businesses right now. At the time of that same VAT cut in December 2008 inflation fell from 4.1% to 3.1%, and a similar saving right now could make a huge difference to struggling families.
In addition to the welcome targeted support announced in this Bill we would like the £20 uplift to universal credit restored. We accept all the arguments that that was an emergency measure, but this is also an emergency. The Government said at the time that higher wages are a better option than benefit increases, but we have seen just this week the tension caused between the historically high rate of inflation and the downward pressure the Government would like to maintain on employee wages, and this debate will be played out in many different circumstances across the summer and into the autumn. The Government’s argument that wage increases are the route to restoring household finances will come under considerable pressure, so I encourage them to think about that £20 a week uplift once more, because it would provide some of the poorest households on UC with an additional £1,000 a year, and we all know from our postbags what a difference that would make to the very poorest in our constituencies.
Much as we welcome the measures in the Bill, some of the most vulnerable groups in our society are not going to receive any additional support in facing the cost of living crisis thanks to these measures. The Government must look at that again. Several Members across the House have mentioned unpaid carers, and I want to add our contribution on that. They have once again been forgotten by the Government, who have provided no additional support despite the invaluable role unpaid carers play; it is difficult to calculate the additional pressures there would be on our care system if they did not play that role. As has been said, unpaid carers face additional costs as a result of their caring responsibilities. Those claiming carer’s allowance are being excluded from the list of eligible benefit recipients, leaving hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers, including 40% of working-age carers in receipt of carer’s allowance, without any additional support as a result of this Bill.
Millions of vulnerable adults and children depend upon the efforts of our country’s carers, yet as we see time and again, their voices are not being heard by the Government and again they are being excluded from support; they are being abandoned by the Government. The Liberal Democrats will keep championing the cause of unpaid carers, and I really impress on the Government the need to do more for those families.
Another issue that has been raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members is families with multiple children in poverty. A flat-rate payment does not take into account the number of people in a household, which means that larger households, particularly those with more children, will face the squeeze much more severely. Of course, it is much more likely that a larger household will be made up of more children, so it is children who will suffer the most from having a flat-rate payment. Families in the bottom half of the income distribution with two or more children spend twice as much as equivalent families without children on food, essential household goods and services, clothing, footwear and transport, which leaves larger families in an especially vulnerable position when it comes to the level of inflation that we are seeing. The presence of younger children in a family exacerbates the prevalence of poverty due to the increased financial pressures that come with caring for a young child. Families with under-fives are therefore especially vulnerable.
My team recently met representatives of Little Village, a baby bank organisation that operates mainly in London. They told me that they are expecting to support an additional 1,000 families this year, and that they helped over 6,000 last year. Families cannot just go along to the baby banks; they have to be referred by education, health and social care professionals. These are only the families that have been identified by authorities as being most in need, so we know that the real impact of the cost of living squeeze on families with young children is likely to be much more widespread. Little Village staff told me that pregnant women are skipping meals in order to feed their toddlers, and that families are cutting toes out of their baby onesies to avoid having to buy new ones. This is what families are already having to do to deal with the cost of living crisis. The total number of children in poverty is predicted to rise to 5.2 million by 2023-24—an increase of 1.1 million children. We really need to do more to recognise the size of the households that are being targeted by some of this help.
I also want to mention rural communities and rising fuel prices. The Liberal Democrats want to see an expansion of the rural fuel duty relief scheme. It is currently available only in a handful of remote areas of the UK, but we know that the huge price rises in petrol across the country are having a disproportionate impact in areas where people cannot switch to public transport, particularly the most rural areas. The Government should immediately think about extending the rural fuel duty relief scheme where public transport options are limited, which would include Devon, Cornwall, Shropshire, Cumbria and some parts of Wales, and they should double the relief to 10p a litre. We are seeing real impacts on the rural economy because people are limiting how much they are driving, which affects not just local businesses and the rural economy, but young people accessing educational and employment opportunities. This is something that the Government really must address as a matter of urgency.
I want to take the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Edna Price, who lost her right arm in a horrifying industrial accident some 45 years ago. Most of her income since then has come from her industrial injuries compensation fund, but this is not a qualifying benefit. For Edna, it causes a number of practical, everyday problems. The income that she earns from the fund is not large, but because it is income from that particular source, and not from pension credit or a qualifying source, she regularly misses out on some of the other, non-financial benefits that are offered to people who are on qualifying benefits. I have written to the Department about Ms Price’s case and would really welcome the opportunity to speak further to the Minister, because Edna will miss out again on this benefit, even though she already struggles to afford her fuel bills. I would very much welcome the opportunity to talk further to the Minister about how my constituent can potentially qualify for some of the other targeted benefits, to supplement her industrial injuries compensation.
I am pleased that the Chancellor is using the social security system to target this payment to households most at risk of hardship. I make the point again that it is a much more effective method than the use of council tax banding to calculate who is eligible for a rebate. In my constituency I think we have, out of all constituencies in the UK, the sixth-highest average house price, which causes residents who live in social housing in my constituency quite a few issues. They are on very low incomes, but the properties they live in often attract a high council tax band valuation, not least because the valuations were done back in the early ’90s on much narrower value bands than I think we would think about using if they were to be done again today.
Too many of my low-income constituents are living in houses that do not qualify for the council tax rebate, in particular those in a number of socially rented homes in the Kingston Borough part of my constituency. When they were valued back in 1991, they were assigned a market value based on the privately sold homes around them. I am thinking of a particular estate in north Kingston with very small homes that house particularly vulnerable people. Those homes have been valued too highly to qualify for the council tax help with fuel bills. If there is anything the Minister can say in summing up, or that we could hear in due course from the Chancellor, on how that could be addressed, I would be very grateful. I wrote to the Department on this issue back in March and I have not had a response. As I say, in a constituency like mine with high housing values, it is a big issue for my low-income constituents.
I would like to close by saying that we welcome the measure in the Bill, but there is still so much more to do and so much more that the Government can do not just in spending, but in thinking about the way they identify people in need of assistance. I welcome the opportunity to hear more about that in due course.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sorry you have had to wait, Mr Mills.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not planning to speak, but I have been tempted to say a few words.
There is a danger, in a debate where we have a quite a small audience, that we think that despite spending billions and billions of pounds, this is a small insignificant thing and not one of the biggest spending items the Government have tried to put through in rushed legislation in history. We should recognise that the Government have responded to a probably unprecedented crisis in a very generous and creative way. Those of us who have been wrestling with this issue for the last few months—almost the same crowd were here for the benefits uprating debate in February, pleading for more help and for a more generous uprating—would never have believed that we would see this level of support and ingenuity, given all the financial turmoil the country has been through in recent years. We must give the Government credit for what they have tried to do to help people through what we all hope is a relatively short-term blip, rather than a long-term, sustained problem.
With the £150 through council tax and the £200 loan via energy companies, that certainly seemed to be the original plan: we were hoping we could get people over a few months of a spike, and then things would get back to normal. We have to recognise now that that is not likely to be the case. We will have to have a much higher rise and one that is perhaps sustained for a longer period, unless some very happy events happen around the world and the situation starts to reverse more quickly than everybody seems to think.
For the next few months, the Government need to think about what they are trying to do and where they are trying to get to. The strategy may be to pass this money out on a one-off basis until next year’s upratings, which we hope will have taken into account inflation so that people with income from benefits and pensions will be able to match the raised outgoings and we will have solved the problem. However, I am not convinced that that will be the case if inflation remains at 9% or 10% for a long period. In April, we will be giving people inflation based on the year to September 2022. There could be another 5% of inflation before we get to March and we may well be back in this position in a year’s time.
Some clarity from the Government on the long-term plan would be helpful. We—the Select Committee and others—have been calling for a while for the Government to do some work to rebase benefits and ensure that key household compositions are provided with enough to meet the cost of living so that the increases will maintain that situation. Otherwise, there is a danger that in the next financial year, even with the uprating, people will get less than they had with this year’s benefits plus the one-offs. In that case, people would be worse off in a year’s time, even though their benefits would have gone up, because they would not have gone up by quite enough. We would be back in a similar crisis, needing more one-off payments in the next financial year—repeating those made in this financial year. That does not strike me as a long-term, sustainable way of running a welfare system.
Huge congratulations to the Government for what they have done in the legislation to get us—I hope—through this problem, but they now need to step back and work out the long-term, sustainable way of delivering welfare at a level that meets the essential living standards that we expect it to. I do not think we can get there through haphazard one-offs and increases that are not based on real-terms inflation at the time such provisions are made. A second uprating in a year may be one way of mitigating that. In fact, it would probably help the Government, because when benefits are uprated, there is often a taper, meaning that not everybody gets the full amount, which could result in a bit of cost saving. The Government could also make use of the taper to be more generous at the lower end of the earnings spectrum, with a higher base amount, and less generous at the higher end, accepting that some people would not get the full amount. We are asking not necessarily for huge amounts of extra spending, but for more targeted and better use of the systems that are in place.
It is interesting that in February we were told that the Government could not possibly use any inflation number that was less than six months old because the systems could not cope, yet we now appear to have managed to come up with some ideas in late May and will make the first payment to people about seven weeks later, in the middle of July. That suggests that when there is a will and desire, things can be done at less than six months’ notice. I hope that that will be built on when we get to next year’s uprating, when we could at least try to creep the inflation number from September to December, so that it is only three months out of date by the time we get there.
On ingenuity, the Government’s one-off help payments now involve: a payment by councils, reverse-engineering the council tax system; effectively a payment by energy companies for what was the loan and is now the gift; a payment through the welfare system; a payment through the tax credit system; and a payment that I think is the winter fuel allowance being increased for the year. That is quite a creative way of spreading the workload to make all those payments, but it produces a complicated system, whereby people do not really understand what help they have from who and why, and when they should have had it and if they have received the right amount.
Now that we have some more time to plan, if there are any future rounds—I hope we do not need them, but if we need them, we ought to have them—I would hope that we could find a way of such payments being made through one mechanism, or at least one for benefits and one for pensions. Having a multitude of mechanisms risks people missing out, because they just do not know who they should be checking with, or what they should be claiming and chasing.
It will be far more beneficial to my constituents if they get the first of these payments in the middle of July, as sadly many still have not had the £150 through the reverse running of the council tax system because the council still does not have the approved form to put on its website for people to fill in. That means it cannot make the payment to those who do not pay by direct debit; people still are not receiving the support we wanted them to have in April, and it will probably be a good few weeks before they get it.
There is much to welcome in the legislation. We should not be mealy-mouthed in our praise for the Government, as this is exceptional support at an exceptional time. I hope that we can do what we did through the pandemic: rush things out at the start, and then think them through and develop better systems if we have to do a re-run as the crisis continues.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
This has been a short but useful debate. The Opposition will not oppose or seek to delay these payments, because any measure that puts money into the pockets of people on low incomes is to be welcomed, but it is important that we put on record some concerns about how the situation has come about.
The cost of living crisis hammering millions across the country comes on top of 12 years of a squeeze in living standards for people who have needed to draw on social security at various points to support their income. We went into the pandemic with child poverty rising for larger families, by the relative poverty measure; even by the absolute measure that the Government prefer, larger families are deeper in poverty. That is a consequence of years and years in which parts of the social security system such as tax credits and universal credit were either frozen or uprated by only 1%, even before we take into account the impact of the various caps and deductions.
As a result of the poor state of the social security system in 2020, the Government felt that they had to respond by introducing the £20 uplift, the impact of which can be seen from this spring’s poverty statistics. Of course, we want as many people as possible to do well in employment and receive a rise in real wages so that they do not have to draw on means-tested benefits, but many people need support, particularly families with children. When it is adequate, that support has a real and profound impact on child poverty.
Having lost the £20 uplift last autumn, we are in the midst of a sudden and dramatic surge in inflation: the CPI rate is now at 10 times the level of spring 2021. That has left a large proportion of the population struggling with their bills. In particular, those on the lowest incomes face the lived choice between eating, putting food on the table for their children, heating their homes when it is cold, covering their rent, putting school uniforms on their children’s back, and other essential costs. It remains true that if someone is on a low income, their costs are higher. We know, although it is not built into Government policy, that the poorest pay a premium for their goods and services, and they face the highest inflation. As a consequence of the changes in Government policy and the loss of the £20 uplift last year, the number of children living in poverty will be even higher when we measure it next year.
At every stage, the Government have been on the back foot and running to catch up—a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) both made powerfully. When we debated the uprating, it was already in the context of rising inflation; we discussed the possibility of uprating benefits at a more up-to-date level that reflected real-world price rises, but it was found that that could not happen. There were a set of measures, including assistance with council tax, that were poorly targeted and difficult to administer. Weeks later, the Government had to come back with a larger package of measures than would otherwise have been required.
If the Government had been able to update social security this spring to be more in line with inflation, additional assistance would undoubtedly have been needed, but we would not have required the same level of emergency package. Importantly—this is the central point—pensioners and families would have had an income in their pocket, week by week, so that they could plan and manage their finances. That would undoubtedly have been a better way for households to cope with the rising crisis than having to manage one-off emergency payments from different sources. Many of those families, because they did not get that assistance in April, even though it is only a few months later when the first of these payments will be made, will have found themselves in debt—in financial difficulty—in the interim. The debt that families get into is itself expensive. There cannot be many Members who have not been dealing with constituents who have come to them because they are facing bailiffs at their door, or are caught in payments schemes that have left them struggling with very high repayments, because of the difficulties that they have got into.
It is simply not the case that one-off payments were the only way of delivering timely support to families on means-tested benefits. While welcoming, as I said, any support—and it is a large package of support that we are considering today—it is clear that this approach is still going to lead to a lot of rough justice that would have been mitigated had a broader package of support been put in place, when there was time, through the mainstream social security system.
Entitlement to the one-off payments is triggered by receipt of one of the means-tested benefits in the month leading up to one of the qualifying days. This means that people’s circumstances in just two months of the year are taken into account, so families who have the same income and face the same cost of living pressures over the course of the year could wind up being treated very differently depending on the point of the year at which they are dipping into an application for a means-tested benefit. Some will receive the initial support and some will not. The problem is that people’s circumstances change all the time, not just in two months of the year, and the numbers involved are very large. For example, every three months about 1 million people of working age leave employment, becoming unemployed or economically inactive. At the moment, an even larger number move into new employment. However, it is the scale of the churn rather than the net outcome that is important. Similarly, there are about 150,000 starts on universal credit every month, the great majority due to changes in family circumstances. With families moving on and off benefits the whole time, a one-off payment that is tied to just two dates in the year is inevitably a crude approach to matching funding to need.
I am particularly concerned about how people with fluctuating incomes will fare under this policy. The Bill provides that only people in receipt of a benefit payment of at least 1p in the month leading up to the qualifying day are entitled to the one-off payment, but universal credit is supposed to adjust to fluctuations in income on a monthly basis. Some people will be entitled to no payment in one month and payment in the next month, depending on their earnings. Indeed, one of the selling points of universal credit was that people would not have to make a new claim every time their earnings fluctuated above and below the cut-off level. It therefore seems inevitable that large numbers of people, employed and self-employed, with low and irregular incomes will be denied help under this policy in a completely arbitrary way.
The Government need to clarify what steps they intend to take to mitigate this risk. Is it really necessary to insist that only people who have actually received a payment in the month leading up to the qualifying day should receive help? Should all self-employed people whose universal credit is reduced to zero in one of those periods, solely due to the operation of the minimum income floor, be excluded from support? We have also heard about the limitations of these measures in terms of adjusting to family size. That is one of the critical ways in which delivering directly through universal credit, and indeed legacy benefits, was preferable and more sensitive to the needs of families.
Emergency and one-off measures such as those in this Bill have a place in exceptional circumstances, but they do not give people living desperately precarious lives the security they need. They do not, in many cases, match individual circumstances as the social security system does, however imperfectly. Any and all measures that help us to relieve hardship in these difficult times are welcome, but overall our social security system needs to be more fit for purpose, just as the wider economy needs to be more fit for purpose—more resilient and more productive, with decent and secure employment opportunities and investment in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
I thank those who have contributed to this debate. I echo the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to stress the importance of this urgent legislation to support people up and down the country. The sharp increase in the cost of living is a challenge shared across the globe due to the aftershocks of covid on global supply, amplified by Russia’s unacceptable invasion of Ukraine. This Bill is the flagship component of our bold package of cost of living additional payments which have been designed to help people to cope with increased costs.
We are grateful for the support of Opposition Front Benchers in facilitating the speedy progress of the legislation. It is vital that these payments get to the people who need them. I am also very grateful for the contributions that have highlighted that these are a serious response to serious challenges, such as those made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills).
The support provided through this Bill is timely and comprehensive, and we are taking significant steps and targeting resource to support those in greatest need. The spirit of this Bill is in line with the approach that the Government have taken since the start of the pandemic, which has been shown to deliver for the people of this country in challenging times. We will continue to work hard to help people on low incomes get the support that they need.
We have worked hard through the vaccine roll-out, through the dedication of amazing people, to reopen society, and our economy has responded positively. There are record numbers of people in payroll employment, unemployment is just 3.8%, which is around the lowest level since the 1970s, and there are 1.3 million vacancies, which we are working diligently with employers and communities to fill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) will be pleased to know that, given his focus on work.
With all the work going on to help get people into work and progress in work, we recognise that people do need additional support in dealing with the cost of living challenges. That is why the Chancellor has set out his generous package, with another £15 billion of targeted support, which brings our total package to £35 billion this year alone. Of these additional payments, a particularly important one is the means-tested benefit that will provide a £650 one-off cost of living payment. It will be paid in two instalments to recipients entitled to qualifying means-tested benefits or tax credit. The first starts on 14 July and the second, of £324, later in the year. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked if there could be one payment. I understand the point she made, but we have consciously staggered the payments to help people on low incomes with their budgeting, which I hope she will welcome. The other important element of the Bill is providing disability cost of living payments of £150, which will go to 6 million people in the United Kingdom and will be paid in September.
We have deliberately kept the rules of the additional cost of living payments as simple as possible, because that is the way we can ensure that we develop the systems and processes required to make the payments at pace. I pay tribute to the hard work of officials across the Government to make that possible.
There are a number of contributions in the debate to which I need to respond. The benefit cap was raised by the right hon. Members for East Ham and for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. We have kept the payments very simple both for those receiving them and for Government systems. They are tax-free, they will not impact on benefit entitlement or the benefit cap, and they will be paid to people without the need for paperwork. They will be paid into people’s bank accounts.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made points about uprating. Of course, as the Secretary of State said in her speech at the start of the debate, there will be an annual review of benefits and pensions for the tax year 2023-24, which will commence in the autumn as per convention.
Some hon. Members have highlighted the legacy systems and pensions, and asked why we cannot do uprating more frequently. I think we know that the legacy systems are not that agile. Of course, what we are trying to do and working very hard to do—recognising how flexible universal credit is and how resilient it has proven through the pandemic—is to move people through to universal credit by the end of 2024.
Sir Stephen Timms
I want to go back to what the Minister said about the benefit cap, and I welcome the point he made. Does he recognise that, in a very high inflation environment, there really is quite a compelling case for looking again at the level of the benefit cap for next year alongside the other benefit uprating matters?
David Rutley
There is a statutory duty to review benefit cap levels at least once every five years, and this will happen at the appropriate time. When the Secretary of State decides to undertake the review, she will consider the national economic situation and any other matters she considers relevant at that moment in time.
I reiterate that carer’s allowance is not a means-tested benefit. Nearly 60% of working-age people on carer’s allowance will get the cost of living payment as they are on means-tested benefits or disability benefits. Carer’s allowance recipients will benefit from the £400 per household universal support being provided to help with the cost of energy bills.
People who receive carer’s allowance may live in a household that will benefit from the Government’s support package. For example, they may live with someone who receives a means-tested benefit, a disability benefit or tax credits. If so, the household will benefit from the cost of living payment.
The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has asked me in a number of debates why this measure does not more fully reflect different family sizes and formations. The challenge is trying to get these payments out as fast as possible. To do that, we need to get the payments out to “single benefit units,” as they are described, and households. The important thing to highlight is that most low-income families will be able to receive the £150 council tax support and the energy bill support, on top of the work allowance taper and the increase in the national living wage.
It is not possible to distinguish between those who have a permanent increase in their earnings and those whose earnings are temporarily fluctuating. If a UC claimant’s income subsequently falls, they will return to having a positive award after the cut-off date, and they may be eligible for the second payment.
The right hon. Member for Leicester South talked about the minimum income floor, which ensures we do not prop up unproductive employment or self-employment indefinitely. There is a start-up period to protect newly self-employed people. Beyond that, having a minimum income floor is the right policy. If it means there is a nil UC payment, the claimant would not be entitled to the means-tested payment. However, they would get the £400 energy payment and the £150 council tax rebate, and they would potentially be eligible for the household support fund. It is worth recognising that there are paid employment opportunities out there, given the high level of vacancies.
We have heard about the take-up of pension credit, and I am sitting next to the expert, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
David Rutley
Whatever we want to call him, he will take this forward with aplomb, that is for sure.
There was a serious question about why the number of means-tested benefit recipients will fall in the second cost of living payment period, and it is because the projections reflect mortality rates. However, they do not reflect the important work many of us are doing to raise awareness, so hopefully many more people will claim it.
I think I have now answered most of the questions. The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked about industrial injuries disablement benefit, on which I would be more than willing to talk to her separately. We should not underestimate the additional payments from the household support fund to help people with the cost of essentials. The Chancellor announced another £500 million in his latest statement, and it will be available from October 2022 to March 2023.
In England, the £421 million household support fund will be administered by local authorities, and the devolved Administrations will receive £79 million through the Barnett formula. Importantly, there will be new guidance to local authorities on this latest extension of the household support fund to reflect the fact that some people who are not able to secure these additional payments will be able to go to their local council to secure support.
Kirsty Blackman
Some household support funds ran out months earlier than expected. Does the Minister expect the new funds will be sufficient and will last as long as they are supposed to last?
David Rutley
The current tranche of household support fund is on top of all the other benefits we have talked about. As we have said, these are substantial additional support payments that are being made available, and the £500 million on top is there to help those people who have further needs with the cost of essentials. Further guidance will be made available.
We are working at unparalleled pace to get money into people’s pockets. It is vital that we meet the deadline for Royal Assent by 30 June, after a fast-tracked passage, so that we do not create a strong risk that we fail to make payments in July. We want to make sure that the most vulnerable people in our society—people on low incomes, people with disabilities—get the payments and support that they need. As I have highlighted already, this payment package in total comes to £37 billion this year alone. The Bill helps to deliver key elements of the support package to those who need it most. I strongly support these measures and commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill: Money
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) a sum not exceeding £326 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of 25 May 2022, to—
(a) universal credit or state pension credit,
(b) an income-based jobseeker’s allowance, an income-related employment and support allowance or income support, or
(c) working tax credit or child tax credit;
(2) a sum not exceeding £324 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of a day after 25 May 2022 and not later than 31 October 2022, to a benefit mentioned in paragraph (1);
(3) a sum which, together with any sum paid as mentioned in paragraph (1) or (2), does not exceed £650 to anyone who receives a working tax credit or child tax credit of at least £26 in the tax year 2022- 23;
(4) a sum not exceeding £150 to anyone who is entitled, in respect of 25 May 2022, to—
(a) a disability living allowance,
(b) a personal independence payment,
(c) an attendance allowance or a constant attendance allowance,
(d) an adult or child disability payment,
(e) an armed forces independence payment, or
(f) a mobility supplement.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 June 2022 - (22 Jun 2022)
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 11 stand part.
New clause 1— Assessment of bringing forward the second qualifying day—
‘The Treasury must publish, no later than six weeks after the day in which this Act is passed, an illustrative analysis of the impact of this Act on household incomes if the second qualifying date was no later than 1 October.’
New clause 2—Assessment of cost of living support package—
‘(1) The Treasury must publish, no later than the next fiscal event after the day on which this Act is passed, a full and detailed analysis of the impact of this Act on households.
(2) The Treasury may include in the analysis the effect of support for households announced in February 2022 in response to recent energy price rises.
(3) The analysis must include an estimate, based on the latest available reliable data, of the impact on household incomes of—
(a) payments made under this Act to households on mean-tested benefits,
(b) payments made under this Act to recipients of disability benefits.
(4) The analysis must show impacts across all deciles of household income distribution—
(a) in cash terms, and
(b) as proportion of net household income.
(5) The analysis must take into account where relevant differing policy contexts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
(6) The analysis must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on households of different types, including singleparent families, larger families, and pensioner households.’
New clause 3—Payment date—
‘The Secretary of State and HMRC must seek to make all payment due under this Act no later than 14 July 2022.’
New clause 4—Review of distributional effects—
‘The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers; and
(d) households in each income decile
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.’
David Rutley
We have had a useful debate on Second Reading and I welcome the chance for more detailed examination of the Bill in Committee of the whole House. We had an extensive debate, with some probing questions, so I will endeavour—with the support of the Opposition Front Bench and your permission, Mr Evans —to move as fast we can through the Committee stage.
Clause 1 will ensure that the £326 and £324 cost of living payments totalling £650 will be made to an individual or couple who have a qualifying entitlement to a social security benefit or tax credit. The clause also sets out the qualifying benefits and tax credits. Where a claimant is entitled to both a qualifying social security benefit and a tax credit, the social security benefit will be the qualifying benefit for the purpose of receiving a cost of living payment.
Clause 2 sets out who is eligible for the two payments that make up the £650 cost of living payment. It ensures that only those with the entitlement to a positive payment or award in respect of the passporting social security benefit or tax credit will receive a cost of living payment. The aim is to ensure that we target payments to those on the lowest incomes. The clause also defines the relevant eligibility period in relation to the qualifying days set out in clause 1.
Nigel Mills
The Minister will be aware that there are some situations in which an employer pays a month’s wages late, wages are paid on a four-weekly cycle and two payments are made in a month, rather than one, or a one-off bonus is paid in a certain month. Those situations could mean that someone who ordinarily gets a UC payment in a month has a month in which they are entitled to nothing. If that happened to be the month that was used for the qualifying payment in this situation, the person would miss out on the whole £326. Would the Minister be tempted to use a two-month period, so if someone gets at least 1p in either month they would get the £326, rather than risk the strange one-offs that could wipe out someone’s monthly payment?
David Rutley
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. We have already talked about fluctuating earnings. The important thing here is that we have had to define these eligibility periods to be able to get the payments out speedily, and we have also made sure that there is a protection mechanism. There is a wider package of support that is available other than just the £650 cost of living means-tested benefit. There is also the further funding of the household support fund, which will help these individuals.
Clause 3 addresses the situation in which a person has a qualifying entitlement to a social security benefit or a tax credit more than once. It ensures that, where the person is entitled to both universal credit and another social security benefit, they will receive the cost of living payment as a result of their entitlement to universal credit only.
Where a claimant is entitled to both a qualifying social security benefit and a tax credit, the social security benefit will be the qualifying benefit for the purpose of receiving a cost of living payment. Where a person is entitled to both child tax credit and working tax credit, but not a qualifying social security benefit, they will receive the cost of living payment as a result of their entitlement to child tax credit only. That will ensure that a person does not receive duplicate cost of living payments irrespective of whether they have a qualifying entitlement to more than one passported social security benefit or tax credit.
Clause 4 places a duty on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make a cost of living payment to people whose entitlement to qualifying tax credits only becomes apparent at a later date. The clause will ensure that those people will not miss out, which is a point that has been raised by others in this debate.
Clause 5 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make a disability cost of living payment of £150 to 6 million people who receive eligibility benefit in respect of 25 May 2022. This disability cost of living payment will support disabled people with the additional costs they may face. The clause also sets out the eligible benefits, or the qualifying benefits, for this particular additional payment. To be eligible, the person must have been entitled to a payment of one of these benefits in respect of 25 May 2022.
Clause 6 confirms that the administration rules used for each cost of living payment are the same as the benefit or payment that conferred the eligibility. Clause 7 provides for co-operation between the Secretary of State, the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC in the delivery of cost of living payments. The scale and scope of the measure also require collaboration with other colleagues across government. Together, the bodies set out in the clause ensure that the intended recipients of the cost of living support are paid. There is a need to have data sharing to minimise the risk of duplicate payments and to support operational delivery.
On clause 8, some important points have been raised on this already on Second Reading. It ensures that the cost of living payments are disregarded for the purposes of tax and social security. I can confirm that the cost of living and the disability cost of living payments are exempt from tax. Payments will not affect a person’s entitlement to social security benefits or tax credits, either as capital or as income. I can also confirm that the payments will not be subject to the benefit cap.
Nigel Mills
When my hon. Friend says that they will be disregarded as capital, does that mean that, if somebody quite prudently puts the money in the bank and saves for their high energy bills in the winter, that would not take them over the £16,000 savings limit for universal credit? Effectively, they could ignore not just the receipt of the income, but that part of their savings as well if they were to treat them in that way.
David Rutley
Just to clarify, yes. That is the important thing. The clause ensures that every person who is entitled to a cost of living payment receives every penny, as all Members across the Chamber will want to see.
Clause 9 sets out the definition and interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill. Clause 10 explains the procedures for laying the regulations, previously referred to under the powers contained in clause 1(4), to specify the qualifying day for the second cost of living payment, which will be no later than 31 October, and clause 6(5), to apply and disapply regulations around the administration of payments, including overpayments and recovery, as is required. These provisions ensure that regulations made under the Bill can enable the efficient delivery of the second payment in the autumn. Finally, clause 11 defines the territorial extent of the Bill, whose provisions extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This ensures that the payments will be payable throughout the United Kingdom.
Ms Buck
I thank the Minister for that introduction. There is clearly no need for me to cover the points that we discussed on Second Reading, but I will make a few comments about new clauses 1 and 2.
As the Minister said, the Bill as drafted states that the second qualifying date is to be no later than the 31st of October, which allows for a span of several weeks during which the date could be set. In her introductory remarks, the Secretary of State talked about the need to keep that open because of the potential behavioural impact. It would be helpful if the Minister told us a little about why the Department reached that conclusion.
As we know, families and household are looking for clarity. We expect the energy cap to rise significantly again in the autumn, and there is real fear and anxiety in the country about what energy price inflation, and general inflation, are doing to household incomes. People are looking for certainty, and the sooner they are able to know exactly when their qualifying period will be and when the payment will be made, the better it will be for those families. It would also be helpful for us to know what the implications are of a qualifying date that could be one month early, so as to cover the span of options for that date. Although, we will not be seeking to press these amendments to a vote, can the Minister advise on whether he will be able to pick up that point and come back to us with answers?
New clause 2 would address the distribution and the equality impact assessment. We have indeed had some analysis from the Treasury, and we have had some looks at the economic distributional impact and the decile impact. As we would expect from measures heavily directed towards means-tested benefits, they are indeed progressive, and that is absolutely right, but the single most important topic that we discussed in the short Second Reading was the downside of single payments that are household unit payments and therefore do not reflect differences in household composition. The impact assessment does not give us that information, and it is critical that we have it, so I will press the Minister on the point. We need a much fuller assessment of what the Treasury expects to be the impact of a reliance on single payments, rather than an accurate updating within the benefits system. We also need, as soon as possible after the first payments have been made, an assessment of the actual impact in terms of the distribution.
Household composition is probably the single most important of the areas of analysis that we need to track. It is the one that is worrying people the most and where the disparity between a direct payment through the social security system and a one-off payment is most marked. We want to see analysis that looks at different recipient groups and at the impact on pensioners, on people with disabilities, on families, on single people and on working people of the distribution of the payments as they go out. It would be helpful also to look at how different working groups are affected, such as the self-employed, who we have discussed, and working households as opposed to households on out-of-work benefits.
The other area on which I will spend a couple of minutes in the context of analysis is the various payments that have been distributed through local government and how we can look at their impact. The Minister has repeated that his principal aim was to try and get benefit payments out as quickly as possible to those who need them most. In fact, the February announcement of the distribution of income through local authorities, through council tax, does the exact opposite. As I am sure he is aware, local authorities have had to go to the considerable length of writing to every household that pays council tax other than through direct debit, wait for them to respond, wait for them to provide information confirming who they are and their entitlement, and then to send the payment out. That of course means that large numbers of people reliant on that £150 have not yet had it, and it is likely to be weeks and weeks still before those families actually get the payment.
The payment requires people to deal with official correspondence, and I do not know whether Ministers have seen some of the letters that have gone out from local authorities, but I certainly have, and I struggle to understand them. A number of those forms have gone out without any reference to people on council tax support, for example, so people do not know that they are likely to be covered by the scheme. It is important therefore that we understand a distributional impact of the household support funds and of the distribution of funds by local authorities.
The Government have been keen to stress the value of those schemes, that they are locally sensitive and that local government has an important role to play in delivering them. That may be the case, but as the Opposition have said all along, it is undoubtedly a more complex and bureaucratic system for delivering help into people’s hands than uprating and delivering that directly through the social security system. Given what we know about inflation and energy costs soaring and the likelihood that we will have to return to this place to consider more emergency support later in the year, it is critical that we understand exactly how the delivery of the Government’s support package affects people, who it affects and whether it is the best way to provide help to people in need.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a few things to say about the specifics of the Bill and the points that have been raised in the debate. I understand the Minister’s point about the second qualifying date and the Secretary of State’s earlier point about not wanting to make clear what that is. I will not argue with that, but I have a question about the timelines for the payment.
We had a qualifying date of 27 May and we are looking at the payment being made on 14 July, which is a significant lag. If there is a similar length of time between the second qualifying date and that additional payment, people may not get it until nearly Christmas. The Minister was clear that the support is being given in two payments partly to help with budgeting, and people would like some certainty about the dates on which the payments will be made. I will not press him on the qualifying date; as I said, I do not necessarily disagree with the choice to not publish that now and to bring it forward through negative delegated legislation, which makes some sense.
The other issue for people relates to the other payments that they may be able to receive. We have heard from the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) that people have not necessarily received a council tax payment and do not know when they might receive that money. For people who are struggling now, it would help to have some certainty about when the payments will come. I do not think the legislation has even been brought forward for the £400 for energy bills; I am not aware when that will happen or when those dates will be. The Government are saying that there will be £1,200 for some families, and it would be really helpful for people to know when they are likely to receive that potential income so that they can plan.
On the negative resolution that will be brought forward to set the second qualifying date, I assume that we are not likely to see that until after the summer recess. If the Minister can confirm that that is the case, it would be helpful for us to understand that. If he cannot do that, that is fine.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about people who get two payments in a month, because they are paid on a four-weekly basis or because they receive bonuses or anything of that sort. It would be helpful if the Minister, when he sets the second qualifying date, tries to ensure that it is not in a cycle that will disadvantage the same people twice. If the date means that people whose universal credit is paid on a cyclical basis—for a significant number of people, it is clear that there is a regular cycle every three months—lose out on the £324 and the £326, even though they are regular universal credit claimants over the year, I would be concerned that the Government were not doing that in the right way. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of doing it over a two-month period would probably have been a better way to do it than the way that the Government are proposing. As was stated, if further additional cost of living payments need to be made to people in future, perhaps it would be helpful for the Minister to consider that.
In the context of making payments too quickly, the Minister mentioned the recovery of incorrect payments and how that might work, or need to work. He said that if payments are made too quickly, people might receive a payment that they are not entitled to and then it would need to be clawed back. Given how he phrased that, I am slightly concerned that we might end up with people through no fault of their own receiving payments in error that they think they are entitled to, who then have them clawed back from future payments from the DWP. We have seen that over the years with tax credits and how people are still paying back legacy benefit overpayments that they received, and we have seen the pain and suffering that that can cause people.
David Rutley
I am grateful for the contributions made; I will respond to them briefly. On Scottish qualifying benefits, yes, individuals will be able to receive the £150. As for the second payment, we are having to be careful in setting out the details definitively because of fraudulent behaviour. We certainly saw that with other payments made during the pandemic, so, now that we know the levels of fraud going on around benefits, we cannot be as explicit as perhaps we might have been. However, I assure hon. Members that consideration of the regulations on the second payment will take place after recess.
The other point made was about the timing of cycles. That is important, and we will do everything that we can to ensure that the cycles do not align, so that people who may not have been able to qualify for the first payment will be able to qualify. It will be difficult, because we are moving at extreme pace and with huge volumes of claimants, but we will do everything we can to assist those individuals.
It is not often that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) says things that I completely support and agree with, but she did on this occasion. All of us, and particularly the Government, need to do a lot more on communication about these payments. There are lots of them, and they are targeted, so there is a duty on us to communicate clearly when these things are going to happen. However, there are reasons why we cannot be as clear on the timing of the second payment.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on household composition. Sometimes, it would be great to have more data in these situations, but we have produced an impact analysis—that is not always the case in these situations—to ensure that colleagues can understand what is available for their constituents at constituency level. We have also seen the distribution analysis that looks at comparator groups. That is really important data, and I think that it helps to paint a pretty broad picture of how these payments will help vulnerable and low-income families across the United Kingdom.
The household support fund will indeed ensure that we can provide support to people with the cost of essentials. It is vital that local authorities do the work and report back to Government on the work that they have been doing. I hope that, with those points, I have made the case for hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
4.50 pm
David Rutley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank the DWP Bill team and the cross-Government officials who have stood up to deliver this legislation and the payment mechanisms at pace. I also thank the House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks, Doorkeepers and Members across the House who have participated in today’s debates.
The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to supporting low-income households and disabled people across the United Kingdom. Due to the current economic circumstances, many people need additional support to alleviate the financial pressures caused by the cost of living challenge. That is why this Government are providing a significant package of support worth £37 billion this year alone. It includes a £150 council tax rebate in England, £400 of support through the energy bills support scheme, a £650 cost of living payment for people entitled to qualifying means-tested benefits, a £150 disability cost of living payment for people entitled to a qualifying disability payment, and £300 in additional support for pensioners through a top-up to winter fuel payments. In practice this means people in receipt of UC or another qualifying means-tested benefit could receive £1,200 in additional support, which could increase to £1,350 if an individual also receives a qualifying disability benefit.
The Bill provides the Government with the necessary powers to administer the £650 cost of living payment and the £150 disability cost of living payment. These payments will provide targeted support to 8 million people including some pensioners and 6 million disabled people. We want to ensure these payments are in people’s bank accounts as soon as possible. We intend to begin phasing in payments from 14 July, subject to the Bill securing Royal Assent on 30 June.
This Bill is a further demonstration of the action this Government are taking to support people across the country and I commend it to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth
I join the Minister in thanking the Clerks, the Bill team and Members across the House who have spoken, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for guiding us to what looks like an early finish with skill, as always. I also thank the Minister for the courtesy with which he has responded to the queries Members have raised; I did not always agree or get the answer I wanted, but I appreciate the way in which he engaged, with great detail and politely endeavouring to answer all points.
As I said on Second Reading, we do not intend to stand in the way of this Bill at all; we totally understand the need for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for these payments to be delivered swiftly, although we believe that the Government should have acted sooner. The result of not acting sooner has been considerable anxiety and hardship for many of our constituents, many of whom have already had to grapple with the £20 cut to universal credit and other measures such as the pernicious two-child policy over many years.
Many Members have raised the various hard edges still in place because of the flat-payment nature of the legislation. One way of dealing with that would have been by bringing forward a benefit uprating, and it is curious that Ministers told us that that was not possible, given that it was done in 1975 by the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, Barbara Castle, who said that two upratings in a year would be introduced because of exceptionally high rates of inflation. If they could do it in 1975, it is curious that we cannot do it 40-odd years later. The position of the Conservative party in those days was that uprating should happen twice a year. That was Norman Fowler’s position.
I was grateful to the Secretary of State for what she said in response to my question about the uprating for next year. With respect to the triple lock and the uprating of other pensions, we have heard from the Chancellor that they will be uprated in line with figures in September, but we can see the pressure that is being put on the Government by some voices in the media and so on. The Secretary of State said that those matters would be reviewed, as per the legislation. I hope that does not turn out to be a get-out clause for the Government on the triple lock and benefit uprating later this year. We will be watching these issues like a hawk.
Our big worry, although we will not stand in the way of the Bill, is that the Government still have no serious plan to deal with the ravages of inflation. There has been debate across the Chamber today about the second payment, but with inflation where it is today, that second payment, if paid in November or December, would, by my rough calculation, in real terms lose value from the £324 that the Government are legislating for to about £307 because of the levels of inflation. I fear that, unless the Government get a grip of inflation, they will have to come back to the House with an autumn statement or another emergency Budget, to pursue other measures to help some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.
We will not divide the House tonight. We welcome the legislation as far as it goes, but I fear that further help will be needed very soon.
Kirsty Blackman
I also join in the thanks, particularly to the Clerks’ team, who have been incredibly helpful, as ever. I expect nothing less, and have never received anything less from the House of Commons staff; they are always excellent. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to all those in DWP and HMRC who will be working so hard; we appreciate the additional work that it will mean, and has already meant, to get these things in place. We are massively supportive of all those staff who will be doing a really difficult job, and potentially working an awful lot, in order to pull this off. That is massively appreciated.
The provisions in the Bill, although welcome, although additional and although they go towards the cost of living, do not cover the cost of living increases that our constituents face. They do not even cover the energy price increases, never mind the inflation on the most basic foods which people just have to buy. You cannot get away without buying pasta, rice or bread. People are stuck with the massive price increases in those foods; they have to buy those things. There has already been a time lag—people are not getting the payments today, although I appreciate that they are getting them quickly—and people will already be feeling the squeeze and struggling. The £326 on the horizon is great; it is helpful, but it is not enough. It does not provide the level of support that uprating benefits in April could have provided, which would have helped with that squeeze resulting from the cost of living.
The one really big thing that the Government could do today to make a massive difference to people’s lives would be to put up the pretendy living wage to a real living wage—a wage that people can actually live on. That is reserved to Westminster—the Scottish Government do not have the powers to do that—and it would make a difference to people. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was talking about the hard work that his constituents do and the amount of money that people get on benefits. The thing is that 40% of the people on universal credit are in work. A huge number of the people going to food banks and their children are in households with at least one parent in work. I get that the Government want to get people into work, but people are in work and still cannot afford to live. They still have to have this top-up from the Government. The Government can help to fix that problem by increasing the minimum wage to a real living wage and giving it to everybody who is over 18, removing the inherent ageism.
The other thing that the Government have missed and failed on in this Bill relates to people who have no recourse to public funds. Those people are, by definition, missed. That is the intention of what the Government are doing, but we can see that the most destitute, desperate people in our society are those who have no recourse to public funds. The Bill fails to provide support to anybody who is not on the gateway benefits or to anybody who is struggling but does not fit into the criteria. This is particularly acute when people have no recourse to public funds. We are seeing children literally starving because their parents have no recourse to public funds. Some of these cases involve people who are fleeing domestic abuse and are not eligible for the destitution domestic violence concession because they are, for example, an EU citizen or because their partner was a student. There are a lot of problems with this.
Another thing that is missing is that we do not know when we are going to get the legislation on the pensioner cost of living payments. If the Minister could let us know when that legislation is coming, that would be very helpful. Could he also let us know when we are going to get the energy bills support scheme legislation? This Bill is only part of the package. We have been discussing the whole package, but this legislation only brings in a bit of it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) asked me earlier where the money was going to come from to pay for all this, but we do not yet have any legislation on the charges that are going to be made on the energy companies. If we could just have had a timeline for when we could expect that legislation to come in, we would not have been in this situation, with this Bill appearing a week before we go through every single process in the Bill. MPs need longer to look at these other pieces of legislation that are coming through, and if the Government could do anything to ensure that we get even slightly more time to scrutinise the legislation as it comes in, that would be appreciated. As I have said, I thank the Government for bringing forward this package, but it is not enough. They need to go further, and they need to uprate benefits and backdate that to April, but we welcome this package.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting—
(1) the Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to the Speaker’s Conference not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order; such questions shall include the questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and the business may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and
(2) Standing Order No. 41A (deferred divisions) shall not apply to either the business relating to the Speaker’s Conference or to the business relating to the Committee on Standards.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Speaker’s Conference
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That this House considers that it is desirable to consider the employment conditions of Members’ staff in order to ensure a more inclusive and respectful working environment, and accordingly agrees that the following Order be made:
(1) There shall be a committee to be known as the Speaker’s Conference which shall consist of the Speaker, who shall be Chair, and up to 14 other Members appointed by the Speaker.
(2) The Speaker shall appoint one or more of the members of the Conference to act as vice-Chair in his absence.
(3) The Conference shall consider and make recommendations upon the contractual arrangements for the employment of Members’ staff.
(4) Notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, the Conference shall conduct its proceedings in such manner as the Speaker shall determine.
(5) The Conference, and any sub committees thereof that the Speaker shall appoint, shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to adjourn from place to place;
(b) to report from time to time;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
(6) The Conference shall produce its first report to the House, which shall include a description of the principles underpinning its work, no later than 31 October 2022.
(7) The quorum of the Conference shall be five.
(8) This Order shall have effect until the end of the current Parliament.
I bring forward the motion on behalf of Mr Speaker to establish a Speaker’s Conference to consider and make recommendations on the employment conditions of members of staff in order to ensure a more inclusive and respectful working environment. The treatment and safety of those who work on the estate is paramount, and I pay tribute to Mr Speaker for bringing this matter to the forefront of our attention today. I commend him for working across parties and across the House to make sure that this motion was brought before us in the House today.
As all Members will be aware, under our current system, individual MPs are responsible for the employment of their own staff. This is a long-standing practice. The Speaker’s Conference will be able to consider whether this remains appropriate. I do not seek to answer that question today, and I do not think this is the moment to debate it, but, should the House agree to today’s motion and the accompanying memorandum from the Clerk of the House, the conference will approach this task without any preconceptions.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Paragraph 6 stipulates:
“The conference shall produce its first report to the House…no later than 31 October 2022.”
In view of the fact that there are two scheduled parliamentary recesses between now and that date, does my right hon. Friend not think that that is rather ambitious?
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. That would be an interim report. It is my understanding that Mr Speaker would draw the Committee together, and establish a narrative and what it is looking at. I think the report would be an early opportunity for Members to get a sense of the Committee’s direction of travel.
Hon. Members will be aware that Speaker’s Conferences are not common. I think the most recent one was in 2008, which is before I and many other Members were elected to this place. It was established to look at the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in this place. It proved to make progress in that direction. I hope that this Speaker’s Conference will be as effective as the 2008 conference. It will be a Committee of the House of Commons, so it will have the powers and legal protections that that entails. That will ensure that it can secure any evidence it needs and that evidence will be given to it freely.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
On paragraph 5(a), which talks about powers, is it my right hon. Friend’s understanding that Members of Parliament and current members of staff will be fully consulted in that process?
Mark Spencer
I would fully expect that the Speaker’s Conference will take representations from Members. Once we are aware of which Members are on the Committee—I encourage my hon. Friend to make representations to the Whips Office if she wants to be considered—all Members will be able to feed into the process.
The Speaker’s Conference will include Mr Speaker and 14 other Members. Mr Speaker will appoint those Members with regard to party representation. He will have full discussions with party representatives to give them the opportunity to feed those names in. As the motion sets out, the Speaker’s Conference will have the powers enjoyed by all other Select Committees. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), it will report its preliminary findings no later than 31 October. As was the case with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, which was set up for the employment of Members and staff, it is ultimately a matter for this House to decide how we progress.
I pay tribute to my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who made great strides in establishing the ICGS. It provided a dedicated independent mechanism for the handling of complaints of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.
The Speaker’s Conference will be an opportunity to improve the working culture and to continue to make progress in that direction. The Government have made it clear that there is no place in this building or in this Parliament for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment. As Leader of the House, I am determined that we do all we can to ensure that that does not happen. With cross-party support, working together in this House, I think we can make great progress.
Should the House agree to establish the Speaker’s Conference, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Speaker well in his endeavours. It will be a beneficial change, promoting positive working environments. I offer the House my full support in its progress.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I, too, very much welcome the motion on the Speaker’s Conference and thank Mr Speaker for his leadership on this matter. It offers us all an opportunity to consider the employment conditions of Members’ staff. This is the right time to be doing that, following another damaging few months for the reputation of this House when we have had serious allegations and convictions against some Members. It is not a very large number, but it is important that we ensure we are providing good working practices for all Members’ staff. This is a really important step forward.
Since Gemma White’s report into the bullying and harassment of MPs’ staff, the House has made a lot of progress in how we employ, manage and treat our staff, providing them with a form of redress, complaint and assessment of those complaints, but we now need to take further steps. For instance, we have had the establishment of the Members’ Services Team, to whom I pay great tribute. I have always found them to be extremely helpful and approachable, and they are a fount of knowledge. I urge colleagues who may not have come across the team to make use of the fact that they are camped out in the Portcullis House atrium every day. They offer a friendly face, and help awaits. Members now have access to a range of best practice employment guides, and the opportunity to attend regular workshops. Again, all Members are encouraged to use the service, but we need to build on it and strengthen our structures and processes.
I want to place on record the fact that some Members have expressed concern that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority will be the body that ends up employing Members’ staff. The point of the conference is to look at all reasonable options, but it is important to put on record that my understanding—I am not speaking on behalf of IPSA—is that IPSA has expressed reservations about whether that would be appropriate. I certainly feel that, at the moment, we have other options to consider, which is what the conference is for.
In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) and the Leader of the House’s answer, I reiterate that the motion specifies the date of the first report—not the second, third or final report—as 31 October, but it is important that the House is able to debate the reports at regular intervals and to scrutinise the work being done. As the Leader of the House mentioned, the Speaker’s Conference will have cross-party membership. It will take on Select Committee powers and will have the power to require evidence, witness statements and information to be prepared for it in the same way as a Select Committee, which I think is right. The Leader of the House also mentioned—I would echo this—that the previous Speaker’s Conference marked a point on which we have made much progress, because having a Speaker’s Conference on increasing diversity in ethnic and gender representation in this place has been followed by a marked increase in all of the above. I feel that this bodes well for the next Speaker’s Conference.
The House of Commons is a beacon for democracy around the world. I feel that we have in our hands the opportunity to make it also a model workplace that is at the forefront of workers’ rights, with strong protections in place for all our staff, because future generations should inherit a safer and more inclusive Parliament where everyone has somewhere to turn, and where staff are able to fulfil their potential in every single team across this House.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s motion and his support for the Speaker’s Conference. By definition, organisations are completely dependent on the individuals who comprise them, so having good employment conditions and a respectful working environment is essential to make sure that we attract the best people to this place. We need to get this right not only because it is important for our staff in constituency offices, but—going to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—because it is important for the way Parliament is viewed. It is really important that we are viewed as being the best place in the world for democratic freedoms and rights, and for putting in place the best legislation possible. Having the best people here, and treating them well, has to be part of that.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will wholeheartedly agree that issues to do with employment law are incredibly complex and difficult, which is why I was particularly pleased to see that paragraph 5(c) of the motion states that there is a power to appoint legal advisers. I hope that the Committee does that and gets the best legal advice, because it is very easy for all of us to think that we know how to change things, but we have to make sure that there are no unintended consequences as a result of any lack of expertise. Although a number of Members are experts in employment law in their own right, independent advice will be important.
The other important factor to consider is that things have changed hugely in the past two years: not only did an enormous number of new Members of Parliament come to the House in 2019, but covid has resulted in a huge spike in the constituency work that our offices undertake. In recognition of that, IPSA has increased the funding for constituency work, but my office staff have drawn it to my attention that there is not necessarily more space for them, particularly if they are located in London. It will be important for the conference to look more broadly at the conditions in which our staff work, as well as at anything to do with their employment contracts.
Most importantly, these are matters for Members, and Mr Speaker is absolutely right to constitute a committee of Members to look at it. I would argue that we should be looking at many other issues, and perhaps a little more regularly; the last Speaker’s Conference came together in 2008. Employment practices in the outside world change regularly, and hon. Members have to ensure that we stay abreast of those changes. We are in control of how this place is run, as we are often told, but we do not always have the methods to bring in the necessary changes. House Committees meet, but they do not necessarily cover all the issues—they certainly do not cover issues relating to Members’ staff—and there is no way for those Committees to co-ordinate and work together. I hope that the Speaker’s Conference will look at that.
I have a few comments for the Leader of the House, one of which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) has already covered. First, we must ensure that there is consultation with Members and staff; that is not explicit in the motion, but it must be implicit. Secondly, IPSA must be required to work with the conference, because it is essential that it has a central role in providing, in an accurate and timely manner, the information that members of the conference need.
Thirdly, the Leader of the House may not be aware that the Administration Committee, under the extremely expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), is undertaking an inquiry into, among other things, the issues for Members who leave this place, voluntarily or otherwise. In the evidence that we have so far taken, we have all been struck by how often the treatment of staff has come up as a real, deep concern among Members leaving this place. That includes the treatment of staff by IPSA, I have to say, and even the treatment of staff more generally in the House.
I hope that the Leader of the House will therefore use his good offices to ensure that the conference looks carefully at the findings in the Administration Committee’s report, as well as at other matters that have been set out. We would be letting our staff down if we did not try to ensure that the two things complement each other and that there is a read-across.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion. I congratulate Mr Speaker on considering the issue and ensuring that we all have the opportunity to consider the environment and working arrangements for staff members in this House. This is a key time for that, for many reasons that have already been given—not least that there are 650 Members and we are all pretty different in how we arrange our offices and our staff complements.
It has always struck me that many of us—I include myself—came to the House with no experience whatever of managing staff or making sure that we have a staff complement who are available and ready to do very complex and demanding work. That work has only got more demanding over the past two years, so a service that could take account of everybody across the House would be welcome, not just for Members of Parliament but for staff.
I welcome the fact that the conference will take the form of a Select Committee, a format that is very familiar to the House. In the Members’ survey, I think the Select Committee process came second for satisfaction because of how Members relate to the Select Committee structure. I am glad that the conference will be able to work on that basis, which will give it the opportunity to get a whole range of evidence; I am sure that it will consider many requests to give evidence and will hear from the widest range of voices.
The motion reads:
“That this House considers that it is desirable to consider the employment conditions of Members’ staff”.
The key word is “consider”—so important that it is clumsily included twice in one sentence—but this is what it is about. No decision has been made. The conference is a Committee that will consider all the different aspects of the issue. It is incumbent on all Members to ensure that their views are heard, so I urge them to get in touch with the Whips and the Members who will be serving on the Committee.
The conference is a good innovation, which the whole House will welcome. There is a huge opportunity for whoever is on the Committee and all the political parties of the House to design and craft the type of working arrangements that best suit the unique environment in which we all work.
I welcome the conference, and look forward to working with it as a member of the House of Commons Commission and to looking at its considered work when we see its first report in October.
Mark Spencer
I will respond briefly. I thank hon. Members for taking the trouble to turn up today and for contributing. I also respond on behalf of Mr Speaker in saying that, yes, the conference will have the powers of a Select Committee, so of course it will consult with Members. I am sure that Mr Speaker will read the debate in Hansard and take on board many of the comments made by hon. Members.
I specifically pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), who has done a great deal of work in this area and has a lot of expertise to offer. Whether she is a member of the Committee or a witness appearing before it, I am sure that the Speaker’s Conference will take note of her expertise, which will be of huge benefit.
On the remit of the Committee, I do not want to box Mr Speaker in. I want to allow the Committee to establish what it looks at and in what order, and I am sure that will be brought forward and agreed in due course. I am delighted to commend the motion to the House and am grateful to Members who have contributed to the debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am certain that Mr Speaker will be paying extreme attention to all that has been said in this short debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee on standards
Ordered,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Victoria Smith be appointed as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.—(Mark Spencer.)
Petition
VAT on Defibrillators
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
It must be every parent’s worst nightmare. Last September, Dylan Rich—a talented 17-year-old footballer from Rushcliffe—was playing in a FA youth cup game between his club, West Bridgford Colts, and Boston United at the Colts’ ground in Regatta Way. Out of nowhere a couple of minutes into the match, he suffered a cardiac arrest and collapsed. His brave mother Anna performed CPR on her own son. Dylan was treated with a defibrillator at the scene and an ambulance arrived within 10 minutes. He regained cardiac output and was stabilised in intensive care, but tragically he died three days later in hospital.
Words cannot express the depth of sorrow that his death has caused—to his family, his friends, and the community at West Bridgford Colts. In their tribute to him, the Colts said:
“Dylan was one of those players that team mates love for his commitment, coaches for his attitude and adaptability, and supporters for his reliability. A fantastic club player.”
Tributes followed from Nottingham Forest and Notts County. Ahead of their World cup qualifier against Poland, the England players held up a shirt with “For Dylan” printed on it.
But the tribute that his family and his club most want is to increase the number of defibrillators across the UK, to make them cheaper for communities to buy, and to increase people’s awareness and confidence in using them. Until Dylan’s death, I had never looked at the figures for the scale of cardiac arrests. Sudden cardiac arrest is one of the leading causes of death in young people, and almost never has any prior symptoms. Officially, about 32,000 sudden cardiac arrests occur in England every year. When combined with figures from across the UK, it is estimated that the true number is as high as 60,000. There is an important caveat to this figure: it only includes incidents where resuscitation was attempted. In the UK, only 8% of people survive an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
Cardiac arrest can happen to anyone. This was brought home to us again in Nottinghamshire last month, when 13-year-old Samuel Akwasi collapsed from a cardiac arrest during a Young Elizabethan football league game and tragically later died in Queen’s Medical Centre. In fact, only yesterday, as I was writing this speech, I read of an assistant referee, Andrew Jarvis, who suffered a cardiac arrest while officiating at a game in Mansfield last August. Mercifully, he survived. He says he was saved by good-quality CPR, the football club’s defibrillator, and the quick arrival of the air ambulance team.
On average, as I said, a person in the UK has an 8% chance of surviving a cardiac arrest if it happens out of hospital, but this is vastly increased to as high as 70% if a defibrillator is used within the first three to five minutes of the cardiac arrest occurring. Conversely, survival rates drop by 10% for every minute of delay after this time. This further highlights why it is essential to have a defibrillator on every sports pitch and street corner possible—because these machines save lives. Average survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests vary across the country, ranging from 0.6% to 25%. The Government are doing so much to address regional inequality across the country, but we must also address regional inequality in defibrillator access and survival rates.
The main barriers to accessing defibrillators have been shown to be cost and awareness. In a survey by Vitreous World, 42% of people said that cost was the main barrier to owning a defibrillator, while 62% of people do not know how to use one and 27% are worried about how to do so. Defibrillators vary in cost, but the average unit is about £1,250. This is a considerable expense to many community groups, charities and sports clubs, especially considering that a sizeable portion of it, 20%, is VAT. Clearly, £1,250 is a lot of money for organisations raising funds through cake sales, individual donations and raffles. Some charities are exempt from paying VAT on defibrillators: not-for-profit hospitals, charitable institutions that provide care or medical or surgical treatment for disabled people, and rescue or first aid services. However, most sports clubs and community groups do not qualify.
There are several options for reducing the cost of defibrillators. The first is to apply a zero rate of VAT to all defibrillators in line with that already applied to a range of medicines and medical products, including prescription medicines and drugs. A blanket rate would be a simple and straightforward solution to cover anyone and any organisation wanting to buy a defibrillator.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I declare an interest, as I presented the Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill on Monday, when you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it will be heard on 9 September. I encourage the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) to come along to support the Bill, if at all possible.
I understand that children’s car seats, children’s travel systems and other safety protections have a reduced 5% rate of VAT. Should not this reduction, at least, be replicated for lifesaving defibrillators? As I know from my constituency, this would save lives.
Ruth Edwards
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill, and I would be delighted to join him on 9 September. He has come up with an excellent option that is not on my list.
I accept there are many good candidates for zero-rate or reduced-rate VAT, one of which the hon. Gentleman has just outlined, and I am sure the Minister will say that the Government have received £50 billion-worth of requests for VAT relief since the EU referendum, which is a valid point. Our tax base funds the public services on which we all rely, including NHS treatment for victims of cardiac arrest, but surely these lifesaving devices should be a higher priority than, say, e-books, of which I am a great fan but they cannot save a life in the event of cardiac arrest.
There is a good argument that, as paper books already have a zero rate of VAT, extending it to e-books is a necessary tidying up of the system to avoid any legal challenges. That is not 100 miles away from the situation with defibrillators, where some charities benefit from zero-rate VAT but others do not. Surely, whatever the purpose of the charity, the purpose of using a defibrillator is the same.
Another option is to widen the scope of organisations that can purchase a defibrillator without paying VAT. Instead of just covering charities with care, medical, rescue or first-aid missions, could not all charities, not-for-profits and community groups be allowed to purchase a defibrillator without paying VAT? After all, businesses can currently claim back VAT on defibrillators as part of their VAT return forms. Such an approach would direct savings to the people who need them most, while not setting a precedent for the blanket removal of VAT on a specific item. It also simplifies what is currently a confusing landscape in which people are not sure whether they are eligible for this VAT exemption.
Or perhaps we can set up a fund for charities and community groups, either to claim back their VAT or to aid them in buying defibrillators. Maybe a pot of money could be announced in the Budget—I am getting my bid in early. I am sure the creative and clever minds at the Treasury can come up with all sorts of options, and I place on record my huge thanks to the Minister, who I know has asked her team to do just that.
Whatever model we go for, the end we need to achieve is making community defibrillators more affordable, especially at a time when people’s finances are increasingly stretched. Whatever route we choose, we need to publicise it and use the opportunity to address the lack of knowledge and confidence in defibrillator use. I identify with this, as I did not know how to use one until Trent District Community First Responders and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service kindly offered to train me and my team. In fact they are training all sorts of groups across Rushcliffe, and it would be great if we could offer defibrillator and CPR training to Members and staff here in Parliament. When I asked, I was told there was no course I could do.
Parliament provides many other courses. We have media training, diversity and inclusion training and courses on how to use the Library, and I am told I can be tutored in any foreign language that might be useful for my work. All these are important, but none would teach me how to resuscitate a constituent at my surgery whose life is hanging in the balance.
Any of the proposed options I have discussed would be most effective alongside a big push to increase defibrillator training and a publicity campaign to raise awareness. Many people want to learn how to use a defibrillator and save a life, and many more can already use one and want to share this knowledge with others, so why do we not help to bring them together?
I have one final thought on how to maximise the impact of such a campaign. At present, it is a legal requirement to have firefighting equipment in places of work, residences and public buildings—everywhere really. What people need to have depends on the type of premises, but fire alarms, extinguishers and exit signs are all pretty universal. However, there is no legal requirement to have a defibrillator kept at a place of work. Why not? Some 80% of people believe that defibrillators should be mandated in workplaces, but only 30% of people have a defibrillator in their workplace.
Increasing access to defibrillators is not just the right thing to do; it also makes financial sense. Patients who have had early defibrillation have a significantly reduced stay in hospital and are far less likely to need treatment in intensive care. The average hospital stay is significantly less for survivors when a defibrillator is applied within the three-to-five-minute window and they spend less, if any, time in intensive care. Figures may differ from hospital to hospital, but on average an intensive care unit bed is about £2,300 more expensive per night.
In addition, patients who have a defibrillator used on them quickly have fewer ongoing health problems due to lack of blood and oxygen circulation to vital organs such as the brain. This means they require far less ongoing treatment. In short, we estimate that reducing the cost of defibrillators and increasing the number available for people to use in the community will save the NHS tens of millions of pounds, which is much needed to reinvest as it deals with the elective backlogs brought on by the pandemic.
In conclusion, I first raised this issue in Parliament at Prime Minister’s questions back in March, and I would like to thank both the Minister and the Prime Minister for the priority they have given to this issue since. They both met my constituents Peter Stanbury and Paul Wilson, who are respectively the chairman and the coach of West Bridgford Colts, and I know the Treasury has been working on a number of options to take this forward. I would also like to thank Peter and Paul for coming to see me in my surgery and making me aware of this issue, and for the incredible work the Colts have done to raise money to buy more defibrillators for their training ground.
I would also like to thank Dylan’s family—his mum Anna, his dad Mike and his sister Lucy—for allowing us to tell Dylan’s story and for backing the Colts’ campaign at what must be the darkest time of their lives. Sudden cardiac arrest can tear through the life of any family with devastating results. I am delighted by the energy and commitment the Government have shown to working on this issue, and I hope we can now agree on the best way forward and give it the green light, so that we can get on with delivering these life-saving changes.
I would just like to leave the House with a message from Dylan’s mum Anna, who wrote to me this morning to say:
“I think it helps to emphasise the importance of community defibrillators, in the sense that we did get an output back on Dylan. Sadly, it was ultimately the time he was without adequately oxygenated blood to his brain that led to his death. Without the defibrillator, I don’t think we would have left the football pitch.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I was not aware that the hon. Lady wished to take part in the debate, but we do have a little time. Has the hon. Lady asked the permission of the Minister and the proposer of the debate?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
indicated assent.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and forgive me. I still have my training wheels on, and there is definitely more I have to learn. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and congratulate her on securing this important debate.
Five days ago, on 17 June, my constituents Pam and Bill Shurmer marked the first anniversary of the loss of their son Daniel to cardiac arrest. Daniel was only 43 years old, a keen sportsman and soon to be married. Pam and Bill decided to make something positive come from their tragic loss, and set up DS43 in Daniel’s name. They set about ensuring that no one in Hartlepool will ever be more than 500 metres away from one of these lifesaving defibrillators. In just a year, they have been amazing. They have raised in the region of £60,000 and have installed 27 defibrillators. The 28th is going in next week, and they have plans to install a further 10.
Abolishing VAT on these life-saving machines would cost a negligible amount for the Treasury, but would make a huge difference, inducing people to purchase them and put them in places of work, communal spaces and local businesses, making them more accessible for all throughout our communities. Pam and Bill are right: no one should ever be more than 500 metres away from a life-saving defibrillator.
Pam, Bill and Daniel were already well known throughout Hartlepool, but through their campaign and fundraising, Pam and Bill have become true pillars of our Hartlepool community. I am proud to know them. They are truly special and an inspirational couple. I wish I could have met their wonderful son. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them in this place for all the work that they have done in Daniel’s memory. I have spoken to the Minister and I know that she understands how vital these life-saving machines are. I urge her to consider all options to make them more widely available for everyone in our communities.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
It is a privilege to respond to this Adjournment debate on behalf of the Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing this evening’s debate. As we have heard, this follows last year’s tragic death of her constituent, Dylan Rich, at the age of just 17. It is also terrible to hear of the tragic death of Danny, the son of Bill and Pam Shurmer.
I commend my hon. Friends for the energy with which they are campaigning for a change in policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned, she and I met the Prime Minister and the representatives from the West Bridgford Colts Football Club in March to discuss this issue. What she has said has touched all of us, and I wish to express again my condolences to Dylan’s family, who themselves have campaigned extremely hard on this issue, as well as to Pam and to Bill.
I have heard my hon. Friend’s argument and those of others here this evening. In answering the debate, I will briefly outline the Government’s thinking and approach. Let me begin by saying that we appreciate the importance of this issue. Automated external defibrillators—or AEDs—save lives. Understanding that, we have sought to boost their provision in many different ways. The Government encourage organisations across England to consider purchasing a defibrillator as part of their first aid equipment.
Many community defibrillators have been provided in public locations, including in shopping centres, through national lottery funding, community fundraising schemes, workplace funding or charities. The Government have also previously provided significant direct funding for the purchase of AEDs. In the 2015 Budget, the Government announced a £l million grant to support the purchase of public access AEDs. This was followed up by a further £1 million at the 2016 Budget. These schemes were operated by the British Heart Foundation. After the first round of funding in 2015, the foundation announced that more than 700 additional AEDs had been installed across the UK.
In addition, from May 2020, the Government have required all contractors refurbishing schools, or building new ones, through centrally delivered programmes to provide at least one AED. As things stand, there are already more than 43,000 registered AEDs in England.
The Government have also worked with the British Heart Foundation to develop “the circuit”, a national defibrillator network, which records information on unregistered AEDs, such as those in shops and restaurants. The circuit is now live in 13 of the 14 ambulance services across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This information is available in a centralised network for easy access in emergencies, meaning that ambulance services can find AEDs when they are most needed. The system also sends out reminders to make sure that AEDs are maintained and emergency-ready.
Meanwhile, the NHS Long Term Plan, published in January 2019, includes a section on cardiovascular disease and AEDs. The NHS has committed to developing a national network of first responders and access to AEDs, which will save roughly 4,000 lives a year by 2028.
Tax relief also has a part to play. VAT is not charged on AEDs donated, for example, to the NHS, rescue and first aid charities, and charities caring for disabled people. Local authorities and taxable businesses can also recover VAT on AEDs. The point of all of this is to say that there are existing reliefs, as well as historical funding and other initiatives, which are significantly improving access to AEDs up and down the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe made a point about extending VAT relief. As she said, we have examined the specific merits of zero-rating AEDs. We are conscious that pass-through of a VAT relief on AEDs to consumer prices is likely to be low. Evidence on pass-through of VAT reliefs generally suggests that where markets are concentrated—as they are for AEDs—pass-through tends to be significantly less than 50%. In other words, a new zero rate would not necessarily lead to a reduction in prices. Instead, businesses might choose to absorb the tax relief as profit. If we are to take this step, we need to be sure that zero-rating AEDs would represent genuine value for money and make a real difference in expanding public access to AEDs.
As my hon. Friend recognised, we also have a wider responsibility, at a time of economic challenge, to minimise pressure on the public finances. However, I am grateful to her for all the work she has done, and continues to do, to bring this issue to public attention. I also recognise the campaigning work done by Pam and Bill, who are grieving the sad loss of their son, Danny. Therefore, notwithstanding the point I have made about VAT, I want to be clear to Members here today that, as we remember Dylan and Danny, we will continue to look at what more the Government can do to expand access to AEDs. The Prime Minister has therefore asked the Department of Health and Social Care to examine whether there are ways to further expand public access to defibrillators, and I have spoken to the Minister responsible—the Minister for patient safety—about this very issue. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), we know that AEDs save lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Blake
To declare an interest, my father-in-law is a train driver and a member of the RMT. I am saddened that from the Government Benches we are not hearing the same loving rhetoric towards our railway staff that we did during the pandemic. The Secretary of State called our railway workers heroes. What has changed, and why will he not get around the negotiating table and see what he can do?
Grant Shapps
I wish the hon. Lady’s relation well in his job, and I hope he can get back to it very soon. I have just explained that this Government are putting £96 billion into northern powerhouse rail, £35 billion into upgrades and more money into the restoring your railway fund.
[Official Report, 20 June 2022, Vol. 716, c. 577.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake).
The correct response should have been:
Grant Shapps
I wish the hon. Lady’s relation well in his job, and I hope he can get back to it very soon. I have just explained that this Government are investing £96 billion for the integrated rail plan for the north and midlands, including northern powerhouse rail, and more money into the restoring your railway fund.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Homes for Ukraine: Child Refugees
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that because of what I as a Yorkshireman consider to be the oppressive heat, I have removed the requirement to wear a jacket for this debate. I call Tulip Siddiq to move the motion.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Homes for Ukraine scheme and child refugees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I want us to consider the merits of reforming the Homes for Ukraine scheme to provide better support to children fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. Many Members know that this issue is close to my heart. My mother came to the UK in the 1970s as a political asylum seeker. She came to this country because 19 members of her family had been killed in Bangladesh and it was too dangerous for her to go home. She did not want to leave her home, and every time I speak to her she talks about how she had no choice but to come to this country; the threat of violence meant that she could not stay in Bangladesh. I could not help but see the parallels when I heard the case raised by my inspirational constituent, Mark Falcon, about two sisters: 13-year-old Mariia and 18-year-old Nataliia, who fled their war-torn hometown in Ukraine with the hope of coming to the UK.
The UK has a long and proud history of providing safe refuge to children fleeing danger and conflict. Indeed, my mother was a similar age to Nataliia when the UK welcomed her to our shores. My mother settled in Kilburn, the area that I now represent in Westminster. My constituent, Mark, acting in the best traditions of our country—indeed, of our constituency—is representative of Hampstead and Kilburn because he offered to take Mariia and her sister Nataliia into his house through the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Mariia’s and Nataliia’s parents had taken the brave decision to remain in Ukraine and serve their country in its struggle against Russia’s bloody and unjust invasion. One of the parents is in the military; the other is a doctor. The sisters applied for visas on the basis that my constituent, Mark, would be able to house them on arrival. The family’s hopes that both children would be able to safely enter the UK were brutally shattered when Nataliia was granted permission to travel, but Mariia, because she is under 18, was not. The Home Office told me that she could not come here without her parents, even though she had already left Ukraine and was travelling through Montenegro with her 18-year-old sister. So she was not allowed to come here because she did not have her parents with her, even though she had her 18-year-old sister accompanying her.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making such an important speech on what is happening at the moment. My office is dealing with similar cases and there is very little we can say to sponsors who are desperate to bring people over. I am glad to see that the guidance on unaccompanied minors has been updated, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that it might have already left some young people at the mercy of people traffickers? We have had various other situations as well. If it had happened once or twice, we might have thought it was an error, but when a family attempts to bring their entire family and the Home Office leaves off the visa for the youngest person in the family, that obviously means that the family will not travel. I started to believe that there was something sinister at play here. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is absolutely disgraceful and the Home Office needs to take care when it issues visas for families? It needs something in place to attempt to find the many young people who might have already moved into Europe and might be at the mercy of people traffickers.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have heard such stories many times from lots of my colleagues, so there is a fundamental flaw in the Home Office process. I have not seen the policy officially announced yet, although I might have missed it during my rather traumatic journey to Parliament today, but I am sure the Minister will update me. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to that topic later in my speech when I talk about one person in the family being left behind whereas the rest of the family can come, which is not acceptable.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree with me about the case of Alika Zubets, a four-year-old girl from Kharkiv who has been stuck in Poland with her grandmother? She has a sponsor, Dr Maggie Babb, in my constituency in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and extended family in Staffordshire, yet we have been waiting for the policy decision for weeks. I hope to hear something very shortly from the Minister. The little girl has to return to Kharkiv because her right to stay in Poland runs out on the 25th. Does the hon. Lady agree that such cases demonstrate the need for an urgent resolution of the issue?
Tulip Siddiq
This is not often said in this place, but I absolutely agree with my colleague from the other side of the House. I have a daughter who is not far off the age of the little girl the hon. Gentleman describes, so it is heartbreaking to think of her being separated from her family and not being given safe accommodation when something changing in the Home Office could rectify the problem. However, I know that the Minister cares and I hope to hear him announce the updated policy.
As many people will know, and before we hear the updated policy, the rules of the Homes for Ukraine scheme dictate that unaccompanied children are allowed to apply only if they are travelling with their parents or legal guardians to the UK. I understand that the Government have to take into account safeguarding risks such as people trafficking, and that the Government of Ukraine have stated a preference for keeping unaccompanied children in regions close to Ukraine, but this blanket, blunt policy and the failure to take a more sophisticated case-by-case approach has completely ignored situations such as Mariia’s.
The Home Office should be consulting the sector more and making the system work for such children. Excellent organisations such as the Refugee Council and the Children’s Society, to name just two, do this work day in, day out. They could help to come up with solutions that would provide children with necessary protections and safeguards. That is all we in the House want; we want to protect the children and make them safe; we do not want them to go through unnecessary trauma and be unable to come to our country. Perhaps then, Mariia—a 13-year-old girl—would not be forced to choose between returning to a war zone and staying alone, putting herself at risk in temporary hotel accommodation in Montenegro. That situation is especially ridiculous to me because she has a warm, safe home waiting for her in my constituency, but she cannot get here because of Government bureaucracy.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and commend her powerful speech. She is right to put safeguarding at the centre of all our policies in this area. Does she agree that the Home Office changing its policy in April was inexplicable, as is why it has been unable to come up with a robust framework to provide for the safeguarding of unaccompanied children? By not doing so, the Home Office has put those children at more risk.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. It is a pity that so many children have been affected by the inability to rectify the policy. We knew the war was coming. I know we had to develop the policy at short notice, but I wish the Home Office had taken the issue more seriously and come up with solutions, as my hon. Friend has described. I will speak more about that later in my speech.
The interventions from colleagues across the House have shown that Mariia’s story is not an isolated case. I have dealt with countless similar cases of unaccompanied children denied access to the homes for Ukraine scheme due to the rigid and bureaucratic approach of the Home Office. For example, David and his wife in my constituency sponsored sisters aged 20 and 13 to live with them in London, but because of the Government’s policy the sisters never made it to the UK. Diahann, also my constituent, sponsored two 17-year-olds, who ended up sleeping on a kitchen floor in a small flat in Poland rather than in Diahann’s home.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February has resulted in more than 7 million refugees fleeing that country, but by 14 June, only 82,000 UK visas had been issued under Homes for Ukraine, and only about 50,000 of those people had arrived in the UK. That is less than two thirds of those who had been issued with a visa, but the Home Office has failed to explain why so many with visas have yet to arrive in the UK. That was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
The Refugee Council has warned that the gap between those figures might be explained in part by cases in which only some in a family unit have been issued with a visa. It is heartbreaking to think that all the older brothers and sisters have chosen to stay in Ukraine with their younger siblings rather than make the journey without them. That is not something that any of us would want for our family, and I hope everyone will agree that it is not something that people in Ukraine should have to suffer through.
Aaron Bell
May I take this opportunity to praise Lord Harrington for his engagement on this issue? There has clearly been, first, diplomatic wrangling with the Ukrainians and, secondly, policy decisions being made in both Whitehall and the devolved Administrations. I realise that the delay has been far too long, but may I take the opportunity to praise the Minister for Refugees for his engagement on the issue, because he has spoken to me personally about the case that I raised with the hon. Lady earlier?
Tulip Siddiq
Again, I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. The Minister for Refugees, to his credit, also met me about the case that I raised at Prime Minister’s questions and was fully briefed on the case, which impressed me, so I thank him. But again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the delay was unacceptable, and I hope that it will very soon be rectified officially.
I am cautiously optimistic after hearing reports this week that the Home Office is considering changing the visa rules to allow unaccompanied Ukrainian children and teenagers to come to the UK. That would end an unjust policy that has seen siblings separated and children abandoned in the most dangerous of situations. I would like the Minister here today to confirm whether those reports are true and tell us officially if the policy has changed, and explain why it took so long, despite so much suffering, for the Government to acknowledge that it is unacceptable to bar unaccompanied children from refuge in our country.
The Times has reported that the Home Office estimates that at least 500 children have been stuck in limbo in Ukraine for two months or more because of the unaccompanied child policy. I hope that this Minister, who I know cares, will be able to tell us today how many children his Department estimates have been prevented from accessing the Homes for Ukraine scheme because of this particular policy, and how those children’s applications for asylum would be considered under any new rules that the Government are considering.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. Does she agree that if, as we hope, provisions are to be put in place to welcome unaccompanied children to this country, it would be useful to hear from the Minister what special support will be put in place for those incredibly traumatised children and the families acting as their hosts?
Tulip Siddiq
That is something that I will talk about. It is all very well to welcome people to this country, but we need to think about the lives that they go on to lead. I will refer to that shortly and I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention.
Putting aside for one moment the unaccompanied child policy, I think it is important also to highlight the broader failings in the Homes for Ukraine scheme for child refugees. I believe that, even under the existing rules on unaccompanied children, my constituent, Mark, and his wife should have been able to welcome Mariia into their home. After the Home Office had refused to approve her application, Mariia’s parents provided a notarised statement, in Ukrainian and English, giving their consent for Mariia’s 18-year-old sister, Nataliia, to act on behalf of her younger sibling, but that note was deemed insufficient by the Home Office. Mariia’s parents still did not give up, because they were so desperate to send their two daughters to safety in the UK. Eventually they were able to obtain from the local authority a legal guardianship document that confirmed that Nataliia could act as the legal guardian for Mariia, but that still did not bring Mariia to the UK. As a result, and despite repeated representations to the Home Office by my office and my caseworker, Julia, and my constituent, the two sisters were stuck in a dangerous temporary hostel in Montenegro for weeks.
Only after I raised this topic at Prime Minister’s questions a couple of weeks ago was the Home Office finally forced to review the case, but not every MP will be as lucky as me and get in at Prime Minister’s questions at a very timely moment to raise a case. That is something that the House needs to consider. I got a call from the Home Office and the Minister because I raised the case with the Prime Minister, but there are so many cases with Members across the House that need special attention. I am of course grateful to the Home Secretary for her assistance, but there are potentially more Mariias out there, trapped in war-torn Ukraine or countries where they have no family or network of support. I ask this Minister to look into that. I am concerned that even under the existing rules, these cases are not being dealt with properly or urgently, so I want reassurance from the Minister. What are the Government doing to take the necessary steps to address these failings in the refugee system generally?
Sadly, even now, Mariia has not been able to enter the UK, but I hope that that will not be the case for too much longer. It is important to recognise that when Mariia and other children like her do come to the UK, they will need more than just a safe home when they enter these shores. These children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, have experienced serious trauma. They require specialist support to ensure that they successfully integrate into their new community. People arriving under Homes for Ukraine receive a visa for three years, but currently the integration funding is available only for the first year. I hope that the Minister can confirm today whether further funding will be provided to local authorities so that they can support people for the full three years.
Kate Green
May I ask my hon. Friend to note the position of pregnant women and new mums and their babies, and the support for them, not just through local authorities but through the health service? Does she agree that that will need to be sustained, particularly for women who will be without a partner at that time, increasing their sense of isolation and trauma?
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is right to raise the plight of vulnerable women and children. The Refugee Council has warned of a growing number of people arriving under the Ukraine schemes ending up homeless, potentially including young children and pregnant women. Government data show that 480 Ukrainian families and 180 single adults have had to apply to a local authority for support with homelessness. I am particularly concerned that 145 placements under Homes for Ukraine have already ended in homelessness: 90 because the relationship broke down and 55 that never started, because the accommodation was deemed unsuitable before the refugees moved in.
I understand the Government have now established a mechanism through which those who have to leave a placement can be rematched with another Homes for Ukraine host. So far, that has proved unsuccessful: only 20 placements have been rematched. Will the Minister explain the steps his Department is taking to ensure that people arriving under the Ukraine Family scheme are able to access accommodation provided under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, should they find themselves homeless after arrival in the UK?
I will finish by saying that I am proud of my constituents. Hampstead and Kilburn is a constituency with a long history of welcoming people from all over the world, including migrants from Ireland and Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany. The Government should work with my constituents, not against them, in their efforts to help child refugees from Ukraine. That is why I hope the Minister will give my constituent, Mark, and others like him across the UK the respect they deserve, by setting out how the Government will address the serious failings in the Homes for Ukraine scheme and wider child refugee system.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
Just to let colleagues know, I want to get to the Front Benchers by 10.30 am at the latest. There seem to be five people catching my eye, so you can do your own mathematics. I remind colleagues not to eat into other people’s time. I call Crispin Blunt.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate. Our caseworkers will be immensely grateful to her for bringing attention to the issue, because they have spent an enormous amount of time pursuing cases on our behalf.
Obviously, it is a huge pleasure to have the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) present to represent the Government. I am slightly confused, however, as to why it is not a Home Office Minister who will be responding to the debate. It does not send out the right message to have the Minister for rough sleeping addressing the issue of Ukrainian children coming to the United Kingdom. This is a policy issue and there should be a policy Minister here to make a statement about the change that the Government are making, which is hugely welcome.
I want to raise one of two cases that my staff have spent an inordinate amount of time addressing, to illustrate the issue that I suspect many colleagues will speak to. I will call this 15-year-old girl Oksana, because her identity needs a certain amount of protection. She is trying to get to the United Kingdom, accompanied by her grandparents and cousin, but she does not have permission to do so under the rules. She is sitting in Germany, about to be evicted from the property there.
The family have been trying to assemble the paperwork required by the Home Office to bring Oksana here. The problem is that her father is fighting for the Ukrainian armed forces and is engaged in combat, and her mother has found herself in Russian-occupied Ukraine, where it is extremely difficult to get to her. Even so, the family have managed to get notarised documents from the mother in Russian-occupied Ukraine in order to produce the documentation to say that her cousin could be her temporary legal guardian. The family have gone to the trouble of getting that documentation out of occupied Ukraine—and the Home Office has now had the data for a month—but they are still in housing in Germany and are about to be evicted.
This whole chain of events and all those requirements are simply unacceptable, not least when one considers that the whole Border Force system appears to be prioritising Ukrainian matters, which has had an enormous knock-on effect on all the other immigration cases with which teams are having to assist. Even people who have paid for premium-priced visas in order to come to the United Kingdom are not getting the attention that they have paid for at a substantial rate.
That is why I particularly regret that there is not a Home Office Minister here to respond to the debate—because, to be frank, most of these issues are not the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, who has been put forward by the Government. I understand the pressures that result in the Government sometimes sending Ministers to respond to Westminster Hall debates on subjects for which they do not have particular policy responsibility. However, given that the Government appear to be about to make a policy statement on this issue, I really think that a Minister from the right Department should be responding to this debate.
In Oksana’s case, with her mother now in Russian-occupied Ukraine and her father fighting on the frontline with the Ukrainian armed forces, the requirements that the Government have insisted on to date are utterly extraordinary. If those requirements are about to be reviewed, I am glad. But it does not give one much confidence that, even when people have gone through the enormous steps of finding the means to satisfy the Government’s requirements, they have been left waiting for a month for the decision whether to allow them to come to the United Kingdom. That is not good enough.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this timely debate on this important issue.
None of us in this House could have failed to be horrified by the destruction caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The ruins in Mariupol and Kharkiv that we see on our television screens, on Twitter and on social media were not just buildings. They were schools, hospitals, supermarkets and churches, like the places we all visit and can still visit. They were homes that people grew up in. They were vibrant communities of friends and families.
We must treat those who have been forced out of their homes with the respect they deserve. That means making it as easy as possible for refugees to build a new community in this country, and giving people the long-term security and certainty they need to live comfortably. While it is right that we do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good when dealing with such a fast-paced crisis, the Government must and can do more to ensure that refugees get the support they deserve.
One of my constituents, who offered her three-bedroom home to two women from Ukraine, had to wait 12 weeks to be told this Monday that she did not meet the requirements to be a sponsor, despite my local council checking her property and my constituent having an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check via her work in the NHS. It is unacceptable that hosts and refugees are having to wait 12 weeks for a decision.
This is not an isolated case in my inbox, and nor will it be an isolated case raised in the debate today or in debates in the main Chamber. Asylum decisions have halved in the past five years and the Passport Office is in disarray, so it is disappointing to have the Minister from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), here to respond, even though I have the utmost respect for him and know that he cares passionately about the issue. However, it is the Home Office that needs to get a grip on this issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned, more than 500 Ukrainian children are currently waiting to find out from the Home Office if they can travel safely to the UK. The charity Safe Passage has highlighted the case of a 17 year old girl, Valya, who has been helped by the hon. Lord Dubs. She has been travelling alone across different war zones for the past two months, unable to get to the UK and also unable to go back home, because her family are now in hiding, fearful for their lives. That should not be happening. The Minister needs to inform us today of what measures he is going to recommend to his colleagues in the Home Office to speed up the decision-making process for people who are so desperate for certainty.
The Homes for Ukraine scheme is not a permanent solution for refugees in this country. Ukrainian families need a home of their own, and we must plan for what happens following that six-month period. Those six months are going to come to a sharp end for many people, and I pay tribute to my constituents in Vauxhall and constituents right across the country who have opened up their homes and are ready and willing to help, but they have been failed.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that at least 17 unaccompanied children go missing in Europe every day, falling into the hands of victimisers who traffic them, exploit them—including sexual exploitation—and use those young children. That cannot continue to happen. We need the Government to step up and match the generosity of people across the UK who are willing to help. The Government need to sort out this mess and create a safe route for young children to come to this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, Mr Davies, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I apologise, but I have to leave early to chair another meeting; I have already spoken to the Minister, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen)—and the sponsor of the debate, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
This is a very important debate on an issue that has proven to be very close to everyone’s heart. Those who have already spoken have expressed as much, and they have also spoken of their support for those from Ukraine who are in need. Those who will speak after me will reiterate that, too.
Russia’s attacks on Ukraine have been condemned by all of the free world, and by many who feel greatly anguished at the stories they witness—the destruction of property, the changing of lives, and the bestial and indiscriminate attacks carried out on families, including women and children. It is those people trying to flee who we wish to help. The Minister has a compassionate heart and he understands these issues. We spoke beforehand and I am sure that we will be encouraged by his response. Having also been in contact with him previously, I am pleased by what I have heard, including on what will happen afterwards.
I commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn on securing this debate. She has a really big heart—she might be small in stature, but she is big in heart—and she brings forward things that we all support. I commend her on her stance and for giving us all the opportunity to participate in this debate, and wish her well in all she does. I was very disheartened to hear of her constituent, Mark Falcon, who, for the reasons she has outlined, has been denied the opportunity to take in two Ukrainian refugees through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. We must do more to ensure that protections are in place for child refugees; they should simply not be turned away. There was some good news in the papers this morning, which I read before I came to the Chamber: a 17-year-old has been able to get her access and come across, even though she has waited for some time in limbo—in that grey area—for that to happen.
My constituency of Strangford has taken in a number of Ukrainian refugees, and I thank Donald and Jacqueline Fleming from the Faith in Action group, who have enabled other refugees, including young people, to find homes in Northern Ireland. Five or six weeks ago, I had the opportunity to go to Poland, along with other MPs, to see that country’s contribution to the refugee crisis. It was a very poignant moment, because I had the opportunity to see, at the coalface, the refugees coming through to Poland. At one of the centres we visited, there were 2,800 refugees, including lots of young families. The desperation—the look on their faces—told us that these were groups of people under great pressure.
I put on record that our Government have helped. There has been a bit of a hold-up in the process and some things to address, but I am encouraged by the news this morning regarding 1,000 unaccompanied minors who had previously been left in limbo because the Homes for Ukraine scheme required young people to travel. I understand that the Government are changing that. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that; I think that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn herself referred to it earlier. If that change is coming, which I think it is, then this debate has enabled it to happen and again we thank the hon. Lady for that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My team and I spent months advocating on behalf of a 15-year-old girl who was travelling with her aunt before I managed to get the Minister for Refugees to make an intervention to grant her a visa by exception. I will welcome whatever announcement comes from the Government today, but does the hon. Member agree that it could have been made a bit earlier, to reduce the distress for other children who are stuck in Ukraine and other countries and are trying to get to safety here?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is absolutely right and confirms the very issue that we are discussing. There has been much distress for those families who are in the pipeline of coming through, and the quicker the announcement is made and the quicker the legislative change comes, the quicker that we can do away with all those issues.
I am a strong advocate for offering support—both financial and humanitarian—in times of need. It is one of my jobs here and it is also one of my portfolios. I take sincere pride in my constituency of Strangford. We have a history of taking in those who need refuge. Ballyrolly House on the Woburn Road in Millisle in Strangford operated as a refugee resettlement farm from 1938 to 1948 for the Kindertransport children. Lord Dubs has already been referred to. We have a really physical part of history in that house, and some of those people who came from 1938 to 1948 stayed there. Indeed, some of their descendants still live locally.
The story of the farm in Millisle remains a little-known tale outside of its locality. In the 1930s, Jewish children escaping persecution in Europe came to live on the remote farm in the Ards peninsula. Children on the farm would play football with the locals or go swimming at Millisle beach. Occasionally, they would even hire a rowing boat and spend the evenings fishing for herrings, which were in plentiful supply along the edge of the Irish sea and in Strangford lough as well.
Those are some of the things that my ancestors and others did to help the Kindertransport children, to help the Jewish children, back in the period from 1938 to 1948. Today, our country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is doing its best to do the same thing again for other children.
I believe that we all have a responsibility to ensure that all refugees are protected. There must be more of an onus on us to help children, as they are much more vulnerable than adults. Again, our hearts go out to the small children. Whatever the reason—perhaps it is because we are adults or because we have a compassionate nature and a big heart—we do reach out to the children. Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom have given refuge before in times of need.
It is disheartening to see young children being sent back to Ukraine for reasons that should have been checked by the Home Office prior to their arrival. If we are correcting that issue, it is good news, but it does not do away with the distress that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to. That distress is still very real, but let us lessen it.
We must ensure that there is due diligence in searching and assessing the homes used in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, so that people are guaranteed a safe environment for the six months that they are there. I know the reasons why the safety checks are done. We all agree on that, because it is the right thing to do.
We also must ensure that those who have applied to take in refugees are vetted and undergo police checks so as to ensure refugee safety. If homes are assessed and people vetted, I see no reason why Mark Falcon, who was referred to earlier, could not have taken in the two refugees, despite one being under 18. I understand that there may have been concerns in regard to her age, but she was with her elder sister, which should probably have given a wee bit more protection. Perhaps the Home Office should have seen that right away. I for one agree that, without a doubt, she would have been better off here, despite those concerns.
We must treat those in war in the same way as we would expect to be treated back. I am a great believer, as is everyone in this House, in treating others as we would wish them to treat us. That is not a bad way of looking on life and doing things in the right way.
To conclude, the Homes for Ukraine scheme is a fantastic way to provide solace and refuge, of which 28,000 people have already availed. The work to provide safe environments must be done before refugees arrive. It is simply not fair to provide hope but to then send children away due to their age. Let us give them the protection they need, and let us make sure that the changes that have been mooted today come about. As long as we have followed the regulations and safety checks to as high a standard as possible, we should—indeed, we must—rethink the process that is preventing the most vulnerable children from receiving the protection they need in this country. We welcome them here, and we look forward to them being here and to giving them the hope for the future that they very much need.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing the debate.
A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to be invited to a coffee morning for Ukrainian refugees at St Mary’s church in Chesham. The coffee mornings are held weekly and are organised by local volunteers who have dedicated their time to helping new arrivals settle in. Watching the Ukrainian children play with local children and hearing how they felt about starting school here in the UK was particularly moving. For many of them, getting here was not straightforward, and many more like them are stuck in Ukraine or neighbouring countries, with or without their parents, unable to make it to the homes waiting for them here due to overcomplicated and unnecessary bureaucracy.
To add to some of the examples, two siblings—a 22-year-old woman and her 17-year-old brother—were stuck in Warsaw for over seven weeks waiting for their visa applications to be approved. The 17-year-old boy’s application was put on hold as he was marked as being an unaccompanied minor. We were instructed to obtain an official parental letter of consent and passport scans. We were told the case was being escalated, and it seemed like progress was being made. Yet after weeks of back and forth with Home Office staff and multiple visits to the Portcullis House hub, we were told the documents were not legally binding and that the case should not be progressed any further until the policy decision was made by the Home Secretary. That was on 13 May. It has been reported that a policy decision has now been taken on unaccompanied minors, and I am sure that I am not the only Member keen to hear the detail of that decision, hopefully, today.
For the officials and Ministers responsible for the scheme, it must feel like driving at full speed while still trying to build the car, and I am sure that I am not the only person grateful for the many hours being put into trying to make the scheme work as best as possible. If I may give one additional piece of feedback, the problems are not just with unaccompanied minors. In the cases my team and I have been dealing with, there is a real pattern of errors and delays whenever children are involved. Where children have applied with their parents, there are often issues with linking the applications, and that is what I want to highlight this morning. In one case, the Home Office failed to link a mother’s application with that of her two children for six weeks. While her application progressed, theirs were halted and marked as unaccompanied minors. When they were finally linked, additional sponsor checks had to be done given that the sponsors were now hosting two children, rather than a single adult female as they had thought. It took eight weeks for the family to arrive in the UK.
In another case, a mother travelled from Lviv to Warsaw with her two young children to collect their visas only to be told the children’s visas were not yet ready. The failure to link families’ cases is causing additional and unnecessary stress for people who are already terrified, traumatised and exhausted. There must be a better way of ensuring children are dealt with alongside their parents, so that they are not incorrectly marked as unaccompanied minors and unfairly delayed.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this important debate. It has been amazingly heartening to see so many people, including many of my constituents, open their hearts and homes to those fleeing this war. It has been equally amazing to see the passion of Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend, in fighting to get families reunited and brought here through the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned about what the future will hold for Ukrainian refugees, especially children, who have come here through the Homes for Ukraine scheme. We rightly celebrate kinship care for our own children, so it feels incredibly wrong that this is being denied to children whose parents have no choice but to leave them with other family members to come to the UK. Ministers must take responsibility for the limitations of the scheme.
The issues I want to raise relate mainly to our duty of care for refugees once they arrive. First, some will be unable to complete their six-month placement with their host. In fact, reports suggest that as many as 660 Ukrainian households have had to declare themselves homeless to their council because of breakdowns in relationships with hosts. Some have been asked to leave with just a day’s notice, making it incredibly difficult for them to seek alternative arrangements. For child refugees, it goes without saying that that is hugely destabilising. They are more vulnerable and they are being turned out of homes: 480 households with dependent children had no choice but to seek help because they had discovered the accommodation that they were supposed to be living in was not fit for purpose or meeting their needs. I have also been made aware of situations where the host’s Disclosure and Barring Service check came back with concerns—and this was after children had been placed with them—meaning that families could no longer stay and their place of sanctuary suddenly became a place of fear.
Secondly, I have been wondering why the checks and balances and, importantly, the support offered to hosts are not the same as those for foster carers, especially therapeutic interventions. They should also be provided to the host family. Local authorities need the resources to adequately prioritise and ensure safeguarding and welfare. Access to education probably deserves a debate in its own right, as it is a huge issue for children. A catch-up for schools in the summer is a great idea that has been raised with me by the Ukrainian society in Sheffield.
The warmth and generosity from members of the public has been inspiring, but things can go wrong. Ministers cannot and should not forget refugees once they have entered the country. That leads me to the third problem: what will happen to people once their six-month placement is over? At the moment, Ukrainians are facing a cliff edge. Some organisations have highlighted that they might struggle to access housing. We know that some landlords will not accept those who receive benefits, until the law hopefully changes. Others will struggle to provide the years of financial evidence required for renting. Deposits and up-front rent will also be a challenge. The availability of social housing has clearly been a challenge for many years. In Sheffield, over 20,000 people are already on waiting lists.
For those people who have lost everything in war, housing will be critical when the six-month cut-out comes. Since people have already been here for up to three or four months, it is becoming critical. They have no one to act as guarantors, which is another issue for private renting. The Government must face up to the reality and urgently investigate how those who came here under the Homes for Ukraine scheme can be housed securely. They must put in place a plan for what happens after the initial housing period comes to an end.
If we do not get this right, Ministers will be stripping vulnerable people of the hope that they had been given for a better future in the UK by the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I ask them to urgently consider what resettlement options will be available to people at the end of the six months.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing and leading the debate, and all Members for their valuable and heartfelt contributions.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, more than 5 million people have fled the horrors of war, with a further 8 million internally displaced in their homeland. The majority of those seeking refuge are women and children. So far, the UK Government’s response has fallen short of what is required. By the end of May, the UK had taken in 65,700 refugees from Ukraine. Germany, by contrast, had taken in 780,000 Ukrainians.
Across Europe, our neighbours have stepped up to meet the challenge, waiving requirements and placing refuge and sanctuary first and bureaucracy second. Our friends and closest neighbours in Ireland waived all those requirements immediately when it became clear that a humanitarian crisis was unfolding. Here, the Government kicked their heels. Shortly after the crisis began, the First Minister of Scotland called on the UK Government to match the approach of the Irish Government, saying:
“Let people in and do the paperwork afterwards,”
and that “common humanity demands it”. She was right then and she is right now.
The UK Government should long have followed the EU’s example by waiving visa requirements for any Ukrainian national seeking refuge in the United Kingdom, as well as mirroring the European Union’s temporary protection directive. While we in the SNP fully appreciate the need to remain vigilant to all security threats, that should not prevent the Government from putting in place measures that balance those concerns with the desperate needs of the people of Ukraine, as our friends in Ireland and across the EU have done.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those across my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill for their heroic efforts in supporting families who have come to Scotland in the manner that they have—those who have opened their homes and hearts to the lovely kids and families through the Homes for Ukraine scheme—but the incredible response across Scotland and the rest of the UK must never be seen by the Government as a means of outsourcing the response and the responsibility. Ministers must engage with local authorities across the UK to ensure that full and sustained support, and funding, is made available.
I am sure everyone in the room is deeply troubled by reports that children are being forced to return to Ukraine after the Home Office refused to accept family members as their legal guardians. Whatever the issues with red tape and self-made bureaucracy—that is what it is—the answer can never be to send children back to a warzone, but that is what has been happening.
A four-year-old girl was considered to be an unaccompanied minor under Home Office regulations as she was travelling with her grandmother rather than with her parents. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn spoke of Mariia, a 13-year-old girl who was forced to return to Ukraine after having her application refused, despite travelling with her 18-year-old sister. The Home Office is of course right to prioritise the safeguarding of children—nobody would disagree with that—but the answer must be to work with local authorities to find a solution that keeps people safe, rather than separating families and sending children back to Ukraine. Offering no alternative is placing children at greater risk across Europe, and many people may consider riskier alternatives to get themselves to safety.
Before mid-April, Home Office policy allowed unaccompanied children to apply for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but that was changed without explanation, and the policy now excludes unaccompanied children. We are waiting on a policy update, but we have not seen any of the detail. With no provision for those who had already applied, the Home Office put applications on hold and left hundreds of children in limbo, as we have already heard. Many are stranded in extremely dangerous situations. More than 500 Ukrainian children are stuck waiting for a decision on their visas.
Since the policy change, a Government spokesman has said:
“Where we are made aware of an individual being provided with incorrect advice, we will of course take action.”
Up until now, no action has been taken by the Home Office. We look forward to hearing what the policy update will be.
Dan Paskins, director of UK impact at Save the Children, said:
“The government’s ‘one size fits all’ approach in these instances can put children at risk of taking dangerous routes to seek safety.”
I have to agree. He also called for more caseworkers
“on the ground, who have the skills, background and knowledge to be able to make a really informed and rapid assessment of each individual case – particularly for children coming to live with adults with whom they have a longstanding relationship.”
Again, I am sure we all agree. Overall, there needs to be a more flexible approach that takes into consideration the fact that parents will not always be able to leave the country with children, particularly with men aged 18 to 60 currently prevented from leaving Ukraine.
How we nurture these children when they arrive in our communities is just as important. Experiencing a humanitarian emergency can significantly impact the mental health, psychological wellbeing and development of a child. Children have been uprooted from their homes, separated from their caregivers and directly exposed to the violence and horrors of war. It is therefore incumbent on all of us to ensure that service providers can facilitate the integration of the needs of displaced children when they arrive here in the UK. That must include ensuring that mental health services are provided in a culturally sensitive manner, and in a language spoken by the children and their families, to foster trust in service providers. Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to ensure that those services are in place, and to provide psychological first aid training and capacity building for those beyond the specialist mental health workforce who are in contact with children?
I was pleased to learn recently from my own 13-year-old daughter about her new schoolfriend, Maya from Dnipro, who has settled in very well to school life in the heart of my constituency. There are success stories; we all know of them, and we praise the Government for that work, but there are so many problems that still have to be addressed. I look forward to the Government outlining how they intend to do that.
Recent data shows that nearly 10,000 school places have been offered to Ukrainian children. However, it appears that a sizeable number of children have not yet applied or are yet to take up their place. What steps are being taken to encourage and support uptake of school places? That brings us back to funding. In Scotland, we are proud that all 32 of our local authorities participated in the Syrian resettlement programme, with over 3,000 refugees welcomed into our communities. All 32 local authorities in Scotland also committed to participate in the Afghanistan resettlement schemes.
Scotland stands ready to offer refuge and sanctuary to all those who may be displaced. The Scottish Government will work with the Home Office, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners to provide people with the safety and security they need to rebuild their lives and hopefully one day return to their homeland. The Home Office must work with us—with local authorities and the devolved Administrations—rather than going over our heads, and it must provide full and sustained funding for integration programmes.
Ministers must engage with local authorities across the United Kingdom to ensure that full and sustained support and funding is made available for Ukrainian children, and for any other child refugee who comes to these shores in the future. As always, it is worth remembering that in Scotland refugees are welcome.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Unlike other Members, I welcome the Minister; it is his Department, DLUHC, that is responsible for Homes for Ukraine, and therefore responsible for its faults as well as its successes. Things have gone wrong, as they did in the heartbreaking case of Mariia and Nataliia, which was powerfully described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). Like others, I thank her for securing this important debate.
We have heard from my hon. Friend and other Members about a case of utter mismanagement, with logic and compassion thrown out of the windows of Departments that are not working together. In the early stages of the war, we saw cases where people from the UK were desperately trying to get loved ones to safety, but UK embassies were shut—held up by senseless bureaucracy. We saw Ministers telling people fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion to apply for visas to pick fruit. It was far from co-ordinated; it was a shambles. I welcome the announcement yesterday of changes to the rules on letting unaccompanied Ukrainian children into the UK—those changes are needed—but we await further details.
What we saw at the beginning of the war sadly had all the hallmarks of the shambolic and chaotic Government response to the crisis in Afghanistan less than a year before the invasion of Ukraine, with MPs’ emails going unanswered, specific cases not being responded to, and vulnerable people—children—left to fend for themselves. Unless there is urgent action now, Homes for Ukraine risks being another empty slogan from this Government. Like last summer’s Operation Warm Welcome for Afghans, it has been left to run cold. There are still over 10,000 Afghan refugees, including children, left in hotels and B&Bs or, worse still, abandoned to the mercies of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I mention that because that the Government had the chance to learn from the mistakes of last summer’s refugee programme, but sadly, they did not.
The outpouring of support and good will from the British public for the Ukrainian and Afghan refugees was not matched by this Government. Children are still unable to get the visas they desperately need. We have heard about the situation with Mariia and Nataliia. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) spoke powerfully about Oksana and the bureaucracy that is holding up her safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) highlighted further the bureaucracy that is stopping people offering the safety of their homes to people in desperate need. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a typically heartfelt and moral case for why this is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) talked about trauma, and the importance of providing a place of sanctuary for children fleeing war.
The experience of war, fleeing the country that they knew as home, losing or leaving loved ones, and travelling to a foreign country would be traumatic enough for an adult; I cannot imagine what effect it would have on a child’s mental health. We know that the wait for child and adolescent mental health services for children born and raised in the UK is far too long, so it is important for extra, targeted support to be offered to traumatised child refugees. To that end, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what steps are being taken to see that mental health service providers are offering support in culturally sensitive ways, and in a language spoken by these children and their families.
As we have heard, recent data shows that 9,900 school places have been offered to Ukrainian children. Schools and schoolchildren have opened their hearts to the refugees, and that is welcome, but that figure is out of 11,400 applications, leaving a sizable number of children who have not applied for or taken up their places in schools. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to encourage and support uptake of school places?
Some 155,600 applications have been received under the Ukraine visa scheme and there have been more than 120,000 generous offers to home refugees, but there still appears to be no definitive data on the number who have been matched and successfully housed. The last we saw was around 33,000 placements in May, so I would be grateful for an update from the Minister. Exactly how many people have been successfully matched and housed under the Homes for Ukraine scheme? How many hosts have been given the support needed to home traumatised children?
When the Homes for Ukraine scheme was first rolled out, I and many others, in the hope of building a robust, safe scheme, asked constructively about the importance of vetting. I know that many councils have not yet received additional support to assess and run checks on those people who have generously offered their homes, to ensure that they can offer stable, safe and appropriate accommodation to home some of the most vulnerable people leaving Ukraine—women and children.
Misha Lagodinsky, who runs a matching scheme called UK Welcomes Ukraine, which has 100 Ukrainian and Russian-speaking volunteers connecting people, said:
“Some people are finding that they are homeless straight away because they have a visa granted and then their host fails DBS checks.”
Unfortunately, as we have heard, we have seen breakdowns occur even when successful, safe matches have been made, again rendering refugees homeless. We saw a horrific report about a Ukrainian refugee who was rehomed under a Government scheme but left homeless, along with her teenage son, after they were manipulated for money by their hosts. Having arrived in April, she was asked for money and told to leave after three weeks. That same month, the Local Government Association published a survey of local authorities across the country that reported 144 Ukrainian refugees as homeless following breakdowns with host accommodation.
The Department responsible—the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—now wants to bring back draconian laws from 1824 to again criminalise rough sleeping. We could well be in the ludicrous position of Ukrainians who have fled their war-torn country falling out with their hosts in this country and then being slapped with a criminal record by the same Department that was supposed to help them in the first place. Vulnerable refugees need to be protected from homelessness, not to flee a warzone only to be criminalised, through no fault of their own, by this Government. When will the Government release the latest figures on the number of Ukrainian refugees who have been made homeless?
If the Home Office gets its way, we will be in danger of seeing Ukrainian refugees on a flight to Rwanda for processing. “Processing” is such a horrible, cruel word when we are talking about victims of war, people trafficking, torture and famine. Where is the compassion? Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that we will see no deportations of refugees who fall through the gaps of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and that none will be forced on to a plane to Rwanda?
We have heard some genuinely harrowing and heartbreaking examples of people who have fallen through the safety net that the British public desperately want to provide for Ukrainian refugees. On occasions, that compassion and ambition has not been matched by the processes put in place by the Government. I know that no Member who has raised individual cases—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn—will stop until their constituents get the help that they need, so my final question to the Minister is this: will the Government meet each Member who has raised a case to see what we all want, which is some peace for the people fleeing this dreadful war?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these issues today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate—I think we are old friends, given our previous time together on the Women and Equalities Committee. I am a tremendous admirer of the work that she has done supporting her constituent Nazanin.
I thank other Members for their thoughtful contributions, although I am slightly confused by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who has been a Member of the House for quite some time and who appears to have completely forgotten the protocol that says it is incredibly rude to contribute to a debate and then leave—not least without mentioning it to any of the other contributors or the Chair. Perhaps we will see him again some time. Who knows?
I believe the informed and impassioned contributions to the debate speak to the fact that we have not allowed there to be any creeping normalisation of the plight of the people of Ukraine. Let me put it on the record that the Government truly recognise and value the unanimity of voice with which we speak on the vast majority of issues around our collective support for Ukraine, although I fully accept that the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) has to take issue with just about everything the Government are doing.
This is one of the rare times in public life when Members from all shades of the political spectrum come together to stand shoulder to shoulder in our defence of the values that we share. From the moment the first tanks crossed the border into Ukraine, the stoicism, courage and determination shown by President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people has been a source of great inspiration to us all. Officials, charities, Ministers and our Prime Minister are working intensively with our allies and international partners to support our friends in Ukraine.
I will come to the focus of the debate, but I want to emphasise that we are proud of the support that the UK Government are providing to Ukrainian nationals and their families. Most of all, we are proud that the scheme is being powered by the enormous generosity of the British public. They have come forward in their thousands to open their hearts and their homes to people who have had their lives torn apart by a conflict they did not ask for. Since the scheme—the first of its kind in the UK—was launched on 18 March, we have welcomed 46,500 people into the UK, and I commend Home Office staff for the work that they have done.
As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) said, the scheme is like trying to drive a car at speed and build it at the same time. Although I completely understand that it is not perfect and that there have been challenges, we have been acting at pace with incredible volumes. Combined with the Ukraine family scheme, we have now helped over 70,000 people to find a safe, secure home, with 150,000 visas issued so far. Some of those people are now living in the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate, including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. Hampstead has had 573 applications, with 537 visas granted, and 382 people have already arrived. The constituency of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is slightly further down the league table, Luton having had 72 applications and 32 people arrive, but there is still time to come.
Sarah Owen
On the helpful statistics that the Minister has just mentioned, does he have an accurate figure for the number of people who have been successfully homed with hosts through the Homes for Ukraine scheme?
Eddie Hughes
I believe the figures are available online, but if they are not, I will make sure that we find out the answer to that question. My apologies for not knowing now.
As Members present are aware, in the early stages of the Homes for Ukraine scheme we had no plans to bring over unaccompanied minors who were not travelling with a parent or legal guardian or joining a parent or legal guardian when they got to the UK. Although unaccompanied minors were not eligible to join the scheme, we have had applications from many children looking for sanctuary in the UK. At the outset we vowed to keep the routes for Ukrainian refugees under constant review, and in the light of clear demand and the clear urgency of the situation, we have decided to extend the Homes for Ukraine scheme to allow children who are not travelling with a parent or legal guardian, or who are travelling to join a parent or legal guardian, to come to the UK.
As I mentioned, we already have a number of outstanding applications from children who applied but were not eligible under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Those applications have been on hold while the Government carefully worked through all the challenges that come with allowing children to travel without a parent.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the Minister for all the new information. Is it official Government policy now that children who are under 18 can come over if they do not have their parents with them? Will they still need a guardian, or will they need a legal guardian note? That has been a source of problems in a lot of cases. Can the Minister give us more information about it? Can he clarify whether this is official Government policy? We hear about it through tweets and the radio, not from a Minister.
Eddie Hughes
I can confirm that while we have been discussing these matters, a written ministerial statement has been laid, and Members will be able to access the details of it immediately. Further details of the scheme will be worked out in the coming days to ensure that everything is done correctly, but it will be based on a notarised note from the parent or guardian, and the child travelling to a known person. I am happy to discuss the details with the hon. Lady.
Further to that point, and on the point raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, Members do not need to have asked a question of the Prime Minister to get to discuss their case with Lord Harrington, although it was fortunate that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn had that opportunity. Lord Harrington organises a meeting every week—I understand the next one is tomorrow—and colleagues from across the House may dial in and pose their questions to him. We are encouraging the Labour Whips in particular to get their Members engaged and on that call. The opportunity is weekly, and we are determined to try to help each and every Member.
Margaret Ferrier
I welcome the Government’s announcement today, and I am glad that Nataliia, the 15-year-old girl being hosted by my constituent, is now in Hamilton in Scotland and settling into her new home. Can the Minister say how long it will take for final decisions on visas to be communicated to other unaccompanied minors, and will their cases be prioritised now?
Eddie Hughes
I do not think it would be possible for me to set a timeframe, but I can say that we are going to contact the 1,000 people who have already applied, working through those as quickly as we can. The policy will initially apply to applications in the system that were put on hold, but they will, as the hon. Lady has suggested, be prioritised for processing through the expanded scheme once it opens in July, although we need to ensure that sponsorship arrangements are appropriate, which is complex, and that all safeguarding checks have taken place prior to travel. That might take a few weeks.
All that will be welcome news for many of the children and many of the potential sponsors who are well placed to offer a child safety, sanctuary and security in their home, but I want to be completely clear about the fact that it will be possible only in some carefully defined circumstances, including when children are travelling with or are joining an adult relative, or children travelling alone are travelling to stay with a known sponsor, such as a close family friend. The safety of the child must be paramount.
It is important that we take this opportunity to expand the scheme—
Olivia Blake
I am slightly concerned because trusted adults often can be perpetrators of abuse. I want to ensure that there will be continued monitoring of and checks on children who are placed with people outside their family, and that the correct safeguarding and infrastructure are around those children.
Eddie Hughes
I completely accept and understand the point that the hon. Lady has made, and it is important that the parents determine who such a person should be. To that end, we would trust that the children were to be placed in a safe environment.
It is important to take this opportunity to expand the scheme. We are particularly grateful for the support of colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for the support of other expert practitioners, including local authorities, in helping us to develop the expanded format and ensure that the scheme is focused on delivering what is in the best interests of any child. In line with our commitment, the expanded scheme will include an additional requirement for local authorities to assess the suitability of sponsorship arrangements and ensure that robust safeguarding processes are put in place.
There will also be clear requirements for parental consent to any sponsorship arrangement and an expectation that the sponsor should be someone who is personally known to the parents.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister is being very generous in allowing us to intervene. I just want to clarify: if a child is coming over and the person who is housing the child is not related to their parents, can they still come over? The sponsor in my constituency is not related to the parents of the two girls who are coming over. He and his wife have opened up their home, but the girls’ parents do not know the sponsors personally. How could they? They are in Ukraine and the sponsors are in London. Would the girls still be allowed to come?
Eddie Hughes
I am not sure I can answer that question now. The details will be worked out, but our strong preference is that they are personally known. The point about parents determining where they place their children might be a pivotal point to consider. As I say, Lord Harrington will be available tomorrow. I am sure the details have been worked out at pace while the car is being driven at speed.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
. Can I interrupt the Minister and say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who has been in this House for a considerable amount of time—25 years, I think—that people who speak in debates are expected to stay for the entirety of the debate? They are not expected to walk out on a whim and wander back in at whim. I hope my hon. Friend, if he wants to speak in Westminster Hall debates, will remain for the entire debate, as every other Member who has spoken in the debate is expected to do, too.
Crispin Blunt
Mr Davies, I stand reprimanded. I tried to indicate to you that I would be back for the Minister’s response, but I have been caught out by the fact that he is on his feet earlier than I expected.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
The system in Westminster Hall is not the same as in the Chamber. People do not come back for the wind-ups or for the Minister’s response. People are expected to stay for the entire debate. Despite being here for 25 years, my hon. Friend might have learnt something today. I hope that he will not make that mistake again, and that that has been a useful lesson for everybody else who happens to be in the Chamber. Minister, I apologise for interrupting.
Eddie Hughes
Mr Davies, I am grateful for that point. Had my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate been here, he might have heard the hon. Member for Luton North point out the fact that I am indeed the Minister with responsibility for the Homes for Ukraine scheme, so it is appropriate for me to answer the case, and it would be inappropriate for a Home Office Minister to take up individual cases during the debate.
Given that the scheme already extends leave to remain to three years, sponsors will be asked to commit to hosting the child for up to three years, or until they are 18. In the coming days we will be setting out the technical details necessary to accompany that kind of change. It almost goes without saying that unaccompanied minors are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. By expanding the visa route for that group, we will be supporting some of those vulnerable children to flee what must be a terrifying situation in their hometowns, cities or villages.
At every stage of the process we have developed our humanitarian schemes in close consultation with Ukrainian leaders and the diaspora community in the UK to make sure that what we offer responds directly to their needs and asks. I do not need to tell anyone in this debate that the war is a constantly evolving situation, but I should stress that that will always mean that our schemes will be kept under constant review, and we will always be willing to work with Ukrainian leaders to make changes whenever necessary.
I want to briefly touch on one or two comments that were made. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked why the process has taken so long. The process is complex, but first and foremost we are driven by two things: safeguarding and the safety of the children; and, equally important, we are led by how Ukrainian leaders themselves expect to see the scheme developed, so we have proceeded diligently. As I mentioned, that weekly call with Lord Harrington is incredibly important.
In response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), on the presentation of some Ukrainians as homeless, as the Homelessness Minister I consider that a very sensitive issue. We are tracking it carefully and the most recent figures will be published imminently. We will work closely with councils to monitor and identify any further pressures they might be under. The Government have committed more than £300 million this year to support homelessness and rough sleeping, through the rough sleeping initiative and so on. We will keep a close eye on that to see how the pressures develop.
With regard to provisions for deposits for those whose sponsorship might have broken down, measures such as discretionary housing payments are available to councils. Ideally, we do not end up in that situation. I appreciate that the rematching service has so far helped a relatively small number of people, but it is still relatively new in development. We will work on that with councils, because ideally people will be rematched. I want to finish by thanking Members for their passion and commitment. I hope that today’s decision will be widely welcomed across the House.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank everyone for their contributions to a very good debate. I especially want to mention Lord Dubs, who was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He helped me prepare for the debate and has tirelessly worked on this issue. He came to this country on the Kindertransport, and has never given up fighting for refugees and unaccompanied children.
Despite being told off, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) made a good point about a focus on families involved in the armed forces. A couple of people in the cases we have dealt with have parents in the armed forces fighting on the frontline. We should support them and bring them over. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who powerfully described the delays in housing refugees, which I recognise. Deeming sponsors unsuitable without a proper reason means that children are abandoned as a result. I hope the Minister will look into that.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) highlighted the failure to link family cases. That causes unnecessary delays and is something that I have experienced time and time again. I know we are giving the Minister a lot to look into, but I hope he includes that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke about the duty of care that we have for children once they are in the UK. It is not just about bringing them over, but looking after them when they are here, because they are traumatised.
We should look at access to education; the catch-up school in summer is a good idea. I do not know whether the Minister will take up that idea but I hope, in general, that he takes on board everything he has heard today. I welcome the policy announced today, and would like to see the final details, to ensure that it works for everyone. I recognise that the Government must weigh up safeguarding and child protection risks in the design of any scheme, but the current system is simply not working. I hope the Minister recognises that. It is too bureaucratic, is rigid and has a cruel approach to child refugees, which is putting children’s safety and lives at risk.
I hope that the new policy works, and that the Minister will publish all the details. I also hope that he will look especially at the consideration that although families in Ukraine might not know their sponsors personally, the sponsors will still be providing safe homes for children in the UK, and local authorities can vouch for them. I thank everyone for putting aside political differences, and for ensuring that Mariia’s experience is not matched by that of other children across the UK, and that it never happens again.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Homes for Ukraine scheme and child refugees.
UK Defence Industry: Procurement
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
People may have noticed that because of what I, as a Yorkshireman, consider to be oppressive heat, I am not forcing Members to wear a jacket in this debate if they would prefer not to.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered procurement and the UK defence industry.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I should start by declaring an interest, in that my partner is a serving member of the armed forces and currently deployed overseas.
When the UK left the European Union at the beginning of 2020, the Conservative Government had the chance to deliver a stronger, better, independent Britain, built on the principles of sovereignty, security and prosperity. Two years later, the UK has time and again proven that it has done that, most recently through our instrumental support of Ukraine in Europe’s most significant war in recent memory. The importance of the UK armed forces has been highlighted in a way that cements their vitality and necessity and confirms that the UK can now retain its autonomy and sovereignty, further bettering our nation.
Away from the confinements of the European Union and the European procurement directive, we can commit to improving and harnessing the potential of UK defence. Procurement of defence weapons is critical to strong armed forces. Procurement of high-quality, trusted, organically sourced defence weapons is instrumental in world-class armed forces. Each year, the Ministry of Defence spends billions of pounds buying new equipment and supporting existing equipment for the armed forces. That is a substantial amount of money, but never before has ensuring that our defence capabilities are world class been more important. There are challenges to acquiring defence equipment: it is expensive, complex and subject to politics. However, locally sourced, organic procurement is a sure way of supporting the British armed forces, our local communities and our allies.
In the last two years, the Government have significantly altered their priorities, as attested to by the integrated review, the defence Command Paper and the defence and security industrial strategy. In accordance with the DSIS, the UK is adopting a new strategic framework for the MOD’s procurement and acquisitions programme. That will be a dramatic but necessary change. No longer will we follow the policy of competition by default. Instead, we will adopt a more flexible approach that assesses procurement on a case-by-case basis. By outlining our strategic imperatives, such as nuclear and offensive cyber, the Government recognise that there is a strength to retaining defence industries on UK shores. That not only aids us from a national security point of view, but allows businesses to direct their innovation to areas where the Government have demonstrated an interest.
In my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, the armed forces are celebrated widely. In my constituency, I am proud to have Brecon barracks, the home of the Army in Wales, and to represent the strong military community that comes with it. In fact, I think I am one of the few Members of the House whose constituency has RAF, Navy and Army sites.
In addition to having the barracks, we are fortunate to be home to innovative defence procurement businesses. This week, I have had the pleasure of speaking to Compact Orbital Gears, based in Rhayader, and Charcroft Electronics, both of which work in the defence procurement industry. Each deals with different elements of the defence procurement supply chain, and produces and distributes to major companies in the UK and abroad. Charcroft Electronics is a distributor and manufacturer of electronic components and specialises in high reliability and harsh environments. It supports programmes such as Typhoon and the Brimstone missile system, which is being deployed in Ukraine. It is proud to be a 100% UK-based company, and it employs 76 people in Wales, plus a further four in England—they are not lucky enough to work in Wales. Charcroft Electronics and Compact Orbital Gears are excellent examples of British companies working to better British security by supplying to our defence industry. UK companies working for UK national security is a strength, the fact of which should not be minimised.
The invasion of Ukraine has laid bare the strength of our armed forces, and it is right that we are proud of that and continue to use our strength to remain a key voice in NATO and ensure the safety of our partner countries. Our seat in NATO and every other major organisation, such as the G7, the UN Security Council and the G20, proves our multilateral influence and should inspire the Government to further commit to British procurement for British security, to protect us and to continue our international influence. To do that, we must keep supporting the UK defence procurement industry. To do that, we must keep supporting the UK defence procurement industry. We will be supporting not only ourselves, but our allies and, critically, the communities that rely on that industry.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. We have seen a sea change in procurement, and the results are coming through on the ground. I have MIRA in my patch, which is involved in Spiral 3 and the development of unmanned ground vehicles. The benefit of the way the UK system works is that it allows new, small-scale entrants to build up and move into procurement, which they have not been able to do before. That is a step change, and we are leading the world in that sense. Does my hon. Friend believe the Government should do more to allow more entry from local businesses? Local supply networks, such as the one in Leicestershire, in which we all build together as a community, will give us agile procurement fit for the future.
Fay Jones
I completely support my hon. Friend’s point, and I am delighted that Compact Orbital Gears in my constituency works closely with MIRA in his constituency. That is the type of arrangement that the Government should be facilitating, and I fully endorse his words.
I firmly believe that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that if we support the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises and harness our international influence, the UK has the potential to be the defence marketplace for our NATO partners. We have the intellectual prowess and manufacturing capability to become the hub for defence innovation globally. I understand from Charcroft Electronics that it has seen an increase in trade with our European partners due to its profile in UK markets, and it is looking to expand its production due to demand. To quote its director, orders from German and UK customers
“have gone through the roof”,
and it is at capacity until the end of next year.
Charcroft has demonstrated to me that there is a clear sense of security in a country knowing that its parts are not stored or being built abroad, and therefore potentially subject to disruptive geopolitical shocks. It is harnessing its influence at home and abroad to work closely with other UK defence businesses and those in our neighbouring countries. It is engaging in research and development for future defence programmes. Charcroft’s success is obvious and well deserved, and I am grateful to the Government for committing to supporting SMEs across the UK via the SME action plan, so that we can improve engagement and ensure that the whole defence supply chain is guaranteed the quality and service delivered by our UK businesses.
While I commend Charcroft, Compact Orbital Gears, and other businesses across Wales that are supplying the defence sector, there are limitations on procurement in UK defence. To continue the success and development of those businesses, we need to ensure that our skills-based economy is up to scratch, so that it matches our intellectual capacity. It is apparent that there are limitations on growth due to the difficulty in hiring highly skilled individuals in rural areas. I welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in our defence sector, and recognise their commitment to apprenticeships, which will combat skilled jobs shortages. I understand from ADS Group, a trade organisation for companies in the UK defence sector, that around 5,000 apprentices are employed in that sector. That is evidence of a budding workforce.
However, in constituencies such as mine, the picture is different. There are myriad reasons for that; in rural communities, problems include inaccessibility and a lack of connectivity. Charcroft told me that despite its best efforts,
“apprentices are hard to come by.”
We need to be committed to nurturing our home-grown talent, so that we can strengthen our defence industry, and so that businesses can expand and develop easily without that anxiety.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new medium helicopter programme is a very good example of how we can support skills development, and the sustainment of those skills—particularly design skills—in the defence manufacturing sector? My college in Yeovil works closely with Leonardo to provide apprenticeships in exactly the sorts of areas that my hon. Friend is describing, and if the MOD becomes the reference customer, there is a massive opportunity for major export business to be done off the back of that in future. That would sustain jobs throughout Wales and the south-west, as well as the wider UK.
Fay Jones
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; I saw that when I was part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme and went on a visit to, if not his constituency, somewhere very near it. A key part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda is their doing whatever they can to remove the barriers to recruiting and retaining talent in rural areas. I would really like that extended to the defence procurement sector. It is by investing in the next generation that we will harness our talent and ensure that the UK remains the epicentre of defence in Europe, a position that has been solidified in recent months.
Just outside my constituency, in Merthyr, the Ajax armoured vehicle programme is being developed. The site employs 600 people and is considered a key employer in the area. It employs highly skilled people, many of whom live in my constituency. I understand the difficult position the Government are in on the future of Ajax. It is extremely expensive, and continuing with a project that continually reveals design flaws is sub-optimal to say the least. I fully understand that the Government are in a difficult position, but we would all like an end to the uncertainty about the future of Ajax. There is a real opportunity for further investment in this skillset, so that we can overcome the issues that we have seen. Home-grown talent breeds better security. I understand that Ministers are looking closely at Ajax, but closing that program would have some negative consequences, as I know the Minister understands.
The prosperity review of 2018 suggested that prosperity should be taken into consideration when deciding on procurement contracts. As DSIS outlines, in order to ensure a prosperous, secure Britain, we should encourage the placing of contracts with UK suppliers, rather than buying from overseas suppliers. If we factor in the local prosperity arising from training, jobs, further opportunities for UK exports and increased industrial productivity, UK defence spending can be used to the greater benefit of the wider economy and the many local economies that have a part in the UK’s defence industry.
There are undeniable benefits from ensuring that procurement for the defence industry operates and develops within the UK. I would like the same logic to be extended to the operational ration packs that our military use on active duty. The Minister will remember those ration packs probably slightly too well. One of the reasons why I sought to secure this debate was that my kitchen is full of leftover ration packs from various exercises across Salisbury plain and the Brecon Beacons. Going through them one day, I noticed that the majority of the food we give our soldiers does not come from this country. I understand that we are dealing with a particular need; soldiers certainly do not have the time to eat a three-course meal, nor would they want to. We have to consider operational needs. We are looking to keep our military personnel fed, but it is important that they are well fed.
Anything we can do to use more of the high-quality, nutritious food that we produce in this country should be celebrated, and it would further extend the Government’s commitment to working with UK businesses. I understand that the country of origin of each ingredient in the ration packs is considered. So too is our national security, as it should be. It would be fantastic if the Government looked to extend their commitment on UK defence procurement to cover the food that we give our armed forces. I have previously drawn attention in this House to food security. I am delighted that the Government recognised the importance of domestic food production in the food strategy published last week. It is time we extended our self-sufficiency beyond defence equipment to the food we give our armed forces. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue in his response.
I am extremely proud of this Government’s record on British procurement in the defence sector; it is of vital importance to jobs and prosperity in my constituency. I leave the Minister with two clear points. First, in order to sustain the prosperity that the Government are determined to deliver, we should remove the barriers that companies working in the defence procurement space face in recruiting apprentices, and in recruiting from rural areas. Secondly, the Government should complement their commitment to food security by increasing the amount of food for our armed forces that is sourced in Britain, in order to ensure secure and prosperous armed forces.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
I am pleased to respond to this important debate and very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) for securing it. This is Armed Forces Week, so I would like briefly to reflect on the important contributions of our military, especially the Welsh elements, in recent times.
Last summer, we saw the magnificent performance of the Royal Welsh in helping to evacuate refugees from Afghanistan during Operation Pitting, and during covid we saw the remarkable performance of the 160th (Welsh) Brigade, which came to the fore delivering personal protective equipment and driving ambulances. We also have the incredible RAF pilots at RAF Valley. The home of excellence in the British infantry is, of course, the school in Brecon, which I know very well, to my own discomfort. I am very pleased that in recent times we have been able to reaffirm our absolute commitment to Brecon barracks. Of course, we are grateful to my hon. Friend and note her energetic campaigning on behalf of Brecon barracks.
That decision, coupled with our plans for Future Soldier, with an upturn in the percentage of our forces based in Wales, and an announcement of contracts worth £695 million to support the Hawk T2 in RAF Valley, as well as the opening of the new Royal Navy Reserve base in Cardiff Bay, to the tune of £11 million, reaffirms our commitment to Wales in the context of UK defence.
However, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out in her eloquent remarks, that military presence delivers not just security, but local prosperity. In 2019-20, Ministry of Defence direct expenditure supported more than 5,000 Welsh jobs, and just last year we spent £866 million with local industry, which equates to £270 for every person in Wales. That just gives a sense of the scale of the level of investment in Wales.
Of course, defence is a UK endeavour; it is not just about Wales. So I should point out that in Scotland the equivalent expenditure was £1.99 billion, driving forward our remarkable Trident programme, which delivers our unique and magnificent deterrent capability. In Northern Ireland we delivered £64 million of expenditure. For the whole United Kingdom we delivered £20.5 billion just last year.
I should also declare my particular interest, because in my constituency we have the birthplace of British aviation as well as the home of the British Army, in the shape of Farnborough. The remarkable excellence of UK defence industries as a whole will be showcased magnificently during the Farnborough air show next month. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will be able to join me and others at the Farnborough air show to celebrate the remarkable standard of excellence and the economic contribution that the defence industry makes to the prosperity of our constituents.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Reflecting on the point that the Minister has just made, I wonder whether he would like to express his esteem for the 10,000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland that support defence operations in the United Kingdom as they take effect across the world and, in so doing, recognise that those jobs are not a benevolent charitable gesture; instead, they are a reflection of the skills and expertise that exist in education, manufacturing and engineering in Scotland, and they are an indispensable component of the procurement process. Will he also reflect on the fact that the UK manages very well on several platforms—whether Typhoon; its predecessor, Tornado; or its successor, Tempest—to work very well with other nations in defence procurement?
Leo Docherty
Yes, indeed. I join the hon. Gentleman in commending, and reaffirming our commitment to and admiration for, those 10,000 defence jobs. He rightly points out that they exist because of the standard of international excellence that those workers achieve, particularly as part of our deterrent. I hope that he will take a public opportunity—maybe not now, but perhaps in future—to put on the record his commitment to the deterrent. It may not be easy for him to do that, so I will move swiftly on.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Before the Minister moves swiftly on from the deterrent, I would like to take him back to aerospace. In the past he has been generous with his time and has met me to discuss the subject of the war widows, a subject that falls more within his own bailiwick. I have been trying to get a meeting with his colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), so that a British-based aerospace firm can show him a presentation that greatly impressed me when I chaired the Defence Committee. I have no financial or commercial interest in the company concerned, but I am worried that independent, smaller companies get squeezed out by the big operators, and I would not ask for such a meeting if I did not think that company had something important to offer to defence.
Leo Docherty
I am happy to recommit our determination to ensure that SMEs are a part of our collective success. I am sure that the Minister for Defence Procurement will be delighted if I commit on his behalf to him meeting our right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned Ajax. We entirely understand the concerns that she has expressed and we have made no secret of the fact that it is a troubled programme. Despite those troubles, we are proud to be in Merthyr Tydfil because of the excellence of the workforce. I can offer some reassurance, in the sense that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Defence Procurement continue to meet with our commercial partners, but the bottom line, very clearly, is that we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement will keep colleagues updated as progress is made.
I agree entirely with the main thrust of the speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, which was about supporting SMEs as an integral part of our supply chain. They are indeed the lifeblood of the Welsh defence industry. She referred to the fact that there has been a growth in the proportion of supply they make up, which I am pleased about. We want to increase the proportion of defence expenditure that goes into SMEs to 25% by the end of this year.
That will not happen by accident. It is happening because we are fortunate to have many SMEs who are agile and producing products that we absolutely want. My hon. Friend mentioned Charcroft Electronics and Compact Orbital Gears in her constituency. They are two very good examples of first-rate SMEs. I should also mention Radnor Range Ltd at Presteigne, which provides range facilities for the testing and evaluation of weapons and is another good example of a first-class SME with which we partner.
My hon. Friend can rest assured that institutionally we will continue to support companies big and small, and we have strategies such as the defence equipment plan, and the defence and security industrial strategy, which colleagues will be familiar with, alongside subsector plans to provide industry with the transparency it craves in order that it can clearly understand what capabilities we need and then respond to that.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are also using the opportunity provided by our departure from the European Union to develop better defence and security procurement regulations, which will be tailored to better meet our own needs. That will lead to the Procurement Bill, which will replace the existing set of complex public procurement ordinances with a single uniform framework. It will be simpler to use for both the Ministry of Defence and suppliers and it will make the acquisition process much faster, helping to unleash the innovative potential of British businesses. That is a concrete and important legislative step forward, which I am sure colleagues will welcome.
Our Department is also doing all it can to encourage larger defence primes to invest in and develop SMEs. As my hon. Friend pointed out, our refreshed SME action plan, which we launched at the beginning of the year, will be pivotal to this work. We are doing that to help smaller companies maximise future business prospects, ensuring that we can maintain an agile supply chain, which will help us meet the evolving threats that we face. To help innovative companies succeed, we have ringfenced £6.6 billion for research and development spending. That money will help industry produce the kinds of game-changing capabilities that are necessary to keep us ahead of the curve of innovation.
My hon. Friend mentioned exports. I was pleased to hear about the company that has a full order book. We commend that, and we are trying to do everything we can to offer more export opportunities to a greater number of players. We have committed to developing a standardised commercial mechanism for Government-to-Government defence and security sales, which should make it much easier for customers and partners to do business with us.
My hon. Friend mentioned operational ration packs. I confirm that I do know them through a great deal of personal experience, and I am actually a big fan. When it comes to procurement, it is only right that we have a nuanced approach. For some generic procurement, we are bound to a degree by public procurement regulation, but British food, of course, needs no introduction and has the competitive advantage of being great value for money. That is borne in mind more broadly across defence for not just the operational ration packs, but our provisioning for the entire defence establishment. We are reviewing the way we feed our force, and access to fresh, local British produce will be a key component of that. I am grateful for her remarks on the matter.
On skills, I applaud the apprenticeship programme that my hon. Friend mentioned. I have similar programmes in my own constituency, and I am pleased to confirm that we are working with the Department for Education to develop STEM programmes in local schools and colleges. I hope hon. Members would agree that the RAF has been ahead of the game on that matter. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) mentioned the success of the commercial and institutional partnership that takes place at Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton—between Leonardo, the Royal Air Force and local schools—to drive the collective success of the Fleet Air Arm and the Commando Helicopter Force at that critically important Royal Navy air station, which one of the busiest air bases in Europe. I am grateful for his comments.
I want to be clear that we are absolutely on the same lines. We are excited about the prospect of a greater number of SMEs being involved in the collective success of defence procurement. It is an exciting and innovative time for defence investment, driving forward the kind of operational output we need to fulfil our ambitious plans in the Future Soldier programme and the defence Command Paper. It is sensible to say that defence procurement not just in England but in Wales has a very bright future indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
NHS Dentistry in England
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered NHS dentistry in England.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am delighted to bring this debate to Parliament and to combine it with a petition that has been signed by more than 10,000 members of the public. The petition calls for
“an independent review of the existing”
NHS dental
“contract and a radical rethink of the way in which dental services are delivered.”
We may not need an independent review to tell us that NHS dental services need a radical rethink; we all know that they do.
NHS dentistry is a huge concern for all Members here today, and the number of us present reflects what a huge concern it is for our constituents. I already had a good indication of how significant the lack of dentistry was across my constituency, but to grasp the detail and the scale of it, I posted a survey at the beginning of the year asking constituents about the problems they had faced in accessing NHS dentistry. Within a day, it had received more responses than any other survey I had run—more than surveys on bus services, post office closures, noise pollution, or whether the Cornish flag should appear on a Cornish numberplate.
The picture that came out of my survey was shocking. Nearly half of respondents had been waiting more than three years for an appointment. Tim has had temporary crowns awaiting replacement for eight years; the teeth underneath have rotted away. Robert’s solution was to wait until a tooth was
“beyond repair and intolerably painful before getting an appointment with the emergency dentist to have it extracted. Last time they removed three in one go.”
Other people tried DIY solutions. Looking up how to make temporary fillings on YouTube was commonplace. Mark pulled out his wisdom tooth himself.
Other constituents have given up completely. They do not show up on the waiting lists because they have given up on waiting. Lauren told me:
“I don’t use the right side of my mouth to chew as it’s sensitive and causes me pain but it is too difficult to get an appointment so I am having to live with it”.
Anna racked up three times her usual phone bill trying to get through to the appointments line before she gave up. One constituent comes from a family of seven, of whom only the youngest has ever seen a dentist, and only then because he went to hospital for urgent surgery; the oldest is 20. Patients who can afford to go private do so, but so do patients who cannot afford it. The fees for Anthony’s private dental care represent a tenth of his pension; that is not affordable. The fees that Megan paid to remedy just one of her abscesses equated to a month’s rent. She has just had a baby, and cannot afford to pay another two months’ rent for the other two abscesses.
The situation is particularly grave in Cornwall. Last week, NHS England and NHS Improvement presented a report to Cornwall Council showing that in 2020-21 only 24% of the dental activity commissioned in Cornwall was delivered. In 2021-22, it has increased, but only to 59%. By the end of this month, we should be returning to 100% of normal activity, but that is simply not happening in Cornwall. The total number of adults with access to an NHS dentist dropped from 188,000 in June of last year to 155,000 in December.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Things are clearly not as they should be in Cornwall, but in Lincolnshire they are even worse. Greater Lincolnshire has three of the four worst dental deserts in the United Kingdom, according to the Association of Dental Groups, with just 38 dentists per 100,000 people. Finding a dentist in Lincolnshire is like finding the holy grail. It is vital that we have more dentists, for the reasons my hon. Friend set out. People deserve better.
Derek Thomas
I completely agree. My right hon. Friend will know that in Cornwall we are very competitive; we always want to win, but I do not want to win this competition. This tragedy for both Cornish residents and his constituents highlights the fact that something needs to be done urgently. I thank him for his intervention.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again and allowing me to continue this tour of woe around the country. I can tell him that the situation is equally bad in Kent; it is almost impossible in Ashford to find an NHS dentist. My frustration and that of my constituents about this is compounded by the lack of response of the health service generally. The clinical commissioning group refers me to NHS England, and NHS England—the Minister may take note—just does not reply. I have before me an email I sent seven weeks ago regarding someone who could not find a dentist, but there has not even been a reply from NHS England. From top to bottom, this system needs complete reform.
Derek Thomas
I appreciate that intervention. In my case, NHS England, and commissioners for the south-west have been fairly good and engaged with the challenge. However, it is a tale of woe, as my right hon. Friend says. Perhaps we can all commit to coming back to this place in a year or two to commend the Minister and celebrate the fact we have a new contract that addresses exactly the challenges that we are all quite rightly highlighting today.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is right to highlight this national challenge. We have substantial challenges with access to NHS dentistry in Suffolk. Part of that, as our right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, relates to the quality of the commissioning and monitoring of contracts by the local commissioner. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to put pressure on local commissioners to take this issue seriously? Also, does he agree that we need to ensure that dentists who are commissioned to perform NHS services do actually provide the services that they are commissioned to provide? Some of them are not doing so at the moment.
Derek Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right to say that there are commissioned units of dental activity that are not being delivered. There are all sorts of reasons for that, which I hope to cover in my speech. Ultimately, however, we need to look at the contract itself and consider whether it actually works for patients. The contract was introduced by the Labour party in 2006. We know that it does not work today and is in urgent need of reform, which I will come on to in my remarks.
Derek Thomas
I will make a little progress first and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We have heard about other examples and concerns elsewhere, but in Cornwall we do not have the capacity to assess the patients in the backlog, let alone to treat them. This is not just about dental health. Dental examinations pick up the early warning signs of mouth cancer, or poor periodontal health associated with diabetes, for example. I should declare an interest, Mr Stringer, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes. It is estimated that 60,000 people with type 2 diabetes had their diagnosis missed or delayed because of the cancellation of dental examinations.
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Jim Shannon
I know that this debate is about NHS dentistry in England, but may I say—regionally—that the problems are just as real in Northern Ireland as they are anywhere else? My concern is that there is no access to NHS dentistry any more in Northern Ireland; either people pay for dentistry, for example through a subscription, or they do not get it.
Does the hon. Member agree that dental care should not be restricted to those who have the money to pay? The impact of this situation will clearly fall on those who see dentistry as being the bottom of the list when it comes to paying? People in the poverty trap who feel the pressures of rising prices will be even more detrimentally affected than ever. Does he feel that now is the time for Government all across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—although I appreciate that the Minister who is here today does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—to do something specifically for people on the breadline?
Derek Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
It is probably fair to say that although the responsibility lies with the Minister here today, it is not her responsibility, or even in her power, to ensure that every member of the British public can access NHS dentistry, simply because NHS England, or indeed any part of the NHS, does not commission enough dentistry to cover the whole population. Perhaps the Minister will clarify today the Government’s expectation regarding access to NHS dental care, and say whether there is a right for everybody, whoever they might be, to access that care. However, it is a very important point that has been raised. It surprises people that we do not commission enough dentistry to meet the needs of every one of our constituents.
It is not enough to blame the pandemic, although it has certainly not helped. I was raising the state of NHS dentistry in Cornwall before we had a single case of covid in this country. Over two years ago, I spoke about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining dental staff. At Prime Minister’s questions two years ago, I raised the shocking results of the lack of access to NHS dentistry for children in Cornwall. I also told hon. Members that these inequalities needed to be addressed quickly and creatively.
Outside this House, I have been working to improve access to dentistry in the constituency, most recently by getting the council to overturn a decision not to allow electrical works to proceed in St Ives that would have delayed the opening of a new dental surgery until the autumn. I have been meeting the regional health commissioners and Cornwall’s public health officers to discuss dentistry on a regular basis, and I cannot fault their speed and creativity. Their south-west dental reform programme has been working hard to improve access by helping to reopen a surgery in Hayle and in St Ives, piloting child-focused dental practices, and developing its own evidence-based workforce plan, but the Government must lead the way. Resolving these oral health inequalities is not just this Minister’s responsibility; it will require a cross-Government approach.
NHS England has launched a drive to recruit dental professionals to the south-west, but a key challenge in Cornwall, and maybe other parts of the country, is finding housing for those who want to take up a job in dentistry. I am working on that issue with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The national food strategy was a wasted opportunity. We could have extended the sugar tax, which has successfully incentivised the reformulation of sugary drinks. That would have helped oral health as much as health in general. I shall continue to argue for a national food strategy that is truly strategic, even if the Government have made a tactical withdrawal from tax rises to support public health.
The Minister has responsibility for the dental contract. In oral questions in January, she agreed that the contract was
“the nub of the problem”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2022; Vol. 707, c. 195.]
She said in February,
“there is no doubt that the UDA method of contract payments is a perverse disincentive for dentists. The more they do, the less they seem to be paid. I for one certainly do not underestimate the problems that that causes dentists, and I can see why many hand back their NHS contracts.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 780.]
I could not have put it better myself. I have asked dentists in my constituency if they would prefer to see increased budgets or reform of the UDA contract, and they asked for reform.
There are two main issues with the dental contract, both of which are not just obstacles to dental health but actively create problems for the future. First, the current system does not focus on prevention. When units of dental activity are the sole measure of contract performance, there is no incentive for preventative work; nor is there an incentive to make the best use of the whole dental team’s skills when the practice cannot make a claim for payment for a course of treatment purely because it was initiated by someone other than a dentist.
I made sure that the title of the debate referred to NHS dentistry not NHS dentists. We need to recognise the contribution of the whole team of dental professionals —dental nurses, hygienists, therapists and technicians—and use them. Again, this is about not just saving money, but using professionals in the best way we can. Yesterday I spoke to a dental nurse who works with people in care homes. If she wants a resident to switch to a high-fluoride toothpaste, she has to get a dentist to prescribe it. Our regional dental commissioning team has been running a pilot to take supervised toothbrushing conducted by dental nurses out to the community. Given that more five to nine-year-olds are admitted to hospital for tooth decay than for any other reason, this work should be at the heart of NHS dentistry, not something that is topped up by flexible commissioning.
Second, the UDA method does not properly reward dental practices for their work. A dental practice is faced, in effect, with a UDA cap for an entire course of treatment, which means when a patient has complex needs, the money involved does not even cover the overheads of the practice. The predictable result is that dental practices are moving away from NHS work. Around 3,000 dentists in England have stopped providing NHS services since the start of the pandemic. Every time a dentist leaves the NHS and is not replaced, approximately 2,000 people lose access to dental care. If you cannot do the arithmetic in your head, Mr Stringer, 3,000 times by 2,000 is 6 million, so 6 million patients have lost access to a dentist just over the course of the pandemic. For every dentist leaving the NHS, another 10 are reducing their NHS commitment by a quarter on average; that is another 500 patients losing access to an NHS dentist. According to the British Dental Association, 75% of dentists plan to reduce the amount of NHS work they do next year.
The fewer dental practices there are doing NHS work, the more pressure the remaining practices are under. A recent BDA members survey found that nine in 10 owners of dental practices committed to NHS work found recruitment difficult, with 29% of vacancies going unfilled for more than a year. That is nationwide, but one provider in Cornwall told me that their surgeries were unused 52% of the time due to shortages of dentists and nurses. The vast majority said that it was the UDA contract that was the biggest factor in their recruitment difficulties. The Minister said last week that the Government are serious about reforming the dental contract, but I want to press that point. It is not enough to be seriously planning a reform; we must be planning serious reform. Tweaks to the existing system are not enough when the contract is fundamentally flawed.
I have focused on the contract because we need the Minister to focus on the contract. Other Members will no doubt raise the issue of recognising overseas qualifications, passing the section 60 order that would give the General Dental Council discretion over qualifications, maintaining the mutual recognition of professional qualifications with Europe and extending that to the Commonwealth, and expediating the process for experienced candidates to register with the NHS. Dental care professionals need to be allowed to initiate treatments. The issue of funding will come up—for a catch-up programme of overseas registration exams in the short term, and university places in the long term—but it is striking how many of those proposals are cost neutral. We could even save money by catching mouth cancer in the early stages when it is more easily treated.
To quote the Minister, the contract is the nub of the problem. I urge her to commit to a firm date when we will see the end of units of dental activity, and a better contract focused on prevention and increasing access.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I have indications from six Members who wish to speak. I intend to call the Opposition spokesperson at 3.40 pm. You can do the arithmetic—it is fairly straightforward—I do not intend to impose a time limit unless Members indulge themselves.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for opening the debate and making many of the points that I intended to make. The simple fact is that we do not have time for further delay. We have four and half weeks left until the summer recess, and our constituents want answers. They want answers because they need to see a dentist but they are experiencing the deficit of NHS dentistry across the country. I would add to the list of areas mentioned that Yorkshire is also deeply affected, and my city, York, is struggling.
In 2009, Labour committed to reform the dental contract, realising that it was not going to deliver what it aspired to. The coalition Government followed in 2010 with a similar commitment, yet here we are in 2022 still making the same argument that we desperately need reform. As has already been said, this is not just something that has emerged through the pandemic; it is an issue that predates us. That is why it is essential that we have a pathway from today showing how we are going to move out of the crisis. Our constituents deserve to know what the Government’s agenda is.
Two years ago, NHS dentistry fell by 13%. Since covid-19 there has been a mass exodus in my city of York, but I realise that has also occurred across the country. Last April, NHS dentistry fell by a further 19%. It is believed that since the start of the pandemic, NHS commitments have fallen by 45%. Next year, 75% of dentists are planning to make changes and reduce their NHS commitments. Of those, some 45% say they will go fully private and 47% say they will change career or take early retirement, so if we wait another 12 months we will be in a deeper mess than we are now.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have lost 43 million dental appointments, 30 million of which were for children. In my constituency, 41% of children have not seen a dentist in the last year—they are the children who are now presenting in more acute services, requiring even more expensive interventions.
To put the situation in York into context, 9,695 UDAs were delivered in March 2021, at a time when 45% of UDAs needed to be delivered. A year later, in April 2022, 8,730 UDAs were delivered, fewer than the year before, and yet the requirement was for 95% of UDAs to be delivered. Instead of the number of my constituents accessing NHS dentistry going up when the number of UDAs that were expected to be delivered more than doubled, it has gone down. With 965 fewer UDAs, despite a doubling of the expectation, will the Minister explain how my constituents are meant to get access to services?
Fewer than half my constituents have seen a dentist in the last year. Of course, dentists have offered them private dental plans but my constituents simply cannot afford that, not least because of the cost of living crisis and the housing crisis in my city. Some travel long distances and others get nothing at all, and we know about other health inequalities that are similarly embedded.
Sir John Hayes
It is the least well-off people who suffer most, as the hon. Lady rightly said. Working-class people cannot afford these expensive plans. Surely the answer is that we should train more of our own dentists and make it more attractive to work for the NHS, rather than go private. My own dentist is Turkish by origin. He is a fine NHS dentist, and I could not speak more highly of him, but we cannot simply import dentists; we need to train more.
Rachael Maskell
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we have to train more dentists. One reason for that is that it takes about 10 years for somebody to be fully professionally competent and able to provide the highest level of dentistry. We must not look just at what is happening now, but into the future too.
Before we get to that point, we have to look at retention and at bringing people back from private contracts and services into NHS contracts. With fewer dentists available, the toll and the mental stress felt by those who have stayed in the NHS and remained committed to it is building. Some 87% of dentists experience mental stress, and 86% have experienced abuse as a result of people being so frustrated by the time they reach the dentist’s door. The people working in dental reception areas are at the forefront of that, and I know of a practice in York that cannot recruit anyone to be on the front desk. We need significant changes to be brought forward, and that will require money and dedication.
It is not just about the contract; it is also about having a complete strategy around dentistry. I have never understood why oral health was taken outside the wider NHS, and I believe that the solution to the problems we face is to have a proper NHS dental strategy and to put the NHS dental service back into the heart of the NHS. However, while we are working on those issues, we have to look at the crisis before us.
In Parliament last week I mentioned a practice that has been fantastic at accommodating people with dental needs throughout the pandemic. I said that three dentists were leaving that practice; I was wrong—it is now four. That is the pace of people leaving the profession. We have heard about the wider consequences for oral health, and particularly oral cancers, for which a delayed diagnosis means the worst prognosis. Therefore, it is absolutely right that we see a move on this issue.
I want to raise a couple of issues about dentists waiting to come to the UK. We know that 700 dentists are waiting to sit exams. The Government have had a consultation, which has closed, and we are awaiting a response. I am sure everybody in the House would want to accelerate legislation on that, but we need to know the Government’s plan. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us about that today.
However, 700 dentists will not fill the gap. Just last week, I was speaking to Ukrainians who have come to the UK. They want to work, they want to put their skills into practice and they want to have fast-track English language training so that they are competent in terms of their language skills. They want to see their qualifications passported, so that they can get to work and practise their profession. They do not want to deskill or de-professionalise. They want to learn the clinical language that they will require, and therefore to shadow dentists getting ready for practice. However, I have not seen a strategy from the Government on how we will work with refugees who have those skills and can put them to work. Perhaps the Minister will share that in her closing remarks, because it seems such a waste of talent when many refugees absolutely want to address that local need but cannot do so.
I turn now to the future training of dentists—a point raised by the hon. Member for St Ives. I have had discussions with Hull York Medical School, which is a fabulous partnership between the two cities, and it would be prepared to help support a dental school. Of course, that would need investment, so we need proper investment for the future. To look at how that would work, I spoke to the commissioners, and there certainly is an appetite in our city to host such a school in the future. That would be helpful in bringing dentists onstream, but we also must recognise that students currently in training are struggling to get placements in the NHS. Of course, the more dentists who leave, the harder it will be to train the current cohort. Unless we see a quick increase in the number of NHS dentists, we will be in even more difficulty. That is why the urgency is there now. We must build back an NHS service for the future to ensure that we have those professionals in place.
Finally, we know that integrated care systems will be taking over the commissioning of dental services next year. My concern is that Government are waiting for that moment to act. We must see action now, because the integrated care systems will not be able to solve a problem that the national Government won’t.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I am pleased to report that my own dentist is in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I have had excellent service from them for the past 25 years.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate. As we have heard, many Members across the House have had significant correspondence on this issue from constituents. Since the start of the year, I have been contacted by 26 constituents raising their difficulties in obtaining access to NHS dentistry. I therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
The problem of access to NHS dental services has sometimes been put down to a lack of adequate staff numbers. Across the Tees Valley CCG area over the last 11 years, the number of dentists carrying out NHS activity has remained static, at around 330. Moreover, issues with access to care have undoubtedly been compounded by the pandemic, with waiting times increasing significantly due to the infection control measures that were required to keep services going. However, those are not the main issues.
Instead, we must look at the shortcomings in the current system of dental contracts, which was introduced by Labour in 2006. Under that system, a dental provider agrees to provide a set number of units of dental activity from April until the following March, and the annual contract value is paid in 12 monthly instalments. Those units are not related to numbers of patients or the extent of the work that needs to be performed, and similar rates are paid for taking out one tooth or doing one filling and for doing extensive dental work.
Therefore, dental providers effectively end up being paid less money for more work, with it not being financially viable to provide NHS dental services. That results in providers not taking on NHS patients, or sometimes handing back NHS contracts and concentrating on private dental care. Furthermore, the nature of the employment of many associates—who are retained on a decreasing percentage share of the income they generate—further reduces the incentive for those coming up through the profession to remain doing NHS work. I understand from the Minister that the British Dental Association and NHS England are in discussions to reform the contract. I wish those negotiations well for the sake of all our constituents.
I would also like to focus on the fact that the main causes of tooth loss are decay and gum disease. Prevention is definitely better than cure. Improved dental hygiene gives a better chance of keeping teeth for life. I hope that any changes to the NHS contract include a shift to focus more on prevention and pre-emptive care in order to reduce demand for routine and urgent dental care.
I firmly believe we need a far greater focus on education in dental care. Early years foundation stage is a child’s first experience with oral health impacting on the rest of their life. Setting good dental hygiene standards and practices early on often leads to far less need for care in later life. Schools should do more to emphasise good dental health, and dentists should do more to educate parents on how they can set high standards for their children and on the vital role they play in normalising dental visits, putting their children at ease with the dentist, as a person they can trust.
I welcome the steps the Government have taken to try to deal with the backlog of NHS dental care, including the provision of £50 million to provide up to 350,000 additional dental appointments in England. It is welcome that that funding was targeted at those groups most in need of dental treatment, with children and people with learning disabilities, autism or severe mental health problems being prioritised. But I fear that that is not enough to ensure that everyone who needs to be seen can be.
This is a hugely important issue in Darlington, and one we cannot afford to get wrong. It is essential that those in the most need of care and those in the most deprived areas are prioritised. The current system is simply not working in that regard. I trust that the Minister has listened closely to the points I have raised, and recognises the importance of expediting the reform of NHS dentistry contracts and of focusing on preventive care, so that we can create a system that works for all.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for the way he introduced the debate and covered so much of the ground we need to pay attention to.
This is a funny old place. We wait for months to talk about dentistry, and now we have had two debates in two days. I spoke in yesterday’s debate and I do not want to repeat the points I made then, but I do want to develop some of them. We clearly face an extraordinary crisis in dentistry. It was fascinating to see all the Members intervening on the hon. Member for St Ives, telling their stories about constituents who had contacted them, unable to access NHS dentistry. We had that yesterday throughout the debate, with some horrific stories about the self-treatment that some people have been driven to carrying out with pliers. That emphasises the scale of the crisis across the country.
If we had all hung about after Prime Minister’s questions, and the Speaker had asked, “Has anybody here not had a constituent contact them about access to NHS dentistry?” no hands would have gone up. We all face this problem. I met our local dental committee last week. I said yesterday that, in response to that meeting, it commissioned a survey across the city, speaking to about half the practices. Only one could offer a waiting time shorter than a year. For 29%, it was up to two years; for 32% it was more than two years. The biggest number—35%— said, “At this moment, we simply can’t take anybody on to the waiting list.”
It is a shocking situation that we find ourselves in. I will not repeat everything I said yesterday, but I cited the example of a pregnant constituent who wrote to me. She said:
“I have a MATB1 form entitling me to free dental care whilst I’m pregnant and for a year after birth. Unfortunately, I can’t use this as I can’t find an NHS dentist”.
There is a reason why pregnant women are given access to free dentistry: they face particular problems with oral health during pregnancy, which will give rise to long-term problems unless they are addressed. We know, too, that unless people get the dental service they need when they need it, that creates all sorts of other long-term health problems that are not only hugely damaging to them individually, but ultimately costly to the NHS. Not getting the money in the right place at the right time just causes more problems for budgets further down the road.
The most shocking part—I am overusing that word, but perhaps it is appropriate—of the contributions we heard yesterday was about children. The No. 1 cause of child admissions to hospital is rotting teeth, which arise from the failure to get children dental treatment when they need it. The hon. Member for St Ives made a really good point about our lack of ambition, which is a point we can make about successive Governments. The fact is that we do not have the ambition for NHS dentistry to cover the entire population, in the way we would expect for all other aspects of health provision—even if we do not always get that provision right. We need to have a fundamental debate about dentistry.
There are two ways of addressing the problem, which Members have alluded to. One is the contract. Yes, the contract was introduced by a Labour Government in 2006—let’s be honest—and it became fairly clear fairly soon that it was not working. In 2008, the Health Committee described it as not fit for purpose. Alan Johnson, who was then Health Secretary, commissioned the Steele inquiry, which reported in 2009. In 2010, we committed to reform the contract, and the Conservative Government made the same commitment, so this issue is cross-party and involves successive Governments, and we need to sort it out.
When I was going through the problems in the contract yesterday, I was pleased that the Minister nodded at each point I made. I would be grateful if, in her summation today, she could give us an insight into the contract reform that the Government are looking at, because we do not simply want to see tinkering, a little bit of shifting here and there, or—as I said yesterday—tweaking at the edges. Since the Health Committee reported in 2008, the contract has needed fundamental reform. Yesterday, I said that it was wrong that the contract was based on units of dental activity using figures from the two years previous to 2006, which are now massively outdated, and the Minister nodded. I said that it contains huge discrepancies in remuneration rates between practices doing the same work, and she nodded. I said—this was particularly relevant during covid—that the contract provides penalties, through financial clawback, for underperformance and not achieving targets, even if the reasons for non-achievement are completely beyond the control of practitioners, such as an inability to fill a job or the infection protection measures that were put in place. However, there is no reward if a dental practice overperforms—if it sees more people or deals with more teeth. The Minister nodded at that one, too.
The contract limits how much NHS treatment a practice can provide because of the quotas and the way that providers are contractually obliged to spread their NHS work and not be responsive to demand as and when it arises—the Minister nodded at that point, too. I would be grateful if she confirmed in her summation that the Government intend to address all those points, and indeed others, in reforming the contract.
The second aspect is the lack of funding for dentistry, which has fallen further than in any other part of the NHS. We should all recognise that it is a Cinderella service in the NHS. According to the BDA, funding for NHS dentistry has fallen by 25% since 2010, which, as I say, is completely out of line with the rest of the NHS. Alongside reforming the contract—we do not simply want a sleight of hand in solving these issues—what do the Government intend to do on funding? We heard about the £50 million Government investment for emergency funding as a result of covid, but there were problems with that—I say that with respect to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who raised it in our debate yesterday. It was time-restricted funding for one quarter and was offered in a very short timeframe, which made it difficult to implement and involved work in addition to the contract. Practices were told that if they tried to help and then did not meet their standard contract target as a result, they would face financial penalties.
Unnecessary restrictions were imposed on the emergency funding by some commissioning teams—for example, in Sheffield, it had to be for out-of-hours access. The Minister is shaking her head. That might not have been what was required by the Government, but it was required by many commissioning teams. The net result was that lots of that money was not drawn down. I asked the Secretary of State yesterday to indicate how successful the initiative had been by telling us how much money had been drawn down, and he was not able to. I hope that officials have been able to provide the Minister with that number today, so that she can give us an indication of the success of that initiative.
I will say no more now because I am conscious that other Members want to speak, and we should all share our experiences from across the country, but I hope that we will not kick the issue down the road again and that the Minister, in her winding-up remarks, will commit to a comprehensive statement on where the Government intend to move on contract reform and funding to solve the crisis. If they do not make a statement before the summer and if we do not take action urgently, we will really be seeing the potential death of NHS dentistry.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will be very brief because many points have already been made, but I want to try and give a further south-west example of the problems that we face, particularly in rural and coastal communities. The problem is sizeable and the requirement to respond to it is urgent. As has been said by so many colleagues from across the House, we must grip the issue now. If we let it slide, it will get worse and worse, and the backlog will get bigger and bigger.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was right to say that, like buses, it is good to have two debates on this. I was sorry not to be able to make my comments known yesterday. I was particularly struck by some of the positive developments that have come out of the Department, most notably that urgent care is back to pre-pandemic levels. There are also 700 centres for urgent care, £50 million has been made available to encourage 350,000 extra appointments, and there is an urge and a push to upskill dental nurses, assistants and technicians. Those are all very welcome steps.
I do not mean to be critical of the Government, because the Minister, who has responded to my letters, has spoken to me at length on the issues that we face in south Devon. There are a few outstanding issues that I hope she might be able to take on board. I hope she might also be willing to listen to some of the suggestions that colleagues and I are making.
One the five areas where I see a significant problem, which has already been raised, is children not getting access to dentists. On pensioners, countless constituents have contacted me who cannot get access to the very necessary dentistry services that they require. We must find a way to address that, for children and pensioners alike. We can find a way through this. The problem in my patch is that dentists are not taking on new patients. In fact, to give a concentrated example, there is one practice within 15 miles of Totnes that is accepting patients, and in that instance it is only children. I understand that the practice is already oversubscribed and therefore unable to see people in a reasonable timeframe. This is a real problem that, as others have said, is becoming exacerbated as time goes by.
My next point is about urgent dental care centres. I have heard about 700 of them being set up across the country, but I am not aware of one that is dealing with my constituents. In fact, when people use the hotline to even contact the NHS to discuss it, they cannot get through. I have constituents in considerable pain contacting the helpline and not being able to even get through to convey their point. That needs to be addressed. It is bad enough not being able to see a dentist; it is perhaps even worse not being able to talk to someone about the help one needs. It is also reflected in why we see so many people ending up in A&E with problems with their teeth. Addressing this issue would help the A&E numbers.
The Minister, as ever, is assiduous in responding to our correspondence. I hope she will not take this the wrong way, but she responded to one of my letters that it may be helpful to know that patients are registered with a dental practice only for the course of their treatment, meaning there are no geographical restrictions on which practice a patient may attend. She has been to south Devon, I am sure. If she has not, she is very welcome—it could not be a better time to visit over the summer. Our geography is very difficult at the best of times. We do not have rail lines—they were all ripped up in the 1950s. Our bus services have been cut back. There are no major routes even between the major towns in my constituency and the hospitals—I think of Dartmouth and Kingsbridge.
If we do not have the transport system to help people to get to those practices, the geography matters a great deal. We need to focus on a response for the rural and coastal communities, because they are at a significant disadvantage, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said.
The £50 million made available is welcome, but the percentage awarded to the south-west is 9%, which, if my maths is good enough—probably not as good as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas)—is £4,762,000. That will not be enough to deal with the sizeable issues in what is classed as the south-west, which is Somerset, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall.
I said I would not speak for long, but I have a few points that I hope the Minister will take on board. I hope we can find a solution on the basis of cross-party consensus and co-operation and of the urgent need to address this issue. Evidently, we need more dentists. There is no doubt about that. Training takes time. It is great that we are looking at how to retrain people, but what steps are we taking to encourage the creation and set-up of dentist schools across the country?
People want to train and work in this country. The NHS is a draw to medical students around the world. We should be able to train them here and encourage them to work in our system, at least for a certain amount of time. What steps are being taken to recognise the equivalent level of qualification that might be found in other countries to encourage them to come to this country?
I have mentioned it three times, but for added effect I will make the point again: we need a robust response for rural and coastal areas. Is the Minister willing to meet all coastal and rural MPs, on a cross-party basis, who have an issue with dentistry to discuss this issue? It is significant that, from Cornwall to elsewhere in the country, we all make similar points about how we are disadvantaged. That is no disrespect to the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Sheffield Central, but I hope the Minister will take that on board, because it is becoming more urgent.
Contract renegotiation has already been mentioned. We need more details on that, and it has to be sped up. Nobody wants us to sit here pointing the finger—I accept that Labour brought in this terrible decision in 2006; there we are, I have pointed it—but what we want is a solution. We can find a solution. If yesterday’s debate and this debate are anything to go by, there are sensible options being put forward. The time to act is now. Too many people have been in significant pain for too long.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In the last few months, I have received dozens of letters and emails from constituents about their difficulties in securing NHS dentistry, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for securing this important debate.
A key part of levelling up is ensuring that health inequalities are addressed and that people’s access to vital dental treatment is not based on a postcode lottery. Only yesterday, I received an email from a constituent, Kayleigh. She was told by her dentist that she and her family would no longer be able to access routine NHS appointments. Kayleigh did exactly the right thing and called up other dentists in Blackpool and all along the Fylde coast, but time after time, the response she received was the same: “We are not taking on NHS patients, there is no waiting list, and there is no intention whatsoever to change that in the near future.”
Kayleigh works part time to help to support her young family, but private dental appointments are completely unaffordable and totally out of the question. She is one of thousands of my constituents in Blackpool who do not or cannot access NHS dentistry. It is difficult to establish a figure for how many of my constituents do not have an NHS dentist, but it is likely to be in excess of 10,000, or at least one in five adults.
The problems that our constituents are reporting to us are not being caused just by a lack of trained dentists. The number of dentists registered to provide care with the General Dental Council is actually at a record high, having increased by 2,000 since the start of the pandemic. The problems are being caused by two main issues, the first of which is the massive impact of the pandemic on dentistry.
The BDA estimates that more than 43 million dental appointments—more than a year’s-worth of dentistry in pre-covid times—has been lost due to the pandemic. There are of course steps that the Government could take to relieve that backlog, such as training more dentists or making it easier to bring in accredited foreign dentists to work in this country. I know that the Government are investigating these possible solutions, and the Minister has stated that legislation may be brought forward at the end of this year to address those points.
The second major issue is dentists opting to carry out more private dental work than NHS care. Nine out of 10 dental practices with significant NHS commitments report problems recruiting staff. When I was on a recent visit to a dental practice in Blackpool, the owners stressed the difficulty they have in recruiting and retaining trained dentists. This is a particularly acute problem for many coastal communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) just mentioned, and exacerbates the challenges we have in providing NHS appointments in particularly deprived coastal communities.
The number of registered dentists is increasing, but many are now taking on a higher proportion of work in the private sector, and around 3,000 dentists in England have stopped providing NHS treatment altogether. There is not a shortage of dentists, rather a shortage of dentists motivated to take on NHS work. One example is Ivory Dental Care in my constituency, which recently wrote to patients informing them that from July it will no longer be offering NHS dentistry. That will result in an additional 2,000 Blackpool residents no longer being registered with an NHS dentist.
I am pleased that the Minister recently stated that an announcement on reforming the NHS dental contractual framework will be made soon, with the aim of paying dentists more fairly for their work. This is a vital step to stop a steady stream of NHS dentists leaving for more profitable, private work. It should also address the issues with low morale among dentists and turn the tide, so that the NHS is a more attractive place for them to work.
I know that this Government are serious about tackling health inequalities. It is appalling that children from the most deprived areas are already three times more likely to have hospital extractions, and oral cancers are obviously less likely to be spotted among those who have fewer routine dental appointments. We simply cannot allow such health inequalities in dental care to persist. One of the reasons I was elected to this House was because of the Government’s pledge to increase spending on our NHS, with the help of the budget rising from £133 billion at the start of this Parliament to £177 billion by the end of it. To that end, I welcome the additional £50 million that the Government made available for providing dental services earlier this year, but the reality is that this is actually falling in comparison with the overall health budget. We cannot put at risk the Government’s plans to level up the nation’s health by letting this continue. Dental health should be considered on an equal footing to the rest of our healthcare, so that we can further improve on the solid progress being made in towns such as Blackpool to reduce health inequalities.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing the debate. Access to NHS dentistry remains an enormous problem right across England, from his constituency, which is the most westerly, to the Waveney constituency that I represent, which is the most easterly. There is not only a so-called perfect storm, but also a perfect symmetry, which hits the most vulnerable hardest.
The Government have brought in measures to address this crisis, which have had some partial success; but what is needed is a long-term strategic plan for NHS dentistry, which I would suggest should meet the following criteria. First, a secure long-term funding stream. Secondly, a strategic approach to recruitment and retention. Thirdly, replacement of the dysfunctional NHS dental contract. Fourthly, a prevention policy, promoting personal oral healthcare. And fifthly and finally, transparency and full accountability, through the new emerging integrated care systems.
The issue on which I wish to focus falls in the last of those categories. It is the procurement of NHS dentistry, which at present is opaque and has, over a long period, led to some outcomes that are not in the best interests of local residents and do not meet the standards of probity that one is entitled to expect in the award of public contracts.
In 2009, the late Dr David Johnson, a much-loved local dentist with a thriving practice in the high street of Lowestoft, was refused a contract to continue to offer a service that he had provided to the local community for many years. That happened in highly unsatisfactory circumstances, which caused much personal upset and ultimately led to units of dental activity being taken away from Lowestoft, where they were much needed, and reallocated elsewhere.
More recently, approximately two years ago, a contract was awarded for the out-of-hours service in Norfolk. The company that won the contract still does not have either regular dentists or premises, and does not work anywhere near the hours stipulated in the contract.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he speaks of the challenges that patients face throughout Suffolk in accessing NHS dentistry. Does he agree that there is availability of emergency out-of-hours dentistry, but that some companies are not taking the correct steps to provide it—and that some dentists are not opening up the number of slots that they are contractually obliged to, to provide it?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. He is correct, and the example I have just provided illustrates that point.
On the issues with the probity of procurement arrangements, I will move forward to the present. It is welcome that a new, long-term NHS dentistry contract has been awarded for the Lowestoft area, and the locally based Dental Design Studio will deliver the contract to a high standard for the benefit of local people. However, before DDS was awarded the contract, it was initially won by a limited company with no local presence, no dentists and no premises. That company then offered the contract to local practices, seeking bids, initially of £400,000, which it then reduced to £250,000. When it was unable to sell on the contract, it withdrew from the process.
Procurement arrangements that allow such blatant profiteering are quite clearly not fit for purpose. There is also a worry that the process is skewed against partnerships, which have been the traditional means of providing primary healthcare in local communities. Only single legal entities and limited companies are able to tender for NHS dental contracts, with partnerships excluded from doing so. The feedback that I am receiving is that the tender documents are far from straightforward and discourage some local NHS dentists who remain in practice from bidding for contracts.
The transfer of responsibility from NHS England to the new integrated care systems, which will start operating in just over a week’s time, provides an opportunity to carry out root-and-branch reform of the procurement and oversight arrangements for NHS dentistry. We need to ensure that they are fair, transparent and in the best interests of local people. It is vital that we seize this opportunity.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for securing this important debate and praise hon. Members for their powerful contributions, which contained a lot of personal experiences setting out just how dire the situation is across the country.
Here we are again. The problem with NHS dentistry has come up time and again over recent months. No matter how much the Minister wants to bury her head in the sand, issues with access to NHS dentistry are just not going away. The situation is a national scandal, as recognised by Members from across the House, by the sector and by our constituents, whose heartbreaking cases continue to fill our postbags. One cannot help but feel emotional at the immense pain people are having to live with.
Shamefully, we know that children are particularly badly affected. Half of all children in England have no access to an NHS dentist, with 78 children under 11 going to A&E every single day for a tooth extraction. The hon. Member for St Ives described a family with three children, none of whom had ever seen a dentist, with one child only seen because they had to go to A&E. In Wakefield, a fifth of children suffer from tooth decay before the age of three. This is not just unacceptable; it is a downright disgrace.
In yesterday’s debate, the Minister held her hands up and recognised the problem in primary care. Frankly, I was delighted to finally hear something akin to humility from the Minister on access to NHS dentistry. However, just as it seemed we would make some meaningful progress, the same old script was rolled out and the blame was laid at the door of the Labour party. I put it to the Minister yesterday, and do so again today, that her party has been in government for 12 years. When Labour was in government and saw that the contract was not working, we committed to reforming it, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and put that in our 2010 manifesto, just as this Government did in theirs.
Anthony Mangnall
How does the hon. Lady explain the Labour performance in Wales, where dental practices are going down and the system is not being addressed? It is clear that the Labour party has no suggestions.
Feryal Clark
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he wants to know about Labour’s performance on the NHS, he should look at the performance of the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010. Waiting times went from 18 months to 18 weeks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Feryal Clark
I will make progress because I have a lot to say in only five minutes.
Here we are again. After more than a decade in power, the Conservative party has absolutely nothing to show for it, other than a record of complete and utter failure. The Tory Government made a commitment to reforming the contracts in their 2010 and 2017 manifestos, so I would be fascinated—as, I am sure, would other hon. Members—to hear from the Minister what on earth has been happening for the past 12 years. If she is happy to associate herself with that record, that is her decision, but I would be embarrassed and ashamed, to be frank.
The Minister is presiding over a national scandal. It is simply not good enough to keep shirking responsibility. Whenever the Government have had something that looks like a plan, it has been woefully inadequate. I am sure that the Minister will—as other Members have—tell us about the £50 million of extra funding that we have heard so much about, but if she thinks that it has made a blind bit of difference, she is very much mistaken. I have been made aware that Yorkshire and the Humber, for which £8.3 million was allocated, drew down just £2.3 million. Barely any of that money was used by general dentists; it was used predominantly by hospitals.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm or deny whether yesterday, after being asked about this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, her answer was simply that we should wait for the data. At best, we have had a mixed response on when we will receive the full breakdown of how much of that £50 million was taken up. Can she confirm whether we will receive that data before the summer recess?
If that funding was designed to regain the confidence of dentists and encourage them to increase their NHS activity, it has completely and utterly failed. Across England, the number of patients being seen by an NHS dentist actually dropped by 22% overall between March and April. As the Minister will be aware—I mentioned this yesterday—there was a 34% drop in her own constituency. I ask her again: how can she expect dentists across England to have confidence in her when it is clear that she does not even have the confidence of dentists in her own patch?
One way of building trust would be to communicate with the profession. Yet just eight days before the start of the next quarter, dentists have no idea of the targets that they will be working to. Can the Minister confirm whether that announcement will be left until the eleventh hour once again? Furthermore, can she confirm that, as the Secretary of State said yesterday, the target will be 100% of pre-pandemic activity?
Let me remind colleagues of a story that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) told in yesterday’s debate. A constituent of hers came to her surgery and placed on her desk the teeth that he had pulled out of his own mouth with pliers. Does the Minister think that such stories, which are now disturbingly common, are acceptable in 21st century Britain?
I am sure that the Minister will say once again that the Labour party is just shouting from the sidelines and does not have any plans, but when it comes to NHS dentistry, her Government have nothing to show for their 12 years of shouting from the centre circle. “Shouting” is a generous description, in the light of the Minister’s refusal even to speak to dentists at the Association of Dental Groups conference just a few weeks ago.
This Government might have a track record of failure, but it does not need to be that way. It is time for meaningful action that will make a difference to patients. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We are not short of time, but will the Minster leave a minute or two at the end of her speech for the mover of the motion to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for securing this important debate—even if it is two days in a row that we have highlighted some of these issues. I thank hon. Members on both sides for speaking on the matter.
I am slightly disappointed in the response of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark). In yesterday’s debate, it was acknowledged that in all four nations, no matter who is in charge—whether it is the Labour Government in Wales, the SNP in Scotland, or in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly is still being formed after the election—there are exactly the same problems. In my speech yesterday I made reference to the fact that in Labour-run Wales there has been a 71% reduction in dental activity in the last year. The shadow Minister spectacularly failed to answer the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on that very point.
It is important to recognise that, yes, there have been problems since before covid, but covid has dramatically impacted—
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady says, “Here we go,” but it is important to recognise that for two years there were no routine appointments available due to infection control measures. We are now back up to 95% of activity, but the backlog that existed before is significantly larger than it was.
It is also important to recognise that the nub of the problem around covid has been the dental contract. The shadow Minister may not have heard what I said yesterday, but we have been negotiating a new contract with the BDA; we started those negotiations on 24 March, a final offer went to the BDA on 20 May, and we are awaiting its response. We have been in negotiations; we have not just been waiting for the work to be done. We expect to make an announcement before the summer recess—I said that both at oral questions last week and in the debate yesterday. We will be making an announcement in the coming weeks on those contract reforms.
Paul Blomfield
It is helpful that the Minister has given us that information about the offer made to the BDA. Can she confirm that the offer addresses the four points I asked her about on flaws in the contract? I raised those points in the debate yesterday, and they reflect concerns across the House. Is it the sort of fundamental reform of the contract that will stop dentists being driven out of the NHS and into private practice?
Maria Caulfield
I obviously cannot comment while there are live negotiations ongoing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, but the offer will drive some reforms in respect of the issues raised by a number of colleagues around fair payment for dentists’ level of activity. It will also look at the whole dental team and not just dentists. We have looked into whether we need legislation to be able to upskill dental technicians and dental nurses, for example, and we do not, so we are able to make progress on some of those areas, reward them for the work that they are doing and enable them to take on more work. A number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised will be covered by that.
The hon. Member for Enfield North may not know this, but before the latest round of negotiations, there had been a number of pilot studies over the last few years looking at completely reforming the UDA model and moving to a capitation model. Those pilot studies unfortunately did not produce the results we were hoping for. They did not increase access for patients, they did not reduce inequalities and they did not point to a sustainable model, so we did not go forward with that model. That is why we started new negotiations earlier this year on reform.
It is wrong of the shadow Minister to say that nothing has been done over the last 12 years. We had two years of covid where there was no routine dental activity; only urgent appointments were undertaken. Before that, there were three years of pilot studies on the capitation model; those were not successful, which is why we have not driven forward those changes. It is important that when we introduce changes, they address the fundamental issues that have been raised in this afternoon’s debate.
Paul Blomfield
Could I press the Minister in particular on the point that I made on financial clawback? It has been made clear to many of us who have talked to dentists that one of the most demotivating factors in the current contract is that while they are not rewarded for additional performance with NHS patients, they face clawback if they underperform, including for reasons that are completely beyond their control. I understand that for the last quarter that is currently being considered, 57% of dentists are going to face financial penalties. Those are the sorts of issues that are tipping them out of NHS dentistry. Will that issue be addressed?
Maria Caulfield
We are looking at the issue of clawback. Obviously we are in negotiations, so I cannot say what the final outcome will be. However, on the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about clawback during the last quarter, when the omicron variant was a particularly significant factor, we made clear to commissioners and dentists that if there were issues arising from omicron—patients who could not attend their appointments, or dental teams that were unable to be at work—they would not be subject to clawback. I would be disappointed if dentists who could not undertake their units of dental activity for covid-related reasons were penalised with clawback for that, because we made it very clear that there needed to be a flexible mechanism to mitigate some of those issues. If the hon. Gentleman has examples of that, I would be happy to take them away and ask officials to look into them.
Peter Aldous
There is some ambiguity about where the negotiations stand. Can my hon. Friend clarify whether a letter has gone to the BDA to start the negotiation process, or whether there are finalised heads of terms ahead of an announcement on a new contract?
Maria Caulfield
The negotiations started back in March and there have been a number of meetings with the BDA. The BDA has been sent final recommendations, but we have not yet heard back, so I encourage the BDA to respond.
I will touch on a number of other issues that have been raised, the first of which is overseas dentists. For obvious reasons, no overseas registration examinations took place during the pandemic, creating a backlog of over 800 overseas dentists waiting to take their exams. Exams restarted earlier this year, and extra sessions are being held to get through that backlog of dentists so that we can get them into the system and working as dentists as quickly as possible.
We have also been working with the General Dental Council, which is the regulator, on recognition of overseas qualifications. The GDC did a consultation on regulation and recognition of overseas dentists, which I think closed on 5 or 6 May. We are waiting to hear the feedback from that consultation, but we are happy to lay regulations in this place—if necessary, we can do so by the end of the year—to give the GDC the power to mutually recognise overseas dentists according to its judgment. It is not for the Government to mutually recognise qualifications; it is for the regulator. However, we are happy to give the GDC the power to do so, and we look forward to its feedback on the consultation it undertook, because our overseas dentists are a rich source of the talent and skill that we need.
When it comes to getting more dentists into certain parts of the country—obviously, one of those areas is the south-west, whether that is Cornwall, Devon or Plymouth —significant work is going on. I met with Health Education England this morning to look at how we can set up centres for dental development. Those centres are different from dental schools, which are often very expensive and take a long time to set up, and, as was said during the debate, there are not always dentists available locally to supervise the training. Centres for dental development can be much more flexible and meet existing local needs while also looking at what needs could develop.
As such, we will be working up a programme, looking at what we can do in those specific parts of the country with the greatest need. In Norfolk, I recently met a group of local MPs and representatives from the local university and the local enterprise partnerships, all of whom are willing to work together to make that happen. I am going to Portsmouth on Monday, to Gosport, to see exactly the same thing—dentists coming together to come up with local solutions that will make a difference.
Anthony Mangnall
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I thank her for those words. Far from burying her head in the sand, she is putting her head above the parapet. That is most welcome. As mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), there is clearly significant data that highlights the worst affected areas. Given that the data is there, could we expedite that roundtable meeting as quickly as possible?
Maria Caulfield
I am very happy to meet MPs. Once we get through the contract announcements before the end of recess, it has to be a priority to look at how we increase the number of dentists in specific parts of the country, whether in York or in coastal or rural areas. I am very willing to do that. Many parts of the country do have enough dentists, but they do not want to take on NHS work, so we are also going to look at the procurement and commissioning of services. That is where the ICSs will come into their own. At last, local commissioners will be accountable for commissioning dental work. There is no ring-fenced budget for dentistry. We spend about £3 billion a year and the work can be commissioned at a local level. The problem up until now is that no one has taken responsibility for that, so the ICSs will be a key change to make that happen.
Dr Poulter
I want to clarify one point. Does my hon. Friend anticipate the new dental contract being a sticking plaster, or does she think that it is here to stay that it will put right these challenges?
There is a real problem with the commissioning of dental services. I am afraid that I do not have faith that ICSs will be a panacea to sort things out, because local CCGs, some of which were not good commissioners of a number of services, have simply been cut and pasted into the same posts on the ICSs. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that she will personally look at the commissioning process and hold those commissioners to account, to ensure that they deliver proper dental services?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. The whole point of the ICSs is that the commissioning service has not worked up until now. Some commissioners are very good at commissioning dental services, while others do not have anyone with dental experience on their boards and are not so good. ICSs will be accountable, which is the difference from what we have now. I will meet ICSs to ensure that they understand the responsibilities.
Maria Caulfield
I will take one last intervention, because I am conscious of the time.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. When I wrote to her, she kindly replied and said that York could well be one of the areas for a centre of dental development. I would like to know the timescale for such considerations, and what progress has been made since our correspondence.
Maria Caulfield
I met Health Education England this morning and we are working through that system. I will be able to update the hon. Lady shortly, because I am keen that we make progress.
A number of Members mentioned prevention. The Health and Care Act 2022 includes provisions relating to fluoridation as standard, and we are working to make progress since it became law recently. We are also working with education colleagues on supervised toothbrushing. As we speak, some of the 75 family hubs that are being set up in the most deprived parts of the country as part of the Start4Life programme are looking at initiatives such as supervised toothbrushing. Where it is not happening at home or where parents need more support, we are ensuring that children are getting that toothbrushing experience.
On the subject of upskilling dental teams, this is about more than just dentists. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) made the key point that it is about the whole team. At the moment, part of the contract means that only dentists can do certain work. We need to change that. Centres for dental development will be about not just training dentists but upskilling whole teams.
I hope that I have reassured Members from across the House that we are taking this issue extremely seriously. To answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, the contract changes that we are going to announce will not be the end of it, because there is more reform that we need to do. The Secretary of State is looking at a wider piece of work to provide a long-term, sustainable solution. We are happy to work with the other three nations if they have suggestions and solutions. We are not precious about sharing best practice.
I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield North, that it would be good if she could come to a dental debate with some suggestions and solutions, rather than constantly criticising. We are determined to solve this issue and I appreciate the urgency that every single one of my colleagues has expressed today.
Rachael Maskell
I raised the issue of Ukrainian refugees. The Minister seemed to indicate that she had a response, so could she provide it before she closes?
Maria Caulfield
The response is that every overseas dentist, apart from those in the European economic area, currently has to take the overseas registration exam, and that is without exception. That is the work that we are trying to do with the General Dental Council. We are enabling those from Ukraine or Afghanistan, or any refugee from any country, to take part in that process. I am very keen to see mutual recognition with some countries. We are working on that and will enable the legislation to make it happen, but it will be for the regulator to decide; it is not a Government decision.
I hope that I have reassured colleagues that we are on this and appreciate the urgency. I have no doubt that we will return to this Chamber to debate this matter further in the coming weeks and months.
Derek Thomas
First, I thank and commend the Minister for her response and for the way in which she has engaged with this subject since taking up her role. I have found her determination to get this matter right really refreshing, because this has been a long battle.
I thank all colleagues, from all parties, for their contributions and for going into things—not just the problem but the solution—in great detail. I will leave the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), out of that assessment, because I do not think that that came across from her at all.
I wish the Minister all success with trying to get a new NHS dental contract. We know that getting new contracts can be very tricky and fraught with problems, so I wish her the very best, on behalf of all of our constituents, who urgently need good dental care.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered NHS dentistry in England.
Building Safety Remediation: Leaseholders
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Shabana Mahmood to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. That is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the financial effects of building safety remediation on leaseholders.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to have the opportunity to directly address the Minister on some of the ongoing financial impacts of building safety remediation—what has come to be known as the cladding scandal—on behalf of leaseholders in Birmingham, Ladywood, and all over the country.
Last week, we saw the five-year anniversary of the Grenfell disaster. It was a truly horrific tragedy that claimed the lives of 72 people. No one who saw that building aflame or the images on the news will ever forget them. It has left a mark on not just those affected but the whole country. The inquiry into that disaster is ongoing. I have a real concern that it may prove to be one of those cases, which we have seen too many of in this country, of justice delayed being justice denied, and that, while the inquiry may result in new procedures, those responsible for the events that led to that disaster may not be held directly to account. We live in hope and I send my solidarity—I am sure everyone present will agree—to the loved ones of those who perished at Grenfell.
The impact of Grenfell has extended much further than most of us could have imagined. That tragedy has exposed a shocking litany of regulatory failures and, in my view, outright negligence, which has led, as I say, to what we now call the cladding scandal. We have gotten a little too used to calling it a scandal when we consider the huge impact it has had on my constituents and people all over our country. It has exposed huge issues in building safety. My experience has been that just as I get my head around one part of the problem, many more present themselves—I am sure that that has been the experience of the Minister and his predecessors.
The cladding scandal has cost many of my constituents their peace of mind. It has cost them financially and wiped out life savings. It has left people languishing in the stress of knowing that the building where they live, raise their family and go to sleep every night is unsafe and poses a real fire risk. It has brought many to the brink of a complete mental and physical breakdown. I have sought to support my constituents and have dealt with many of the issues they have raised with me over the many years since this scandal was revealed. We have been campaigning together ever since, along with other leaseholder action groups that have sprung up all over the country. I am particularly grateful to the UK Cladding Action Group and the Birmingham Leaseholder Action Group, as well as other groups across the country, which have relentlessly supported leaseholders. Of course, many of them are leaseholders themselves trying to press the Government to act.
The Government have passed new legislation, and I state at the outset that I recognise how much the Government have moved from their original position, and I welcome many of the changes. However, and it will not surprise the Minister to hear me say this, I do not consider the new cap, which means that some leaseholders will pay some money towards the cost of remediation, to be fair, because they have done nothing wrong. This is not, and should not be, on them—not any part of it, not even at a capped amount. They should be spared any financial contribution. I regret that there is no direct assistance in the Building Safety Act 2022 for leaseholders who have already paid towards remediation work. There is the possibility of redress through civil action but the Act does not offer any direct assistance.
Nevertheless, the main provisions of the Building Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 28 April, come into effect next week and the landscape in respect of leaseholders will change. However, as the Minister has already heard from me and other hon. Members, getting to this point has taken far too long. The Government have resisted acting in respect of many of the issues that MPs have been raising from the outset, only to concede that space some years later.
I remember my first pieces of casework relating to the cladding scandal, when Government Ministers and officials were still distinguishing between aluminium composite material cladding and non-ACM cladding. All of us involved in trying to seek redress, including Members of Parliament from across the House and leaseholders all over the country, pointed out the unavoidable truth that non-ACM cladding was just as dangerous as ACM cladding and would have to be removed from all the buildings where it was present. Originally, the Government held their ground and maintained the distinction, but then gave ground and bowed to the inevitable acceptance that non-ACM cladding would have to be removed.
In fact, most of the topics on which the Government have had to give ground represent issues that have been campaigned on from the start by all the groups I have mentioned, and by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee as well. We have come a long way, but these five years have taken a very heavy toll.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. I speak on behalf of many of my constituents in Woking, Surrey. As well as the direct costs of remediation, many leaseholders have difficulties getting insurance or face huge premiums of three, four or five times more than they would have been historically. That also brings the possibility that people cannot sell their flat if they wish to move. Is the hon. Lady looking to the Minister and to the Government for further reassurances on those financial impacts as well?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will be coming on to the issues in relation to insurance later in my remarks. May I take this opportunity to say how refreshing and positive it has been to be able to work with Members from across the House? That has been the House at its best and I am sure that is the reason why we have been able to make so much progress in the Building Safety Act. I hope we will continue to work together on the ongoing financial impacts, and I hope to persuade the Minister to give further necessary ground. I will come to the matters of insurance very shortly.
Many hundreds of people in my constituency have been affected and have been living with the consequences of the cladding scandal for five long years. With work having started on some of these buildings, if people are very lucky they may finally be able to live in safe buildings in about five years’ time. At best, we are looking at an entire decade of normal life being wiped out for people caught up in this scandal. Even that timescale, with people losing a decade of their life, will be out of reach for many thousands of people in our country.
I want to bring some of the ongoing issues to life for Members and the Minister by using an example in my constituency: the development at Islington Gates. There are 141 flats in the development, which is now described as an orphan block. The original developer, Midlands and City Developments, went into liquidation in 2007, and Miller Construction, which built the block, was bought out by Galliford Try in 2014. The remediation works at Islington Gates come in at a total of £9 million. Some 80% of that—£7.2 million—relates to the removal of the non-ACM cladding that covers the building. The remaining 20%—£1.8 million—relates to additional defects that were discovered and revealed as a result of the scandal, including deficiencies in fire compartmentation and other measures. As per the new rules in the Building Safety Act, the £1.8 million will need to come from the developer and, through the cascade effect that the legislation envisages, could be passed on to the owner and potentially to leaseholders, up to the value of the new cap.
Let us consider the issues relating to the ongoing work for cladding remediation. The bid that Islington Gates submitted to the building safety fund for cover was accepted, but the payments came in later than anticipated, creating huge cash-flow problems that have further exacerbated the crisis for many of my constituents.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Many developers set up ground rent payment arrangements that will be very profitable in the long term, in view of the escalation of ground rent, and they set up service companies that sit underneath the main development company. Given the huge profits that developers make from those arrangements, does she agree that we need to do more to hold the developers to account, and that although the lifting of the current cap was welcomed, it should be lifted further?
Shabana Mahmood
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I see no reason to maintain a cap. If we have conceded the principle that leaseholders are not to blame, that developers have made a lot of money out of these developments and that there is money available for the Government to go after on behalf of taxpayers all over the country, they should do so, and they should protect leaseholders from any additional costs.
I am concerned that the building safety fund still adopts a “computer says no” approach in cases such as those of Islington Gates, where eligibility for the fund has been accepted, the works are under way and the initial payment has been made. Administrative errors can lead to delays in further payments for the works, and that causes a huge amount of unnecessary stress. People are putting up with living in buildings that are completely covered and have no natural light. They are putting up with living inside a building site, so they have all the noise and dust of that, and the general loss of normal life and the amenities that we all have a right to expect. This work is unavoidable and necessary, but it is in everybody’s interest that it takes place as quickly as possible, so leaseholders have a chance of living a normal life soon.
Every time the BSF causes an additional delay—that is completely unacceptable— if it has accepted eligibility, works are under way and the initial payment has been made, there should be an expectation that money will be got out the door as quickly as possible for all additional payments. If administrative issues need resolution, they can be dealt with after the cheque has been paid. We have already established eligibility, and it is not as though my leaseholders are going to run off with that money. There is no risk to the taxpayer. Will the Minister say something about the BSF’s approach, and will he make sure it does not add to the stresses and strains that my constituents face?
In respect of non-cladding defects—£1.8 million is required to make Islington Gates safe—the Government have made it clear in statements about the legislation and in press releases on their website that they expect developers to take responsibility for any building developed by any company within their corporate group, including cases where they acquire the original developer of the building. That would mean that the £1.8 million liability for Islington Gates falls on Galliford Try, which bought Miller Construction, the original builders.
Unfortunately, Galliford Try insists that it has no obligation to pay, and none of us has been able to do anything to persuade it otherwise. My constituents have been campaigning, and I have written to Galliford Try. We have done everything that we can think of to try to persuade it that it must meet its liabilities, do the right thing and put up the money to remediate the non-cladding defects revealed at Islington Gates. I understand that in a meeting with some of my constituents, civil servants from the Minister’s Department confirmed that Galliford Try is the correct entity to pursue for the cost of those remediation works.
I want to press the Minister on just what we are supposed to do now that Galliford Try refuses to pay. It denies any and all liability for the £1.8 million. Will the Minister explain the role he envisages for the Department’s recovery unit, and whether the Department would front up that money and then go after Galliford Try itself? How does he see the new legislative landscape for remediation contribution orders working in respect of leaseholders such as those at Islington Gates? My view—I think it is shared by many Members across the House—is that innocent leaseholders should not have to stump up any more money and then wait for redress at some unknown point in the future. That money should be made available now from the correct company, which should hold the liability to begin with.
I turn to insurance costs, which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) mentioned. Much attention has been paid to the cost of remediation, waking watches, alarm systems, sprinklers and other measures, but it was clear to me from the start from my constituency casework that the cost of insurance was a major problem. In my constituency, premiums jumped in buildings affected by the cladding scandal. At the Jupiter 1 development, residents saw a 1025% increase in their insurance premium, from £40,000 to £450,000. King Edwards Wharf saw their premium jump from £50,000 to £450,000. Islington Gates used to pay £36,000 and saw that jump to £320,000.
Brindley House was in the terrible position of being the first building in the whole country without insurance when it was impossible to get cover for it for a period of time. The Minister will know that placed all leaseholders, and everybody else who was connected to the building, in default of their mortgage or rental agreements. That was a terrible stress. When insurance cover was eventually obtained, it jumped from £46,000 to £322,000.
Those are shocking increases in insurance premiums. It is clear to me that the calculation of the premiums did not take into account the risk in those buildings and, in particular, the measures that leaseholders have taken to reduce risk in their buildings. In each building, hundreds of thousands of pounds has been spent on state-of-the-art alarm systems and other measures, such as waking watches, to bring down the risk of a catastrophic fire. None of that was reflected in the insurance premium. The more residents have paid for risk mitigation, the more their insurance premium has gone up. It would have made no difference whether they had done those works or not. I think that that is a total con.
I first wrote to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government at the beginning of 2020, and it has taken two years for a little bit of investigation to be done. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State wrote to the FCA to ask it to look into the matter, but if that had been done in 2020, we would be much further into the investigation into the behaviour of the insurance sector. I dare say that if the insurance sector had known that there would be Government-level scrutiny of the premiums, two years-worth of unjustifiable insurance hikes might not have been visited upon my constituents and people all over the country.
This problem requires much more than a slow-paced inquiry. I would like the Government to take much stronger action much more quickly so that we are not still talking about the cost of insurance premiums some years hence. The reality is that insurance companies have made money twice over out of the cladding scandal, first from the policies they used to indemnify the so-called professionals and the building industry as a whole—let us be honest, they will not be called to pay out on those policies; nobody envisages that insurers will pick up at the tab for this scandal—and, secondly, because they have gone on to charge thousands of people eye-watering sums to insure those buildings. They have given people no credit for the money they have spent making their buildings safer to live in while they wait for the final works to be completed. It is unconscionable. The Government should intervene to seek financial redress for affected constituents. If the additional cost of insurance were included in the cap brought in by the Building Safety Act 2022, many people would be much closer to that £10,000 anyway, and they would be protected from additional costs. I wonder whether the Minister might address that point and see if there is any possibility of including insurance payments within that £10,000.
The Secretary of State’s letter to the Financial Conduct Authority asked for suggestions to achieve widely available and affordable cover for leaseholders. That letter should have included some additional asks, one being that the FCA should consider redress for the insurance hikes that are taking place. It is clear to anybody from the outside who is paying attention to the effect of the cladding scandal, and making a fair assessment about its financial impact, that the insurance companies have gained excessive profits from the building safety crisis. They should be required to contribute to the remediation costs, on the basis that they covered the actions of the developers that failed to comply with building safety and have since received increased premiums as a result thereof. Nothing less will do.
We should look to the insurance companies for further assistance in covering the overall costs of remediation, which will, in the end, fall on the taxpayer in some way, shape or form, especially if more and more developers do not live up to their responsibilities. It is high time the Government added insurance companies to the list of people that they need to go after in order to recover some of the costs of this scandal. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for organising this important debate and for noting the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell disaster.
The hon. Lady has been a powerful and effective advocate for leaseholders in her constituency who, like those all over the country, have been caught up in a mess not of their making, and one that they should not be held responsible for. She is right to highlight the very human cost that people have suffered from fear of the places they live in and call home, and from worrying about whether they are safe. I thank her for continuing to hold the Government to account for our role, particularly given that we promised to strengthen our support for leaseholders and restore confidence and proportionality to the market.
I will come on to the case she raised in a moment, but I first want to emphasise that the Government are on the side of leaseholders. We are making good on that sentiment with our sweeping set of reforms to building safety, the mortgage and lending market, and building insurance—reforms that will help to put things right, with far-reaching legal and financial protections for leaseholders who have been affected by this crisis. At the same time, we are forcing building owners to step up and fix the cladding issues that, in many cases, they helped to create.
I would like to say a bit more about each of those reforms and how we are addressing the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I thank her for writing to the Secretary of State about the issues at Islington Gates. First, I recognise—we as a Government recognise—that the situation is unjust and unfair for leaseholders living in Islington Gates.
I want to be crystal clear on where the Government stand on this kind of situation. We expect—no ifs, no buts—developers to do the right thing and take responsibility for the buildings that they have developed. Most of the industry recognises this expectation and, equally, recognises the need to do the right thing by leaseholders. That is why more than 45 developers have signed a pledge to do exactly that. As I speak today, we are turning those pledges into legally binding contracts. We would expect such contracts to cover any building developed by any company within their corporate group, including complex cases where they acquired the original developer of the building.
As hon. Members would expect, my Department will work closely with pledge signatories to agree the list of buildings covered by their pledge, and we have pushed developers in the sector to take ownership of remediation work. We have always recognised that there will be complex situations, as is the case with Islington Gates, where the water has been muddied by acquisitions, corporate restructures and other changes. I commit to the hon. Lady that we will follow up at the earliest opportunity to see whether the development of the building can be attributed to one of the pledged signatories. I assure her that I will take a very personal interest in helping her with this case.
If it cannot be attributed to one of those companies, this case will inform our thinking on which further companies should be asked to sign this pledge. I assure her that even if the developer of Islington Gates is not in the initial scope, the remediation of the unsafe cladding will be fully grant-funded. The remediation of unsafe cladding on this building is being funded through the building safety fund—£6.8 million has been allocated for this work so that leaseholders are not paying for the works to the cladding. However, I take on board the point she has raised in this debate. We must listen to and learn from the experiences that she has highlighted. I want to ensure that we understand more about the issues that have been discovered here, and ensure that the building safety fund is run efficiently. I will raise those points with my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh.
Shabana Mahmood
I welcome the Minister’s commitment, and I do appreciate it. I look forward to speaking to him in detail about the particular circumstances at Islington Gates. I am sure that my constituents will have heard and appreciated his recognition of the situation as unfair and unjust. Could I press him on how he sees the recovery unit working, in terms of the carrot-and-stick approaches that we might take with developers that still fail to live up to their responsibilities?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is right; this will probably be one of those early cases within the Act where we need to test this. That is why I am keen to work with her, so that we can ensure that officials in the Department fully understand the specific issues relating to the case, as it may well also apply to other cases, and we can roll that out further.
The hon. Lady will know that we have introduced many protections relating to non-cladding defects under the leaseholder protections within the Act. I assure her and residents of Islington Gates that no qualifying leaseholder in a building taller than 11 meters or five stories will face bills to remediate dangerous cladding, and that the bills for non-cladding remediation will, as she said, be capped at a maximum of £10,000. Those cost protections will come into force on 28 June, and costs already paid out in the last five years, including for interim measures such as waking watch, will count towards that cap. I reiterate that we are protecting leaseholders, in law, from that date. Leaseholders no longer have to worry about being landed with excessive bills that they cannot afford.
We will not stand by and allow developers and contractors who have created these defects to get away with it. Significant new powers in the Building Safety Act will allow those who created building safety defects to be held to account. We are retrospectively extending the limitation period under the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years, giving new powers to courts to remove the protection afforded by shadowy shell companies and special-purpose vehicles, and creating new powers to hold construction product manufacturers to account.
Remediation orders and remediation contribution orders will allow the first-tier tribunal to force firms to fix—and pay to fix—their buildings. We have introduced those powers so that legal action can be pursued against developers, contractors, manufacturers and freeholders. The Department’s own recovery unit has been established to pursue firms who fail to do the right thing, including through the courts. Leaseholders deserve accountability from those who built the buildings and those who have owned and exploited them.
I am conscious of time, but I will quickly touch on the insurance issue, because I know that hon. Members have mentioned it. We are working tirelessly with industry to unlock that market. Where individual buildings have struggled to access cover, we have worked with industry to highlight the issues, and we have seen the British Insurance Brokers’ Association place those risks through its members. I offer my full support if such help would prove to be useful to the hon. Lady’s constituents.
To address the lack of affordable and adequate buildings insurance, we have been working closely with the Association of British Insurers to develop solutions, and my colleague Lord Greenhalgh met the association last month to discuss progress on an insurance pool. The Secretary of State received an initial report from the FCA on 10 May as part of its ongoing review, the findings of which will be critical to developing a full understanding of the issues in the market.
The FCA will consider all routes, whether enacted by the regulator, Government or industry, to ensure leaseholders get the value for money that they deserve. I understand the many concerns that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has raised. We must bring proportionality back into the system, and I know that the Secretary of State takes this very seriously.
On the point that the hon. Lady made about including insurance payments in the cap, that is obviously something that I cannot commit to right now, but I will certainly take it back to the Department. However, I do take this very seriously, and we will take the recommendations very seriously. No solution is off the table when it comes to getting back to a competitive and fair insurance market for leaseholders. As I said at the beginning, I am happy to continue to work with the hon. Lady, and with other hon. Members who may have constituents affected by this, as we roll out the benefits of the Act.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Antisemitism and Other Racism in Football
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered antisemitism and other forms of racism in football.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, albeit on a solemn subject. The prevalence of racism directed at footballers was brought sharply to public attention last year when Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho and Bukayo Saka faced an horrific wave of abuse on social media after the Euro 2020 penalty shoot-out. Former professional footballers, such as Rio Ferdinand, Anton Ferdinand, Lianne Sanderson and Marvin Sordell have spoken movingly to Committees of the House about the torrent of hate to which they are routinely subjected via their social media accounts.
Although much good work has been done to seek to drive racism out of football, it remains a problem in the game, as it does in wider society. I want to focus today on anti-Jewish racism. I feel that does not get the attention it deserves, and that the gravity of the harm that it causes is not fully recognised. I want to pay tribute to organisations, such as Action Against Discrimination, Kick It Out, the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, and to Lord Mann, the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, for all the work they have done to tackle the pollution of our national game.
It would be helpful to list a few of many recent antisemitic incidents connected to football. In January 2021, a vile antisemitic comment was posted online, directed at Celtic’s Israeli midfielder Nir Bitton, following a game against Rangers. In March 2021, a “Happy Passover” message, posted by Aston Villa, received a number of negative and abusive responses. Those comments were deleted, and a further statement was posted by the club, which received 27,000 dislikes. In April that year, the announcement of a proposed super league prompted an outpouring of antisemitic hate on social media, much of it directed at the owners of Chelsea, Manchester United and Spurs. Vile tropes and stereotypes were deployed, and Jews were accused of “ruining football”.
In August, talkSPORT issued an apology after presenters failed to challenge a caller who used an antisemitic stereotype on air in relation to a Jewish figure in football. In November last year, three men were arrested in connection with a social media video showing West Ham fans chanting an antisemitic song towards a Jewish man on a plane. In that same month, a Chelsea supporter was jailed for posting antisemitic tweets, including photos of Auschwitz and a man performing a Nazi salute.
In January this year, an Everton supporter was found guilty of singing antisemitic chants. He was given a football banning order, preventing him from attending matches for three years. In March 2022, a clip was posted on Twitter of a group enthusiastically singing an anti-Spurs song, ending with the words, “f-ing Jew”. In May, two Burnley fans were arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences, after one of them was videoed making a Nazi salute towards Tottenham supporters during a premier league game.
I am afraid time prevents me from embarking on anything like a comprehensive account of the harassment and intimidation to which Jewish people are routinely subjected at football matches. Those are just some of the more serious incidents, which have been followed up by the media and, in some cases, the police. A very long list of antisemitic episodes in football across Europe is set out in a 2021 report by Lord Mann. He was assisted in that work by 15 young people who are ambassadors for the Holocaust Educational Trust. In the introduction to that report, those young ambassadors emphasise their love of football and their determination to rid it of racism. They state,
“This report must be a catalyst for footballing authorities to recognise that antisemitism is well and truly alive both in and out of the stadium, on matchdays and online, and that consistent action must be taken.”
I hope the whole House will agree with that statement.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
There is no place for antisemitism or racism in sport or society, and stronger deterrents must be in place for both clubs and fans. What does the right hon. Lady make of UEFA’s commitment to review loopholes in its policies for behind-doors matches where games are supposed to be played without spectators as punishment for previous fan behaviour?
Theresa Villiers
I totally agree that we need much more serious consequences for racism and antisemitism where it is displayed in football grounds, and the international football associations have a real role to play in delivering that outcome.
I want to highlight some of the positive work that is underway to tackle the kinds of problems I have spoken about. For example, in January 2018, Chelsea football club announced a “Say No To Antisemitism” campaign to raise awareness and educate their players, staff, fans and the wider community about antisemitism in football. In January 2020, it became the first club to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. In December that year, the English Premier League also adopted that definition, and many clubs followed suit. The English Football League and the Football Association did so on Holocaust Memorial Day 2021. In February 2021, Kick It Out, the game’s leading anti-racism body, working with Lord Mann, prepared an action plan to combat antisemitism, which it launched at training workshops in London and Manchester.
This February saw another important development, this time at Tottenham. That brings me to the Y-word. I appreciate that it is a contested term, but there can be no doubt that it is widely viewed as offensive and racist—it is a term of abuse. Since the 1970s, I understand, it has featured in chants by Spurs supporters. The club has indicated that it was initially used as a response to a lack of action taken in relation to antisemitism directed at Spurs fans, so some supporters have historically used the word as a means of taking ownership of a term routinely used to insult the club’s sizeable Jewish following. However, Jewish groups have described it as antisemitic, whatever the context. Its inclusion in Tottenham chants is therefore offensive in itself, and can also trigger antisemitic responses, with consequent harms. As such, following a review of the issue, the club stated that
“it is time to move on from associating this term with our Club.”
It went on to say:
“The Club already refrains from engaging with any social media handle or bio that contains the Y-word and we do not permit it being printed on shirts in any official retail outlets or used in any official Club context”,
to which my response would be, “About time too.” I find it somewhat shocking that there could ever have been any question of that term appearing on shirts, or in official retail outlets.
While these various initiatives to root out antisemitism in football are very much to be welcomed, there is clearly much more to be done. The professional game needs to take this issue much more seriously than it does currently. It needs to deploy far more resources to combating antisemitism, holding those responsible for it to account, and making it clear to its supporters that antisemitism is wholly unacceptable. That must include programmes aimed at ensuring supporters understand the issue better and are made aware of the hurt and harm caused by antisemitism. Urgent action is needed to crack down on the online manifestation of football-related anti-Jewish racism.
The Football (Offences) Act 1991 made racist chanting that is
“threatening, abusive or insulting to a person”
an offence when committed within football grounds. The police need to take action when those offences are committed. They need to take antisemitic crime in the football arena much more seriously than they do at the moment, and there needs to be enforcement against this kind of behaviour online, as well. In July last year, the Government announced that football banning orders would be extended to cover racist attacks on footballers on social media, meaning online trolls could potentially be excluded from grounds for up to 10 years. The Prime Minister has called on tech companies to step up and take responsibility for what they publish.
The Online Safety Bill is now on its way through Parliament. This world-leading piece of legislation will require the big tech firms to do more to tackle harmful abuse posted on their platforms, both by preventing it in the first place and by taking it down when it appears. Under their new duty of care to users, companies will have to tackle antisemitism and racism on their platforms much more effectively than they do today. Platforms will need to have appropriate systems and processes in place to stop criminals using their services to spread hate, and they will need to respond more quickly than they do currently if someone posts racist comments, whether words, images, emojis or videos.
Companies that fail in this duty of care could face big fines of up to 10% of their global turnover. For major social media operators, that could amount to billions of pounds. I urge the Minister to ensure that the legislation is effective in combating antisemitism online. In particular, big tech companies must be required to address the risk that algorithmic recommendation tools and hashtags can amplify antisemitic and other racist content. Keeping people safe online and dealing with the torrent of hatred to which so many are subjected is one of the defining challenges of our time. The Government must rise to that challenge.
In conclusion, I have campaigned against antisemitism for many years. One of my first ever visits to this Parliament was as a student in the late 1980s, when I attended a lobby to call for Jewish refuseniks to be permitted to leave the Soviet Union where they were subject to discrimination and injustice, and to seek to persuade the Foreign Office to raise that with the Soviet leaders. I was also one of the co-authors of the 2006 report of the all-party inquiry into antisemitism. That ground breaking piece of work led to real change, including an obligation on all police forces to collect statistics on antisemitic crime.
I took part in both the recent debates on antisemitism in the House and the two public protests in Parliament Square denouncing the incidents of anti-Jewish racism in Labour. I find it deeply disturbing that this toxic prejudice is still present in our society. It is distressing that that form of racism is directed against a community for which I have such a high regard and which plays a hugely positive role among all the other communities in the diverse constituency of Chipping Barnet, which I am very proud to represent.
Antisemitism is a poison that dates back millennia. Millions have lost their lives to that vicious hatred over the centuries, culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust and industrialised killing. Every year on Holocaust Remembrance Day we make a commitment never to forget what happened and to remain always vigilant against antisemitism and racism.
Just this afternoon, I was at a meeting of the Holocaust Memorial APPG and we heard chilling testimony from a holocaust survivor, my constituent Mala Tribich. We must extend that vigilance to the beautiful game. It is hard to think of another pastime that generates such emotion in its followers. There is a visceral connection between fans and clubs, but no emotional connection justifies racist hatred and abuse of others. Let the message go out from this House today that antisemitism has no place in English football. It will not be tolerated and those responsible for it will be brought to justice.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 5.08pm in order to leave two minutes for the right hon. Lady to wind up. That leaves us with just over 20 minutes for the debate. There are five Members standing but I have been notified of three Members wishing to speak, so I hope people will respect the time and be brief. That applies to interventions as well. I call Rosie Duffield.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing this important debate. Antisemitism, like every form of racism, is ugly, aggressive and ignorant, but also often overlooked or left out completely when we discuss racism in sport. We applaud the lead taken by Lewis Hamilton, and other national sporting icons, when taking the knee to highlight racism, and the important work of groups such as Show Racism the Red Card, and Kick It Out. But rarely a mention is given to the antisemitic chants or language that are seemingly just accepted or ignored on the terraces.
Several Members here are part of the APPG against antisemitism, and are familiar with the work of Lord John Mann and our secretariat, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, who work tirelessly to highlight the problems, and work with football clubs and other institutions to actively find solutions. Back in 2008, Lord Mann, then the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, undertook a big piece of work called, “Antisemitism in European football: a scar on the beautiful game”. He updated his report as the Government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, working with young football fans in association with the Holocaust Educational Trust. The report highlights some shocking examples: Nazi salutes; the use of swastikas; disgusting racist chants; and even the depiction of Anne Frank on some mock football cards.
While it is positive that some police forces and football clubs are striving to do better, others inexplicably turn a blind eye to this particular form of racism. Perhaps the title of David Baddiel’s book is especially relevant here: “Jews Don’t Count”. In the book, Baddiel talks about his own experiences as a lifelong football fan and gives some stark examples of the kind of language that Jewish fans like himself and his brother have heard on the terraces. The APPG visited Chelsea football club just before the pandemic, and it was reassuring to hear that there seems to be more recognition of the problem, and some determination to adopt a zero-tolerance policy. The adoption by Chelsea, and the English Premier League, of the IHRA definition was also welcomed by the APPG against antisemitism.
Debates such as this can and should prompt sports fans to be more alert, and perhaps call out those incidents when they see or hear them. However, even getting antisemitism included in anti-racist campaigns has been slow and extremely difficult. There are more examples of that in David Baddiel’s book. I have to declare an interest here, as my partner is currently directing the Channel 4 documentary version of the book, which will be shown in the autumn. The book contains many examples of the author finding it really hard to get anyone to take antisemitism as seriously as the other forms of racism that we are more familiar with in sport.
I hope that we will see more awareness of the issue, more being done to stop it and that football—and all sports—will be safe for everyone to enjoy, free from the fear or anticipation of any form of racist abuse.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Racism in football has reduced dramatically over the last few decades. Indeed, we are thankfully in a different place to where we were in the 1970s and 1980s. However, we must be under no illusions; racism still does exist in the game, as we saw most notably following the appalling comments on social media directed at England players after our defeat in the final of last year’s Euro championships. Given the club’s long association with the Jewish community, it would be remiss of me not to refer directly to Tottenham Hotspur, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) did, when discussing antisemitism in football. I declare my interest as a proud but long-suffering Spurs fan and season ticket holder, who looks forward to being back at White Hart Lane when the season kicks off in August.
Historically, the use of the Y-word by Tottenham fans was initially taken as a positive step to deflect antisemitic abuse that they were subjected to at matches more than 40 years ago from opposition fans who faced no sanctions for their actions. The term continues to be used to the present day by many of my fellow supporters. Tottenham, as a club, has always maintained that fans have never used the word with any deliberate attempt to offend. Spurs fans often use the word as a term of endearment towards one another, and as a defence mechanism against the antisemitic abuse that still exists in the stands today—something the club has acknowledged in the past. I know Spurs fans who are Jewish and who see the word as a term of endearment to the club’s Jewish fans and a recognition of its historic connection with the Jewish community. However, it is clear that not all Jewish supporters see the term in the same way.
The club deserves credit for starting that debate and consulting widely with its fanbase on the usage of the word. The results of the consultation have reaffirmed the club’s commitment to working with all sections of its fanbase to reduce the use of the term, and rightly so. Given how ingrained the word is among Spurs fans, that will not happen overnight—it will probably be a rather long process—but the club deserves recognition for leading that debate and engaging with its fans in the process.
It should be made clear that the use of the Y-word by Tottenham fans should never be cited as an excuse for the evil of antisemitism, both in society at large and in football. As I mentioned, the adoption of the term was a direct consequence of the lack of action when it was used against Spurs fans. In using the term, Spurs fans are universally well intentioned, but make no mistake, there is genuine antisemitism in football, and it is used with the intention of causing deliberate harm and offence.
Let me give one example. On my way to a game at the old Upton Park ground, I was in a pub with West Ham fans. After singing disparaging chants about Tottenham, those fans proceeded to hiss to imitate the evil of the holocaust, in a direct reference to Tottenham’s Jewish heritage. It was not just a few mindless idiots, but dozens of people, and it lasted a long time. From recollection, that incident happened in 2015 or 2016. We might hope that things have since improved, but as my right hon. Friend mentioned, it was only last month that an opposition supporter at Tottenham was ejected for making a Nazi salute—again, presumably in reference to the Jewish connection to our club. Those are just two examples of the continued evil of antisemitism in football, but a further example would be the use of the Israel flag by Rangers fans, which is often met with blatant antisemitism online as well.
Some great initiatives are being undertaken to deal with wider racism in football, and I commend the Government, the Football Association, the Premier League and the English Football League for leading that work, but antisemitism remains a serious issue in football and more needs to be done to combat it. I commend my right hon. Friend for securing the debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government will continue to address the matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for setting the scene so well. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) is a Spurs supporter; I would have thought he would be a Blackpool fan. I come from outside Newtownards, so Ards FC is my home team. That does not mean that I do not support Leicester City; nor does it mean that I do not support Rangers Football Club, which I think the hon. Gentleman said he supports. On a Saturday afternoon, I always look for the three results. I have been a fan of Leicester City for 53 years, and of Rangers and Ards for probably much longer.
Sport gives us an opportunity to come together and unify our enjoyments. I have always been a football supporter—I love the game, played it at school and still follow it—so it saddens me that there are still instances of racism in sport. There is no place whatsoever for racism. I do not care if in some people’s minds it is one small incident; in my mind, it is a big incident of something should never happen. The right hon. Lady should be commended for securing the debate and giving us a chance to add our comments.
We must do more to remind those who want to inflict abuse on others that we are all the same but simply different. We have the same blood in our veins and we were brought up in the same culture. Being of different religions does not make us any different, nor does having different outlooks on life. It does not make a ha’penny-bit of difference, as we would say back home.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. I always genuinely enjoy hearing the Minister and I know he will give us much encouragement in this debate today, because of his nature. I look forward to the other contributions as well.
I said to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet before the debate that I was going to mention a wee bit about what we have done in Northern Ireland. It is an example of where there are two very different sides of the community, from the Unionist and the nationalist points of view and from a religious point of view as well. I was brought up in the ’60s, so the troubles were very much part of my life. There was maybe a certain sectarianism in football—you supported this team or you supported that team. That is the way it sometimes happened. The Irish Football Association took a decision to address the issue of race and identity from a very early stage. I am sure our very knowledgeable Minister will already know about the excellent work we have been doing in Northern Ireland. We have taken giant steps forward to bridge the gaps and bring the community together.
Northern Ireland youth soccer experienced much racism and hatred at one stage. There is even a short film titled “Where You Really From?” that was released in March this year, which highlights the racism around Northern Irish football. The Irish Football Association has worked extremely hard, as a collective, to create a culture worth celebrating. We must do more to encourage others to take pride in diversity and not abuse others. In Northern Ireland, inclusivity has transcended both sides of the community. We have seen massive steps forward. I put on the record my thanks to the IFA for what it has done at every level of football—the premier league, the intermediate league and the lower leagues and ordinary community football that we all grew up loving and enjoying.
I have no issue with fans having passion when it comes to sport—they should have passion for their team; but they must have respect for the others as well. I recall an incident that occurred in 2020, just after England’s victory against Ukraine in the 2020 Euros. A 17-year-old boy admitted to verbally abusing a Jewish man on the London underground. Sometimes people understand they are wrong, but they still do not take the correct precautions to not say these things. Respect for others is so important, but we live in an era where racial abuse is all too common and young people see it being normalised through social media.
As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, action needs to be taken not just at our level, but at European football level as well. I think of Hungary, which I mention because that team has some very right-wing fans. I am not saying that people do not have a right to hold right-wing views, but their views are disgraceful—the chants, the verbal abuse and the physical abuse have been outrageous. UEFA’s way of punishing the team was to close the ground, but I will tell hon. Members the best thing to do: they should not be allowed to come to any more football matches—keep them away. That would be a better idea, rather than allowing them to come back again sometime in the future. There is a big job for Europe to do as well.
For decades, there have been multiple instances worldwide of antisemitism in sport. The Anne Frank House works tirelessly to fight the issue—it stems back to as far back as the holocaust—as issues in sport hold a special place in the organisation’s heart. It held an international conference, funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and held in the Amsterdam Arena. Yet instances of fan interaction have been witnessed in Germany where fans encourage others to remain peaceful. People often underestimate the impact fans can have on football stadiums. Unity is powerful, but it must be the correct type of unity. We can all join together and support our teams, whoever they may be, but we must have respect for others as well.
The Henry Jackson Association has stated that antisemitism has become a blight across the European continent. It certainly has; there are plenty of examples. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet could have gone on at some length with more examples, if time had permitted. The Premier League only adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in December 2020. More needs to be done to address this everlasting problem. Only recently, Tottenham’s chairman, Daniel Levy, was subject to antisemitic slurs, which is absolutely disgraceful, and they were not addressed—they were ignored—by the radio presenters. When these things happen, we must condemn them in the strongest terms whenever we can.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South referred to the Israeli flag. I have a small Israeli flag in my office. I keep it there all the time; it never moves because I am a proud supporter of Israel—that is not a secret. I am a member of the Friends of Israel in this place and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will continue to take that stance and be that voice for Israel against all the people across the world who do them down. Our modern society must drive for inclusivity at every level, and rightly so. However, on too many occasions, this inclusivity does not extend to our Jewish friends—it extends to my Jewish friends—and society must grasp that. Those Jewish friends are as British as you and I, and that lack of inclusivity needs to be addressed. We need change, and it must begin in this House. Today’s debate is one way of doing that.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, both as a neighbour and an MP covering a large and proud Jewish community. Women and men, girls and boys, northern and southern, blue and red, and religious and non-religious meet arm in arm and stand side by side at our football stadiums, supporting their beloved teams. Communities come together to passionately rally behind their sides in the hope of that everlasting and euphoric victory. There is no feeling quite like it and as a United fan, it has been a while since I have felt that feeling.
We all remember the glorious scenes across the country last summer as that inspiring England team came so close to bringing it home. However, what we saw directed at our three lions, Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho, after the game shows that a serious and worrisome trend continues to infiltrate our games and spread like a poison across our stands. It is the poison of racism, aimed mostly at working-class black lads merely for doing the job they love.
Discrimination wherever it occurs and in whatever format needs to be rooted out and eradicated. If the abuse directed at players on pitches in this country and elsewhere is not stamped out, it will send a worrying message to the next generation of stars and spectators. That is why I was heartened to see the immense courage of Blackpool player Jake Daniels, who recently came out as gay, giving gay players a role model and normalising the fact that football is a game for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.
There is a growing trend of Jews attending games hoping to see their team defend with vigour, but instead finding themselves defending their children from racist vitriol. However, this is news to no one. Everyone knows that antisemitism has haunted the stands of British football for far too long. Antisemitism seems to be a common feature of the sport. While some clubs have shown an increasing commitment to stamping out prejudice and discrimination in their clubs through the adoption of the IHRA definition, as well as Chelsea’s “Say No to Antisemitism” campaign, it seems to have had little traction as of yet.
We see examples of antisemitism in football everywhere. Tottenham Hotspur football club is, of course, home to a large Jewish population, and rival supporters have used the pejorative Y-word, as has already been mentioned, with little consequence for doing so. West Ham fans found themselves banned from attending club games after they sang antisemitic songs on a commercial flight. Arsenal fans spat at Spurs fans that they would be “gassing Jews”. Even at grassroot and junior football, I have heard local reports from Maccabi of their Jewish players—some only seven years of age—being hissed at by players on the opposite side, replicating the noise of the gas chambers. I am sure that we can all agree that is truly shameful, shocking and abhorrent.
This racist abuse is widespread, though, with most Premier League clubs having witnessed antisemitic abuse within the last decade, so I am happy to contribute to the debate to address what has been done and what remains to be done to fight this concerning trend of antisemitism and racism in British football. I am delighted to see that some clubs across the UK have taken steps to combat antisemitic behaviour among their fans as well as among their players. Clubs like Chelsea have recently been in the news for doing just that. Much more needs to be done within football and throughout wider society—indeed, other sports, too, as we saw in cricket with Azeem Rafiq and the Islamophobia that came out just last year.
Sport provides an opportunity to create new friends and be part of a community, and it teaches young people how to co-exist in diverse politics. Sports is an incredibly powerful tool. Football, in particular, reflects society, and that is why I am concerned to see examples of antisemitism during the local elections this year from Conservative candidates in my own area of Bury because, again, antisemitism needs to be rooted out from our stands, society and politics. There is no time or place for it; it has to stop.
We need to do much more to ensure that British football players can play the beautiful game without being subject to unacceptable abuse. We need tougher sanctions against offenders, action by social media companies, better education about the plight of Jews and all other races who find themselves subject to racist attacks, and a zero-tolerance policy that does not allow for repeat offenders, as well as—perhaps—policies that punish offenders retrospectively.
The normalisation of racist abuse is a significant step towards the normalisation of racist attacks. We need to be hard on this issue, otherwise we will bring about a worse situation in which our ethnic minorities are physically abused. Nipping this problem in the bud is the correct course of action in order to get back the community and family feeling at British football games, and to finally give antisemitism the two-footed slide tackle that it deserves.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentioned online antisemitism. I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Taskforce To Combat Online Antisemitism. We found that popular subjects, such as football and other sports, were being used on social media, for instance in videos, and people included things such as tropes and conspiracy theories to gradually groom and recruit people into the far right and racist gangs. And these practices actually become prevalent in sporting arenas, such as football grounds. Do we not need more to stamp that out online, so that it does not appear in the grounds?
Christian Wakeford
We absolutely need to do that, because if antisemitism and racism are allowed to breed online, it ultimately ends up on the streets, in our football stands and in any sporting arena, as well as—again—in our politics.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) who secured this debate spoke about the great work of Lord Mann in tackling this issue. I was very fortunate to speak in a conference in Jerusalem last year about antisemitism and how it is tackled on a global scale. We heard from representatives from Hungary, from Borussia Dortmund and from Chelsea as to how they have seen antisemitism not only grow but start to be tackled. In some stands, we saw swastikas being flown just a couple of years ago, but those clubs are now very family-friendly, because they nipped the problem in the bud and have a zero-tolerance approach. We need to see the same on our online platforms, which is why —again—the Online Safety Bill was a fantastic opportunity. However, it has been a missed opportunity, when so much more could be done to tackle this harmful abuse online.
That is why we really need to tackle this problem. We need to tackle it seriously and make sure that it is banished to where it belongs—in the history books.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson, who I will stop after five minutes, as I will the Labour spokesperson after I call him.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Thank you very much for calling me to speak, Mr Stringer.
I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing today’s important debate, which comes on the 36th anniversary of one of the best moments in Scottish football history—the Diego Maradona ‘Hand of God’ goal in the Mexico 1986 World Cup. [Laughter.] I have lost the room before I have even started.
The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) mentioned in his contribution that we have come a long way and that the racism issue is a lot better than it used to be. Obviously though, it is still a massive issue; hence today’s debate. Only a few years after that goal in 1986, in the early 1990s, I remember that black players who had come up to Scotland—such as Justin Fashanu, who played for Airdrie and Hearts, and Mark Walters, who played for Rangers—were subjected to monkey chants and inflatable bananas were thrown around the crowd, and what-have-you. It was a fully horrible time to witness that behaviour. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is right that we have made some progress. However, there is still a heck of a lot to do, which I will outline.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who secured the debate and led it off, rightly started by referring to the horrendous racism faced by the England players last year, before going on to focus on antisemitism. She mentioned Nir Bitton, the Celtic player and Israel international, who faced antisemitic abuse following an Old Firm game. Indeed, this happens on the pitch as well. During a European game, Glen Kamara, the Rangers player and Finnish international, faced racist abuse by a player—a Czech player, I think—who was banned for 10 games. That is a rare example of UEFA actually dealing with racism appropriately. I say that because I share the view of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is no longer in her place, who expressed concerns about UEFA’s approach to this issue.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) spoke about David Baddiel’s book, “Jews Don’t Count”, which I have on my reading pile. I have not got round to reading it yet; it is in a pile of about 12 books in my flat. She mentioned the work of Lord Mann; I was pleased to help facilitate a meeting between Lord Mann, a representative of Borussia Dortmund and the Scottish Sports Minister on a recent visit. The hon. Member for Blackpool South, who I have mentioned, spoke of how ingrained the Y-word is in Tottenham. I appreciate his point but I am not entirely sure that historical use is a proper justification for continued use of that word.
The hon. Member for Westminster Hall—sorry, I mean Strangford. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) proudly mentioned that he was an Ards, Leicester and Rangers fan. Indeed, having had conversations with his colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party, I think he perhaps needed to be a Rangers fan to pass the vetting. He has spoken in a number of debates on abuse, particularly abuse of a religious nature, and he has a depth of knowledge and experience, having grown up during the troubles.
My colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), lost the crowd almost as quickly as I did at the start of my speech by announcing he was a Man United fan. He quite rightly brought up the Blackpool player Jake Daniels, who came out. In 2022, it is actually a disgrace that we have to celebrate these things. It just shows how far we have to go.
Football clubs are hugely important institutions, with vital links to the community and to people across the world. We talk of the power of sport in this country, as I think the hon. Member for Bury South did. For many people, that is football. We have to harness that power a little better than we do. Inclusion and representation matter to promote better values and tolerance of differences that may be seldom understood unless awareness and education is promoted.
Young fans are incredibly impressionable to the behaviour of footballers. I do not know whether this has been mentioned, but a 2018 CNN investigation into antisemitism in Europe found that a third of Europeans in the poll knew little or nothing about the Nazis’ systematic killing of 6 million Jews. A survey carried out on behalf of the Claims Conference 2018 found that 11% of American adults were not sure they had ever even heard of the holocaust. Debates such as this and Holocaust Memorial Day are still massively important. Equality in football is essential, free from discrimination such as antisemitism and other forms of racism.
I should say that I am a St Johnstone fan, although I was brought up by my dad as a Rangers fan, but sent to a Catholic primary school. The west of Scotland is clearly not where the hon. Member for Strangford grew up, but it had—
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing the debate. We have had excellent speeches, from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), and across the Chamber.
We agree that football is a game that brings people together. It can break down divides, foster friendships and create a positive sense of community. But a minority of fans bring unacceptable attitudes and language. UK football policing authorities note that there was an increase in hate crime incidents reported in stadiums in the first half of last season. After two incidents in one weekend at the end of the season, the anti-racism charity Kick It Out commented that “hate is alive and well” in the game.
According to a FIFA report, more than half the players in the most recent Euro 2020 and Africa Cup of Nations finals were abused online before, during and after the game. We remember today the appalling reaction from some England fans to England’s loss in the Euro finals and the racist targeting of Bukayo Saka, Marcus Rashford and Jadon Sancho. We still have a lot to do.
It is important to address antisemitism in the context of a worrying upturn in antisemitic hate crime in the UK. In recent years, as we have heard in this debate, Jewish fans have been abused at matches and Nazi salutes have been used. Antisemitic slurs are still used online in relation to football. Antisemitic chants are still sometimes sung from football stands across Europe. The authorities really need to do more to tackle that. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has documented antisemitic incidents in football internationally, but also highlights good examples of how we can respond.
Chelsea fans have been involved in several incidents of antisemitism, but the club has taken a strong stand and been praised for its response. Last year it won the King David Award from the European Jewish Association. Its “Say No to Antisemitism” campaign has been educating the clubs, players, staff, fans and community about antisemitism and football.
Another club taking action is, of course, Tottenham. This year the club urged supporters to move on from using the Y-word after consultation with fans and Jewish groups. I recently met Ashley Lerner, the chief executive of Maccabi GB—and a Spurs fan—to discuss this issue among others. Maccabi is an excellent charity that promotes British Jews’ health, wellbeing and participation in sport. The history of the Y-word at Spurs is complex. I used to go and watch Man City at White Hart Lane in the ’80s, and Spurs fans used to use the term to take ownership and as a badge of pride. However, times and attitudes change. While not all Jewish Spurs fans find the word offensive, it is widely regarded as an antisemitic slur and the majority of those surveyed by Spurs agreed it was a racist word. We support the club’s efforts to ditch the Y-word.
There are good initiatives to tackle racism more widely, such as Kick It Out, as I have mentioned. In 2020 the Football Association launched its football leadership diversity code. Last year the Premier League launched its “No room for racism” action plan, which accompanies a new equality, diversity and inclusion standard that has been applied to all clubs. These are all steps in the right direction. The fan-led review of football governance proposes an independent regulator, which Labour wants to see in place as soon as possible, that can set clear equality, diversity and inclusion standards that clubs must meet as part of their licensing conditions. However, we will not have an independent regulator until 2024 at the earliest, so what action can the Government take now to ensure that football improves efforts to tackle discrimination?
I want to mention Baroness Casey’s review of the chaos at the Euro 2020 men’s finals at Wembley. She highlighted the unacceptable racist actions of some of those present, as well as online after the match, and called for more action. Her review, published last December, highlights some pressing issues on safety. When will the Government respond to her review?
Finally, Labour welcomes the fact that football banning orders have been extended to those who carry out online racist abuse. However, can the Minister say what conversations he is having with clubs and governing bodies about tackling the rising trend of hate crimes in stadiums? All Members present agree that antisemitism and racism have no place in our society, and they should have no place in football. We must redouble our efforts to kick them out.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Would the Minister leave a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer of the debate to wind up?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for securing this important debate and all those who have participated. There is a very clear message coming from this Chamber today; it is clear from my right hon. Friend’s comments—and those of all Members who have spoken—that we all share the view that it is of the utmost importance to continue tackling the issues of antisemitism and racism in football, in sport and, indeed, in society.
That is why the Government and its arm’s length bodies, Sport England and UK Sport, have worked closely with football authorities and the sector to ensure that tackling all forms of racism and discrimination remains a priority. I am personally committed to this, as I want sport to be welcoming to everyone and a true reflection of our diverse society. It is therefore particularly disappointing to have this debate about racism, discrimination and antisemitism in football, because it is one of our most diverse sports. Indeed, many of our highest-profile stars are from ethnically diverse backgrounds.
However, as we have seen in the media and online over the past few years, there have been continued incidents of discrimination at and around football matches. Over the past year, incidents have been recorded of antisemitism and of Jewish fans being abused in the UK and across Europe. My right hon. Friend gave a rather alarming list of such incidents. Many colleagues today have mentioned the Euro 2020 finals, after which there was an increase in online abuse, in particular, and racism, indicating that this remains a serious issue in football. Over the past few years we have continued to work with football authorities to try to tackle the issue, but so much more needs to be done.
What has been done? There have been actions targeted at and around football grounds, such as improving reporting systems, providing better training and support for referees and stewards, who are often abused themselves, and improving the quality of CCTV and other equipment around stadiums. One significant action was the Government amending legislation to extend the use of football banning orders so that online abusers can be banned from stadiums for up to 10 years, ensuring that action is being taken both online and offline.
As my right hon. Friend and other Members mentioned, we hope that the Online Safety Bill, currently going through Parliament, will also help to tackle some of these issues. One thing that I think we all find quite alarming is this. Abuse, including online abuse, is against the terms and conditions of social media companies already. The problem is that they are not always able or, I am afraid, willing to implement their own terms and conditions. That is one reason why we had to bring in that Bill.
As the national governing body for football, the FA has a responsibility to address all forms of discrimination in the game. Of course, that includes antisemitism, and I know that this is something that it does take seriously. Last year, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and others mentioned, the FA and the English Football League joined the Premier League in adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. That provides clear and united guidance across football on what language or actions may be considered antisemitic. The FA has issued fines and bans to players found guilty of antisemitic behaviour. It also works closely with independent bodies, such as Kick It Out, to use the vast reach of football to help educate people, in an effort to wipe out antisemitism.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Mercifully, I am not aware of any publicly known antisemitism regarding Woking football club and similar clubs in the locality, but in 2017 there was a small graffiti war, played out on walls and garage doors in Woking, that contained a lot of antisemitism, and that was from rival Polish football fans. As well as attacking things domestically, will we use our positions in UEFA and FIFA—we have a World cup coming—to ensure that the IHRA definition is also imposed internationally and that our international friends also take this matter really seriously?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we do try, both as a Government and in the sporting bodies and entities whose voice carries a lot of weight internationally. The UK sport bodies are generally quite highly regarded and respected and show great leadership on these issues. I would certainly encourage them to continue those conversations and that dialogue with the international bodies, so that they follow the leadership that is sometimes shown in the UK. When I meet Sport Ministers from the G20 and the G7 around the world, these are precisely the kinds of issues that we raise. I am sorry to hear about the incident that my hon. Friend became aware of.
Other bodies are working on this issue too. An example is the Premier League. We welcome the Premier League’s No Room For Racism action plan and the announcement of new enhanced anti-discrimination measures such as league-wide bans for offenders. In June 2020, the league launched a dedicated reporting system for players, managers, coaches and their family members, which has proven successful in pursuing legal action against offenders.
I think that this is an important point to emphasise—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned it in her speech. This offence and abuse can be a hate crime, which is illegal, and can be and often is pursued in the courts. It is not banter; it is not something to be taken trivially. It can and should lead to pursuits in the courts. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), also made the important point that times change and attitudes change, and it is not really an excuse to say, “Oh, well, we used to do this in the past.” My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) also raised this issue. What was perhaps not intended or perceived to be offensive in the past can be now.
We need to be very conscious of the difference between intent in using certain words and behaviours, and the impact that it has on people. I think that is very important in this debate as well. Even where action may not be intended to be abusive or offensive, the reality is that it can be, and there is a responsibility on individuals, governing bodies and clubs to communicate that it can be and is offensive to their fanbase.
We know that there is still a lot more to do across football as a whole. The fan-led review of football governance, which the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned, recommended that the football authorities work even more closely to ensure consistent campaigns across the various organisations. The Government are pleased that the Premier League, the FA and the EFL have agreed to collaborate on an overarching campaign for equality, diversity and inclusion across football, with Kick It Out. As suggested by the review, we will explore a new, single repository for reports of discrimination—more on this will likely be coming in the White Paper in the coming months. The Government will continue to work closely with all football authorities on this issue.
We know that it is not only football that is facing these challenges. In June 2021, Sport England, UK Sport and the other home nations’ sports councils all published the results of a detailed, independent review of tackling racism and racial inequality in sport. The review brought together data and gathered lived experiences of racial inequalities and racism in the sector. The findings make it clear that racism and racial inequalities still exist within sport in the UK. The sports councils agreed on a set of overarching commitments, and they will work together. Updates on progress are being provided every six months, and I am keen to ensure that this momentum is sustained over the long term.
The updated code places an increased focus on diversity in decision making and ensuring that sports organisations reflect more accurately the communities they serve. The code now requires sports organisations to produce individual diversity and inclusion plans. These have to be agreed by Sport England and/or UK Sport, they have to be published, and they have to be updated annually, so there is positive action there. Diversity and inclusion is absolutely essential to sport. We want people to enjoy taking part in their chosen activity, and we want to attract and retain talented athletes from all backgrounds. That cannot happen if people do not feel welcomed or respected.
Let me briefly address a couple of other points raised by colleagues before I conclude. A couple of hon. Members raised the issue of penalties, particularly in international competitions. That is an important point and again one that we discuss, because penalties for bad behaviour by fans are the responsibility of the clubs. The clubs need to be punished accordingly, and that punishment needs to be effective and needs to hurt. I will always back what some might see as quite tough punishment, but it is needed because we need to take these issues seriously and take every action to make sure the clubs take it seriously.
It should go without saying that there is no place for racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other kind of discrimination in football or sport more widely. We have heard that loud and clear from all colleagues today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has raised many important points, and I sincerely thank her for her interest and passion in this subject. Indeed, it is something that she has spoken about eloquently for many, many years. There is still more to do, but she has my assurance that the Government are committed to continuing to work with football authorities to combat racism, discrimination and antisemitism, both in person and online, from the grassroots to the boardroom.
Theresa Villiers
This has been a really good debate. There was, I think, universal acceptance that the situation is much improved from the dark days of the ’70s, but also that antisemitism and racism is still a serious problem in football, and that we want the football establishment to take it more seriously and to be more active in dealing with the problem, not least because it is so influential on the younger generation.
We also had a chance to look at the particular complexities of the situation at Spurs. It was disturbing to hear of the abuse directed at supporters of that club. We also heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) about the role of international footballing associations in cracking down on this problem. I welcome the Minister’s assurances that the Online Safety Bill will crack down on the social media companies to ensure that they take this more seriously and police their own terms and conditions.
But what I was most disturbed by was the example cited by the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). The idea of people making hissing noises at seven-year-old Jewish footballers is just revolting. It is profoundly disturbing and is a real illustration of how antisemitism remains a serious problem in football in our society. I am pleased to have had the chance to table this debate to ensure that we as a House make it clear that this kind of conduct is utterly and completely unacceptable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered antisemitism and other forms of racism in football.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Homes for Ukraine Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Michael Gove)
The Homes for Ukraine scheme will allow eligible children and minors under the age of 18 who have already applied through the Homes for Ukraine Scheme to come to the UK without a parent or guardian, the Government announced today, 22 June 2022.
This policy will initially apply to the 1,000 children who have already applied to the Home Office but are unable to travel as they are not travelling or reuniting with a parent or guardian.
After working closely with the Ukrainian Government, the changes will enable a child to apply for a visa if they have proof of parental consent. This must be certified by an authority approved by the Ukrainian Government such as notary authorities or Ukrainian consul abroad.
Extensive sponsor checks will also be carried out by local authorities ahead of any visa being granted, with councils able to veto any sponsor arrangements they deem unsuitable.
The sponsor should also, except in exceptional circumstances, be someone who is personally known to the parents.
The Government are working with the Ukrainian Government, devolved Administrations, local authorities and charities and voluntary groups.
[HCWS123]
The Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
Upgrading our homes to be more energy efficient is the best long-term solution for reducing our energy costs, keeping ourselves warm and healthy in winter and tackling fuel poverty. It is also essential for our transition to net zero and in supporting local jobs and growth. This is why the Energy Company Obligation scheme remains a key policy in supporting low income and vulnerable households to upgrade their homes with energy efficiency and heating measures.
Making homes more energy efficient reduces heating costs permanently, mitigating the impacts of current and future price rises. There are wider benefits; energy efficient homes are more comfortable to live in, with consequent improvements to householder’s health and wellbeing.
The Energy Company Obligation has a good track record of delivering such upgrades to homes. Since 2013, it has installed around 3.5 million energy efficiency measures in 2.4 million homes across Great Britain.
In April, we published the response to the consultation on the future of the Energy Company Obligation across Great Britain, committing to an expansion of the scheme from £640 million to £1 billion a year and extending it by four years to 2026. Today the Government have laid the regulations for the scheme.
The last iteration of the Energy Company Obligation scheme, EC03, came to an end on 31 March 2022 and since 1 April 2022, EC03 measures could continue to be delivered to previous scheme rules—subject to some exceptions—until 30 June 2022. Similarly, suppliers have had the option to deliver to the new scheme, EC04, rules from 1 April 2022.
EC04 will be focused on low-income and vulnerable households in Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band D-G homes. The scheme will bring positive value to society, with estimated installations of around 800,000 measures in around 450,000 homes. Households could save on average £290 annually off their energy bills over the lifetime, or up to £1,600 in the least energy efficient homes. However, those savings could average £600 next winter. 360,000 homes will be upgraded to EPC Band C, helping more households out of fuel poverty.
Government will mandate minimum energy efficiency improvements requiring Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band F and G homes to be improved to a minimum Band D and Band D and E homes to be improved to a minimum Band C, contributing to our statutory fuel poverty target and interim milestone.
To make greater progress on upgrading the least energy efficient homes, there is a minimum target of upgrading 150,000 Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) Band E, F and G private tenure homes. This will ensure the least energy efficient homes are not left behind. Furthermore, a minimum target of 90,000 solid wall insulation measures is introduced to maintain the focus on insulating harder to treat homes, while supporting the solid wall insulation industry.
Under the scheme, support for repairs and replacements of broken gas and electric storage heating systems will be limited to 5,000 homes per year and the repair of inefficient oil and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) systems will be permitted as a last resort where renewable heating cannot be installed. This will ensure measures installed under EC04 align with the Government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy and net zero targets.
Homes in off-gas rural areas will be incentivised in Scotland and Wales, to ensure homes that may be harder to reach and more expensive to deliver are not left behind. EC04 has been designed to complement the Home Upgrade Grant in off-gas homes in England, social housing funding and the private rented sector regulations. It will continue to work alongside existing energy efficiency and fuel poverty policies in Scotland and Wales.
Up to 50% of a supplier’s obligation may be delivered under the reformed Flexible Eligibility mechanism (EC04 Flex), an increase from 25% under the previous scheme. EC04 Flex enables local authorities, the Scottish and Welsh Governments and energy suppliers to target and refer other low-income households who may not be in receipt of means tested benefits.
A new scoring methodology will be introduced, providing greater support to the worst performing homes. Support will continue for new and innovative installation methods and measures via a reformed innovation measure mechanism. Only fully tested measures with adequate consumer protection will be eligible.
This expansion of the scheme forms part of the wider support package to help households with rising energy bills.
In May, in recognition of increased cost of living and continued rising energy costs, a package of support worth £37 billion was announced, which includes the Energy Bills Support Scheme. Most vulnerable households will receive at least £1,200 of support this year and, all households will receive a £400 grant as a credit from energy suppliers from October 2022 onwards, which does not need to be repaid.
[HCWS125]
LGBT Veterans Review
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
The pre-2000 ban on LGBT personnel serving in the armed forces was totally wrong. In January this year, the Government committed to deliver an independent review to properly look at the lasting impact that this ban has on veterans today. The purpose of the review is to make evidence-based recommendations as to how the Government can meet their commitment in the veterans strategy to ensure the experience of LGBT veterans who were affected by the ban is understood, and their service valued.
Such a review requires the right person to lead it and, after careful consideration, the Prime Minister has appointed Lord Etherton PC QC as independent Chair. The review will begin with immediate effect. It will conclude with a final report being presented to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay) and the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace) no later than 25 May 2023. The full terms of reference for the review can be found attached.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-06-22/HCWS126
Shared Rural Network
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I wish to inform the House that I have today laid a departmental minute recording the Government’s proposal to enter into an agreement to indemnify Digital Mobile Spectrum Ltd—a subsidiary of four mobile network operators—in respect of costs that may arise if there is a change in the operator of the Emergency Services Network.
The proposed indemnity will be reported as a contingent liability in line with the HM Treasury Contingent Liability Framework and managed in accordance with “Managing Public Money” (MPM).
The shared rural network is the Government’s £1 billion deal with four mobile network operators to deliver 4G coverage to 95% of UK landmass by the end of the programme. The Government are investing over £500 million to target hard-to-reach areas where there is currently no 4G mobile coverage from any mobile network operator. The Government funded element of the programme includes upgrades to extended area service mobile telephone masts being built as part of the Home Office’s emergency services network.
As set out in the minute, the proposed indemnity would cover costs of up to £15.2 million which may be required for additional equipment and operating expenses should the terms of a future emergency services network contract cause additional costs to be incurred by mobile network operators in order for them to operate their mobile network in accordance with shared rural network requirements. Any costs incurred as a result of the indemnity will be funded from within shared rural network programme approved funding.
A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS122]
Correction to PQ118520, PQ118521 and PQ118522
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
On 28 February 2022, the Department answered three parliamentary questions asked by Nick Smith MP. The single answer given to all three questions included an incorrect reference to a supplier of PPE.
The questions were:
“118520: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department paid £600 million to Unispace Global Ltd for the purchase of personal protective equipment in 2020.”
“118521: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether Unispace Global Ltd met its contractual obligations for providing adequate personal protective equipment under the contractual terms set by his Department in 2020. ”
“118522: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether any Government Department has taken steps to investigate why payments made to Unispace Global Ltd were not reported by that company in its financial accounts; and, if he will make a statement.”
The departmental answer was:
“…Unispace Global partially met its contractual obligations, supplying the National Health Service with £484 million items of PPE from April 2020 till December 2021. We are working with the company on a commercial resolution for the remainder of the contract... ”
However, all contracts between Unispace Global Ltd and the Department for Health and Social Care were novated to Unispace Health Products LLP in December 2020, which has since changed its name to Sante Global LLP. Accordingly, the departmental answer should have referred to Sante Global LLP rather than Unispace Ltd.
Through this written ministerial statement I am correcting this error, which arose as one of our internal record management systems had not been updated to reflect the change in name. This system has also been updated.
[HCWS128]
Monkeypox Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The United Kingdom Health Security Agency (UKHSA) yesterday published its updated vaccination strategy in response to the current monkeypox outbreak.
Based on the currently available vaccine supply, UKHSA recommends that the available doses of the vaccine should be used for a selective vaccine strategy with the aim of interrupting transmission in the subset of individuals at increased risk. This approach is supported by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
Although anyone can contract monkeypox, data from the latest outbreak shows higher levels of transmission within, but not exclusive to, the social networks of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). Therefore, the updated strategy recommends that vaccination should be offered as soon as feasible to GBMSM at highest risk. Targeted pre-exposure vaccination is also recommended for others, including healthcare workers who are at high risk of exposure.
In view of the current epidemiology and vaccine supply available, wider vaccination in low-risk GBMSM individuals or the general population is not advised at this time.
NHS England is due to set out details on how eligible people can get vaccinated shortly.
To see the full updated strategy, which includes details of the recommendations for both pre and post-exposure vaccination, please visit: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monkeypox-outbreak-vaccination-strategy.
[HCWS130]
UK Life Sciences
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
The life sciences have played an essential role in helping us to learn to live with covid-19. The UK’s natural strengths, and our world-beating vaccine programme, have allowed us to lead the way in this. As we learn the lessons of covid-19, it is essential that we take steps to further strengthen UK life sciences and our resilience against both future threats and a possible future resurgence in covid-19.
To date over £380 million has been invested to secure and scale up the UK’s vaccine manufacturing capabilities and we have ambitious plans to invest more alongside industry to further our domestic vaccine resilience. As announced in the spending review in October 2021, the Government have now made available £9.6 billion for key covid-19 programmes and related health spending and continues to work closely with industry to ensure our life sciences sector thrives.
Looking to the future, we are determined to take action to secure further investment into the UK’s thriving life science industry and cement our position as a science superpower. To that end, the Government have agreed a detailed heads of terms with Moderna to create a strategic partnership over the next decade. A binding contract will be negotiated with Moderna over the coming weeks and, subject to approval of a full business case, will be in place by early Autumn. The proposed partnership, led by the vaccine taskforce, will strengthen domestic mRNA capability and better equip the UK to respond to covid-19 and future health emergencies.
Moderna would establish their global research & development centre in the UK as part of an R&D strategic partnership, siting R&D capability onshore, with academic and wider vaccine ecosystem engagement, including extensive use of the clinical trials network in the UK. Their facilities would support vaccines not just against covid-19 but other diseases such as flu and RSV. The industry-leading, future-proof design of the plant will permit the addition of capability to manufacture a wide range of medicines and will be a massive boost to the UK’s R&D capability. The site will also allow the UK to be better prepared in the event of future health emergencies. The project, which will provide an important boost to the local economy and to the country’s life sciences sector, was developed with the support and collaboration of the vaccine taskforce and will be a key investment to bring novel technologies and pandemic resilience onshore in the UK.
A consistent and resilient supply of covid-19 vaccines will be critical in protecting against a possible future resurgence in covid-19, ensuring jabs are provided in time to protect those who are most vulnerable to serious covid-19. That is why one of the objectives given to the vaccine taskforce was to strengthen the UK’s onshoring capacity and capability in vaccine development, manufacturing and the supply chain to provide resilience for future pandemics.
Moderna has demonstrated expertise in mRNA development and has offered a strategic partnership with Her Majesty’s Government under which it would invest in a new state of the art manufacturing facility in the UK for the production of respiratory vaccines. This would be capable of accelerating production, with UK priority access, in the event of a future health emergency.
[HCWS131]
Gulf Co-operation Council Trade Negotiations Update
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Today I am formally launching free trade negotiations between the UK and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where I am meeting the GCC Secretary General, His Excellency Dr Nayef Falah M. Al-Hajraf, and Ministers from the six GCC member states.
In line with our commitments to scrutiny and transparency, the Department for International Trade has published, and placed in the House Libraries, more information on these negotiations. This includes:
The UK’s strategic case for a UK-GCC Free Trade Agreement (FTA).
Our objectives for the negotiations.
A summary of the UK’s public consultation on trade with the GCC.
A scoping assessment, providing a preliminary economic assessment of the impact of the agreement.
The Gulf Co-operation Council represents Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These six countries are home to 54 million people and have a collective economy of £1.2 trillion.[1]
The GCC is equivalent to the UK’s seventh largest export market, and total trade was worth £33.1 billion in 2021. An FTA would be a substantial opportunity for both our economies and a significant moment in the UK-GCC relationship. It will grow the economy, support jobs and the levelling up agenda.
Government analysis shows that an FTA is expected to increase trade by at least 16%, add at least £1.6 billion a year to the UK economy and contribute an additional £600 million or more to annual UK workers’ wages.
All regions and nations of the UK are set to benefit from a trade deal with the GCC, supporting the Government’s levelling up agenda. Industries outside of London are expected to benefit most, with the east midlands, west midlands, north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber in line for the greatest proportional gains.[2]
The GCC countries are undergoing a period of economic change and they all have ambitious vision strategies, which highlight areas for future economic growth and development. Demand for international products and services is expected to grow rapidly to £800 billion by 2035, a 35% increase, which will create significant opportunities for UK firms. Now is the time to strike an ambitious and modern trade deal.
A strong trading relationship will allow the UK to play to our strengths as a manufacturing powerhouse and a world leader in technology, cyber, life sciences, creative industries, education, Al, financial services and renewable energy.
UK businesses in these industries have a role to play in supporting the GCC countries as they diversify their economies to move away from a reliance on fossil fuels and towards knowledge-based and green economies. The UAE, for example, has set a target of generating 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050.
UK goods exporters could benefit from reduced or zero tariffs, making their products more competitive in the GCC market. For example, UK clothing, ceramics and wind turbine parts currently face tariffs of up to 15%. British farmers and food and drink producers can also benefit from new export opportunities for products, including cereals—up to 25% tariff—and chocolate—up to 15% tariff—since the GCC countries import virtually all of their food.[3]
The UK and GCC countries share an important investment partnership, with at least £30 billion already invested in each other’s economies, and an FTA will help to strengthen this even further. This will support jobs throughout the UK and the GCC countries.
The UK will continue to uphold our high environmental, labour, food safety and animal welfare standards in our trade agreement with the GCC.
The first round of FTA negotiations will take place over the summer. As negotiations progress, I will ensure that parliamentarians, UK citizens and businesses are provided with regular updates.
[1] IMF estimate for 2021, World Economic Outlook April 2022.
[2] Based on the percentage increases in the scoping assessment.
[3] Tariffs in these sectors are mostly 5% across the GCC where in some cases individual countries charge higher tariffs on specific products. Note that tariffs on chocolate does not include products containing alcohol.
[HCWS127]
UK-Ukraine Infrastructure Summit
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On Friday 17 June, we hosted a UK-Ukraine infrastructure summit in London. The summit, with Prime Minister of Ukraine, Denys Shmyhal, and Minister of Infrastructure of Ukraine, Olexandr Kubrakov, brought together Ukrainian Ministers and business leaders for talks on rebuilding Ukraine after the conflict and ensuring its long-term prosperity.
Discussions identified where UK companies have world-class skills that can support reconstruction efforts—such as digital infrastructure, water and sanitation, energy, homes, and transport.
During the summit, we signed a memorandum of understanding with Ukraine which set out elements of UK support for reconstruction efforts and established a joint taskforce, which will help build partnerships between UK and Ukrainian businesses to assist the reconstruction of infrastructure in and around Kyiv.
The taskforce will support greater collaboration between the UK’s world-class infrastructure, energy, and transport companies and Ukrainian public organisations and private sector businesses. This will help plan for the future as well as repairing damaged and destroyed infrastructure, including transport systems, homes, and bridges more efficiently, safely and sustainably.
The UK has already committed to provide a combined economic, humanitarian, and military support package to Ukraine worth over $3 billion. UK Export Finance has also pledged to retain its £3.5 billion-worth of financial support for trade to Ukraine—helping the country to fund its reconstruction projects and allowing UK exporters and Ukrainian buyers to access the finance they need to trade commercially.
The UK has introduced one of the largest and most severe packages of economic sanctions against Russia. Measures cover over £4 billion-worth of products that are traded with Russia, 1,000 individuals and 100 entities in key sectors such as defence, crippling Putin’s war machine.
We also announced changes to trade remedy measures relating to the conflict. This includes reallocating ringfenced market access for steel imports from Russia and Belarus to other countries, including Ukraine.
The UK will do everything in its power to support Ukraine’s brave fight against Russia’s unprovoked invasion and to ensure its long-term security and prosperity.
[HCWS124]
Bill of Rights
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Today the Government are delivering on our manifesto commitment to overhaul the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights, which I am introducing to Parliament today.
This country has a long and proud tradition of freedom which our Bill of Rights will enhance, for example, in respect of free speech and recognition of the role of jury trial. Equally, over the years mission creep has resulted in human rights law being used for more and more purposes, with elastic interpretations that go way beyond anything that the architects of the convention had in mind and have not been subject to democratic, legislative oversight. Following the Government’s consultation on the Bill of Rights, our reforms will curtail the abuses of human rights, restore some common sense to our justice system, and ensure that our human rights framework meets the needs of the society it serves.
I am grateful to the chair and panel of the Independent Human Rights Act Review for their valuable report, which has influenced and informed our thinking in preparing both our consultation and the final Bill.
The measures in the Bill of Rights will:
1. Strengthen the right to freedom of speech. We are attaching greater weight to freedom of speech, defined as the exchange of ideas, opinions, information and facts, as a matter of utmost public interest, and widen the responsibility for attaching this greater weight to all public authorities.
2. Recognise the right to jury trial. The Bill recognises the right to trial by jury under, and subject to, the framework set by Parliament and the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislatures.
3. Clarify the interpretation of certain rights. Human rights, especially Article 8, have been used to frustrate the deportation of criminals. The Bill provides clearer criteria for the UK courts in interpreting rights and balancing them with the interests of society in particular in the context of deportation of foreign national offenders. This will restore credibility to the system and ensure we can protect the public by deporting those who pose a serious threat.
4. Reduce burdens on public authorities. We are stopping the imposition of positive obligations on our public services without proper democratic oversight. We will make clear that when public authorities are giving clear effect to primary legislation, they are not acting unlawfully. We will do this by restricting UK courts’ power to interpret legislation, as we propose to do for section 3 above. This will deliver greater certainty for public services to do the jobs entrusted to them, without the constant threat of having to defend against expensive human rights claims.
5. Ensure that public protection is given due regard in interpretation of rights. The Bill contains a provision that obliges all those who interpret convention rights to consider the need to reduce the risk to the public from convicted criminals serving a custodial sentence. This will support the Government’s proposed reforms to the Parole Board and strengthen the Government’s hand in fighting Article 8 claims from terrorists opposing their placement in separation centres.
6. Limit the Bill's territorial jurisdiction. Domestic and Strasbourg case law has extended beyond the intent of the convention’s drafters. The Bill excludes extraterritorial jurisdiction for military operations abroad.
7. Implement a permission stage to ensure trivial cases do not undermine public confidence in human rights. The introduction of a permission stage will ensure that courts focus on serious human rights claims and places responsibility on the claimant to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant disadvantage before a human rights claim can be heard in court.
8. Recognise that responsibilities exist alongside rights. We are recognising that responsibilities exist alongside rights and ensuring that the appropriateness of paying damages to those who have infringed the rights of others are considered.
9. Strengthen domestic institutions and the primacy of UK law. The Bill empowers UK courts to apply human rights in a UK context, affirming the Supreme Court’s independence from the Strasbourg Court. It will make explicit that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial arbiter.
10. Increase democratic oversight. The Bill makes sure that the balance between our domestic institutions is right, by repealing section 3 to ensure that UK courts can no longer alter legislation contrary to its ordinary meaning and the overall purpose of the law.
11. Enhance Parliament's role in responding to adverse Strasbourg rulings. The Bill enhances the role of Parliament in responding to adverse Strasbourg judgments against the UK. The Bill also affirms Parliament’s supremacy in the making of laws.
The issues addressed by the Bill of Rights affect the whole of the UK, and any changes must be made on a UK-wide basis. We will ensure that the framework applies equally, whilst also allowing for difference in how the framework is applied and implemented across the UK. During the consultation period I visited Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to discuss our proposals and we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations, civil society and relevant stakeholders across the UK.
The Bill and all of its supporting documentation is available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3227 copies of which have been presented to Parliament.
[HCWS129]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, which I do not expect, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes.
Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 View all Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-I(a)(Corrected) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (21 Jun 2022)
Baroness Goudie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would substitute the qualification on the National and Cultural identity principles relating to the principle that everyone in Northern Ireland is free to express and celebrate that identity. The amendment would substitute the current limitation that this principle be subordinate to the “sensitivities” of persons with alternate national and cultural identity, with a limitation grounded in respect for the rights of others.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I will be moving the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, today, as she has Covid—she is very sorry not to be here. I will not speak as well as she would on these issues, but I will speak shortly and to the point, as I know that we are under time pressure.
Clause 1 provides that the office of identity and cultural expression may publish guidance on the duty to have regard to the national and cultural identity principles and other principles relating to national and cultural identity. Amendment 5 in this group provides that “other matters” include the
“effective implementation of international human rights standards relevant to cultural identity and language”.
This is to probe how strong the human rights framework is and whether this is incorporated in the work and language of human rights. I hope that the Minister might look at this and see if we could make the clause much better and warmer, so that more people feel that they could go with it. This amendment also fits in well with New Decade, New Approach.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend in her amendment, but I will speak to Amendment 5 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and it provides that “other matters” include the
“effective implementation of international human rights standards relevant to cultural identity and language”.
It is a probing amendment, which emphasises the human rights standards that we have come to expect in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years.
In the Bill, Clause 3 on Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions includes reference to three specific international instruments, including the Council of Europe’s Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This clause requires the commission to provide advice, support and guidance on the effect and implementation of those instruments in relation to relevant language, arts and literature. I am aware that further amendments later on deal with that, but this is the only reference in the Bill to the wider human rights framework, so Amendment 5 would build on that. Do we need to look more closely at how relevant human rights standards will be embedded across the work of all the bodies established under the Bill?
Of course, this issue goes all the way back to the Good Friday agreement of 1998, a copy of which, by pure chance, I happen to have with me today. It says:
“The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights … with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.”
It goes on to say:
“These additional rights reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and—taken together with the ECHR—constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.”
We have never had a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Over the last 25 years there has not been one. I blame my own Government as much as anybody else for that, as we should have had one. I suppose it is appropriate that the Minister’s colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, made a Statement a few hours ago in the House of Commons with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. I wonder whether, in answering us later, the Minister might touch on how important the ECHR is in Northern Ireland and say whether the announcement today will have any implications for Northern Ireland.
I also support Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which widens the debate out to look at the future of other languages in Northern Ireland, including sign language, and what could be achieved.
I will make a general point. We are in Committee and are unlikely to be voting on the amendments, which are overwhelmingly probing amendments, but it seems to me that they have to be in the context of New Decade, New Approach, and as closely related to that agreement as possible. They might not be able to have every single word of it, but it was an agreement across the board in Northern Ireland among all parties represented in the Executive and the British Government, so I hope that when we table amendments we all have that important principle in mind.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I echo the sentiments in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Briefly, I repeat that of course we believe that it would have been hugely preferable for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive to be dealing with these issues today. As a strong believer in devolution, I always believe that these issues should be dealt with by the politicians closest to those who are involved. Indeed, I was speaking earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and confessing that it is difficult for people who are not from Northern Ireland to understand some of the sentiments and the passions that stem from this Bill.
As your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said in its brief report this week, it would of course be preferable for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly to have been dealing with these issues, but none the less, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, New Decade, New Approach was agreed by the majority—not all—of the parties in Northern Ireland. That was over two years ago and it is now extremely important that we make progress on these issues of identity and language.
The amendments in this group are probing amendments and are primarily about ensuring that the rights of others are respected and that promotion of one cultural and linguistic diversity does not lead to prejudices against the other. It is important that the “sensitivities” of others are not interpreted as encompassing prejudice or intolerance to another’s national or cultural identity. It is also important that proper consideration is given to any potential unintended consequences of the Bill. The word “sensitivities” risks being interpreted subjectively. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, suggested at Second Reading, it might be preferable to align the qualifications with the international standards set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 6, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, are both probing amendments. I will concentrate my remaining on Amendment 6, which highlights the importance of remembering other languages used in Northern Ireland, including all spoken languages and sign language. It is important that the measures in the Bill do not lead to exclusion of the new communities in Northern Ireland, who do not have any particular affinity to either Irish or Ulster Scots. I am thinking of the fairly extensive Polish, Lithuanian and other eastern and central European communities, as well as the Chinese community, particularly in Belfast and Dungannon.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
The noble Lord is from Dungannon, I understand. No? Forgive me.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement made reference to
“the importance of respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to linguistic diversity, including … the languages of the various ethnic communities, all of which are part of the cultural wealth of the island of Ireland.”
Can the Minister say whether thought has been given to developing a comprehensive and needs-based language strategy, which includes all the other languages used within Northern Ireland, including sign language?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the NDNA deal has been mentioned, as it often is. NDNA was not a single issue. There were many issues in that package. It is with some regret that we find that certain things are being plucked out and described as being agreed. It was all agreed in the context that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed and enacted as one package.
Having said that, to set the context, Amendment 1 would replace the current requirement for a person expressing identity and culture to have regard to the sensitivities of others with an obligation to respect their rights. Of course, we are not averse to this. There needs to be an examination of the merits of any limitation on cultural expression based on the sensitivities of others and vis-à-vis the rights of others.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said that
“consideration should be given to whether restricting the cultural expression and identity of one individual to accommodate the ‘sensitivities’ of another individual is a disproportionate interference with one or other’s right to freedom of expression”.
It is possible that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act and references to convention rights may provide more certainty in this regard. The term “sensitivities” could be construed in various ways. We need to eliminate the risk of the national and cultural identity principles being weaponised in order to interfere with the legitimate expression of, or suppress, unionist culture. What would taking account of sensitivities actually mean in real terms and in practice? Would this cover mere offences or basic intolerance of others? Surely there is a need to ensure that “sensitivities” captures only grievances based on substantive and recognised rights.
We are certainly not suggesting that the HRA or existing interpretation of convention rights are a panacea or a safeguard for our culture. One has to look only at the outworking of the parading issue in Northern Ireland, where the system is often seen to reward violence and restrict public expression and assembly. That, unfortunately, has been the norm for quite a while and gives us great concern.
While I am on my feet, I will speak briefly to Amendment 5, which would enable the office of identity and cultural expression to issue guidance on the implementation of relevant human rights standards. We are against this. In our view this amendment wrongly conflates the proposed operation of the office of identity with the separate and distinct roles of statutory bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
First and foremost, the role of the OICE should be to promote the different cultural and national identities in Northern Ireland. This amendment would open up the risk of the OICE assuming the role of enforcer rather than facilitator of culture and identity. Clause 3 already places the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner under an obligation to
“publish such advice, support and guidance … to public authorities in relation to … the effect and implementation of the international instruments”.
There would be the risk of duplication or conflict, not just between the regional statutory bodies but between the cultural bodies established under the Bill. This does not seem to be the best path forward.
Amendment 6 in this group is a probing amendment. It would
“require the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression to develop a comprehensive language strategy to include other languages used in Northern Ireland.”
We are against this because we do not believe that this is the right vehicle to take forward progress on producing strategies for spoken and sign languages in Northern Ireland. Section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the NDNA commitments pertaining to the programme for government envisage this function remaining in the gift of devolved Ministers.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I wish to associate myself with those noble Lords who are sad that this is not being debated in the Assembly. Let me say how sad I am that it is not recognised by some in Northern Ireland that it is their responsibility to be part of that Assembly and that that is the deal. It is a deal that the rest of the United Kingdom, a little bit of which I hope to be able to speak for in this Committee, wants to hold them to instead of being held by them.
Secondly, I opposed the Government’s successful attempt to impose on Northern Ireland changes that were opposed by both communities. I thought that it was wrong. It is not subsidiarity and we should not have done it. However, in this case, we are having to discuss something that has been agreed in principle and which we must carry through. This is therefore a different circumstance, which is why we are doing this. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness who last spoke from the Opposition Bench.
I say to my noble friend that the reference to the European Court of Human Rights is important. It is extremely important that we tie this into the international agreements that we have. If I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I do not much mind what Mr Raab has said. The truth is that we signed up to it—we more or less invented it—and we did so to make sure that everybody stood to the same standards in this area. If ever there were a case for making sure that we insist on the standards enforced by the European Court of Human Rights, this certainly is it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I deeply regret that this issue is being dealt with here. It is obvious from the first quarter of an hour of debate, from the many local issues that have arisen, that local MLAs would understand the nuances far better. It is a crying shame that this is not being dealt with there.
I have one point to make to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. My party did not agree to New Decade, New Approach. In fact, I deeply regret a lot of the proceedings that led up to it and a lot of what is included in it because I fear that this Bill has within it the seeds of a grievance factory, where it is going to be very difficult to make everybody feel that their particularly identity is being represented. Indeed, it may be a shock to many that people do not go round the place wondering who they are each day; it is not something at the top of people’s agenda when they cannot even put money in the meter to keep their lights on. We must understand that it is not the sort of thing that is necessarily top of people’s agenda.
We must avoid two things. First, because this Bill is not subject to debate in the Assembly where implementation of it would take place, this House cannot amend it —because, if the Assembly is not there, the only process is here, and therefore we should not be afraid to do that. Secondly, and equally, we must be wary of imposing conditions that prove to be difficult for the Assembly.
I think there is some merit in what is suggested in Amendment 1. I take the point about other languages, but one has to be careful about who is included in that and who is not. Within the past 36 months, we have had the arrival on our shores of people from varying backgrounds—from Syria and Afghanistan—we have had a significant indigenous Chinese population for as long as I can remember, and we have had people coming from eastern Europe as part of the European Union for many years, who have built up considerable numbers, particularly in the past 15 years or so. So who is included in that and who is not is very difficult. I ask colleagues to bear those points in mind.
My noble friend Lord Morrow makes a valid point about the boundaries where one public body ends and another begins. There could be quite a lot of overreach and overstretch there. If an office dealing with identity issues becomes specifically involved in rights and equality, there is some overlap, but they would be two quite distinct areas, and we must take great care that we do not create a scrambled egg of bodies all competing about where the boundaries of their activities begin and end. I urge a bit of caution from the Minister in that regard.
Bearing in mind that it is a matter of very deep regret that we have to do this, I suggest that the one thing that we try to avoid is making things worse by confusing the role of one public body with another. I do not think it was ever the intention of the negotiators of New Decade, New Approach that the existing equalities and human rights commissions would be subject to override in this area. In the event that somebody feels that their human right has been overruled, they still have the opportunity to have their case taken up by those bodies. The right to do that is not conflicted in any way by anything in this, but we must avoid confusion. The existing lines are relatively clear, and I think we should adhere to them.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, once again we are dealing with an issue that was the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Once again, the Government have taken it out of the hands of the Assembly. This has not just arrived since the last Assembly election; this was from before that. I remind some noble Lords that the history of this goes back to the previous three-year suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly by Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin would not come back into the Assembly but made certain demands before it would come back in. One of the demands was on the abortion legislation; it wanted abortion on demand. The second was an Irish language Act. It has to be admitted that it did not get an Irish language Act, because this is the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill, but nevertheless it was part of its demands.
The truth of the matter is that the Government yielded to the demands of Sinn Féin which is why we are having this debate here at Westminster. The new Assembly has certainly not been given the opportunity to debate it, because the Assembly election was just recently. With all the demands that are being made on public finances, I must say that, right across this legislation, I have deep concerns. When one bears in mind that people are fighting to pay their bills and all the demands on public finances at the present moment, I would certainly ask whether this is the best expenditure of public money at this particular time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken to the first group of amendments before us. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, I place on record my sorrow that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, is not in her place today to move her amendments. I am sure that I speak for the entire Committee in wishing her a speedy recovery and quick return to your Lordships’ House.
I speak first to Amendments 1 and 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie—with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee for a number of months—for stepping in at a moment’s notice. In broad terms, these amendments seek to amend the Bill’s first clause so that the
“national and cultural identity principles”
provided for in new Section 78F inserted by that clause would respect the “rights of others” rather than taking
“account of … those with different national and cultural identities”,
as drafted in the Bill. Amendment 1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, would make this change, with the second providing a definition of the “rights of others”.
Although I understand the intent behind this amendment, I believe that this would not correctly reflect the national and cultural identity principles that were a matter of careful negotiation between those parties that agreed to New Decade, New Approach, and which are set out in paragraph 25 of that document. They were also set out in the same terms in the accompanying draft legislation that went with New Decade, New Approach. The provision in this Bill therefore reflects the terms under which the parties agreed New Decade, New Approach and re-entered the Executive in January 2020. It has been our approach throughout to reflect in good faith that agreement from January 2020, and I believe that it would be inconsistent with that approach if we were unilaterally to deviate from those principles today.
Amendments 5 and 6 seek to extend the remit of the office of identity and cultural expression. Amendment 5 seeks to include the effective implementation of relevant international human right standards and Amendment 6 would make provision on a comprehensive language strategy to include all spoken and sign languages used in Northern Ireland. As with the national and cultural identity principles, the role and remit of the office of identity and cultural expression have been carefully set out through New Decade, New Approach. I fear that these amendments would represent a deviation from the basis of NDNA; the Government are clear that they will not do this.
As some reassurance, I highlight that new Section 78H(4) will enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to direct the office of identity and cultural expression. They could use this power, for example, to give consideration to certain international standards that they deem relevant or to develop strategies, such as overall language strategies or those on sign language. Of course, they would need to fall within the framework of the principles themselves. In addition, the office itself could decide to consider international human rights standards in the advice and guidance that it provides. Of course, as a number of noble Lords have made clear, we would much prefer this to be taken forward not in your Lordships’ House but by a future Executive and Assembly.
Quickly on the ECHR and human rights, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, my noble friend Lord Deben and others that this Government remain absolutely committed to the Belfast agreement in all its parts. That includes the commitments on the ECHR. As for a Bill of Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, blamed his own Government as much as anyone for the lack of one. As I have always said, the agreement is somewhat ambiguously drafted as to how that should be taken forward, but the policy of successive Governments has been that it is primarily a matter for the Executive and the Assembly. New Decade, New Approach established a committee of the Assembly to look at how this issue might be taken forward.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 2
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Member's explanatory statement
This is part of a set of probing amendments. This is to probe the chosen definition of “public authority” in relevant Clauses.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thoughts to those of the Minister regarding my noble friend Lady Ritchie, who is seriously disappointed that she could not attend this session. She is on the mend and hopes that she can take part on Report.
Before moving on to Amendment 2, I have two general points on who should be doing this. Of course, I agree that it should not be us. When we put forward these ideas all those years ago in the Good Friday agreement and later in New Decade, New Approach, the idea that this should be done in the Moses Room of the House of Lords was anathema. But it has to be done, as the commitment has been made. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that his party had some reservations about New Decade, New Approach, but the agreement was made between the two Governments and is the only one we have before us. It at least forms the basis of this legislation. I also agree with him that, if there are amendments which improve the legislation and are acceptable across the board—that is the essence—I see no reason why we should not accept them.
I turn to the amendment on public bodies. Again, it is probing. Clause 1 of the Bill provides a strange definition of public authorities—those in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, with the exception of the office of identity and cultural expression. Added to it are the commissioners themselves, the office I have just mentioned, the implementation body to which Part VI of the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 applies, and any body referred to in note 2 of the schedule.
I do not disagree with any of those bodies being named or relevant, but the purpose of the amendment is to see whether the legislation should go more widely than that—such as in Wales, for example, where United Kingdom government departments, as well as those of the Government of Wales, are subject to the Welsh Language Act within Wales. For example, if the NIO is a body operating in Northern Ireland specifically about Northern Ireland, should it be subject to the same regulations as a body defined in the legislation? The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has some doubts about that, because it is not named either as a public body under the definition of “public authority” in the legislation.
This is a probing amendment, and it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what was taken into account when deciding on the definition and what has been done to take note of possible gaps in it. I note the power of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to add or remove authorities from the list. Does the Minister believe that that power would have to be used often and, indeed, whether it should be there at all?
The other amendments in this group go into further detail on the meaning of “public authority” and the expectations and duty that such bodies will be under to engage with the framework and bodies established under the Bill. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply: should other public bodies be added to the list? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39, which is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I echo what everyone has said: we wish her well and a speedy recovery. I know that, if the Minister does not tell her what she wants to hear, she will want to come back. I give him fair warning of that.
I believe this to be a reasonable and rational amendment that simply ties the charter convention already ratified by the United Kingdom into the language Bill. This charter is designed to protect and promote regional and minority languages and to enable speakers to use them in both private and public life. Furthermore, it obliges the state parties to actively promote the use of these languages—in education, courts, administration, media, culture and economic and social life—and cross- border co-operation.
The UK Government signed the charter in 2000 and it was ratified and came into force on 1 July 2001. The Government signed it in respect of Irish up to and including Article 7 of Part II and Articles 8 to 14 of Part III. As a matter of interest, Welsh and Scottish Gaelic are also registered under Part III. Scots, particularly Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland, are registered under Part II, along with Cornish and Manx Gaelic in their respective jurisdictions.
The Good Friday agreement also included a commitment to “linguistic diversity”. COMEX—the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe—is tasked with monitoring how state parties comply with the treaty. Over five periodical reports it has been critical of the UK Government’s lack of compliance with the measures they signed up to in the convention. In its latest report to the UK Government, in March 2021, COMEX concluded:
“Therefore the Committee of Experts reiterates that an Irish Language Act would provide the basis for comprehensive and structured policy for the promotion of Irish in Northern Ireland, which would enable resolute action on the protection and promotion of Irish, in line with the United Kingdom’s undertakings under the Charter. In this context, the Committee of Experts considers that, even once the measures contained in the January 2020 agreement are enacted, there remains a need for a comprehensive Irish Language Act.”
The new clause proposed in Amendment 39 would ensure that the charter is finally included in UK legislation. I commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the probing amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on some of the matters to do with public authorities. I have tabled a number of amendments, but I assure noble Lords that I am not going to say very much on any of the others, apart from Amendment 4.
Amendment 4 is important because it deals with the insertion of a new concept in legislation, through new Section 78F. It would require public authorities to have due regard to a requirement to strive for promoting parity of esteem. To most noble Lords, parity of esteem will sound wonderful and superficially attractive, but I believe that it is quite dangerous in substance. This concept of parity of esteem has long been a key part of the republican agenda, used as it is to cloak nationalist political demands in the language of individual rights.
I am going to quote from something that Gerry Adams said in 1998. I know that some Members here—probably the Minister himself—will say, “Well, for goodness’ sake, that was 1998. That was a long time ago”, but I think anyone who knows what is going on in Northern Ireland knows that what Gerry Adams said in 1998 he would still say today—and other people are saying it. He said then:
“Specifically, as part of the total restructuring of relationships one of the difficult issues to be tackled is that of cultural symbols and of flags and emblems. The institutional and official ethos of the northern state is British. This has to change. We must ensure that there is parity of esteem and a just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of all our people. This cannot be simply an illusion. It must be the reality. The responsibility for this change rests primarily with the British government.”
He continued:
“In practical terms where British national or cultural symbols are displayed on public buildings or in working environments equal prominence should be given to Irish national or cultural symbols as an immediate expression of parity of esteem. This includes working environments associated with the exercise of public authority – Council offices, courts, police service sites, civil service offices and QUANGOs.”
It is important that these words are looked at carefully. It is not equal treatment for all persons that is being sought. Let me be clear: everybody accepts that all citizens must be treated equally, regardless of any personal characteristics or political aspiration. However, it is the identity and ethos of all people that Sinn Féin demands must have equal prominence.
Put simply, Sinn Féin does not seek equal treatment for all individuals—that is different altogether. It seeks nationalist ideas and aspirations receiving parity. It is not about parity for the messenger; it is rather about parity for the message. The reality is that this is about diluting all sovereign expressions of British identity by developing a concept that requires that Irish national symbols must be given equal public prominence. That is entirely inconsistent with the principle of consent that mandates that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom until the majority votes otherwise. The Sinn Féin version of parity of esteem would require the primacy of national identity to be diluted, turning Northern Ireland, in terms of its symbolic identity, into a hybrid British-Irish state. Yet here we have new Section 78F, which transports this Sinn Féin-contrived parity of esteem concept into Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, notwithstanding its complete inconsistency with the principle of consent enshrined in Section 1 of the 1998 Act.
What will requiring having due regard to this concept open the door to? Gerry Adams’s article says that it will mean a demand for the Irish flag to fly alongside the union flag anywhere where it is flying. It will mean that a picture of the Queen will have to be balanced with some republican figure—perhaps Michael Collins, I do not know—and this could go on and on. Of course, of all public bodies, the Northern Ireland Office should see the danger of this and the potential for constant litigation trying to push the boundaries.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I add my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and wish her well. This morning, she sent me an email saying that she is feeling a little better, but we are certainly missing her contributions to this afternoon’s debate.
I have added my name to Amendments 2, 20 and 37, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, are probing amendments to understand a little better from the Minister why this particular definition of “public authority” was chosen in the Bill. I want to add to the questions already asked by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Can the Minister expand on paragraph 23 of the Explanatory Notes and say what kind of circumstances he can imagine where public authorities would be added or removed as a result of this legislation? I should note that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has suggested that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act would provide a better, wider definition of “public bodies”. Does the Minister agree, and can he explain why that definition was not used in this Bill?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 2, 20, 37 and 39. This set of probing amendments relates to the definition of public authorities that are subject to the Bill’s provisions. We are against it for the following reasons. We are convinced by the case for an expansionist approach to the range of public authorities captured by the Bill. Given the Minister’s insistence that the statement of funding accompanying the Bill does not give rise to any responsibility for the Government, it seems unconscionable that the Executive should have to bear the cost of UK-wide bodies adhering to requirements or requests issued by the offices created under the legislation. More than that, at a time of a crippling cost of living crisis and with mounting challenges facing our health service and criminal justice system, we believe that a precautionary approach is preferred.
Implementation should be targeted. We have consistently expressed concern about whether this legislation is proportionate or reflective of the priorities of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. There is a fear that expanding the extent even further would impact on public confidence. There is already concern about the framing of certain provisions, namely the identity and culture principles and their potential impact on competing fundamental freedoms. It may be prudent, therefore, to display caution and monitor the impact of the Bill before making further wholesale changes. There is already provision in the Bill allowing Ministers to amend the definition of “public authority” moving forward.
The proposed new clause in Amendment 39 would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is worth noting that the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner would already be under an obligation to advise on the effect and implementation of the charter under proposed new Section 78R(3)(a).
I am pleased to speak to Amendment 32 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds of Duncairn, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown and Lord Hay of Ballyore. As I will reflect in more detail in the debate on subsequent groupings, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner depends not only on the commissioner having identical functions but on their being accorded equal importance, and on this equal importance being made manifest—certainly through each having a similar cost footprint, in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities. In this context, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner are given access to as robust an enforcement mechanism as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner.
In this context, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner, one of which we will address in this grouping and another in the eighth grouping. In my Amendment 32 in this grouping, a public authority is required by proposed new Section 78N to
“have due regard to any published best practice standards”
produced by the Irish language commissioner and to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner is similarly given the responsibility of issuing guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to their guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps they propose to take to comply with this duty.
I very gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded the other. This discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster-Scots/Ulster-British commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for his or her advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with his or her advice.
I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can have regarded the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in the Bill as anything other than discriminatory when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. I urge the Minister to recognise that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept this modest amendment.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I note all the probing amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. Mr Adams has not gone away. He may not be the Dáil or the Assembly and he may not be here, but he has not gone away. Her point is quite interesting because the Belfast/Good Friday agreement enshrined the constitutional position very clearly. Mr Adams’s quote effectively ignores that and pretends that Northern Ireland is a condominium—in other words, a piece of territory that is being run by two other powers. The protocol is getting us into that sort of territory where we have rules made by a foreign power over which no one in this building has any say.
Dealing specifically with the noble Baroness’s point, I am not a lawyer, but we would need to be sure that there is not a gap in what we do through which some person can prosecute lawfare against the process. I take that point very clearly and will interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it. There may be an unintended consequence, which is why I said at the outset that I fear a lot of this legislation and all these bodies have the potential to form a grievance factory. That is what I fear about this legislation.
I would have signed Amendment 32, had there been space, but my colleagues took it up. The fact is that there is an inequality. We can dress it up whatever way we like, but it is there. The perception is clearly that one section of the community with certain aspirations and cultural identities is to be treated in one way and another section is to be treated in another, subservient, way. Perhaps that is not the right word, but noble Lords know what I mean. That should be avoided at all costs, because it undermines any confidence that identity and so on has finally been addressed. We are creating a hierarchy here, and the lessons of recent history tell us that that is not a good thing to do.
With regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I would like an assurance from the Minister that no such premises will be left for people to pursue spurious cases or seek to pretend that the settlement that was entered into in 1998 has a clear constitutional position that is not subject to being equated with a constitutional position that does not currently exist. That is a real fear that that could arise.
I would also like the Minister to take away Amendment 32 and have a look at it, because I assure him that even those of us who are very unenthusiastic about all this are even less enthusiastic about having a hierarchy.
I shall also make a point about Mr Adams and his colleagues. If we go back to 1998 and the years leading up to that negotiation, at no stage whatever in those negotiations did his party seek an Irish language Act. They never put it on the table; they never asked for it. Its first iteration in a public document was at St Andrews, and it was a commitment by the UK Government, knowing full well that the subject was going to be devolved. Sinn Féin only got on the bandwagon after an SDLP Member of the Assembly—Patsy McGlone—put forward a Private Member’s Bill in the Assembly to bring in an Irish language Act. I am sure that the former speaker well recalls that. Sinn Féin did nothing in 1998 with regard to the Irish language Act; anything that we were asked to do in 1998 during the negotiations was done and implemented in full. I just put that point on the record.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, we are talking about equality and respect, but are we also talking about equality and respect for both regional and minority languages? I employ around 200 people across Northern Ireland. A few speak Lithuanian, a few speak Polish, but I am not aware of any who speak Irish. It is very important that we do not assist or encourage those who want to politicise the issue of the Irish language. I believe that there must be great respect for the Irish minority language in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that it is helped by those who try to politicise it. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear that this legislation will not discriminate against minority languages and favour regional languages.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
Amendment 18 in this group would amend the duty on public authorities to one of compliance with best practice Irish language standards from one of due regard. This proposal is not faithful to the drafting of NDNA, which states that one function of the Irish language commissioner is to consider
“complaints where a public authority has failed to have due regard to those standards.”
By implication, the duty on public authorities is not one of compliance but of due regard; that distinction must be respected. A duty for compliance would potentially require public authorities to adhere to specific guidance despite their being cogent reasons for not doing so. It is unclear whether this approach would lead to public authorities becoming legally liable for not acting on a consideration of competing human rights. A due regard duty is not a loose concept, as this amendment seems to imply. It means that a person under the duty is not free to disregard but must consider all relevant considerations.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this issue in my Second Reading speech and I am happy to speak to these amendments and others on this issue. I really feel that it is important that we should have “comply with” and not “have due regard to” in the Bill. It is really important that people understand why we are doing this; if somebody needs only to “have due regard” to something, they just have to look at it. It is important that they should have to comply with best practice, and I would like to see that left in the Bill.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group, which broadly focus on the role of public authorities within the Bill including, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, made clear, how we have sought to define them. The debate has once again reinforced just how much better it would be if this were being debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly rather than in the Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House.
I speak first the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who cannot be here, which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. Amendment 18 seeks to amend new Section 78N, inserted by Clause 2, so that public authorities would have to comply with the best practice standard, rather than have due regard to them, as the current provisions of the Bill require. I will also address Amendment 39, which seeks to place a duty on public authorities to comply with obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Again, I point the noble Baroness to New Decade, New Approach and the draft legislation published alongside it, with which this Bill is consistent. At the risk of repeating myself—I fear that I may have to do it again during the course of this debate—the Government are as far as possible seeking to retain the position reached in New Decade, New Approach, which was not to create a wider set of legal duties than has been proposed by these amendments.
I may offer some reassurance, though. In new Clause 78N(2), to be inserted in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by Clause 2, the Bill sets out that public authorities must “publish a plan” on how they intend to have due regard to the best practice standards; the commissioner must also be consulted on that plan. This seems to me to provide an assurance that public authorities will carry out their duties with rigour and with the support of the commissioner.
Amendment 21 seeks to widen the meaning of “public authorities” to include any UK-wide public authority that provides services to the public in Northern Ireland. New Decade, New Approach was clear that the Executive were to deliver this legislation. The UK Government have brought forward this Bill, which is based on legislation drafted for the Northern Ireland Assembly. The duties in the legislation that was published alongside New Decade, New Approach applied to the public authorities set out in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. There was no such commitment for them to apply to a different range of public authorities.
In some cases, I recognise that public services may be administered on behalf of Northern Ireland departments by the UK Government or a third party through agency or other arrangements. This can be the case for online services, for example. If a designated Northern Ireland department or public body decided to commission out the delivery of a public service, it would still need to consider its duties in so doing; the public authority concerned may decide that this requires it to ensure that the body delivering the services offers provision in the Irish language, for example. I hope that this provides some reassurance on the issue.
Amendment 39 would solely amend the provision on the designation of public authorities in respect of the Bill’s Irish language clause. It would not do the same for the provision on the national and cultural identity principles overseen by the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, nor the measures associated with the Ulster-Scots and Ulster-British tradition. Making differential provision on the public authorities designated under various parts of this cultural framework would undermine the fact that this is a balanced package. That was the clear intention in New Decade, New Approach.
I will now speak more broadly to Amendments 2, 20 and 37, which seek to probe the definition of “public authorities” set out in the Bill. The definition used to define “public authorities” for the purposes of the Bill was taken, as with many other parts of the legislation, from the draft legislation that was published alongside New Decade, New Approach; that legislation was prepared by the Office of the Legislative Counsel at Stormont at the request of the UK Government back in January 2020. I suggest to noble Lords that the range of public authorities brought under the remit of this Bill, from district councils to universities and health trusts, is substantial. We are confident that the approach in the Bill captures the vast majority of public authorities with which the public in Northern Ireland would interact and from which they would receive services.
As noble Lords have pointed out, there is also further provision in the Bill for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, acting jointly, to designate additional authorities or specified functions of them should that be required over time. We have ensured that the power for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to designate public authorities are consistent with what the position would have been had the Northern Ireland Assembly, rather than this House, passed the legislation published alongside New Decade, New Approach. In response to an earlier question, the criteria really would be a matter for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the Executive to determine. We therefore consider that it would be inconsistent to expand the definition of “public authorities” beyond that set out in the draft legislation published alongside New Decade, New Approach.
Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and his Democratic Unionist Party colleagues seeks to create an additional legal duty on public authorities in respect of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition and guidance published by the associated commissioner. I point out gently that New Decade, New Approach was very clear that the roles and functions of the two commissioners—the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for the promotion of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition—would be different. The provision for both is therefore different, including in respect of duties.
The language commissioner’s role pertains to matters of language alone. Their work focuses on best practice standards on the Irish language for public authorities to follow in providing services to the public. It is understandable that a corresponding legal duty would be needed in this case. By comparison, the commissioner associated with the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition will have a far more wide-ranging role than their Irish language counterpart, going beyond language, as we will probably discuss later, into arts and literature. The proposed legal duty on this wider range of activities would go far beyond the matter of services provided to the public, unlike those on the Irish language best practice standards.
The Bill does, however, provide for the commissioner to provide advice and guidance to public authorities, promote awareness of Ulster Scots services and receive complaints where a public authority has not had due regard to their guidance. There is also, as noble Lords will be aware, a specific legal duty in Clause 5 on the Northern Ireland Department of Education to
“encourage and facilitate the use and understanding of Ulster Scots in the education system”.
Again, this reflects a specific New Decade, New Approach commitment. We hope it will result in Ulster Scots rightly being reflected through the education system, going some way to address the difference in existing legislation, where similar provision has already been made for Irish-medium education. The Government believe that the existing provisions in the Bill will correctly support the development of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition and the Irish language respectively, and will do so consistently with New Decade, New Approach, which was agreed by the two main parties which negotiated it between 2017 and 2020.
Finally, Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to address concerns raised in an article written over the weekend in a publication called Unionist Voice. Indeed, her speech followed the argument contained in that article very closely. For the benefit of those noble Lords who have not read it, the article suggested, as the noble Baroness made clear, that the Bill could require the Irish tricolour to be flown alongside the union flag on public buildings in Northern Ireland. This is not the case. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue because it allows me the opportunity to state clearly before the Committee that, in the view of the Government, the article was inaccurate and fundamentally misunderstands the provisions in the Bill.
The Bill does not change the existing law on flag flying from government buildings in Northern Ireland. As I have said many times before, it faithfully delivers on the legislative commitments in New Decade, New Approach. Noble Lords will be aware that the existing flag regulations provide for the union flag, as the national flag of Northern Ireland, to be flown from Northern Ireland government buildings and courthouses on certain occasions, as well as the Royal Standard or the national flag of a visiting head of state. For police buildings, different regulations provide that the PSNI flag and, on certain occasions, the Royal Standard are the only flags that may be flown. In both cases, the law otherwise prohibits the flying of flags. That will remain the case. No provision will be made by this Bill in respect of flying another flag alongside the union flag. I should point out that a number of court judgments over the years have upheld the present law on the flying of the union flag.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred—as did the article over the weekend—to a speech made by Mr Gerry Adams in 1998. I assure the noble Baroness that, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Adams does not direct UK government policy when it comes to the flying of flags in Northern Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom for that matter.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Can he just tell the Committee why the Northern Ireland Office paid out a substantial sum of money to an individual who was offended by there being a picture of Her Majesty the Queen in the Northern Ireland Office?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very familiar with that case, because I was an adviser in the Northern Ireland Office at the time. It was the subject of legal proceedings and, if the noble Baroness will bear with me, I do not really want to reopen what was settled in court. The matter was subject to a court case, and she is well aware of the outcome.
My noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked about the status of Northern Ireland. I can give an assurance that I have given many times before: the Belfast agreement is extremely clear, in the section dealing with constitutional principles, and it does not establish Northern Ireland as a hybrid state or a condominium. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom on the basis of consent. However, the Belfast agreement does contain—as those noble Lords present who helped to negotiate it will attest—important commitments around parity of esteem, which were a central part of the agreement in 1998.
But, as has been stated many times, the regulations relating to the flying of the union flag reflect, and are consistent with, Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom—a position which, I assure noble Lords present, this Conservative and Unionist Government fully support.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am old enough to have been through all the debates on the flags. There was no doubt whatever that what was being upheld was the flag of the United Kingdom, to be flown in circumstances in which it was the flag of the whole United Kingdom, and not to be used for sectarian purposes. That was what the argument was about. It has been supremely successful. It is our flag, and it is flown in the north of Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. It is a pity to worry people unnecessarily because of some comment made 24 years ago by somebody who would have said that anyway. No one has listened to him since on that matter.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend, who makes a very powerful point. I agree with him entirely on those matters. The national flag—the union flag—is the flag of Northern Ireland. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that will undermine the position of the union flag or force anybody to fly an Irish tricolour—or any other flag, for that matter—alongside it.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
I have very bad hearing, and I did not hear whether the noble Lord used the Sinn Féin term of “north of Ireland” or “Northern Ireland”. Which was it?
Lord Deben (Con)
I was talking about Northern Ireland, which is the constitutional phrase for the six counties which make up—
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I think we should probably move on. In summary, the provisions of the Bill—
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Before we move on, because these matters are important, there is a report, I think in today’s newspapers, about the reduction in the number of days on which the union flag will be flown officially in Northern Ireland—albeit it appears to be related to a general reduction across the United Kingdom, so Northern Ireland would be in line with the rest of the UK. Can the Minister comment on whether this report is correct—that there will be a number of official days removed from the calendar for the whole of the United Kingdom?
Lord Caine (Con)
I can: there has been a review of the number of days on which the union flag is flown officially throughout Great Britain. There has been a reduction in the number of such days, and that will be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation which I will bring before your Lordships’ House fairly soon. All that is doing is ensuring that Northern Ireland is in step with the rest of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, the provisions of the Bill do not have the effect that has been suggested in the noble Baroness’s speech, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a few brief points to make. At the moment, 1998 appears to be a favourite date. I reflect on the fact that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was the last Act that I took through Committee from the Front Bench, 25 years ago—it did reflect the agreement, of course.
I was interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on how much about the Irish language was mentioned in the Good Friday agreement; it was not reflected in the 1998 Act, of course. What we did say—I was responsible for these issues 25 years ago—was that the British Government would take “resolute action” to promote the Irish language; they had in a previous paragraph referred to Ulster Scots but also, interestingly, to the languages of other ethnic minorities, by which I suppose they mean the languages of Chinese minorities, for example. The only statutory duty was placed
“on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish medium education in line with current provision for integrated education”.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is therefore right that this was not legislated for by way of an Irish language Act but, of course, things changed later with the St Andrews agreement, where further details emerged about what should or should not happen to the Irish language Act. The difference between that agreement and this agreement is what we are dealing with today, I suppose. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the need for equality of treatment for both traditions and languages. We should not deviate from that principle at all.
I am still a bit puzzled about why the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is not covered by this legislation—or, for that matter, the Northern Ireland Office. The Minister will of course know that the Welsh Language Act 1993 is applicable to the Wales Office, the equivalent territorial department, even though the Wales Office is a United Kingdom Government department with a small office in Wales and an office in Whitehall.
We have had some interesting debate on this issue. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Before we come on to Amendment 7, I should announce that Amendment 43A, to be debated with this group, has been corrected and is now printed on a separate supplementary sheet.
Amendment 7
Lord Morrow
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would revise the title of the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions within the Bill. It would remove references to the purpose of the Ulster Scots and Ulster British Commissioner from its title in parity with the position adopted toward the Irish Language Commissioner.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
Not moved. Oh, sorry—I was not listening intently. I beg your pardon. I will move my amendment; noble Lords might regret this.
In moving Amendment 7, I will also speak to Amendment 22 in my name and that of my colleagues. One of the most egregious manifestations of careless discrimination in this Bill finds expression in the proposal to afford the Irish language commissioner a sensible title while affording the Ulster Scots/Ulster British traditions commissioner an absurdly wordy title that invites mockery rather than respect—
“the Commissioner for the enhancement and development of the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition”—
compared with “the Irish Language Commissioner”.
In the first instance, it is unwieldy. Rather than using it, people will call the commissioner something else. In the second instance, when set against the crisp title of “Irish Language Commissioner”, it will become just a joke. In the third instance, the length has the effect of narrowing and truncating the function of the commissioner in a way that makes no sense. The Government have recognised that Ulster Scots is a national minority in the framework convention for national minorities and is subject to its obligations and those associated with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. In a context where we are supposed to be concerned about upholding parity of esteem, affording one community a commissioner with a serious, credible title and the other community one with a ridiculous, truncated title is as transparently discriminatory as it is absurd.
Unionists will not be disrespected in this way and will settle for nothing less than an equally credible title to that afforded the Irish language commissioner. We suggest the “Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions commissioner”. Of course, the term “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is already used in the Bill so linking it to the commissioner makes sense. There is, however, the need for a further, very modest amendment, which amounts simply to the adding of an S. The phrase “Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition” is problematic because it suggests that Ulster Scots and Ulster British are a single tradition. That is erroneous and needs to be changed.
Ulster Scots is one of the three traditional strands of cultural identity present in Ulster and, in turn, Northern Ireland since the early 1600s. The earliest written use of the term “Ulster Scot” in relation to the community dates to 1640. The historically minded will immediately notice that the Ulster Scots community as a distinct group actually pre-dates the United Kingdom, which did not come into existence until 1707. The Ulster Scots community has a rich heritage and culture and its own language, a local variant of the Scots language.
The two historic minority cultures in Northern Ireland are Irish and Ulster Scots. There are, however, people from the indigenous community in Northern Ireland who do not identify as either Irish or Ulster Scots. They are from the broad unionist community and refer to themselves as “Ulster British”. This terminology is much more recent but it is nevertheless strongly held by those who identify with it, including the Orange Order, which is one of Northern Ireland’s largest community organisations. It is worth noting that there is no animosity between those who identify as Ulster British and those who identify as Ulster Scots. Much Ulster Scots cultural activity happens in Orange halls and many individual Orange Order members are Ulster Scots. It is simply that not everyone in the community has Scottish roots or identifies as an Ulster Scot.
It is important to ensure that there is a cultural space for those who identify as Ulster British and that they are not excluded from protection or support simply because they do not identify as Ulster Scots. In seeking to curate this space, however, we must not inadvertently muddy the waters in relation to Ulster Scots, and that is what the Bill is in danger of doing, in suggesting that it can be collapsed into Ulster British and vice versa.
Ulster Scots was well known in Northern Ireland up until the 1960s. But during the Troubles all the cultural emphasis moved to ideas of national identity—Irish and British—and Ulster Scots was squeezed into the background. Generations of Ulster Scots grew up without the opportunity to learn about their cultural identity. In 1998, Ulster Scots re-emerged, with the Belfast agreement, but has been under regular assault from politically motivated individuals, who have sought to deny its very existence, even though they are contradicted by a mountain of evidence. They have regularly attacked and ridiculed the community, its culture and its language. The very name of the Ulster Scots community cannot be found in Northern Ireland’s museums—even museums that were set up specifically to tell its story.
Given this backdrop, it is essential that nothing is done here which tends to detract from the status of Ulster Scots as a strong and distinct cultural identity. Ensuring that the name of the commissioner refers to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British traditions—plural—is a small change but would be significant in ensuring proper recognition and respect for diverse groups within our society.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I support the four amendments that have just been spoken to. However, my worry about all of this is that people cannot be corralled into particular identities. Among those who do not identify with, say, an Irish or a Scottish background, there are lots of people whose identity is much more fluid and relaxed. People see themselves as Irish and British; some people see themselves as Irish and Irish. We are in a quagmire. We could have 50 commissioners with no difficulty if we really drilled down to it, and that is the risk with all this.
Sinn Féin has religiously pursued the whole question of the Irish language, not for the love of language—the vast majority of them could not speak a word of it—but because it provides a difference. The quotation given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, from Gerry Adams’ speech, or comments, in 1998 illustrates that and what the name of the game is: it has to be different. Indeed, I came across the minutes of a Sinn Féin meeting not long ago, I think it was last year, which had an agenda about the greening of Northern Ireland—the street names and so on. It was not to give respect to the Irish language; it was to show difference and prevent the community coming together and being cohesive. That is the one thing that it cannot cope with, because it implies the status quo.
I remind the Committee that things were divided during the strand 1 negotiations; my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, keeps referring to this, and he is right. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will know, strand 1 was Northern Ireland only, but that seems to have moved along since the NDNA. It was announced jointly by the UK Secretary of State and the Irish Foreign Minister and, while some of the rest of the parties were still reading the draft in the building, they were down at Carson’s statue releasing it to the press. That was how seriously they took it. But that is another matter.
The fundamental point is that the reason Sinn Féin did not propose an Irish language Act and did not deal with this in the talks was that it did not want to have what it called an internal settlement, because that is anathema to its whole rationale. I fear that the danger with all this is that it goes along with its divisive approach that everybody has to be in a particular box to be recognised. That is not where most people are today, particularly our younger generation, who do not see themselves in these boxes.
Nevertheless, we are where we are, as they say. These amendments cover some of the inevitable consequences, and I support them. I hope that the Minister will take them away with him and reflect on them before Report, because I suspect that if we come to Report and things remain as they are, some of us may have to test the opinion of the House on these matters. This is a relatively modest set of amendments that will at least make people feel that, as far as this particular identity is concerned, it is respected and treated equally.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 43A in the name of my noble friend Lord Morrow, but, before I do, I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, since she cannot be here. I hope that she is enjoying the proceedings by video; I am sure she is. We hope to see her back in her rightful place very soon.
I also agree with noble Lords who have mentioned that it is a matter of regret that we are debating this matter at all here in this place and that it should be a matter for the Assembly. Of course, it is not by accident or some kind of inevitability that it is being debated here; it is a deliberate decision of the Government to bring it here. That is something that we debated yesterday on another matter to do with abortion regulations. These are devolved matters, and the devolution settlement should be respected, whatever the issue and whatever our view of that issue may be. If it is a matter that is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, it should remain there. That is the clear position as far as I am concerned; otherwise, we pick and choose the issues that we decide to legislate on in this place, which cannot be right.
On the NDNA agreement, I just say to the Government that we look forward to all aspects of it being delivered. There is an outstanding matter in relation to the restoration of the internal market of the United Kingdom, and I look forward to rapid progress on that, in line with taking forward these other matters under NDNA—there are others matters under that agreement that are outstanding.
Talking of agreements, there has been reference to 1998, going back to the Belfast agreement and the subsequent agreement at St Andrews that amended it. It is true that none of this demand by Sinn Féin for Irish language provision was a part of the main negotiation on the Belfast agreement. Of course, much more recently we had the Assembly elections in 2016 and then the unfortunate collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2017, when Sinn Féin walked out of the Executive and Martin McGuinness resigned as Deputy First Minister. We then had three years in which the Assembly did not operate. We need to remember that, just prior to that, Sinn Féin has agreed a draft programme for government with the DUP—those two parties were in government together. Sinn Féin did not put forward Irish language provision in that, yet it became Sinn Féin’s cause célèbre in the subsequent years.
There is a lot of revisionism in terms of the importance of all this and the priorities, but when you work through the timelines and so on, a lot of this is not borne out by the actuality and reality of the situation. This was not a matter that Sinn Féin made a priority at the time, but it subsequently made it a priority in order to keep the institutions down for three years. That is worth bearing in mind in the context of where we are at the moment with the institutions and the need to implement the whole NDNA agreement.
I turn to Amendment 43A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. When the Minister made the case for the Bill at Second Reading, he referred to the fact that the Government had made available some funds—I think it was in the region of £4 million—to the Irish Language Investment Fund
“to support capital projects associated with the Irish language.”—[Official Report, 7/6/22; col. 1097.]
This commitment, it was said, was based in the section of the NDNA agreement that dealt with Northern Ireland’s “unique circumstances”.
However, when you read that section of the document, it contains merely a passing reference:
“This could include areas such as … Support for languages and broadcasting”.
There was no explicit commitment to £4 million or any other sum for capital projects, yet this passing reference has crystallised into a hard figure for investment. This £4 million of investment follows £8 million that has already been spent by the UK Government on building Irish language centres in Northern Ireland. My understanding is that this £4 million is likely to be matched by the Irish Government, so the total for building Irish language centres is likely to be nearer £16 million. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether he has had any discussions with or heard from the Irish Government on that point. Has there been any similar investment for the Ulster Scots community? I am sad to say that the answer is, no, there has not been—not a single penny.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Does the noble Lord agree that the expenditure undertaken in these areas by local authorities also needs to be taken into account, as they have roads? The behaviour of some local authorities appears to me very partial and one-sided.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, which is often overlooked when we talk about these issues—certainly, in this place because there is a lot of concentration, necessarily and inevitably, on the functions of Northern Ireland departments, the Assembly and the Executive. There has undoubtedly been a very aggressive campaign on this, lavishly funded by certain councils, particularly those west of the Bann. Taking that into account, as the noble Lord has pointed out, makes my point about the necessity of catching up all the more relevant, pertinent and urgent.
The Ulster Scots community is representative of the lion’s share of the unionist community in Northern Ireland, disadvantaged by years of underinvestment in its identity. We must ensure that it is not short-changed. Broadcasting is one example where we could see a very immediate change, I hope, if funding is made available. We need to see financial equality between the two broadcast funds and the footprint of the Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund extended to include greater coproduction with Scotland and a presence on the UK-wide network in recognition of Ulster Scots as a national minority of the United Kingdom.
We also need to see dedicated and sustained resources to support Ulster-Scots projects on the east-west axis, in line with Amendment 30 in this group, between communities and schools—cultural and educational institutions—to engage the Ulster Scots community and diaspora throughout the United Kingdom. Recognition of the Ulster Scots nature of the commissioner’s brief, in line with Amendment 30 and more specifically through Amendment 43A, will facilitate this. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. I hope he will take these amendments on board, take them away and reflect on how, if implemented, they would go some way to restoring equality and parity of esteem in this area.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, again, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to this group of amendments. I start by saying that the Government are committed to supporting the culture and heritage of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland. This includes £1 million in funding for Northern Ireland Screen’s Ulster-Scots Broadcast Fund, which was delivered last year, and the formal recognition this year of Ulster Scots as a national minority under the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The Bill does not in any way take away from the recognised status of Ulster Scots in a number of international instruments. Indeed, its provisions protect that status and actually broaden it.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the Bill seeks faithfully to deliver on the legislative commitments in what the then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Dame Arlene Foster, described in January 2020 as a “fair and balanced” package. It was very clear in that package that the remit of the commissioner in respect of the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition would be matters of “language, arts and literature” and not culture and heritage. In the Bill we are sticking faithfully to what was in New Decade, New Approach.
Perhaps I might give some reassurance. In the new cultural framework provided for by the Bill, the office of identity and cultural expression will have an important grant-making power and will be able to commission research, support educational programmes and provide guidance reflecting Northern Ireland’s diversity of national and cultural identities. That would seem naturally to include the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition, given its prominence, and I hope that provides some small degree of reassurance on that point.
I also highlight that the Irish language commissioner’s role is limited to language, reflecting the particular needs of Irish speakers. If we were to widen the provision for one commissioner to include cultural matters, it is perfectly possible, given the nature of Northern Ireland, that demands could then follow from those expecting the same of both. So we need to be slightly careful on these matters.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am most grateful to the Minister. I am not constrained by anything Dame Arlene might have said at the time about “fair and balanced”. The Minister knows my views on this. We have to be careful. I am attracted to the use of the word “heritage”. That is because the—let us say—profile of the respective identities is different. The Irish have coalesced around language to an extent to which the Ulster Scots and Ulster British have not. When you are looking at equality of treatment—I see the point the Minister is making; and I said earlier that we should not be constrained in our deliberations because this is being debated here and not at Stormont, as we would all prefer—there is a difference between the profiles. Heritage matters greatly and is expressed in different ways. I fear that we are boxing people in with the definitions in the legislation.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. On this, as on many issues, I have a huge amount of respect for what he says. But in this particular area, and on the point he makes, all we are doing in this legislation is reflecting the language and the remit set out in New Decade, New Approach. I completely appreciate that my noble friend and his party were not signatories to or supporters of that agreement. Nevertheless, there was an agreement in January 2020 which formed the basis of the restoration of devolved government and that is what we are seeking faithfully to implement here.
Amendments 7 and 22 are important. Taken together, they seek to differentiate between the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British tradition by pluralising them and making them “traditions”. I note the sensitivity of this matter and, indeed, of the title of the associated commissioner in this context, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for the way in which he spoke about these matters.
Let me say this: although I am not in a position to commit fully to anything today, I genuinely have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendments and the intention behind them. If he will allow it, I will therefore endeavour to explore them further ahead of Report.
Amendment 43A—a late addition to the Marshalled List on which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke—seeks to place the Secretary of State under a duty to
“establish and maintain a fund to … connect Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland with Ulster Scots in the rest of the United Kingdom.”
On this, again, I say that the Government are committed to supporting the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition —or traditions, if you like—which forms an integral part of Northern Ireland’s rich tapestry. However, the creation of such a fund as provided for by this amendment would go way beyond what was set out in New Decade, New Approach. We therefore cannot accept this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked me a number of detailed questions regarding funding, the answers to which I do not have readily to hand. However, I think he referred to Irish language centres; from memory, that was a commitment under the Hillsborough Castle agreement back in 2010, although I would have to double-check that. Anyhow, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him in detail well in advance of Report so that, if he wishes to explore these matters further, he will be able to do so.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Perhaps I am overconfident but I detect a glimmer of hope here. Keeping that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
“(5) The Secretary of State must annually assess and report on the costs arising from the operation of the Office in line with the duties prescribed in section 9(2A) and 9(2B) of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022.”
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will talk to Amendments 8, 12, 31 and 45 in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Hay and Lord McCrea.
These amendments go to the issue of good housekeeping, as it were, in terms of Parliament having access to a report in relation to the office of identity and cultural expression and, in Amendment 12, to an annual assessment and report on the costs arising from the Irish language commissioner. By virtue of Amendment 31, the same provision would also apply in relation to the Ulster Scots commissioner—if I may use that shorthand. Amendment 45 would put an obligation on the Secretary of State to
“lay before Parliament a report assessing the costs to the public purse of the establishment and operation of each of the three bodies”.
These are sensible and not particularly controversial provisions. I do not think that they should evoke alarm anywhere. Obviously, each body will publish its own financial reports and details in its own right, but it is right that these requirements are placed on the Secretary of State so that parliamentarians have a full, open and transparent picture of what is being expended and how it is being expended in terms of each of these novel, new bodies.
As has come up today and was discussed at Second Reading, the costs of all these new arrangements in NDNA, as reflected in this legislation, are somewhat subject to guesstimates. So far, nobody has been able to put a figure on what all this will actually cost. As has been raised by many people, there is a genuine concern that, when we come to prioritising expenditure in Northern Ireland—opinion polls have reflected this concern time and again—the issue at the heart of this legislation is not a high priority for people in either community, or of no community, in Northern Ireland. The health service, education, public services generally, the police service, the operation of the courts, the environment—as we know, all these issues are seen as extremely more deserving of high prioritisation when it comes to public expenditure in Northern Ireland, as you would expect.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this proposal simply because it is not something for this Parliament. We are here only because there is no Northern Ireland Assembly.
I have to say to my DUP colleagues that it is a much more serious thing when those who are in favour of unionism and of the north of Ireland and Northern Ireland being part of the United Kingdom, as I am, decide not to make the system work because the system is there to be the means whereby the union works. It is no good saying, “Well, the Sinn Féiners did this, that and the other”. They do not believe in the system; that is why we do not agree with them. It is a much more serious question when the people who do believe in the system make it impossible to do these things in Northern Ireland. Those of us who are unionists need to say to them that it is no longer sensible or acceptable to tell the British Government that they cannot have what is sensible devolution. The idea that this has to come back here because we cannot debate it in the Northern Ireland Assembly seems to me unacceptable and unreasonable. I therefore hope, of course, that the Government will make sure that there is a proper report to the Assembly. The Assembly will no doubt be careful about the spending of its money. We are already spending per head of population a great deal more money in Northern Ireland than we are, for example, in my own area of Wales, where we manage the language issue much more effectively.
The last thing I want to say to the DUP, very simply, is this: having a sense of generosity would be so attractive—just a sense of recognising that other people have a different way of looking at things. I am perfectly able to say “the north of Ireland” because quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland think that. It does not mean to say that I am not entirely in favour of the union, as long as there is a majority for it.
We really do have to get out of this lack of generosity. I want to hear people reaching out across the divide instead of constantly looking at the papers and saying, “This is not quite right for me and, my goodness me, we have not quite got that”. It is time to have a different way. I would remember that “new decade, new start” is rather a good phrase. I would like to have a new start with a bit of generosity from those who have been in power and have had control for a very long time.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord had to say. When it comes to a spirit of generosity, it is with a spirit of generosity that the party I represent has been willing to go into and be part of an Executive in Northern Ireland with those who for years sought to murder us. I take no lectures bearing in mind that some of us who are gathered here are not supposed to be here as far as Sinn Féin/IRA is concerned because our family was to be wiped out completely in one last action of the IRA. Therefore, when it comes to generosity, it is very difficult to accept those in government. I am speaking personally on this. I found it very difficult to watch those who paraded on the roads of Ulster with terrorist weapons in their hands to destroy us every night. For 25 years, I sat in the back of an armoured police car, having to be guarded; my family were not allowed to travel with me. So when it comes to generosity, I suggest that the people I represent have been very generous.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn for the way in which moved his amendment. The effect of this group of amendments would be to place the Secretary of State under a duty to assess ahead of commencement, and annually thereafter, the costs arising from the three bodies.
I genuinely appreciate the intent behind these amendments but it is, as my noble friend Lord Deben made clear in his comments, not a matter for UK Government Ministers to conduct annual assessments for public bodies for which they are not directly responsible. The three public authorities established by this Bill will be administered, supported and funded by the Executive Office and fall squarely under the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
My noble friend referred to the estimated costs of the bodies. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly, although my officials—I think this is in the Explanatory Notes—have estimated through comparison with similar bodies a figure in the range of around £9 million per annum for all three bodies to run. As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, expenditure from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund is for the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise. That is why, in the case of all three authorities, specific provision is made for the Executive Office to lay a copy of the statement of accounts and the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland before the Assembly.
Although Parts 6 and 7, which we will come on to later, make provision for the Secretary of State to ensure the implementation of the provisions in this Bill if that is absolutely necessary, I again highlight that it is not the intention of either the Government or that part of the Bill to result in a situation in which the Secretary of State routinely involves himself in transferred matters.
These amendments would make the Secretary of State’s involvement in transferred matters of identity, language and culture a permanent feature. We would prefer those to remain considerations for Northern Ireland’s devolved institutions. For that reason, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for the manner in which he has dealt with the issue. I understand where he is coming from. The tone and tenor in all these debates relating to Northern Ireland are important. Seeking to raise a matter to do with financial accountability does not, and should not, evoke the level of vitriol that we heard from the noble Lord behind me in relation to these matters. Whatever his underlying attitude to a particular party or to the unionist community in Northern Ireland, these are important matters, which have been the subject of detailed scrutiny, not just by the DUP but, being subject to three years’ negotiation, by all the other parties as well: the Alliance Party; the Ulster Unionists, who were involved in the negotiation, so I totally respect what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said about the final bit of it; the SDLP; and Sinn Féin.
It is not in any spirit of a lack of generosity that we want proper, detailed scrutiny in Committee of aspects of legislation. After all, we would not have an NDNA agreement if it was not for the fact that the DUP, along with Sinn Féin and other parties, subscribed to it. We would not have had the restoration of the Assembly had it not been for the fact that Arlene Foster, Sinn Féin and other parties said, “On this basis, we can move forward.” It was not everything that we wanted—far from it. I am sure that it was not everything that other parties wanted—far from it. But, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, can testify, neither were the Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement or anything else.
My noble friend Lord McCrea makes a very fair point. Those of us who have been subject to murder attacks by Sinn Féin have been prepared to sit alongside Sinn Féin Ministers—I have been an Executive Minister, sitting and working alongside them—who have never apologised or expressed an ounce of regret for any of the actions that they carried out. Indeed, they still eulogise those murderers today, which is a source of great contention and problems in Northern Ireland. If we are talking about generosity, let us remember that. The explosion in this debate is perhaps illustrative of a wider problem which exists with some people who perhaps do not have the degree of understanding that their long experience should give them, nor, certainly, a respect for the way in which Northern Ireland matters should be properly debated and discussed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lexden
“Castlereagh FoundationThe Secretary of State must establish and provide funding for the Castlereagh Foundation, as contained in the New Decade, New Approach Deal.”
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to find myself in the company of unionist noble friends in this group of two amendments. Mine is a probing amendment.
Reading the New Decade, New Approach document, to which the Bill owes so much, my ageing unionist and historian’s eyes alighted on a reference in paragraph 25, on page 49, to the establishment of a Castlereagh foundation. “How very satisfactory,” I thought, “that an institution is to be set up bearing this famous name.” Viscount Castlereagh, later the second Marquess of Londonderry, was the younger Pitt’s right-hand man in bringing about the Act of Union 1801. After his death in distressing circumstances exactly 200 years ago, his coffin was placed next to Pitt’s in Westminster Abbey. He is the subject of a brilliant biography by Professor John Bew, a man not unconnected with our own dear noble Lord, Lord Bew.
Pitt and Castlereagh united Great Britain and Ireland under the Westminster Parliament, but they were prevented from accomplishing their full ambitions. Alongside the Act of Union, they wanted to establish equality of citizenship between Catholics and Protestants throughout the newly created United Kingdom, through what is known in the history books as Catholic emancipation. King George III stopped them. The course of subsequent history might have been different if Catholics had had their sense of injustice addressed in 1801, as the two great architects of the Act of Union had intended.
I am, for these reasons, naturally keen to know more about the proposed Castlereagh foundation. New Decade, New Approach is not very forthcoming; it states only that the Government will provide the necessary funding to establish the foundation, which will
“support academic research through Universities and other partners to explore identity and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland.”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. It reminds me of an issue in a negotiation that has been brought in at the last minute as a kind of balancing act. It has all the hallmarks that it is not thought-through, but looks good and allows people to point to it as a great opportunity and success. However, there is a very serious point here and my noble friend paints it, as usual, in a very significant historical context.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to look in some detail at this? Obviously, with the terms of reference, there is a cost involved and all sorts of things that will need to be established—are we going to seek funding from third-party sources, whether it be academia, business or various trusts or foundations? Nevertheless, I do not think that this should be treated as a throw-away; there is a very serious purpose here. If we understand the background and history that we have come from, perhaps it is not too much to hope that we can avoid some of the mistakes that we might otherwise make in the future. Our history can teach us a lot. Some objective academic work would be warmly welcomed and would contribute to progress in Northern Ireland.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, in his amendment. I am currently reading the biography of Castlereagh by Professor Bew—I also commend his biography of Clement Attlee, which is very good. I am not quite sure that there is a connection between the two, other than the author.
It is a very good idea to establish an organisation such as this. Anything that promotes reconciliation is bound to do good. I merely reflect, on the previous—rather heated—group of amendments on costs, that, of course, the issue of cost is important, particularly at the current time with all the pressures on the health service and everything else; however, if the costs of these things mean that you can establish the Assembly and Executive, then it will be worth it.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 10 is in my name. I have good news for noble Lords: this will be my briefest contribution because there is no way that I can gainsay anything that has already been said. I will not move my amendment because I give way to the learned, able, capable noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and all those who have spoken on this issue. That is all I have to contribute on that issue.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the speeches that have been made on this group of amendments. I thank, in particular, my noble friend, Lord Lexden and the noble Lords for the DUP for tabling the amendment. It is hard for me to add a great deal to what my noble friend Lord Lexden said about Castlereagh. A few weeks ago I had the great privilege of spending two or three hours at Castlereagh’s childhood and family home, Mount Stewart in County Down. For noble Lords who have not been, the restoration carried a few years ago by the National Trust is outstanding. It is impossible to leave Mount Stewart without being very conscious of the towering contribution that Castlereagh made to Irish, British and European history and politics. I concur with everything that my noble friend Lord Lexden said about Castlereagh, Pitt and the union. I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the Catholic hierarchy at the time welcomed the Act of Union on the understanding that Catholic emancipation would be delivered, and I agree that it is one of the great tragedies of history that what was the right measure in 1800 was not accompanied by those measures which were blocked by King George III. I also concur with every word that has been said about Professor John Bew’s outstanding biography of Castlereagh, which I read a number of years ago. It managed to fill quite lot of time on flights between London and Belfast at the time of the Stormont House agreement.
My noble friend also referred to Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, who was murdered by republicans on this day 100 years ago. I had the great privilege this morning of attending a ceremony in the Chamber of the House of Commons where the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, unveiled a plaque to the former Member of Parliament for North Down.
On the amendment, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are committed through New Decade, New Approach to fund the establishment of the Castlereagh foundation. It is envisaged that the foundation will explore matters of identity, which my noble friend Lord Empey raised, and the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland. It appears to me that the amendments that have been tabled are important and can assist the Government in meeting the commitments in New Decade, New Approach. If noble Lords will allow, I would like to take away the amendments, look at them more closely, discuss their contents with noble Lords and return to this subject on Report.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, that seems a very satisfactory basis on which to leave the matter. I hope unionist friends concur. We look forward to further progress and, all being well, a government amendment on Report following discussion. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, sent a nice note to me in the chair to explain why she had to leave, so she will not be moving any of her amendments.
Baroness Goudie
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the requirement that Best Practice Irish Language Standards produced by the Irish Language Commissioner be subject to the approval of the First and deputy First Ministers.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ritchie. Briefly, we put these amendments down to ensure that, if the Assembly is not sitting or if there is a problem, the Secretary of State can continue what needs to be done both at the time and in the long term into the future.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, for speaking to these amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, which I will address with Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
Amendments 13 and 16 would remove the obligation on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to approve best practice Irish language standards produced by the Irish language commissioner. New Decade, New Approach—I must keep referring back to this document, I am afraid—sets out a series of clear safeguards for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the bodies established by the Bill, including for the approval of best practice standards. I assure the noble Baroness that these safeguards were a critical part of securing what I referred to earlier as the balanced package of measures in New Decade, New Approach. Without them, we would probably not have reached an agreement. The Government are faithfully putting these safeguards into effect in the legislation, including through the provision on the approval of the Irish language best practice standards. To remove those safeguards would undermine the balanced nature of the measures. I therefore cannot accept the amendments.
Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, also seeks to amend Clause 2 so that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would be obligated to take regard of advice provided by the Irish language commissioner in relation to best practice standards. I am somewhat inferring that this is to introduce a safeguard whereby the First Minister or Deputy First Minister could not simply ignore the advice of the Irish language commissioner if they were to disagree with it. We very much hope that future First and Deputy First Ministers would take a pragmatic approach to approving best practice standards. This would logically include taking the views of the commissioner into account, and in all honesty I struggle to see a situation in which that would not be the case. I therefore urge the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
I am conscious that there were amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the Chair has indicated, she is not in a position to speak to them.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Morrow
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will seek to be brief but I will not be as brief as the last time I spoke. I know that will please noble Lords. I will speak to Amendments 33, 34, 35 and 36 in which are tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Dodds, Lord McCrea and Lord Hay.
As I have expressed previously, the integrity of the provision of the Irish language commissioner and Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner depends not on each commissioner having identical functions but on them being accorded equal importance and on this equal importance being made manifest, certainly through each having a similar cost footprint in terms of both the running of their offices and their impact on the action and spending of public authorities.
As I noted in earlier debates, I have real concern that the functions of the two commissioners as currently defined are such that the Irish language commissioner is likely to have a bigger impact, absorbing more taxpayers’ money and engaging extensively with more than 70 public authorities, while the impact of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is likely to be much narrower.
In this context, two things follow. First, it is absolutely imperative that the existing functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner are given access to as robust enforcement mechanisms as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner. Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that while the functions of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioners are not made identical, they are made similarly extensive, affording both the nationalist and unionist communities commissioners who will have an equally extensive impact on the governance of the nation and the allocation of public spending.
In this context, where there are already grounds for thinking that the current definition of the two commissioners is such that one is likely to have a significantly bigger impact on public spending than the other, it is really concerning to note that, as currently defined, the Irish language commissioner is favoured with powers of enforcement on two bases that are denied the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner.
In the first instance, all public authorities are required by new Section 78N to have
“due regard to any published best practice standards”
produced by the Irish language commissioner and to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty. Inexplicably, while the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner is similarly given the power to provide guidance to public authorities, the Bill before us today contains no parallel obligation on public authorities to have due regard to this guidance. Neither does it contain any parallel obligations on public authorities to
“prepare and publish a plan setting out the steps it proposes to take to comply with”
this duty.
I gently express the hope to the Minister that the Government can understand why some within the unionist community regard this extraordinary difference of treatment as discrimination. It is vulnerable to be characterised as a crude attempt to set up two commissioners with the apparent intention of generating the sense that the two communities are being treated equally, hoping that one will not have the sense to check and see that the standards of protection afforded it are dramatically weaker than those afforded to the other.
This particular discriminatory difference of treatment can be resolved by my Amendment 32, which affords the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner the same respect as the Irish language commissioner in the form of placing equal statutory obligations on public authorities to have regard for the commissioner’s advice and to publish a plan setting out how they intend to comply with the commissioner’s advice.
Unbelievably, however, the inexplicable, discriminatory difference of treatment afforded the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner compared with the Irish language commissioner in terms of enforcement also extends to the provisions on complaints. Whereas a member of the public can complain to the Irish language commissioner about any public authority that has not followed the Irish language commissioner’s guidance where this has negatively impacted the complainant—which gives the commissioner the opportunity to take action—the scope for a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner pertains only to the failure of public authorities to comply with one aspect of the commissioner’s functions, specifically one which is not deemed sufficiently central to appear in the principal role in new Section 78R(1), and which, when mentioned, is mentioned only in brackets.
Quite apart from any other concerns about unequal treatment, it seems clear that even at this very basic level of definition in the Bill, we are already letting go of the principle of parity of esteem and affording one community a commissioner with enforcement powers with respect to all the commissioner’s main functions, while affording the other commissioner enforcement powers only in relation to a secondary function in brackets, leaving the commissioner’s principal functions as defined by new Section 78Q(1) without an enforcement mechanism. My Amendments 33 to 36 address this discriminatory difference of treatment and enable a member of the public to complain to the Ulster Scots/Ulster British tradition commissioner if they are negatively affected if any advice issued by the commissioner is ignored and they similarly give the commissioner power to take action.
I very much hope that noble Lords will be able to appreciate why the unionist community has been shocked by the difference of treatment afforded it by this Bill. I am genuinely at a loss to understand how anyone sensitive to the challenges we face in Northern Ireland, let alone a body supposedly committed to the notion of equality of esteem, can regard the enforcement provisions afforded unionists in this Bill as anything other than direct discrimination when compared with the enforcement provisions afforded nationalism. This is wholly indefensible and inexplicable. I urge the Minister to recognise this and the fact that this inequality of treatment is utterly indefensible and flies in the face of the principle of equality of esteem. I plead with him to accept these modest amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, unlike a good wine, sometimes negotiations do not age well. Sometimes we get it right; sometimes we get it wrong. I think the noble Lord has a fair point. I do not know, because I was not involved in the detail of these negotiations, what the rationale was to reach the final form of New Decade, New Approach. No doubt the Minister will say to me that he is trying to follow as faithfully as possible the agreement that was reached, but that does not mean that we have to be slavish in our acceptance of the provisions.
There is a perception issue here; there is no doubt about that. The Minister may have a very convincing explanation—he is usually very capable at providing them—but he has a bit of an uphill task, given the fairly broad, fairly substantial gap between the powers of the two commissioners. Perhaps he can put our minds at rest, but even if he is following New Decade, New Approach as far as I am concerned that does not mean that he has to be a slavish follower of it. I look forward to him perhaps considering before Report whether something can be done to remove the perception of inequality between the powers of these respective commissioners.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, accepting the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I do not believe that there is only a perception of a difference; this legislation would actually make a difference between the two. NDNA did not give acceptance or credence to lack of parity of esteem; in actual fact, it was demanding that. It was not seeking to be used for discrimination against the unionist community; in actual fact, it was demanding that both communities in Northern Ireland were treated with that parity of esteem.
Lord Caine (Con)
Once again, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for the way in which he moved his amendment. To comment briefly on the words of my noble friend Lord Empey, I think it was Duff Cooper whose memoirs were entitled Old Men Forget. I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but even I have forgotten some of the details of the New Decade, New Approach negotiations that took place over those torturous three years between 2017 and 2020.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for tabling these amendments, which relate to extending the grounds upon which an individual can make a complaint to the process for the Ulster Scots commissioner. I have a number of concerns regarding the amendments; I will set them out briefly.
My first concern is that it would not be appropriate to amend one of the commissioner’s complaints procedures but not the other. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord would undermine the position reached in New Decade, New Approach that the commissioner should be able to investigate relevant complaints about a public authority’s lack of due regard to advice provided in respect of facilitating the use of Ulster Scots. That is why the Bill specifically refers to “published facilitation guidance”.
I highlight to noble Lords that, in preparing this legislation, the Government have provided the essential clarity on the complaints process for the commissioner so that it provides similar clarity and certainty to the complaints process provided for the Irish language commissioner. The role of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner and their work to provide advice and guidance will cover the same public authorities as the office of identity and cultural expression and the Irish language commissioner. The public will be able to make complaints to each commissioner in the same way.
On the parity of esteem point made by my noble friend Lord Empey and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, as I said on an earlier group of amendments, the commissioners have been designed to meet the different needs of different parts of the community. They are different in function, and therefore there are certain disparities in their powers. Again, that was the position reached in New Decade, New Approach; the Government are faithfully trying to follow it.
I suspect that I have not reassured the noble Lord on this issue. He may wish to return to it but, for now, I would be grateful if he would withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, having listened carefully to the Minister—again, he has enticed me enough for me to withdraw my amendment at this time—I just want to say this to him: I am not going away. We will be watching carefully. I think that he has taken on board what we have said; I appreciate that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
“(aa) arrange for a statement to be made to each House of Parliament, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when they use the powers of direction under this Clause.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to quite a difficult part of the Bill, in my view. The Minister referred to the fact that he could not quite remember all the detail in New Decade, New Approach. Of course, there have been so many agreements that even my memory is starting to fade now, and I am much older than the Minister. My other impression is that, if you are an old man or woman in Northern Ireland, you are likely to remember far more than if you were from Wales, for all sorts of different reasons.
Memories go back a long way. One of my memories, which I do not like, is of being on a plane between Belfast and London and having to sign a document that suspended the Assembly. I thought that that was one of the most unpleasant things I would ever have to do, because the whole purpose of the Good Friday agreement and the subsequent agreements was to ensure that Northern Ireland had its own Government, Parliament and apparatus of government. To see that go caused huge distress—I use that word specifically—to all of us who had been involved in trying to bring about change in Northern Ireland. When the Secretary of State and this Parliament, this House of Lords and the House of Commons, are given powers to intervene, whether it is in this Bill or on the abortion regulations yesterday—whatever it may be—it is awful that it has to happen, because it goes completely against everything that we thought, and I hoped, devolution would bring to Northern Ireland.
Again, these are probing amendments. Obviously, we will not put them to votes, but we need to know in what capacity the Secretary of State would intervene. I understand that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must make agreements on various issues affected by this legislation. I also understand that there could be considerable differences in view between them. However, there comes a time when there is no mechanism by which this legislation could go forward if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister effectively vetoed the other. The legislation would not go forward. I hope that it will not happen, and that the Minister can indicate in his reply that he believes that it will not happen. When the Secretary of State has to step in, could that be constrained a bit more by way of scrutiny? All the legislation says is that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the direction that he or she makes. I do not know whether that is sufficient. The Secretary of State should be made to make a statement, preferably an Oral Statement, to both Houses about why he or she has decided to step in and intervene. The balance would then be struck a little more.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie has tabled amendments that go into a bit more detail about that and put down a timescale. They intend that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should appoint a commissioner within 30 days, say, and if that does not happen the Secretary of State should be given another 30 days so that it is done in a day. This is all meant to bring out the Minister’s views on what should happen if the Secretary of State intervenes.
I should also point out the excellent report by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. The very last paragraph is important. It states:
“The powers could be exercised by the Secretary of State even if there were a functioning Executive and Assembly. The Government states in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the powers may be used when the Secretary of State deems it ‘necessary’ to do so, but this is not reflected in the Bill. Clause 6(3) should be amended so that the power of direction in clause 6(2)(b) may be used only when the Secretary of State considers it necessary, rather than appropriate.”
There is a big difference between the two words. What is also interesting about this report is that it expresses exactly the same view that I have just expressed to the Committee about the difficulties—and sorrow, in many ways—of the Secretary of State having to come in and intervene. In a way, it underlies this Committee—indeed, all the stages of this Bill. This Bill simply should not be a matter for this House or the House of Commons; it should be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is why we set it up 25 years ago.
I am interested in what the Minister has to say on this. I do not oppose the Secretary of State having such powers but there should be more scrutiny of and restrictions on how he or she would exercise them. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a Statement to the Commons and the Lords when he or she exercised the override powers established in Clause 6. This would be in addition to an existing obligation to lay a copy in both Houses of any direction given to a Minister or department in Northern Ireland.
I have to say, the amendment is a bit of window dressing. It misses the point completely. Granting the Government powers to take decisions unilaterally in the absence of cross-community agreement rides roughshod over the Belfast agreement as well as the delicate safeguards contained in New Decade, New Approach. It is not enough to suggest that an extra half hour on the Order Paper of this House would make up for the gulf in democratic accountability established by it. For that reason, I and my colleagues are opposed to it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I must say, I take a similar view to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. For three years, when the Assembly was closed following Sinn Féin’s withdrawal in 2017, the noble Viscount, when he was answering at the Dispatch Box, would say, “Well, because of the Sewel convention, we cannot do this; it is a devolved matter. The Northern Ireland Office cannot do that”. We now seem to have moved. We do not hear the Sewel convention mentioned very much around this place. We seem to have a situation now where, effectively, we are fireproofing bits of legislation against disagreements even though they may be legitimately expressed and exercised by Ministers in Northern Ireland.
The whole mechanism that was agreed in 1998 is not what many of us would ultimately like, but the concept of a mutual veto is there for a purpose. We would not have devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, knows, if people did not feel a sense that they each had a hand on the steering wheel. As the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, mentioned, some of the people with whom we have shared power are not necessarily dinner companions. Once you take away the exercise of a veto, you take away a part of the settlement.
I know that colleagues here did not agree with it in 1998; I am well aware of that, and I understand the rationale for it, but perhaps they now understand our rationale for not agreeing with New Decade, New Approach. As far as I can see, all people would have to do is not agree, and all that those who would like to see a particular measure would have to do is sit on their hands and wait for the Secretary of State to overrule. If we get into that, Sewel is out the window and you start to decay the whole process; we need to take very great care that we do not undermine it. It is an awkward, difficult and complicated system because, if you know that you do not have to agree with the person across from you, the temptation is to wait it out until the Secretary of State intervenes and takes your side.
For a brief period, I held the office at the OFMDFM. I know how complicated this is. The first week I held the office, I and the Deputy First Minister could not agree on the notepaper; as a consequence, the department could not send a letter out for a week until we agreed. We agreed because we had to, and we got a compromise. However, if I had known that I could sit it out and that the Secretary of State would come over and take my side, I would have been under no obligation to agree.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Or the other side. Whichever—the point is still valid. I am just saying that, if you throw out or undermine the concept that people have to agree, however difficult it is, for one thing, the temptation is that it will spread. That will be my only contribution.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 43, to which I have put my name. I would in fact have put my name to Clause 7 stand part if the field had not been too crowded when I arrived at the Public Bill Office. I speak to Amendment 43 in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who I think noble Lords know has had to leave for Northern Ireland and who was the tabler of the amendment.
I am in danger of making the same, or a very similar, speech to the one I made at Second Reading. Indeed, I am in danger of making the speech I might have made yesterday on the abortion regulations if I had not constrained myself and kept silent. I should avoid doing that, so I shall be fairly brief.
My concern is that, while the Government proclaim their rock-solid adherence to the Good Friday agreement, as noble Lords have already said, the increasing number of powers being given to the Secretary of State to appoint or conduct himself effectively as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive is undermining the Good Friday agreement, and manifestly so.
I know a great deal less about Northern Ireland than practically every other noble Lord in this Committee. However, I know something about planning law. One of the features of planning law is that, if a local planning committee made up of local councillors finds itself in a position where it is legally obliged—there is no way out—to grant a planning permission that it does not want to grant because it is politically unattractive, it has the option of sitting on its hands or simply refusing it and allowing the applicant to appeal to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. Then it can say, when the inspector has granted the planning permission, “Ah, well, it was nothing to do with us. You see, we opposed it but the inspector has forced it upon us”. This creates a dishonesty in local government that should not really be allowed.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, put his finger on this in relation to Northern Ireland. If you have a devolved Administration that requires some form of consent and collaboration but you know that the decision will be taken by the Secretary of State if you refuse or fail to achieve that level of consent and collaboration, that is of course the easy way out, as it is for planning committees that do not want to confront their residents and explain why they have granted an unpopular permission. That is the position that the Government are getting themselves into. It was clear in the discussion yesterday of the abortion regulations and it is clear here today. No rationale has been presented by the Government for how they see devolution in the light of these new powers that are constantly being conferred on the Secretary of State to appoint himself as a Minister and conduct himself in that way.
Amendment 43 is very simple. It says that the Secretary of State cannot exercise these powers if there is a functioning Assembly or if there has been a delay of less than six months since the Assembly and Executive were operating. It puts a firebreak in and puts the pressure back on local politicians in Northern Ireland to reach consent, collaborate and work together in the way that the Good Friday agreement was framed. It is a very simple measure in that respect and should commend itself to the Government. From what I understood of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, he might see it as having some merit, too. I very much hope that, when he comes to reply, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give some succour to those of us who would like to see this amendment pass.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has eloquently set out the dangers of the approach that the Government are taking through the insertion of Clauses 6 and 7. I support Amendment 43 in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. Our position that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill would go further in deleting the Secretary of State’s override powers completely. However, I understand entirely that, when we have a functioning Assembly, there certainly should be no question of the Secretary of State having the power to intervene.
The issue is very clear, as was illustrated yesterday in the debate on the abortion regulations. These clauses are another example of what one noble Lord described as the Government’s pick-and-mix approach to devolution and the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement. Some issues are picked out to be legislated for here in Westminster and other issues are not touched at all; we saw this between 2017 and 2020, when the Government’s attitude was that they could do nothing at all to move issues forward, legislate or step in.
However, now, they are doing so on other issues. We had it with yesterday’s regulations on abortion, which is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and was lifted out of it to be legislated for here. We had it on the protocol, where the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act were disgracefully amended by secondary legislation to ensure that, for the vote on the protocol—it was given to the Assembly and therefore, by definition, was devolved to it—the voting mechanism was changed. The very architecture of the Belfast agreement was changed at the Government’s whim without agreement among the parties.
Here is another example. As the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, have said, this goes to the heart of the operation of the institutions in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that people will inevitably feel that, going forward, if there are intractable or difficult issues, they will go with their competing demands to whoever is in power at Westminster and demand that it should act in their favour—although I suspect that unionists will be less keen to do that than nationalists, given the track record of success at getting Westminster to legislate over the wishes of the Assembly. I fear that it seems to be a rather one-sided approach. There is no justification on this issue in terms of the principle of devolution, which applies throughout the United Kingdom; the Sewel convention has been mentioned. It undermines the principle of devolution and the Belfast agreement as amended.
I throw this point in also; obviously the Minister can deal with it when he comes to reply. He said that the New Decade, New Approach document should be faithfully followed, that part of this legislation is about putting into practice and law the provisions of that agreement, and that it should be departed from very rarely—if at all—but can he point to anywhere in the NDNA agreement that says that the Secretary of State would have override powers or intervention powers? Where is that provision to be found?
Of course, the Secretary of State and the Government always implicitly have such powers but it seems to me that, when parties make an agreement in the context of an operational assembly and an agreement on how things should be agreed between them, that assembly is where the matter should lie. Yes, there will be difficulties in reaching agreements—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed to one particularly good example about notepaper—but the point is that there have been serious issues on which there was disagreement initially but agreement was eventually reached between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, or between the parties in the Executive, because it had to be.
I hear Ministers continually referring to their support for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and how committed they are to it, yet their actions in recent months have been very concerning in terms of their approach to the institutions and powers of the Executive and the Assembly as set out in that agreement. They are effectively undermining it.
I believe that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill and I lend my support to Amendment 43. I also happen to agree with Amendment 40, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the sense that, if there is a situation where this clause does go through and the Secretary of State does have that power, he or she should be required to come and make a Statement to Parliament, as opposed to not having that obligation. Again, that would be an opportunity to hold people to account.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Not having been intimately involved in the New Decade, New Approach negotiations, is the noble Lord saying that there were no provisions in that agreement for Secretary of State override powers? Am I right in taking that as his position? If that is the case, could it be that a deal has been done with Sinn Féin to guarantee that, irrespective of what happens in the Assembly, its particular version of events will be implemented by the Secretary of State? Is that possible?
The genesis of the Irish language Act is in the final communiqué of the St Andrews agreement, where the British Government commit to introducing such an Act. I just wonder whether a private understanding has occurred; I am sure that the Minister can clarify that if that is the case. However, if the noble Lord is saying that we are putting into this piece of supposedly devolved legislation a clause that means that the Assembly in and of itself is not the final arbiter of its decisions, the sooner we have that clarified, the better.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. A lot of those questions are for the Minister; I look forward to hearing what he has to say in relation to these matters.
I want to clarify the point about the St Andrews agreement and the Irish language provisions, which were also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He is quite correct that Sinn Féin went to the Government at the very last minute and wanted provision to be made but, of course, it was not a matter for the negotiations between the parties; it was a last-minute effort by the Sinn Féin negotiators to get the Government to commit to doing it. Of course, the Government made some commitments but they were not binding on the local parties and, because it was a devolved matter, that is where it stayed.
As far as we are concerned, just like abortion, the issues of identity and language are matters for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the basis on which agreements were made. Going forward, I believe that it is dangerous for the stability of the Assembly and all the other institutions if the Government take this pick-and-mix approach and decide that they will act unilaterally on certain issues. That is not sustainable and will ultimately cause major problems. It has done so already but it will cause more problems down the line.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said about Amendment 40, which I co-signed. It is primarily a probing amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, made the point that if the Bill goes through unamended, it is extremely important that this House and the House of Commons are able to probe exactly why the Secretary of State has deemed something to be appropriate. “Appropriate” is a very subjective term, and it is not sufficient just to lay orders before Parliament. It is important that it is fleshed out, discussed, debated and aired. I agree with the earlier comment about some of the statements in this House and in the House of Commons not always being sufficient. If the Bill goes through unamended, it is important that there is some form of parliamentary scrutiny of why the Secretary of State has taken these measures because he or she has deemed them to be appropriate.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, some very important constitutional points have been brought up in this debate, and I know my noble friend will want to reflect with care upon them. Since this is the last debate in Committee, I shall make a simple general point. It takes the form of an injunction to my noble friend. It is that between now and Report, he seeks to do all that is possible within the Bill to address the considerable and deeply felt reservations and concerns that have been brought up during these proceedings. This is a Bill for which we unionists will never feel any enthusiasm, but it would be good if on Report there will at least be some diminution of the concerns and reservations that have been expressed this afternoon.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords across the Committee for the amendments that have been tabled and for their contributions. If I may, I will try to speak to all of them in this group.
Turning first to Amendment 41 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Goudie, to which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred, it would introduce a threshold to the step-in powers conferred on the Secretary of State if the First Minister and Deputy First Minister do not appoint an Irish language commissioner or approve best practice standards, either once the legislation comes into force or when a vacancy arises.
I again understand the noble Baronesses’ intention in wanting to ensure that the provisions of this long-awaited Bill are not stymied by inaction on the part of the Executive, and their desire for the Secretary of State to move quickly if such inaction were to present itself. This is an issue that was raised with the Irish language group Conradh Na Gaeilge when I met it in Belfast three or four weeks ago.
My starting point is, of course, that the Government would not wish to intervene routinely in transferred matters and the use of any powers in the Bill would require careful consideration. Judging by the comments that have been made, I am sure that noble Lords share my belief that deviating from that principle would be undesirable. However, the Government believe that it is important to have these powers as a contingency to avoid inaction. They have been carefully drafted to allow the Secretary of State to use his discretion and to consider the circumstances at the time.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, wanted me to elaborate a little on that. Some of the considerations that the Secretary of State might want to take into account in exercising these powers and having regard to the circumstances at the time might include: whether the matter of identity and language was causing political instability in Northern Ireland; whether the institutions were functioning; whether the First and Deputy First Ministers were acting in good faith in implementing the legislation; and, indeed, whether these issues were surmountable without such an intervention. They would be the kinds of considerations that he would take account of.
The stipulated timeframe of 30 days in the amendment seems impractical, particularly in respect of public appointments that take time and need to be conducted with rigour. Such a timeframe would almost certainly preclude the correct process from taking place and the proper and thorough consideration of best practice standards by the First and Deputy First Ministers.
Finally, my understanding is that the amendment would apply solely with reference to the Irish language commissioner and not the commissioner to enhance and develop the language, arts and literature associated with the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition; nor would it apply to the appointment of the director and members of the office of identity and cultural expression. Therefore, the Government will not be able to accept such an amendment.
Amendment 42 seeks to give the Secretary of State a further area where step-in powers could be exercised; namely, in relation to strategies relating to the Irish language and Ulster Scots, as set out in Section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This is a separate undertaking from the legislative commitments on identity and language that were set out in New Decade, New Approach and, for that reason, we have decided not to include such a provision here.
Amendment 40, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when the direction powers under Clause 6 are used. I hear the comments of my noble friend Lord Empey, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, who gave some support to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. If I may put it like this, I understand the desire for more scrutiny and transparency to be introduced if the Secretary of State were to be in the unfortunate position of having to use these powers. The powers, as I have said, have been carefully drafted, but I assure noble Lords that I will go away and look further into this issue following our discussions today.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I am most grateful to the Minister for his last comment, but this is a fundamental issue around the devolution settlement. If we are making big distinctions over the areas of transferred powers in which a Secretary of State has the potential to intervene, it is an encouragement for people in the relevant devolved Administration because it is a disincentive to agree.
We also have to bear in mind the implications of this for the other devolved institutions. I wonder how we would sell this to the Scottish Parliament, or the Welsh Senedd for that matter. If we take one issue and put it on a pedestal, the potential is there for that boundary—that envelope—to be pushed further forward. I can assure the noble Lord of that, though I am sure he is well aware of it.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend; I will touch on what he said shortly, I think. I give my assurance to the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment that I will go away and look at this further before Report.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her amendments, which were spoken to by my noble friend Lord Moylan, and to the members of the Democratic Unionist Party who are in the Committee today for their amendments, which all focus on the powers conferred on the Secretary of State arising from the provisions in Clauses 6 and 7. I will turn to those clauses now, if I may.
I completely understand the noble Lord’s intent that these powers should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, if at all. I repeat my earlier assurances: the Government would not wish routinely to intervene in transferred matters and the use of any powers in the Bill would require very careful consideration indeed. I have set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State might have to take into account in deciding whether to use the powers in these clauses because we agree that deviating from the overall principles—protecting the devolution settlement and not routinely intervening in transferred matters—would be undesirable.
However, in our view, it remains important to have these powers in the event that matters such as those we are discussing today—identity and language—remain a source of instability. I need not remind the Committee of the potential and capacity that they have to poison and paralyse politics in Northern Ireland, as they did during the period between 2017 and 2020. That is why these powers have been drafted and included; they afford the Secretary of State the latitude to use his discretion if these issues remain a matter of discord.
I complete accept the comments of my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn in referring to New Decade, New Approach. However, the reason we are taking these powers—almost as an insurance policy, if you like—is to deal with the fact that, some two and a half years after New Decade, New Approach, key elements and provisions of that agreement have not been implemented. The Government feel that they have an obligation to ensure that they can be delivered.
At the risk of opening an entirely new front at this late stage, I have heard a number of comments about the Belfast agreement. Noble Lords have heard me express on many occasions my support for that agreement, which has been consistent since 10 April 1998. I gently remind noble Lords that there is a provision in the Belfast agreement that explicitly states that Parliament’s ability to make law for Northern Ireland remains unaffected. That is also reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
As I said, the powers have been drafted to give the Secretary of State latitude to use his discretion in these areas. They also reflect the fact that the UK Government are necessarily bringing forward in this United Kingdom Parliament primary legislation that was originally for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to introduce. In our view, it is right in those circumstances that the Secretary of State has the power to ensure the implementation of these commitments, as I have just said.
Of course, as has been stated many times, it is our sincere hope that a new Executive will be formed soon, will implement this legislation and will set up the new bodies for which this Bill provides. With Clause 6, though, the Government are seeking to ensure that there is a path to the implementation of the legislation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the legislation works in practice, and that the commissioners and the office can function effectively so that these New Decade, New Approach commitments are conclusively delivered. Clause 7 is necessary to ensure the effective operation of the provisions made in Clause 6 should the Secretary of State judge it necessary to intervene.
Finally, I very much take on board the comments of my noble friend Lord Lexden. I will reflect on what he said. With those remarks, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Well, there we are. My Lords, it is not easy. My heart tells me that the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds, and others are right that the devolution settlement should be protected. If you set up an Assembly and a Government, they should be allowed to get on with things and should not be interfered with every 24 hours by the United Kingdom Government; I accept that. That is one reason I tabled what I thought was a fairly modest amendment to just say, let us have a Statement instead of a directive. It could even go further and have a parliamentary debate, or whatever.
As always, the issue boils down to a short supply of trust. That has to be built up. It has been lost over the past number of years, inevitably, for all sorts of reasons, but there is a difference between this legislation and others, which is that this is essential to the restoration of the Assembly. Sinn Féin brought the Assembly down because of the lack of an Irish language Act, and therefore, if we are saying, “Look, there is so much disagreement we can’t pass this; it’s not going to happen”, the chances are we will go back to square one again. The problem is that people in the unionist community will say, “Well, that’s a veto too, over the Assembly being set up.” I am uncomfortable with it, but I cannot see off the top of my head any way around it. There may be people much cleverer than me who can think of a solution—there we are; there is a good example of someone much cleverer than me.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The solution is the agreement. Let us suppose Sinn Féin proposes a convicted murderer or somebody who is anathema to a large section of the community to be a commissioner and a DUP Deputy First Minister says, “I can’t appoint that individual, my conscience won’t allow me”. All Sinn Féin has to do is sit it out, whereas if we both know that we have to get agreement, we have to compromise. That is the core of the agreement, and we are taking it out. We have taken it out since the agreement was made. In my opinion, we took it out at St Andrews—the same principle—but that is one example.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Yes, I understand, and if I was the Secretary of State under those circumstances, I would not invoke special powers, which this Act would eventually do; I would get on a plane and go over there and have a chat for the next two weeks to try to resolve it, negotiate around it and deal with it that way. That is how we have always dealt with things in Northern Ireland. Frankly, that is how what is going on there now should be dealt with. That is the way to do it. That is why I am less than comfortable with this, but I just cannot see a way around it.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, makes a good point. We assume in all the agreements we have made that we can resolve these issues among ourselves. It could be that the Secretary of State could be a referee in all this, and that could be somehow put into legislation. Then, at the end of the day, the decisions are taken by those who should be taking the decisions, rather than a rather clumsy, clunky entrance which says, “All right, you lot, I’ve had enough of you, I’m going to pass the legislation.”
Lord Caine (Con)
I am following the noble Lord very closely. He is absolutely right to say that these are uncomfortable powers. He will be aware, since he has been around in politics a long time, that one does not always necessarily have to be comfortable with something to deem it necessary. He referred earlier to his act on the aeroplane of signing the suspension order of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2000. I recall that suspension was deemed necessary to preserve the institutions.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
Of course. No one said that any of this is easy; far from it. When he wound up, the Minister was very kind to say that he would look at all the different ideas that have emerged from the discussions and debates here today and come back on Report with something that might satisfy all Members, which will be very difficult in these circumstances. I am sure he understands the feeling behind what is being said: we want this to work, not just because it sets up the Assembly and the Government but because it is right in itself for the Irish language and the Ulster Scots tradition. However, at the same time, we have to ensure that progress is made. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and hope that the Minister will come back with a slighter better one on Report.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I can be very brief. I have listened intently to what the Minister has said, and to what the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Empey, and others have said. It strikes me that the Minister has said that the Government are doing this to implement NDNA, but if the truth be told, NDNA is not being implemented. Rather, it is being cherry-picked: “We’ll do that, but we won’t do that.” It is getting a bit monotonous, and suspicion is rife across Northern Ireland as to what exactly is going on here.
Lord Caine (Con)
I apologise for having to take issue with the noble Lord right at the conclusion of the debate, but I challenge the assertion that New Decade, New Approach is being cherry-picked. The legislation I took through this House at the end of last year and the beginning of this one focused primarily on the robustness and resilience of the institutions. The noble Lord will remember that in all the discussions on New Decade, New Approach, they were key demands of the Democratic Unionist Party. I was involved in those talks quite intimately; they were key demands of the DUP, and they have been delivered to the best of our ability.
There is a whole host of other commitments in New Decade, New Approach about the veterans’ commissioner, support for the Northern Ireland centenary, et cetera—I could go on. I tabled a Written Ministerial Statement a few weeks ago, setting out in great detail all that had been delivered on New Decade, New Approach, to the extent that members of the Opposition were quite surprised at just how much had been delivered by this Government. The idea that we are cherry-picking or favouring one side over the other is, frankly, not correct.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I am speaking now about Clause 7, which the Minister is very familiar with. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, we were told that the Irish language Act was not a part of the Belfast agreement. I accept that; it was not. It was not a part of the St Andrews agreement. Was a private arrangement made? Somehow, mysteriously, this all started to evolve. Those were issues for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. They should be allowed to get on with that. Was the protocol included in any of this? Was the Executive consulted in relation to that? I can clearly state that the answer is no—although I am not a member of the Executive, I have enough party colleagues who are in it.
Finally, in the 1998 Act, there are very narrow grounds, to put it mildly, on which Westminster can actually intervene. One of those grounds is national security, as I referred to yesterday. So this is being expanded all the time—“Oh, we’ll do this, and we’ll do that”—and it leaves one side or the other totally demoralised. I suspect that the architects of the Belfast agreement, some of whom are here, and those who signed up to it are bitterly disappointed at the way the whole thing has been treated and pulled. At times, they must wonder whether it will survive. It is kicked into touch when it has to be, and then parts of it are implemented and parts of it are not. We have to get to the stage where trust is built between the communities in Northern Ireland and the Government in London.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, I hope the procedural gods will forgive me for allowing that, but I think it was very important to get those things on to the record, and I stand by my decision.
House of Lords
Social Care: Children
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Derby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, published on 23 May; and what plans they have to make experience of being in care a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful to Josh MacAlister for his important work, which matches our ambition for vulnerable children and their families. We will consider the recommendations in the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, including the recommendation to make experience of being in care a protected characteristic. The Government will publish the detailed and ambitious implementation strategy later this year.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Today, 100 young people in the care system met Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place to express their views on how the care system can be improved, and I know that, like me, she had the privilege of meeting and talking with some of them. Can she say more about how young people will be directly included in the national implementation board of this care review?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I did indeed by chance meet a group of young people wearing badges reading “Our care”, so the opportunity was irresistible in view of the right reverend Prelate’s Question. We are building on the work that Josh MacAlister did. He had an advisory board made up of people with experience of the care system, and we are continuing with that approach for our implementation board.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
The report recommends technology to achieve frictionless sharing of information, and a national data and technology task force. Is this the body that would decide on the unique identifying number for which the children’s workforce has been calling, to avoid children disappearing through the cracks between services?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the Government committed in the Health and Social Care Act to develop a unique identifier, and that work is continuing. I believe it is separate to her reference.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the SEND Green Paper said very little about social care, and the independent review the right reverend Prelate spoke about defers responsibility back to the same Green Paper. This has caused groups such as the Disabled Children’s Partnership to raise concern that reform of funding for disabled children’s social care will not be addressed. Will the Government ensure that this does not happen and that problems in disabled children’s social care will be resolved?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am very concerned if the perception is as the noble Lord describes. I encourage those involved with particular expertise in that area to contribute to the consultation on the Green Paper, which is open until 22 July. Our ambition is clear: that we address the problems in the system comprehensively.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister has taken on board—I am sure she has—a recommendation from the report that more senior social workers should carry on having case loads. My experience as a family judge was that senior social workers were completely divorced from the sorts of cases that were actually coming before the courts. I would be grateful to know if the Government will take that forward.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are considering all 80 recommendations in the report, of which this is an important one. We have identified the five priority recommendations, but the implementation board will report back on all our actions by the end of the year.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the focus that the review has placed on supported lodgings. However, work still needs to be done to enable supported lodgings to become a fully recognised provision. Will the Government commit to meeting Home for Good, a charity that has recently set up a supported lodgings network, to provide a definition and guidance on this provision?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend raises an important issue. Indeed, one of the young women to whom I was speaking just before this Question talked about exactly the point that he raises. I would be delighted to meet the organisation that he mentioned.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I too had the privilege of meeting some of those young people a little earlier, which included hearing a rather harrowing story of two brothers who had been brought up in foster care. The review recommends more support, both practical and financial, for kinship carers, which include grandparents, aunts, uncles and others who care for family members. Is the Minister able to say what is going to happen to that recommendation and whether the Government are planning to take it forward?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise the incredible role that kinship carers play in the system. It would be premature for me to judge what the Government will decide, but obviously it is being considered carefully along with the other recommendations.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Minister suggested that there would be two national children’s identification numbers. Is that correct? Can that be right?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise to the House if that is the impression that I gave. I am happy to write to set out the Government’s position in detail.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the report recommends that schools are made a statutory safeguarding partner in the care system, to represent the voice of education in partnership arrangements. Will the Government take advantage of the opportunity that the Schools Bill presents? I recommend the amendment tabled in my name to that end. which would formalise the role that our schools already play, to give them the recognition and voice that they need to do that job effectively.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I look forward to debating the noble Baroness’s amendment in detail. We know that schools already play an incredibly important part in safeguarding children and represent an important source of information about whether or not a child is safe. However, I cannot prejudge the final decisions.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, since there is time, I will ask another question. The review calls for a reformed children’s social care system to be based on children’s rights, putting children’s voices at the centre of decisions. What framework will the Government use for this approach? Will they consider using the existing UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Baroness Barran (Con)
A decision has not been taken on that, but the noble Baroness exposes an important issue. For a long time, the voice of the child and the welfare of the child being paramount has been a concept that we are all extremely familiar with, but we must ensure that it happens in practice as well as in legislation.
Royal Navy: Ships
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the recently announced Ocean Surveillance Ship and National Flagship will be built concurrently; and when those vessels are expected to enter service with the Royal Navy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, with the new multi-role ocean surveillance programme announced in the defence Command Paper of 2021 currently in its concept phase, and the national flagship programme in its design stage, with a competitive procurement process in progress, it is too early to discuss build arrangements for the two programmes.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, five years ago the shipbuilding strategy came out, and I was impressed and pleased that the Government seemed to have gripped this very important issue. I said so on the Floor of the House. However, I said to the Minister that many times over the years I had been promised ships and had never stood on their quarterdeck. I have the same feeling with this. We have ordered five frigates since then and not a single other ship. Three years ago, we were told that we were ordering three fleet solid support ships. They are still not ordered. This really worries me. When it comes to these two ships, does the Minister agree that the oceanographic surveillance ship is way more important for our nation and defence than the other ship, because of data links et cetera going across the Atlantic? With the possibility of a world war, it is the sort of thing that Putin would have a go at.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to learn that I do not share his pessimism. I am tempted to ask under which government regime shipbuilding was in such a poor state. Thanks to the national shipbuilding strategy, we now see one of the most exciting programmes in UK shipbuilding for decades. That is recognised in the industry—and in his single service. These are two exciting prospects. As he knows, the MROS will replace HMS “Scott”. I will not say that it is a Trojan horse; it is a sturdy reliable Clydesdale which plods away doing its work. These two boats—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord manages to induce a bit of pessimism in me. These two ships are a very important addition to the fleet.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
The original budget for the flagship was some £200 million. The Defence Secretary now says that it may be up to £250 million. With inflation running in the shipbuilding pipeline at some 8%, can my noble friend tell your Lordships’ House potentially what the upper limit for that budget would be, for the flagship to continue to offer value for money? Also, when was the last time that the Government or any Government delivered a warship for its original budget?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will take the last question first. My noble friend is aware that very strict procurement rules now govern MoD procurement, and that the budgets for the Type 26 and Type 31 are very vigilantly watched. On the possible price range for the national flagship I cannot be specific about figures but, to put these sums in perspective, over four years the projected cost amounts to an impact on the defence budget in the region of 0.1%.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the ocean surveillance ship has the purpose of safeguarding critical infrastructure in the north Atlantic. When it was announced in March 2021, the service date of 2024 was given, but in a Written Answer last November, the Government said there was no date for entry into service. Why has the service date been allowed to drag in that way? In relation to the national flagship, why is it necessary for a ship whose purpose is to showcase the United Kingdom’s economy, and to boost trade and investment, to be provided from the defence budget? The defence budget is not elastic, although this Government seem to think so.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that the defence budget has one of the biggest settlements, from this Government, that it has seen in decades. That includes a period when the noble Lord was active in support of government. I say to the noble Lord that the MROSS is a technically complicated ship. It is in its concept and assessment phase. He will understand the complicated progress that is then made to the point of being able to talk about initial operating capability, never mind going into service. It is an important addition to the fleet.
On the budget of the national flagship, the national flagship will achieve two things. It will promote the UK in its foreign policy and security objectives, but it will also be an addition to the Royal Navy and, by adopting its soft diplomacy role, it will free up people in the Royal Navy to do other military tasks. It is a very natural addendum to the MoD.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. The whole point of the ocean surveillance ship was to protect critical infrastructure pertaining to our digital capability and communications. I am not disinclined to be optimistic, but it will take some time before we can protect those cables properly. Is there any strategy, or any co-ordination with our allies and NATO, to protect that infrastructure until those ships actually provide it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord West, we currently have HMS “Scott” continuing to do very important and necessary work. I would not want to give any impression that that infrastructure is not being protected. It is, but what we naturally look to is a replacement and successor for HMS “Scott”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord West’s Question, I think the House will be disappointed that the Minister said that it was too early to say anything about when the design would take place, when the ordering would take place and when we can expect these two ships to be in operational service. Would the Minister go back to the Ministry of Defence and say that we would like greater clarity on timing of all this? Furthermore, if it is the Government’s intention that these ships are built in Britain, will that be the default position? Should there be one British tender for either or both of these ships that will see them, particularly the national British flagship, built in Britain?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
They are very different ships, as the noble Lord will understand. The intention is that the National Shipbuilding Office for the MROSS will seek to maximise the opportunities for UK industry in these programmes, but within the boundaries of our international legal obligations. As he is aware, national security will be attached to the national flagship and it will be built in the UK.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, years ago, we were able to say that there were about 50 destroyers and frigates available for service in the Royal Navy. What is the present figure and is it sufficient for the threats that we face?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I cannot give my noble friend a precise figure for the entire fleet of ships, but I can say that, as he is aware, there have been significant additions in recent years, not least the two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. We have an exciting programme of frigate building for the Type 26 and Type 31 and, of course, we have the Type 23s continuing in service and supporting. We are satisfied that we have the capability we need for the tasks that befall us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Is it not the case that these ships require crews, and that crews require uniforms and other facilities on board for domestic purposes? Therefore, can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that none of the cotton products will include cotton from Xinjiang? It is absolutely fundamental, and I am very pleased that the Minister for Health is sitting next to the Minister, because exactly the same applies in the NHS. Do not trust the paperwork. The forensic company Oritain, using element analysis, can tell from the fabric where the cotton was grown. We do not want, on flagships for the Royal Navy, cotton produced by slave labour in China.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I do not have that specific information before me, but the noble Lord’s point is noted and I shall make inquiries.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees that much has changed in the world since the OSS was first conceived and the contract let. Would the Minister concede that it is inappropriate to stand at the Dispatch Box and find reasons why this project is being delayed? It would be more appropriate for the Minister to explain how it is being expedited and sped up to meet the new world situation.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The MROSS is not a military engagement ship, per se; it is a ship that will do important surveillance activity, with reference to our subsea cables and energy infrastructure. I do not for one minute disagree: it is an important project; the MoD recognises that, but it is complex. That is why proper regard to due process must be taken.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the context of Ukraine, can the noble Baroness say what role the Royal Navy is playing in deterring Russian aggression? Given that there are 25 million tonnes of grain blockaded in ports around the Black Sea, what advice is the Royal Navy giving, particularly to neutral countries and their navies, to get that food out to feed starving people in the Horn of Africa?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, maritime activity in the Black Sea is governed by the Montreux convention, which Turkey has deployed. For the moment, that restricts activity. The United Kingdom Government are consulting with allies and partners on how on earth we can try to get some of that grain shipped, either by sea or by land.
Social Care: Adults
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, published on 13 May, which found that more than 500,000 people in England were waiting (1) for a social care assessment, (2) for their care package to begin, or (3) for a review of their care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Local authorities are responsible for meeting the needs of those who require care and support under the Care Act. The ADASS survey highlights that their waiting lists are increasing, which is why we are investing to support improved outcomes and experiences of care for people and their families, including through an additional £5.4 billion over three years to begin a comprehensive programme of reform.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, both the ADASS survey on social care waiting lists of 500,000 and Age UK’s estimate of 1.6 million people with unmet care needs are a stark wake-up call for the Government’s mantra of having fixed social care. The Minister knows that the official figures that he always quotes and quotes today are nowhere near enough to meet current and future demands, as key stakeholders and the expert think tanks routinely remind him. What are the Government doing to prioritise care and support in people’s homes and local communities? Does the Minister not recognise that the situation is getting worse, not better?
Lord Kamall (Con)
Many noble Lords recognise the challenges faced by not just this sector but all sectors, during Covid. One issue we have been looking at for many years, over subsequent Governments—we discussed this during the Health and Care Bill—is that social care was seen as a Cinderella service for many years. For the first time, thanks to noble Lords’ support, we managed to get the Health and Care Bill through to have a properly integrated health and care system. We are also looking at how we can make sure that we properly understand the health and care landscape, with the register and the hub, and that it is a vocation that more people find attractive.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I urge my noble friend, in light of the extraordinary number of vacancies in the social care sector—more and more staff are leaving to join other sectors—to urge the Government to revisit the Immigration Rules that do not allow overseas care workers, who could fill those gaps, to come in. We have a special system for agricultural workers; surely my noble friend agrees that we must not put picking fruit and vegetables above the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question, but make the point that it is important that we look not only to our domestic workforce but to recruit people from far and wide to fill those gaps. We have always done that. As I often say from this place, we must remember that public services in this country were saved by people from the Commonwealth after the war. They played a very important role in making sure that this country and its public services recovered after the war. On recruitment from overseas, on 15 February, we added care workers to the health and care visa and shortage occupation list, allowing these roles to be recruited from overseas. We hope that will enable us to fill thousands of eligible vacancies.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I go back to the previous question: this ADASS survey shows that almost 170,000 hours of homecare a week could not be delivered for the first three months of this year, because of a shortage of care workers. This is a sevenfold increase on the previous year. The changes proposed to the social care system will not increase the rates of pay for social care workers, at the moment, to make it attractive to others, who can work in hospitality. But there is a dire need for people now. What will the Government do right now to help solve this crisis?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness will acknowledge, some of the problems have been in evidence for a long time. Sometimes, we are tackling the legacy of this neglect of the social care system. At the same time, we have to remember that many social care providers are not run by the state; they are private providers. Following the People at the Heart of Care White Paper, we want to make sure that, first, we encourage better conditions for workers. We also want to make sure that local authorities determine a fair rate of pay based on local market conditions. We have seen an increase in the national living wage, which means care workers will get an increase. But we are looking at all this as part of the overview of the social care landscape.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister comment on the March 2022 progress report on the Out of Sight – Who Cares? report, which came out in October 2020? It found that of the 17 recommendations, none had been fully achieved and only four had been partially achieved. Can the Minister say when Government will address these recommendations and end the excessive use of the dehumanising isolation, segregation and seclusion within adult social care?
Lord Kamall (Con)
On that specific question, I will have to go back to the department and get an answer. I will commit to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, 500,000 is a staggering number, but the number experiencing the deepest emotional and physical impact on families may be in the millions. Is the noble Lord and his department aware of the costs associated with neglecting these people and how many may have lost their lives while waiting for these services?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When we look at the 500,000 number, we are talking about an assessment of any kind. These are not people who are outside the system; sometimes they may be in the system but waiting for another assessment within the system. For example, they could be waiting for Care Act deprivation of liberty safeguards, occupational therapy assessments, the beginning of direct payments or a review of their care. It means they are in the system but just waiting for another part of the system to work. The other thing about the report was that there was a 61% response rate, and it was extrapolated from that. Anyone who has read behavioural economists Daniel Ariely or Daniel Kahneman will know that people are more likely to focus on losses rather than gains and, similarly, in surveys people are more likely to report bad things than things that are going well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what these figures show is that local authorities with insufficient resources are introducing rationing of services to some of the most vulnerable people in the country? Why did we pay more in national insurance if the money was not to be made available to social care until three years down the line and the crisis is now?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I wonder if I could correct my noble friend. The Government implemented a comprehensive review of the programme on adult social care with a £5.4 billion investment over three years from April 2022, of which £1.7 billion will be used to begin major improvements across adult social care in England, including but not limited to £500 million investment in the workforce and £150 million to improve technology. As many noble Lords recognise, for too long this sector has been neglected. In some cases, there is a lack of understanding about the breadth of the sector. We are trying to understand it and get people to register, and then we can improve it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Some hospital NHS trusts have a third to a quarter of their beds bed-blocked by people who are clinically ready for discharge but cannot leave because of no social package being available. What are the Government doing now to deal with this problem? It undermines the NHS waiting list backlog as well.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point, and the fact is that if some patients do stay in hospital too long, they can lose control of certain faculties and see muscular deterioration. So it is our priority to ensure that people discharge safely, as quickly as possible, to the most appropriate place. Local areas should work together to plan and deliver hospital discharge, and the department is working with NHS England, NHS Improvement, local government and social care providers to monitor and understand the underlying causes and do something about them.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government say this is a long-term problem, but they have been in power now for 10 years. What have the Government been doing to address this issue, bearing in mind that Andy Burnham identified this as a problem and was attacked by the Front Benches when he put forward some suggestions on how they could deal with it? This is a crisis made by this Government.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid I will have to humbly disagree with the noble Lord, because this has been a problem for subsequent Governments, as we discussed during the passage of the Health and Care Bill. In some cases we can see reports going back 50 years. What has happened over the years is that Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments have put those reports on shelves to gather dust. We were the first Government to introduce an integrated health and care system and to grasp the nettle.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, there is some anecdotal evidence that patients are being discharged from hospital without having a full care package in place. Could my noble friend say exactly what the Government’s policy is to ensure this does not happen? These are some of the most vulnerable people, such as individuals who have had a stroke. On occasions, they are sent home with no support mechanism at all.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. It is a really important issue that we discussed many times not only during the passage of the Health and Care Bill but subsequently. We have to make sure that everyone in the system is working together to make sure that a hospital knows who it is discharging to and that the carer who will receive or help that person has not only the support but the facilities and capabilities at home, or wherever that person is being discharged to, to work with that person. There are gaps in the system; it is not perfect in all places. We are working with local authorities and others to make sure we improve the system.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to associate himself with today’s celebration of the arrival of the HMT “Empire Windrush” in 1948, whereby a statue has been unveiled at Waterloo station to remember that it was Caribbean citizens who, frankly, came to the rescue of the National Health Service? Are there lessons to be learned that the Minister might wish to apply to today’s situation?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am so keen to answer that question because of my own Caribbean background. In fact, my father was part of that Windrush generation. He travelled from Guyana to Trinidad in 1952, and then from Trinidad to the United Kingdom, where he worked first on the railways and then as a bus driver. His brother worked in a post office and his sister was a nurse. That shows the vital contribution that people from the Caribbean made to this country post war.
Housing: Private Renters
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to their English Housing Survey: a segmentation analysis of private renters, published on 16 June, what plans they have to improve conditions for private renters.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
First, I declare my residential and commercial property interests as set out in the register. Our White Paper sets out how we will provide a better deal for renters and our commitment to consult on introducing a decent homes standard in the sector—the first Government ever to do so. This will mean that homes must be free from serious hazards and disrepair, warm and dry, and with decent facilities. We will also provide councils with the powers they need for robust and effective enforcement to drive up standards.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, by planning to remove Section 21, the Government have rightly recognised that security of tenure is one of the biggest issues for renters. The White Paper talks about the need to protect renters from evictions while also talking about making the eviction process as straight- forward as possible. The Government say:
“After eviction, tenants cannot always find suitable housing nearby, interrupting their employment and children’s education”,
yet the White Paper also says:
“Claim forms for possession will be simplified and streamlined for landlords.”
I ask the Minister for clarification: is it the Government’s aim to make it easy for landlords to get their house back at short notice even if the tenant is not at fault, or is it to give tenants security and to protect them from the cost of unwanted moves?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this 12-point plan of reforms is to ensure that we balance the interests between landlord and tenant, but first remove the Section 21 no-fault evictions. In doing so, we are enhancing the grounds around Section 8 so that it is easier to remove tenants who disrupt the community and cause persistent anti-social behaviour, while bringing grounds for egregious rent arrears and moving and selling grounds, because landlords have a right to ask the tenant to leave if they need to sell the property. We are making those grounds work for the landlord so that we can remove Section 21. It is all about balancing those interests.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the measures that my noble friend announced on Monday, which will improve the terms of trade for private tenants, particularly against bad landlords. But is there not a risk that these bad landlords see the legislation coming and, before it is enacted, introduce leases that deny tenants that protection? Is it not imperative that this legislation is introduced as soon as possible and, if possible, backdated to the time of its Second Reading?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I always appreciate my noble friend’s eagle eye. We do not want landlords gaming the system, and we want to make it very clear that any abuse of the future system will not be tolerated. We are committed to ensuring that local councils will have the right powers to crack down on any rogue practices such as those that my noble friend has outlined.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, on Monday, in response to my letter about landlords leaving long-term lettings in favour of the more lucrative Airbnb, particularly at a time of increasing demand, the Minister replied that the English Housing Survey says that we are seeing some landlords leaving but an equal number coming in. Can the Minister tell us the source of the statistics that allow the Government to make that assertion, against mounting evidence to the contrary? I could not find it in the quoted English Housing Survey, nor the Government’s Private Landlord Survey, and the National Landlords Association could not help either. This is a vital piece of data, given what we believe is really happening on the ground.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I suppose I should always be very careful about giving data. In response in the other place, the Minister—who was driving forward with the 12-point plan—made it clear that we are seeing as many landlords leaving the sector as we are seeing entering the sector. I will go back and find the data that underpinned my remarks in the debate we had earlier this week.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem with the private rental sector is that many people in it would rather be in social housing at a fair rent, and that, because of a shortage in that housing, private landlords are often able to exploit some of the most vulnerable in our society? What could we do about that in the future, to increase social rented?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important to recognise the balance of having more tenants who cannot afford renting in the private sector having social or affordable homes. That is why we have an £11.5 billion Affordable Homes Programme, and we are seeking to double the amount of social rented homes that we build to 32,000, because clearly, the housing benefit bill has been growing astronomically and we need to contain that over time.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Agreeing as I certainly do with the thrust of the previous four questions, I ask whether the Minister can confirm that in the last 20 years, the proportion of households living in private rented accommodation has doubled, whilst the proportion of owner-occupiers has reduced and the proportion living in social rented accommodation has reduced dramatically. This is despite the fact, as the previous questioner has pointed out, that the private rented sector is often the most expensive and certainly the least popular of the various forms of tenure. Is the Minister satisfied with these trends and is he happy for them to continue, or does he not think that it would be preferable to enable more people to move into the owner-occupied sector or the social rented sector, and stop this huge rise in the private rented sector?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am not going to glorify one type of tenure over another. The noble Lord is right, however, in the sense that we have seen a doubling of the amount of private rented, but it is approximately the same proportion of the amount of housing stock: it has broadly stayed around 19%. You can look at percentages, or at the absolute amount. One of the benefits of Governments over the last few decades is that the proportion of non-decent private rented sector homes—those with category 1 hazards—has come down dramatically. In 2006, to pick a date at random, it was 46%. It is now down to 21% of homes, which is still too high, but that is why we are bringing in these measures, to drive that down even further. For young people, who are mobile, private renting is often a very good option and I am not going to knock it, but we do recognise that we need to build more homes for sale and have more social homes. I acknowledge that, but let us not put one form of tenure ahead of another.
Lord Bird (CB)
Can we look at this in a very cautious sort of way? I am glad that the Minister used the word “balance”. I remember the Rent Act 1965, which was so well-intentioned that it led to a 25% fall in the amount of rented accommodation. The reason for that was that they did not keep the balance, and in the private sector, probably more than any other housing sector, we need to keep that balance, so that it looks as though both sides win.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure I detected a question, but I am completely with the noble Lord in spirit, in the sense that it is an important comment. We need to recognise that landlords have a choice. We need to make sure that it works for tenants but also that when landlords have reasonable grounds to recover their property, those conditions are in place. These reforms seek to get that balance right.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister reaffirm the assertion he made that the fundamental problem we have is an overall shortage of accommodation, with a growing population? In those circumstances, what policy do the Government have—any radical turn? Does he not recognise that many people now want to stay at home, do not want to work in offices and do not want to go to retail premises, which are now declining? Waitrose is converting some of its property into homes. When will the Government encourage people to stay at home? Then, we can use offices and retail premises to create more accommodation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
That is a very reasonable point. In a sense, we have to recognise that the world is changing and that there are opportunities to build more homes. We see that in the urban setting, where retail will diminish; people are buying online far more than before. Equally, I talk to my friends who live in the country—I am a city guy—who say that there are also agricultural areas that could easily be rezoned to provide opportunities for growth. We need to look at that, and that is why we are bringing forward the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to look at how we reform the planning system so that we get the right use of the right places and grow in the right way.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, many local authorities borrowed money to invest in commercial property; they were not allowed to borrow money to invest in social housing. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House how much money those local authorities that invested in commercial property have now lost, and how much they might have bettered themselves and the country had they been able to invest in social housing.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, as someone who was a local authority leader for six years and in local government for 20 years, I know that not all councils invested in commercial property. We have some examples, such as Croydon, that got into that sort of game, but I do not think it was something that most councils did. Most councils have been seeking to get back into the council house building business. In 2018 we removed the cap on the housing revenue account, and I think it is great that this generation of council leaders are building more council homes for their residents. Proper oversight will ensure that the sorts of practices that the noble Baroness mentions are kept to the absolute minimum. If necessary, we will move in to take over control if it gets really bad.
Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders (2nd Report, HL Paper 17) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the last edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders was issued in 2017. Although preparations for a new edition were almost complete in early 2020, publication was inevitably delayed by the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to the rapid adoption first of virtual and then of hybrid sittings. Only now, as the House has returned almost entirely to pre-pandemic procedures, has the committee been able to complete this work.
If the report is agreed today, a new edition of the Companion will be published online later this week and hard copies will be ready for when the House returns in September. The new edition will take account of changes to our procedures agreed by the House since 2017, giving us all an up-to-date, accurate edition of the Companion once again.
The report, which is, in most respects, identical to the committee’s seventh report of the last Session, also proposes a few minor but substantive changes to which I now seek the House’s agreement. I had originally intended to move the Motion to agree the seventh report on 16 May, but following representations made to me by number of noble Lords, I decided not to move the report but instead go back to your Lordships’ committee to ask it to look again at two particular issues. First, there is the proposal relating to the Lord Speaker’s leave of absence. I hope the recommendation that we have now brought forward, which seeks to accommodate the House’s legitimate interest in the Lord Speaker’s performance of his public duties, will be supported. Secondly, we have looked again at the recommendation on taking young children through the Division Lobbies. I must outline that this is not a change but confirmation of pre-existing, uncodified practice and I hope that the House will agree that the wording that we have now proposed reflects this.
Before concluding, I want to offer some further reflections on the short debate that took place last Thursday on the Motion to appoint the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, to the committee. The purpose of the Companion is to describe procedures that the House itself has agreed and is not to instigate changes to those procedures. Preparing a new edition is thus largely a technical exercise, updating the text to ensure that it accurately reflects current procedure. This means incorporating any changes to our procedures that the House has agreed since the last edition, as well as reflecting changes in statute law or updating references to Commons procedure. The entire text is carefully checked, errors corrected, and footnote references checked and updated.
Since the Procedure Committee was first appointed in 1940, the Companion has been published under the authority of that committee. The committee triages changes and brings points of substance to the House for a full debate, while taking responsibility for approving the many purely editorial or technical changes that are required when updating any document of this length and complexity.
I take very seriously concerns expressed by noble Lords. As I said in responding to last Thursday’s short debate, there is nothing unexpected in the new edition of the Companion, which, in substance, reflects the many changes that the House itself has agreed since 2017. But, to ensure the maximum possible transparency, I approved publication of the complete draft text of the new edition of the Companion, which was published electronically on Friday 17 June and made available in the Library. I have also arranged for copies of papers considered by the Procedure and Privileges Committee while preparing the latest addition to be placed in the Library of the House. These papers provide an audit trail of the committee’s decision-making.
I hope that, with these assurances, the House will now be content to agree the report that is before it today and thereby allow us to finalise the text of the new edition of the Companion. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may first say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker, in particular for arranging a meeting that I had this morning with the Clerk Assistant. I accept that the Companion has never been approved as such on the Floor of the House but rather that its component parts have been.
However, I rise on a small but not unimportant point that concerns the wording and use of language. I refer to paragraph 6 of the report, which my noble friend himself has just referred to, which proposes the following words:
“‘He or she seeks the leave of the House when such absences relate to the public duties of the Lord Speaker’”.
That is a wholly reasonable proposition, from which I do not dissent. Paragraph 8 proposes the words:
“‘If the Lord Speaker knows that an oral question is not going to be asked, they inform the House before they call.’”
In other words, in the first of two paragraphs separated by one, we refer to “he or she” and, in the second, we use the gender-neutral language of “they”. I plead that we have consistency and use the former, rather than the latter, throughout the Companion when we are referring to the Lord Speaker and, indeed, to others.
The Companion is a very valued companion. Many of us find it extremely helpful and important, but consistency of language is something that we have the right to expect. I ask my noble friend to respond positively to that suggestion.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. As I say, we have worked as a committee. My predecessor’s 20 Procedure Committee and Procedure and Privileges Committee reports have been agreed by the House.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised was on language. I have looked into this because much of this occurred before my responsibilities, but the process of changing exclusively, for instance, masculine language in core documents has been going on for quite a considerable time and I think that this is universally agreed. It is fair to say that the Companion uses both “he or she” and in other places “they”. The Government have recently reaffirmed that legislation should be drafted in a gender-neutral way but—I think this was important when I looked into this—using gendered pronouns in specific cases. Clearly, one of those would be in referring to mothers of children.
It is also fair to say that we have had a degree of flexibility, mindful of guidelines but also in varying iterations. I am mindful of the point about consistency and accept that we should look at this. I will ask the House, however, to agree the report before us because, from 2017 until now, it is important that we have a Companion we can use.
The other thing I have asked, and we are going to look at it very strongly, is that the online version should be a contemporary version so that the House, over varying periods before it is reprinted, is always updated. This is so that, although some of us quake at the thought of lengthy documents and looking at them online, there is a resource we can all have the current version of.
I suggest that we will, obviously, in our consideration of all these matters look at revisions as they come up and have matters of substance always before your Lordships. I am mindful of what has been said today but I ask, please, for the consent of your Lordships to the report so that we can bring out a Companion which is updated. That is why I earnestly hope that the House will agree to the Motion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, can I say how grateful I am to him for changing the language that referred to the Lord Speaker, rather than “he or she”, as “they”? However, I am a bit puzzled as to why, having got rid of “they” and substituted “he or she”, he has continued with “they” elsewhere. What is the reason for that?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before the noble Lord responds, can I just say that in respect of the Lord Speaker’s duties and the issues regarding school-age children and other matters, nothing is unexpected in this new draft of the Companion? I offer my full support to the Senior Deputy Speaker, and I hope the House can now quickly agree this report. We have important business to discuss today.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Senior Deputy Speaker’s Motion to approve the report and the idea that the online version should, at any moment, be the most up-to-date version. Can I ask one quick question about paragraph 8? If a Member withdraws her or his Question before the day it is due to be asked, does that Member lose their right to ask the set number of Questions in each year? Is that withdrawn Question counted as one of the number you are allowed to ask in any given year?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I am looking to my right, as they say. It is helpful that we have it on the record: providing they give 24-hours’ notice, a noble Lord would not lose their opportunity. I hope that is helpful.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Forsyth that in one reference I have “he or she” and in another there is a “they”, but what I really desperately want is for the House to agree that we have a new, up-to-date Companion.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That is what we want to do. As to this reference, the report is to ask the House to agree to the words that are in this document. As I have said, there is flexibility; there are varying moments when different terms are used. I find it difficult to believe that noble Lords would find it difficult to interpret or understand, but the points have been made and I have taken them back. Looking at various Members of the committee who are already here, I am sure that they will take note of the points which have been made.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry—I want to make a point which can be put on the record. As someone who learned English as her third language and is quite sticky about the grammar, I find that this is a terrible sentence, because it starts in the singular and finishes in the plural. This is not English.
Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
At Second Reading, all who spoke acknowledged the importance of our social security system providing support as quickly as possible for those who are nearing the end of their lives. This Bill will ensure that more people in their final year of life can access the benefits for which they are eligible in a fast-tracked and simplified way. It is right that the Government are making eligibility changes for this fast-tracked access, so that those expected to live for 12 months or less, rather than the current six months, can benefit. This Bill will mean that thousands more people at the end of their lives will be able to access benefits earlier than they currently do. It will also result in a consistent end-of-life definition being used across health and welfare services in England and Wales, which will be more easily understood by clinicians and end-of-life charities.
I thank all noble Lords for their support in ensuring that this Bill passes through the House quickly. Clearly, we all recognise the significant positive impact this change will have for people who are nearing the end of their lives, and their families. I was also very grateful to noble Lords who engaged with me so constructively while the Bill was passing through this House. Several noble Lords signalled their overall support while also raising important issues, which I will ensure are taken into account as we work to implement the changes that we progress.
I end by paying tribute to all the campaigners and charities that have worked in this area; their support has been crucial in reaching this point and I am sure that all noble Lords join me in recognising the admirable support they provide people nearing the end of their lives.
The Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Bill will provide thousands more people with vital financial support, so that they can worry a little less about their finances and focus more on sharing the valuable time they have left with the people who matter to them the most.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who participated in this Bill at the previous stage. It is a short Bill, but one which will have real benefits to people who have been told they have less than 12 months to live. The House can do few things that matter more than to make people’s final months easier than they might otherwise be. The change is long overdue, and we are very pleased to support it. Once again, I commend Marie Curie, MNDA and all the charities that have campaigned to get to this point.
We chose not to table amendments to the Bill, even though I would have liked the opportunity to explore some of the issues about the support available to people nearing the end of their life. However, it is really important to get this onto the statute book as soon as possible because, at the moment, some benefits are available only to those with six months to live and others are for those with 12. That is confusing for clinicians and patients, so we want to support this getting there as fast as possible. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Government will reward our restraint by ensuring that the Bill gets through the other place before the Summer Recess.
Since we are not having a Committee or Report stage, I would like to ask two quick questions, of which I have given notice to the Minister. She is aware that various stakeholders, while supporting the Bill, had argued for a more open-ended approach than the one the Government chose to take. This Bill will allow special rules awards to be made for three years, whereas the Scottish Government have taken a different, more open-ended approach. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach they have chosen to take in this Bill? Will they take advantage of the opportunity afforded by devolution to compare their approach with that taken by the Scottish Government, and implemented only recently?
In that vein, I ask about the success metrics for this policy change. Will the Minister’s department monitor whether more people are able to fast-track their claims? Will they monitor if fewer people are dying before their claims for benefits under the normal rules have been cleared? That has been an issue; it takes so long to process claims for PIP that people are dying before their claims are processed. Will the Government monitor if claimants find the process easy to manage?
I would like to express my thanks to the Minister and her officials for involving us, and to colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. We send the Bill to the Commons with our full support, and we wish it Godspeed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Janke cannot be in her place today, so I am delighted to thank, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, the Minister for her remarks and all Peers who have taken part during passage of this Bill. I also want to thank the Minister’s officials, who have been very helpful. It was encouraging that the Bill is supported cross-party. It may be a short Bill, but we believe that its effects will be transformative to those individuals, and their families, who have to face a terminal illness and the financial shocks that go with it as they live the last few months of their lives.
We, too, decided not to table amendments, though we would have liked to, because we felt it was important that this Bill proceeded quickly. Prior to the Second Reading, we had discussions with Marie Curie and other organisations about whether the Government should review the impact of the legislation after a year and make an assessment as to whether the provisions of the Act have had a significant impact on reducing levels of poverty for individuals with a life expectancy of less than 12 months.
We draw the same parallel as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that in Scotland they deleted any reference to timeframes. I think this would help to give us a comparator once the Bill has been enacted and put into practice in England for a year.
I want to pick up also the point that the noble Baroness made about time for the processing of claims. I made this point at Second Reading, and I hope that for everyone it will be as speedy as possible. I was reassured the Minister said that moving it to 12 months would not slow the process down, but we remain concerned that for some people it is still not as fast as it should be, given the straits that they find themselves in.
At the Second Reading I raised the current anomalies in the rules for the benefits of severely disabled children aged under three, compared to those over three. The Minister kindly agreed to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister for myself and Together for Short Lives. Unfortunately, I have been offered a policy officer to answer my questions by email, which, while being very kind—and I appreciate the offer—is not quite what the Minister said. As I said at Second Reading, this is a policy decision to treat seriously ill small children differently to their older peers, so please can I repeat my request for a meeting with the relevant Minister?
That aside, from these Benches we welcome this short but vital Bill and look forward in hope that it will ease some of the financial difficulties faced by terminally ill people and their families.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Brinton, for their supportive comments, and may I say that we are doing everything we can to get this through the other place in time? Everybody is on red alert to do so.
I would particularly like to address the points made by both noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Brinton. The noble Baroness Sherlock is interested in the department’s approach to evaluating the changes being proposed in this Bill and whether this will also cover a comparison with the approach taken by the Scottish Government. I can confirm that we will continue to monitor our own approach and watch with interest the different approach taken by the Scottish Government as it is fully rolled out.
We will also continue to conduct audits of medical evidence provided to us in support of claims made under the fast-track special rule process and to monitor feedback that claimants provide to the DWP through our existing communication channels. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also expressed interest in the metrics that would be used to judge the success of the new approach for claims made under the special rules for end of life. The department considers the time taken for these claimants to receive the financial support that they are eligible for as a measure of the policy’s success. I am extremely pleased that the department has a strong record of processing claims made under the special rules in a matter of a few days on average. We also had a constructive relationship with end-of- life charities and will continue to work with them to ensure that the policy intent behind the Bill is being met.
On the noble Baroness’s question about people dying while waiting for the outcome of a claim under normal rules, we want to do all we can to ensure that people get the support they are entitled to while living with a long-term disability or health condition. It is obviously incredibly sad when someone passes away while waiting for the outcome of a PIP claim. The cause of death for PIP claimants is not collated centrally by the department. However, there is no evidence to suggest that someone’s reason for claiming PIP was the cause of their death, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is interested in whether we will check that claimants find the process easy to manage. I assure all noble Lords that the department is engaging with stakeholders, and clinicians involved in supporting people to claim under the special rules, to ensure that they understand and can navigate the process. We will continue to do so. The department is also looking at making process improvements for the end-to-end customer journey for claims made under the special rules and will use the direct experience of claimants to inform that work as it progresses.
Regarding the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I did agree to a meeting. I am not quite sure what has happened, but I will go back and advise people that we will meet. It will get me into trouble but I will do it. I have held two all-Peers briefings on this Bill. As always, my door is open. Going forward, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who is sponsoring this Bill in the other place, will be happy to reach out on any outstanding questions that noble Lords may have.
Schools Bill [HL]
Wednesday 22nd June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Schools Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2022)
Lord Lucas
“(4) Regulations must, in relation to a register under section 436B, make provision about the right of appeal to an independent body against any interpretation or discretion applied by a local authority in compiling the register or in taking action based on information contained in or requested for the register.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that parents have the ability to argue effectively with a local authority who refuses to accept good reasons for not complying with their requests.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 112A, I shall speak to my other amendments in this group. The focus of the group is the relationship between local authorities and home educators, which is well illustrated—we shall come to it later—by the text of Amendment 128A, which reads:
“Local authorities must … recognise that the first responsibility for educating a child lies with its parents … be supportive of those who elect to educate their children at home … recognise that home education is of itself not a safeguarding issue, and … acknowledge that in many instance the decision to home educate reflects failures by other institutions of the state.”
I would add that they also must recognise that home education can be very different from school education. You inherently have much more flexibility in the structure. You do not need to follow all the systems and rules which make a school practical. You may choose to do things very differently.
There are local authorities where relationships are very good. One email sent to me, from someone under Gloucestershire County Council, said that the EHE team are a “genuine delight” and that, “Talking to our caseworker just feels like boasting about how well our daughter is doing and being reassured about any concerns I have by a person with a great deal of knowledge and experience of elective home education.” I have also talked to home educators in Coventry who described the team there as “very well liked, at ease with the children and respectful of parents” and said that 85% of home educators ask for a visit because it is an open conversation and a totally supportive experience. As a result, Coventry has a higher than average rate of school attendance orders, because the team in Coventry knows what is going on and home educators, when they know of a problem elsewhere, pass it on to the team because they know that things will be fairly dealt with by the team.
There are other local authorities—I will not name them in public, but if anyone would like to see the documentation I have on them I would be happy, if I have permission, to share it—where the team appears not to have any relevant experience either of home education or of teaching. There is a totally oppositional attitude to home educators and no understanding that the structures of schools do not necessarily apply to home education. There have been extraordinary exchanges between people who do not appear to have sufficient qualifications to be a teaching assistant and a home educator who has been a teacher for 20 years, asking the most ridiculous questions. Under those circumstances, it does not surprise me that the relationship between the local authority and the home education community breaks down; a lot of difficulties arise because of that.
I do not stick to any particular formula in my amendments in this group, but their overall objective is to suggest to my noble friend that there are ways in which the Bill can incentivise local authorities to act well, so that it is easy to be a good local authority. Being a bad local authority is a path that is not conducive to the efficient exercising of its functions, and therefore it gradually becomes one which is not followed.
I note the breadth of powers given to local authorities in the Bill, in particular the ability to make any demand of a home educator under a totally open new subsection that allows them to ask whatever they want and, if the parent does not provide it, to dump them into school attendance order proceedings without any appeal. That is a system in which it would be tremendously easy to be a bad local authority. Local authorities will have total power over home educators, with no one controlling how those powers are used. There will be no incentive for local authorities to improve. I do not think that is a reflection of the long relationships and discussions that the Department for Education has had with home educators. It was immensely surprising to the home education community that the Bill should be written in this way. I very much hope that we will be able to persuade the Government to make some changes.
Amendment 112A and other amendments suggest that there should be a right of appeal—a space in which a home-educating parent can argue in front of an independent tribunal with a local authority. As we are giving local authorities such huge powers, in fairness, there surely must be some form of appeal—some outside oversight over whether they are being reasonable.
Amendment 130A asks that data held by the local authority should be made routinely available to home educators. If we want a good, open, conversational relationship between good home educators and their local authority, sharing information plays a very important part.
We should have available to us, as legislators—indeed, as the Government—data on the penalties imposed by local authorities. That is a very good indicator of the state of relationships between the home education community and local authorities. We need early indicators in the system so that we can see when things are going right or, maybe, not so right.
Amendment 136ZA brings in the phrase “light touch”. This is one much used in conversation between the Department for Education and home educators. I should really like to know what the department means by it. It startles me to think that some local authorities whose work I have looked at could be defined as light touch, but perhaps it can. I need to understand where the department stands on this. I should like an arrangement where the people in local authorities charged with looking after home education had some relevant qualifications and experience.
If you have in a team someone who knows what home education looks like and someone with strong teaching experience, that seems to be the combination, looking nationwide, that works really well in local authorities. The main thing is that the people in the local authority should have enough experience and qualification to feel confident in the judgments they are making. If not, they have to rely on getting out the baseball bat and beating home educators around the head, because they do not understand the arguments being made. Getting qualifications and a level of performance into local authorities is an important aim.
On Amendments 137B and 137C, I say that being able to tip parents into punitive action after just one fault does not seem the right way: there should be a pattern of behaviour that then requires the whips and scorpions to be got out. Amendment 137B states:
“Except in circumstances of deliberate rule breaking, the school attendance order process must be preceded by a process of communication where the education being provided can be adjusted and services under section 436G offered.”
In other words, this should be a supportive dialogue between the local authority and the home educator. Where the home educator is failing, there are conversations about how things could be made better; where the local authority can help with that process, it does; and only if that process breaks down do we get into the punitive provisions. That is the nature of the relationship between home educators and local authorities in a lot of areas. That would be a better template for the legislation: to take the pattern of behaviour which is current in local authorities where there is a very good relationship between home educators and the local authority, rather than the pattern of behaviour exemplified by the more punitive local authorities.
Amendment 137C is another right of appeal. Amendment 138ZA looks at dealing with a child who is in mid-assessment. If a school recommends a child for assessment for special needs, and then the parent withdraws that child because there is clearly a problem in school and they think home education will be better, that process of assessment ought to be completed before the local authority can tip the parent into a punitive process. The process of assessment is entirely in the hands of the local authority; it can make it fast if it wants to. I know a lot of them have long backlogs on this, but that is up to them—they can prioritise a child if they are worried about them—but they should not be able to tip parents into a school attendance order process where they have failed to provide the assessment that the school has said is necessary.
Similarly, if it is clear to a medical practitioner that a mental health assessment is needed—this would be common in the case of people suffering from school refusal or trauma as a result of events at school, when a proper assessment needs to be made—it seems entirely appropriate that the local authority should wait until that process is complete, and until there is not an independent medical professional standing in the way saying, “No, don’t do this now. We don’t know what the right thing to do for this child is.”
Amendment 138A looks at things in a more general sense. It says that this is a really disruptive process for the family and the child. Local authorities really need a proper justification for what they do and need to ascertain where the child stands in this process.
Amendment 143B asks that a refusal of the revocation of a school attendance order must be reasonable. That may be implicit in the law as it stands, but I would be grateful if my noble friend could confirm it.
Amendment 143F argues that if a parent re-offends, the circumstances should be reinvestigated as they may have changed and things may be different. Just having the ability to reimpose an endless series of penalties does not seem in accordance with the general practice of English law.
Amendment 143I gives the Government an opportunity to justify why stronger penalties are needed. We seem to be entering a level of penalties that I find excessive in the context of not sending your child to school, but I would be interested to listen to what my noble friend said.
Although it is not in this group, Amendment 143IA asks that Ofsted should have oversight of the local authorities’ performance on elective home education, which would be a very constructive way of making sure that local authorities were aware that if they fell down seriously, in looking after home educators, somebody would be on their tail. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his introduction to Amendment 112A and the many others in this group. Amendment 112A is important, as it gives parents the right of appeal to a local authority that refuses to accept their reasons for why their child is not being taught in school.
I am particularly supportive of the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: to be seen as being open and positive with parents who want to home educate their children. Some years ago, I saw an excellent example while on a study tour of Education Otherwise in California. I visited the American River Charter School, an independent home school based at Sierra community college, north of Sacramento. It was a parent-driven, teacher-supported, not in the mainstream school, the equivalent of an FE college. Many of the students participate in educational field trips and come together to do lab work with supervising teachers, but only if the parents want it.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I shall speak to Amendments 130 and 139 in my name. I can be pretty brief, given the comprehensive outline that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has given, and indeed the words from my noble friend Lady Brinton.
Amendment 130 addresses the difficulty and expense of home-educated children sitting public examinations. They need to find a school or examination centre that will accept them, since not all will if they do not know the children and do not wish to see their results reduced by young people who may not have been taught for their exams and whose results may bring down their overall ratings. That is quite a hurdle for many home-educating parents.
Having found somewhere for their children to sit the exams, home schoolers then have to pay for them. That can easily run to hundreds of pounds. Home schoolers are not necessarily wealthy people and may find the cost of exam fees prohibitive. However, home-educated children are entitled to get credit for their knowledge and skills, just like school-educated children. This amendment probes the possibility of financial assistance for children who could otherwise not afford to be awarded GCSEs or A-levels. Could there, for example, be a system for those on universal credit or of limited means to be helped with exam fees?
Amendment 139 suggests that the opinion of the authorities should be supplemented by a suitably qualified independent assessor to ensure that home educators are given a fair hearing if their child is subject to a school attendance order and the parent or guardian feels that it is inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already touched on the reasons for that. It is an extra check and balance for those who do not want their child to attend school and feel that the order is not in the best interests of the child, and fear too an overbearing authority. This is surely a measure that the Minister could acknowledge and accept.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, very well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; like the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, I do not propose to spend much time going over the points that he has made. I read the somewhat testy exchanges—when everyone was a bit tired, I think—at the end of the day on Monday, so it is nice to be having a debate about how we can better support parents rather than causing them any anxiety, if that is the concern.
In that context, having some means of appeal is really important. That might be through the ombudsman that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is proposing in Amendment 171X or by some other means. I have been sat here wondering whether the Office of the Schools Adjudicator might be another possibility of a pre-existing office that could perform the function of refereeing and providing some kind of safeguard against the possibility that some rogue local authorities might overuse some of the powers being talked about; that is a worry, given the variety among local authorities that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about.
Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about exams, which I put my name to, is important. It is really important that parents have a positive reason to register and are not just doing it because the law tells them to and that if they do not then they will be subject to penalty. This would be one of those positive reasons that we could offer. I am not sure whether the local authority having to find the funds itself is the answer because, as we know, local authorities struggle to find the funds to do much these days. If the Minister were to agree with this, perhaps she could reflect on the national funding formula or some other means whereby the money could find its way to elective home educators so that their children can have a link with a school and an examination centre. That all seems very positive in the wider scheme of things.
I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the scale of change regarding the penalties being proposed for parents who fail to abide by this. There is a further amendment on school attendance orders and there having to be some kind of judgment about what is suitable education from someone who at least knows something about education; that is also an important safeguard that we could put in to protect parents.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 171X on the proposal for an ombudsman to provide protection for home educators. I support many other amendments in the group. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lucas for putting this focus on the need to provide protection from overzealous local authorities.
I also need to apologise for not speaking at Second Reading due to a variety of home and personal health matters. I also need to declare an interest, in that I am part of a family that home educates. I cannot disclose all the details, which are private, but I have two sons whom primarily my wife home educates. She is incredibly well qualified for that work. They are teenagers and their education is going incredibly well. I fear I might be the only Peer in that situation, but if there are any others we might be able to form a little club.
I want primarily to speak from this perspective, as somebody from a home education family, on the Bill and the relevant clauses. First, as many others have done, I honour the many parents and caregivers, including my wife, who work tirelessly to raise their children, often at no cost to the state, for their outstanding outcomes and work in a variety of different contexts and for a variety of different reasons. If noble Lords want to find out more about how amazing home education can be, an exhibition has just been announced in Parliament in the Upper Waiting Hall, commencing the week of 4 July, which I highly recommend noble Lords pop in and see.
I need to start by saying that I cannot support the Bill. I believe much of it was designed after consultation merely to make the lives of officials in the department and at large in local authorities easier. Not enough is in it to help parents and families, or indeed society. It feels like it was a bit of a one-sided consultation.
We shall see how colleagues in the other place view the Bill. Arguably, the way it is currently drafted in many parts is an affront to freedom and makes a mockery of our claims to be about rolling back the state and enabling ordinary citizens to take back control. If it transpires, as has been reported in the press, that the Bill was launched without proper political vetting and that it will be radically altered by the other place when the politicians have time to look at it, then we all have to ask why our time is being wasted with what appears to be an incredibly lazy piece of legislation, designed to make officials’ lives easier, not those of citizens.
Frankly, I would rather that this part of the Bill, on registration of children who are not at school, which includes many in home education, did not exist, especially in its current form. It has not been thought through; more consultation is needed. Registration is a hammer to crack a nut, the nut being bad actors—I commend the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on raising this very real issue; it is not one that we want to sweep under the carpet—such as those in informal schools who, frankly, would raise children to oppose the existence of this country, or commit future generations to violence against citizens of this country, or inflict neglect and abuse. Many of these situations have been talked about.
Largely, I feel that this has been designed to fix an IT problem. As much was confirmed to me by a government representative, who I will not mention, who I discussed this with. I said that the Government could get this data anyway: we have birth certificates, local authorities ask who is in households and we have pupil registration in formal schools. We could triangulate that data—I come from an IT background; that is the kind of thing we can do with IT—to find out who was not in school. But of course, that is too difficult for the Government to do right now; IT is a very difficult area. So, to make us do all the work for local authorities and government, a registration programme is to be brought in when we could have fixed it with good IT and good use of the powers that already exist to safeguard children who are suspected of being abused or neglected. This is on top of a risk that the data, once collected, could be used intentionally or unintentionally to harm, or get hacked, which has happened.
I will not say much more on this point because I want to get to my amendment, but I suggest that registration could be voluntary to begin with but highly incentivised, perhaps using the Oak National Academy, the online school set up by the Government, as a resource and a referrer, which could provide amazing data if parents consented to it being provided and analysed.
What incentives might there be for signing up voluntarily to such a scheme? We talked about the cost of exams and paying for them. It costs £150 to £200 per GCSE; I am feeling the pain of that right now. Many families have to fork out a huge amount of money for those exams.
Another incentive might be the provision of forecast grades in the event of situations such as Covid. This was brought home for many home-educating families, whose children basically had to resit because no resource was available; children in school could get forecast grades from their teachers. The Oak National Academy might be a place that could provide such forecasts, based on its data.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I would like to come in on Amendment 112A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and say I agree with a great deal of what he said. Indeed, we have discussed it in the past; there is an issue here. I am not convinced by the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that we can do it all by current IT methods—I think there are problems there. Although I have some sympathy with some of the things he is saying, actually this is a very difficult area.
Amendment 112A is, to my mind, incredibly important, because one of the things we have to do is work out the best type of appeal system. My starting point is really where I ended up when I spoke on Monday, which is to say that this legislation on home education needs to be seen as supportive, not punitive. That is very important. If we can develop a supportive method of local authorities and home educators co-operating together, there will not be many problems in the future, and ideally, practices and strategies could be developed, both by local authorities and by home educators, for dealing with the problems that will inevitably emerge.
The appeal system must deal with many of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised. When I was consulting widely on my Bill, I had such a wide range of claims as to why local authorities were doing it badly. I cannot go through them all now, but some suggested that a local authority was blind to the individual needs of the child. It might have been about educational achievement, but it might also have been about behaviour, because at times it was clear that the school was pushing the child out of the school because their behaviour was so challenging. So you actually have a problem that is, in a way, the reverse of what we expect—the school saying, “This kid is a problem: let’s get them out of the school.” That has to be dealt with, too. The rights of the parents to appeal to an independent person or organisation is, to my mind, incredibly important. As I say, I could give many other examples that came to me when I was consulting on the Bill.
But I also have to say that this is two-sided, and it is the classic problem we deal with in Parliament, time and time again, of the balance between individual rights and the rights of society, to protect the vulnerable. At times, some of those home-educated children are vulnerable, and that is something we have to face—and it is difficult to face. As I said on Monday, my knowledge of education generally is not particularly good, but as a former probation officer and senior probation officer of 40-odd years before I became an MP, and having taken children into care on occasion when I had to when social services could not do so for legal reasons, I can tell noble Lords that it is not just a difficult decision: some parents are incredibly cunning, incredibly devious and incredibly cruel. That comes out if you talk to someone like the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who has chaired committees dealing with abuse. You realise how clever some cruel people can be in fooling anyone—doctors, probation officers, social workers, the general public, neighbours, all sorts of people—into thinking everything is all right.
One thing in my mind, and I want to make this clear, is that when I put that Bill forward, I put it forward as an education measure, not a social or psychological measure. But in doing so, I recognised that if a child was not being given a proper education—and by proper education I do not mean some set educational system but growing up able to read, write and be numerate—we had to be able to be sure that that was being done. The interesting thing for me is that, of all the people I talked to about home education, when I dealing with the Bill, it was actually a small but significant minority who said that the education authority must never be allowed to see the child or should not see the child with them. I remember one parent saying to me, when I said, “Well, why should they not see the child?”, that the child does not like being seen by a stranger. That immediately made me raise my eyebrows, because if a child of school age is nervous about being seen by a stranger, you wonder how the education is being done—unless they have got special needs, because there may be circumstances in which they will be nervous about being seen by a stranger. But by and large, children are far more resilient than we give them credit for. Indeed, one of the problems in society, I often think, is that parents are overprotective, and we do not recognise that children are actually very resilient and can cope with situations like this.
But what I want to make clear here is that the problem is two-way, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, described. It is also that, at times, the education authority will have a concern that the child is not being properly educated. If you say that the education authority cannot see the child, how will it ever know? One person said to me that the authority could ask to see written work. But you will not even know whether that child did the written work. So it is not just a measure about behaviour here, or about abuse or radicalisation; it is also about whether the child is being properly educated. As I have said, I do not mean some particular system of education, because I know that troubles quite a few home educators; it is about being able to cope in society as you grow up, and I gave an example on Monday of someone who was left very vulnerable because of the way that home education was done.
My argument here, and this is something I ask the Minister to really take on board—it is a difficult one—is about how to get an appeal system that can work in both directions. It is absolutely right that the parent can appeal against the local authority that does not understand the problems that they or the child are facing, but it has also got to be one where the education authority can say, “We are not absolutely sure that this child is being educated. We are not absolutely sure that there is not some more nefarious process.” Indeed, one of the cases I took up before as a result of my Bill that got some publicity in the press involved three children, if I remember right, in one of the London local authorities who were being trafficked. Two of them just disappeared and, to my knowledge, though I have not checked up recently, have never been seen since. Now, the local authority—or to be more precise, the school—was worried about what was happening, because it knew what had happened to one of the children but did not know what had happened to the other two.
So I say: if you do not have a system where the local authority can say, “We need to be able to see the child, and see that the child is receiving an education”, then you have got a system that is almost designed to blow up in your face. Sooner or later, at some abuse inquiry or other inquiry into a case, you will find it being said, “Well, we the education authority were not allowed to see the child, so we could not know.” I ask those Members who are taking a very clear view on the rights of the parent here to recognise that the rights of the child are absolutely important: in key situations, they override the rights of the parent. I think all of us accept that in other circumstances—if you did not, it would be very bizarre; you would be arguing that whatever the parent did to the child was acceptable.
I have not got a model for the Minister, I am sorry to say. I wish I could say, “This is the way to do it”—I have not got that. I would be very willing to engage with her in further discussions, if that would be helpful, and I think people like the noble Lord, Lord Laming, might be very useful on this too. What you need is a system designed to be supportive, not punitive. That is the key to this. Then you start by saying, “We know what a lot of these parents want,” because the examples are already there—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave them. Those are the ones who appeal, but we also need the ability of the local authority or education authority to appeal against not being able to see the child, where it is worried about the child and might need to visit more often than it would do otherwise. I think that is profoundly important. As I say, I would be happy to offer whatever help I can in getting that bit right.
As I said on Monday, I commend the Government for taking my Bill on board and delivering on it in the way that they have. It is very commendable, but this is the most difficult area. The education authority must have the right to see the child and must have some rights over how often and in what circumstances. However, that needs to be appealable in both directions: by parents and by the education authority.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140 but before that I note that the debate has raised a number of fundamental issues. Listening to it tells me that we have another set of issues that the Government need to take away and think carefully about. I understand that Report is due to start in little over a fortnight. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, is absolutely correct about the need to have these discussions; fundamental issues are being debated around whether there should be an appeals system and what kind of system it should be, and what the exact role of a local authority is. The noble Lord made a very important point: the Bill should be about supporting home educators and not about a punitive system.
I want to give another example of how I see the problem in this group. My Amendment 140
“aims to clarify the provisions on school attendance orders to ensure that school attendance orders should only be issued when in the opinion of the local authority this course of action is in the best interest of the child.”
At the moment, the Bill reads:
“A local authority in England must serve an order under this section 10 on a person”,
and gives reasons in paragraphs (a) and (b). Paragraph (c) gives the reason that
“in the opinion of the authority it is expedient that the child should attend school.”
What is the meaning of the word “expedient”? Sometimes these words have meanings that maybe the Government do not intend. My interpretation of the word “expedient” is that it is about attaining an end. It is a convenience to attain the end, but it may not be right to attain that end.
That has led me to consider who in a local authority is responsible for making a decision. Ministers may reply that this will all be shown to us in guidance. I am quite bothered about that, because a huge number of issues have been raised, in all parts of the Chamber, about how this system will actually work.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Does the noble Lord agree that the word “expediency” seems to display a state of mind and a prejudice against home learning? It will, as he rightly points out, put undue power in the hands of officials.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I agree with the noble Lord that it could well do that. I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—I hope I quote him correctly. He said that it will be tremendously easy to be a bad local authority. Given the way that this has all been written, that may prove to be true. He also said that there needs to be oversight as to whether a local authority is being reasonable. There has to be a system to assess this. I spent many years in a local authority environment. Officers and councillors will change, and case histories may not be fully understood, and yet decisions are being made. I do not know what protections are in place against poor-quality decisions being made.
My amendment says that the absolute requirement is the best interest of the child, not that a decision is deemed by a local authority to be expedient. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond as to why the Bill has been written in this way. It may be convenient to be expedient but it may not be proper. For that reason, we need to have a further discussion. I do not see how Report can happen in a fortnight to three weeks’ time. The Bill needs its Report deferred until the autumn.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 112A, which relates to a point that I raised at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, there has to be a check on parents to avoid those who might abuse the freedoms. The local authority may be the right place to do that but the merits or otherwise of home education versus school education, and the structure of the curriculum, can end up as matters of educational doctrine. If a local education authority takes a view that starts as biased against home education and the freedoms within, it may well take a view that is prejudicial to the parents, in the way in which my noble friend Lord Lucas said.
There has to be a right for parents to go to some appeal process, whether in the form of the amendment or the ombudsman proposed by my noble friend Lord Wei. It may well be that the objections to the way in which the local authority runs its schools is the primary reason why somebody wants to educate their children separately. To have that education authority then be judge and jury over whether the child is being given an adequate alternative education just allows one set of educational doctrines to run roughshod over other people’s rights.
I completely accept the need for checks on parents but, as others have said, my noble friend the Minister needs to think about how, when the Bill comes back, there can be proper provision to deal with this matter—whether in the form of the amendment or something similar.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I may have omitted to declare an interest as chair of the Department for Education stakeholders’ group and other similar interests listed in the register. If so, my apologies.
I have added my name to Amendment 143I in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I should make it clear that it is the increase in fines and custody that I have difficulty with. It might be better to do away with fines altogether.
I am heartened by the statement in the department’s factsheet that
“The government does not intend to criminalise parents”
in respect of school attendance orders. But Clause 50 does not achieve this aim.
When I was a magistrate, I recall cases of parents who, with the best will in the world, simply could not control their children. They were rarely parents who could manage the fines prescribed. As for the custodial option, the Farmer review emphasised how
“disruptive and costly short sentences are to family life”
and ties. What does the imprisonment of a parent do for a child’s attitude to school?
There are deep reasons for school refusal that should be investigated, as I also recall from my time as a teacher. Different means to ensure the essential participation in education that children must have must be developed, and indeed in some schools are adopted, but in this time of a cost of living crisis, at least we should not increase the penalties, which can be justified in very few cases.
In conclusion, I take issue with the “hammers and nuts” of the noble Lord, Lord Wei. The nut of not being in school is a very large nut indeed. Of course there are parents who educate their children well and who are going to have no trouble with a register, although I quite understand that there needs to be some clarity, but children who are badly educated or not educated account for a much larger number. It may be that noble Lords do not come into contact with these children very often. In other debates in this Committee, we have spoken about where these children are and why they are not educated. It would take a lot of time to go through this, but it is a much larger number than the number of children who are well educated. We really must do something about this. That is why the register is a good idea.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will clarify my position. A number of noble Lords have mentioned—and perhaps implied—that what I was trying to say was that we do not go after these bad actors and do not pursue those using home education as an excuse to provide a poor, non-existent or abusive context for learning or non-learning. That is not what I am saying. I am actually in favour of strengthening the use of other means for the identification and pursuing of families, parents or caregivers who are not home educating and are instead using it as a cover for their practices. Personally, I think we should be as hard as we can on that and strengthen our response as much as possible, whether through data, local authorities or other action.
Right now, some people are using home education as an excuse to say, “Stay away; don’t look here; go away”. However, if the ombudsman, or any other mechanism, were to agree with the local authority that there are good grounds to pursue families such as these and ask for any kind of information it wants—and if, on the evidence, if it looks as though home education is not happening—then, yes, let us go after those many families who are thought not really to be home educating. In addition, let us support those families who are struggling. I did not want to be misunderstood on that front.
However, my main concern is about where there are miscarriages of justice and we get into matters of educational philosophy. I ask noble Lords to consider Finland, where education is not really monitored until the very end. Nevertheless, Finland has pretty much the best education in the world because it does not spend 30% of time in education—as we do—monitoring, testing and checking the learning; the Finns just let the learning happen and train the teachers. I believe teachers there are given the equivalent of bankers’ salaries to make them some of the best education and learning facilitators—if you like—in the world. I would therefore just caution against this monitoring and the need to know what people are doing—I do not think we need to do this. If we have suspicions that what is going on is bad, we need to pursue this and use every power we can to sort that out. However, I am not sure that it is the right approach to ask about everyone in the country who is doing home education—whether good or bad—just because they might be doing something wrong. The ombudsman would make sense of this; it would also make sense not to put families under such an investigatory lens for too long. I have friends who have waited two years for national insurance numbers for their teenagers. Imagine a home-educating family having to wait two years, just to be told that they are not abusing the system but are instead teaching well.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that if we look at this as a supportive, not punitive, measure, we need not get into the trap he is describing.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the tenor of many of the amendments in this group, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: they strengthen parents’ hands against any overbearing local authorities. That is not to suggest that all local authorities will be overbearing, but it ensures that they are not necessarily interpreting their role always as one of policing. This is all about balancing powers and having a sense of proportionality. I like the idea of the home school ombudsman suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, although I would rather it were not needed because I do not like lots of this part of the Schools Bill.
I listened carefully, in particular, to what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said, including his last point on this being supportive, not punitive. Those points are very important, but I want to raise my qualms about this. Of course, those noble Lords who raised the point about bad actors are correct: some parents are cruel and some represent a threat to their children. However, in a free society, do we not assume that the vast majority of parents are not a threat to their children? At the moment, as far as I know, we have not nationalised parenting. We are not saying that we are better at doing it than parents; we assume that parents are good at it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I shall come in briefly on this because I did not put my name to my noble friend’s amendment on examinations. I am sorry to go back to a smaller point, but one thing that happens in education is that you usually need a certificate to carry on. It is your pathway to the next step. I have not been deaf to what has been said about the rights of home education but, to go back to one of the building blocks of our system, to gain access to the next stage of education, training or employment, you generally need the examination that proves you have done it. It does not prove much else; it just proves you have been through the process and reached a certain point. I hope the state will allow and support people to get the proof that says they have done the work to get through. If you do not have it, everything shuts down suddenly. You cannot do much else; it does not matter if you can quote Shakespeare fluently, you have still failed English if you do not have the qualification.
Think also about the home-schooling groups who have special educational needs, such as some of the groups I have met. They will sometimes need help and structure to be able to take that exam. It will be important to have some form of interaction around that; it is an important point in their process. The Government have been very keen on testing whether education is successful, usually using examination results, so if home education is to do anything, it needs that to go through.
I cannot resist making a comment about my noble friend Lord Shipley’s statement about having “expedient” in a Bill and not defining how it is used. If you wanted to cause trouble—I suspect somebody in the department was having a bad day when they drafted this—that was an excellent way of doing it; I congratulate them. Unless we get some clarification, and realise that we are trying to make sure that those who are doing things well are supported and those who are doing things badly are identified and stopped if necessary, we are going to have carnage when we come to Report.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there should be a right of appeal, but some of the language was not helpful. He constantly used the word “punitive” if any local authority intervenes in any way. As my noble friend Lord Soley said, this is a difficult balancing act to get right, and we have to be careful of the language that we use.
I know—to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wei—of plenty of people, friends of mine, who are really good home educators. They have a different approach, and I do not think anyone would be opposed to that. They are not the people who worry me. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, we have a lot of experience in this area; there are unfortunately others who do not.
This House has a duty to do two things: to ensure that the legislation is fair and capable of not penalising people who understandably prefer their children to be home educated; but we also have a responsibility to protect those children, as children do have rights. I profoundly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—of course children have rights. We cannot absolve ourselves of that responsibility.
It is a difficult one for the Government—they cannot duck it. I started to look up whether “expedient” was the right word, but that is not what concerns me. I am concerned that while there is a right for people to home educate their children, provided they act responsibly, there is nothing wrong with local authorities having a list and being able to assure themselves that it is taking place in an appropriate manner. It should not be seen as punitive—I agree with that—but it does not absolve them from asking some questions. I agree with my noble friend Lord Soley that a child has to be seen. I have had personal experience of cases where parents have deliberately tried to ensure that the children were not seen. These are real threats to children. We have a responsibility to protect them and to ensure that the way Government monitor home education is fair. On balance, I support the right of appeal. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate carefully, and it has been extremely sensitively presented, but it has raised a lot of questions. I shall certainly not talk about home schooling, on which I have no expertise whatever, but I am going to make a comment about procedure, of which I have a learnt a little over the years.
This is not the first group of amendments where I have sensed there is serious need for proper discussion between Committee and Report. It has alarmed me, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned, that the date being pencilled in for Report is the week beginning 10 July. We will probably not finish Committee stage until Monday 27 June. The minimum period between Committee and Report is 14 days. We would be abusing Standing Orders, or require a special resolution, to reduce it further.
I do not want to inflame the conversation, but this badly prepared Bill is crying out to have a longer period between Committee and Report. The only excuse that the Government can make—it is not an excuse but a genuine problem that Governments face—is that towards the end of a parliamentary Session there is urgent time pressure to apply the minimum gaps between Committee and Report. However, that is not the case here, right at the beginning of a Session. When the Commons have tons of Bills to consider and we have a very small number, there is no pressing requirement for the Government to apply the minimum gap.
I hope that it does not sound like a threat when I give notice that I think that there are many people in this House, on all sides, who feel that it is important for there to be a proper gap. There are mechanisms with any Chamber for majorities, if a majority exists, to ensure that this happens. I hope that it does not come to anything like that, but I urge the Government to think carefully about doing as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, and allowing Report to take place in the autumn.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I echo the two phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, used: we want to protect the vulnerable and protect the rights of children. There are some amazing home educators who do an amazing job, but there are also some amazing local authorities which do a very good job as well. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, praised local authorities, and I pay tribute to my former local authority. We had a boy with a phobia of being in school who had to be home educated. It was not because his single-parent mum, a nurse, wanted that, but because we just could not physically get him into school, so we home educated him. And guess what? Knowsley LA—I will name-check them—supported my school in doing that, in financial terms as well.
There are lots of examples of good local authorities, just as there are hundreds of thousands of examples of good home educators, but it should not be “us and them”. Disagreeing with whoever said it, I like the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is an opportunity to reset the dial in terms of home education, to do the things that protect the vulnerable and protect the child, but to ensure that local authorities work with home educators. There are all sorts of ways in which we can do that.
Hopefully, if we do it that way, in a few years’ time, home educators will realise the value and importance of local authorities and how much they can bring to the table. Perhaps there are ways of doing it. I like the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, of an ombudsperson. That might be a mechanism for ensuring that home educators do not feel threatened, because they would know that there is a way of dealing with it. As long as that does not lead to a massive increase in bureaucracy, maybe we should consider it.
Let us also remind ourselves of an important point which has not yet been made. Through formula funding, every child who goes to school is worth a sum of money; is it £6,400? Home educators do not get that money, so every child who is not taught at school but taught at home saves the Government money and those home educators have to pay for it. They give up not only their time but considerable money to home educate. Therefore, it seems sensible that we should show willing and give something back to home educators. Maybe one way would be by taking Amendment 130, tabled by my noble friend Lady Garden, and looking at supporting them when they want to take examinations.
Lord Wei (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but the point about Finland is important, because many of us in education policy—I helped to set up Teach First—have studied this material and I do not believe Finland is as exceptional as people make it out to be. I brought Professor Hattie over 10 years ago, who is a researcher who studied 15,000 randomised control studies on education—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, knows what I am talking about. He looked at 30 million children across thousands of studies and found three things that affected their education the most by a standard deviation. They were simple: how well does the teacher, or the parent in home education, know the child? How difficult is the work? If it is too hard or too easy, it makes a big difference. And when they mark their work or give feedback, how good is that feedback? Those three things can work in any system or country, whether private or public. All the things we argue about in politics—private/public, the size of the class and teacher pay—were shown to make a limited difference in the randomised studies. Incidentally, televisions and screens were very bad, and keeping kids back a year took things back by a standard deviation.
We could debate Finland for a long time, but I would argue that home education has many of the hallmarks that the Finnish enjoy. They are: an incredibly great relationship between the well-paid teacher and the child; and the time, because they are not being monitored all the time, to set work at an appropriate level; and to give great feedback.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for that and would, at some point, like to talk to him about Finland. One of the other things we forget is that, just as a teacher in the classroom—I still miss teaching and miss my time in the classroom, because I got a great deal from that—home educators get a great deal from being with their children, learning with them and teaching them. We forget the importance that can have for the family home and for parents, whether they are a family or a single parent.
I end by going back to the point I was making: it is really important that we get this right. This is an opportunity to reset the dial, so that we achieve what we are all trying to get.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I missed the opportunity to speak before the Front-Bench spokesperson got up. The point I want to make on home schooling is that it is as much about the rights of the child as it is about the rights of the parent. In the debates on Monday and today, I think that we have heard too much about the rights of the parents, but the rights of the child not to be abused and to get a decent education are important. They are not important; they are crucial. Those rights might be a counterpoint to those of the parents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked a rhetorical question: is the state going to adjudicate? The answer is yes. Who else will adjudicate between the rights of the parent and the rights of the child? The education authority and the social services authority clearly have crucial roles there. Noble Lords need only cast their minds back to all the dreadful cases that have occurred where the school or social services have failed. This is not about home education. What is notable about many cases of child abuse is that those children were at school, although their absence from school too frequently was a hallmark that should have been picked up. The local education authority and the local authority more generally have an important role. They should not be demonised, in the way some speakers have suggested, as if the hallmarks were bureaucracy and interfering with parental rights.
I have two more points, the first of which is on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on data. I am afraid he made two conflicting points: first, that the data was available anyway and, secondly, that it would be hacked. If the data is available anyway, it can be hacked.
The other point is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question for the Minister. Noble Lords have referred to decisions made by the local authority. Do they not come under the aegis of the Local Government Ombudsman in any event? Why do we need a special ombudsman service? If the Government are trying to cut back on bureaucracy, they can use the tried and tested system we already have.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just want to clarify or ask a question. At the moment, we have a system in which social services or child protection agencies, quite rightly, are the part of the state that intervenes in those terrible cases where we suspect that a child is being abused. Is he not concerned if, through its education role, the local authority now has to do that job? That is almost the implication. In schooling, we have the phrase “in loco parentis”: the idea is that parents entrust their child to teachers and the education authority, because they say that “You educate them, but we parent them.” Is there not a danger of posing a conflict between parents and children in this competition of rights? For the majority of the time, that is not a problem. Even when it is, the appropriate body would be social services. I am worried about education being dragged into what is effectively social services. Keeping an eye on kids is one thing; it is not the same as being social workers with their expertise.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Sorry, I was just waiting, because every time I have tried to stand up someone has spoken. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, reminded me that I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—hard won and well deserved, I think.
We have heard a fascinating debate with a wide range of views. It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Wei. We could have so many discussions about Finland and Teach First, but he was really quite amazing at contextualising the Bill at the beginning of his remarks. It is very interesting that he comes from his Government’s perspective, but he put us firmly in the context of what he saw that is wrong about it. That is what we have been talking about over the past five days. I appreciate those comments.
Most home-schooling parents are, of course, wonderfully motivated and they deserve our full support, but we need to safeguard children. To pick up the right of appeal issue from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Knight, we have an excellent local authority model in the form of school admission appeal panels, comprising independent individuals with no links to the local authority. They give impartial judgments on children’s admission to schools. So, there are good models out there.
We know that, under the Education Act 1996, parents are responsible for ensuring that the education provided is sufficient, full-time and suitable to age and ability. They can choose to employ private tutors to assist them—there is no requirement, of course. Learning can take place in different locations and is not limited to the child’s home.
We have not mentioned Covid during this debate, which caused a huge increase in home schooling. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services estimated that the number of children being home educated at some point during 2020-21 was 115,542. That is a 34% increase on the 2019-20 total. It further remarked that in many cases, home schooling
“does not seem the most appropriate route for the children concerned.”
So, concerns have been raised. This has been a long debate, so I will draw my comments to a close. We are therefore keen to follow this register’s impact as it is developed and implemented across England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. I start by saying that I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Lucas. I had the pleasure of talking to a number of home educators from Gloucestershire yesterday and to the local authority, thanks to an introduction from my honourable friend Siobhan Baillie. Clearly, the relationships between the two were extremely strong and good, as my noble friend pointed out.
I will start my remarks with Amendments 112A and 137C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 171X from my noble friend Lord Wei. The issues of appeal are extremely important. I will summarise the current routes for your Lordships, but also make some commitments to the Committee about how we can make sure that the concerns that have been aired this afternoon, and by home educators I have spoken to, can be addressed.
Lord Addington (LD)
Before the noble Baroness finishes that point, if somebody has special educational needs—we had an example from my noble friend Lord Storey—and they are still interacting with the education system to an extent, would they still get that support despite the fact they are home educated? I appreciate that it is a difficult interchange—I probably did not declare my interests properly before—but could we get an example? The primary problem with this is the fact that home educators are a very broad church.
Baroness Barran (Con)
So, as the noble Lord knows extremely well, is the spectrum of educational needs. I know that one is not allowed to have props in the Chamber, but I commend to the noble Lord the flowchart at the back of the policy notes on this part of the Bill. It sets out the process, including where a child has special educational needs. I think it is easier to follow than me trying to explain at the Dispatch Box.
Turning to Amendment 130A from my noble friend Lord Lucas, individuals already have the right to ask local authorities for copies of their personal information and inquire how they are using it by submitting a subject access request. A parent can demand that inaccurate information is corrected, and if the local authority fails to do so, the parent can complain to the Information Commissioner, who has significant enforcement powers.
Turning to Amendment 134A, I repeat that it is not possible for fines or penalty notices to be given to parents for failing to provide information for the registers and the Bill does not provide for that, but if parents fail to demonstrate that their child is receiving a suitable education, it is right that the local authority begin the process of issuing a school attendance order. If the parent is unable to evidence that the education they are providing is suitable, the process will lead to an order being issued. If the parent then breaches the order, they may be fined by the magistrates’ court. On collecting and publishing data on this, the Bill already provides flexibility to require this through regulations.
I now turn to Amendments 136ZA, 136B, 136C, 137B, 138ZA, 138A, 139 and 140, from my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. My department’s guidance for local authorities highlights that the authority should initially attempt to resolve doubts through informal inquiries.
The noble Lord raised the point of expediency, and I am grateful, because I absolutely understand why, and why it sounds anything other than what one might expect. The current test for issuing a school attendance order is that the child is not receiving a suitable education, in the opinion of the local authority and, as the noble Lord said, that it would be expedient for the child to attend school. That is the test contained in the existing Section 437 of the Education Act 1996, and new Section 436J mirrors that test, so this will keep the test for issuing a school attendance order the same in both England and Wales. I again point the noble Lord to my favourite flowchart, from which he will see that, prior to issuing a school attendance order, there needs to be a preliminary notice, which is covered at new Section 436I(3)(c), where it says that one of the conditions for issuing a preliminary notice is:
“the child is not receiving suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise”.
I absolutely understand his question, but I hope I have reassured him and the House that, while it may appear to be one thing, it is covered absolutely properly in the legislation dating from the 1996 Act. The current law, supported by guidance, requires that local authorities take all relevant factors into account when considering whether it is expedient for a child to attend school, and that includes where the child has expressed an opinion about attending school—the voice of the child was something that a number of your Lordships raised.
Local authorities should have the in-house expertise to make these decisions, but if they do not, they can and should consult a suitably qualified external expert. We will make this clear in our guidance. It is crucial that the time a child is in receipt of unsuitable education is minimised, and therefore it is right that local authorities move to initiate formal school attendance order procedures as soon as possible where home education appears unsuitable. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly mentioned the work of many charities; we may be thinking about the same ones. If he goes back to the schools White Paper, he will see that our approach on attendance is: support first, support second, support third, with enforcement very much down the line. We are working with a number of charities which are leaders in this field.
Amendment 143B from my noble friend Lord Lucas is unnecessary, because if local authorities were to refuse to revoke a school attendance order on an unreasonable basis, that refusal would in itself be unlawful.
My noble friend’s Amendment 143F would mean that if a parent was found guilty of breaching a school attendance order and continued to breach it, the local authority could take no further action to enforce it: it would have to restart the process and make a new order. That would obviously be a waste of public resources, but, more significantly, would add to an already lengthy timeframe in which a child may be in receipt of an unsuitable education. I should be very happy to follow up with my noble friend on the specific example he gave, where that home education may have changed, to check that we have that very reasonable point covered.
Finally, I speak to Amendment 143I, also tabled by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. A breach of a school attendance order is currently punishable by a fine of up to £1,000, compared to a maximum fine of £2,500, or up to three months’ imprisonment, for the offence of knowingly failing to cause a child to attend the school at which they are registered. This means that there is currently an incentive for some parents to remove their child from school under the guise of home education rather than incur the greater penalty associated with non-attendance. By aligning the penalties, we can increase the deterrent and help ensure that as many children as possible are in receipt of a suitable education.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Brinton, asked about the change in custodial sentence. Wider criminal justice legislation, which has not yet come into force, will raise sentences in magistrates’ courts from three months to 51 weeks. New Section 436Q is simply in line with that wider change, and until it comes into force, the maximum sentence under new Section 436Q will remain at three months, as set out in subsection (9). The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also raised the issue of publication of individual data, and I am happy to repeat that we are taking that away to consider it.
I hope that I have answered the bulk of the points raised in this group and I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment 112A—
Lord Wei (Con)
I think that my amendment might have been missed out. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister had any thoughts on Amendment 171X and the idea of an ombudsman with the expertise to adjudicate and mediate to prevent any expensive court cases that might otherwise occur.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise. I referred to my noble friend’s amendment right at the beginning of my remarks and reflected that we will consider what options there are to make sure that there is a system that feels fair to parents and in which parents have trust and confidence. With that, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his Amendment 112A and hope that other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those replies. I shall read them in Hansard and return to her if I have any points of detail to make. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Wei that we need an appeal system that feels fair and builds trust. There are different ways of doing it. It clearly should not be by internal local authority appeals, the Local Government Ombudsmen have not proved helpful in elective home education cases to date and the Secretary of State system is a bit on the impenetrable side, so I very much hope this is an area where we will make improvements.
My noble friend’s remarks put a lot of weight on the forthcoming guidance. If at any stage a draft of that can be shared, I would be most grateful to have a look at it. It would shortcut a lot of debate if we had a clear feeling of where the Government are heading.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hope my noble friend picked up the point, but if not, I will repeat it: we plan to develop the guidance in co-operation with home-educating parents and local authorities. I am sure that, when a draft is ready, we would be happy to share it with other Members of the House.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I was not trying to hurry my noble friend; I was just saying this is clearly quite important.
Picking up on other points made in the debate, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, and I are so much in agreement on this. We approach it from different angles, but we both agree on the need for the system to be supportive and for children who are not being properly educated to be rescued with speed. The question is: how do we do this fairly and leave home education as a supported system?
My general experience of this—and I hope that talking to Gloucestershire will mean that my noble friend shares it—is that where there is a supportive system, money is much better directed. Money goes to supporting the education of children, rather than being used to try to control their parents, and there is a much better flow of information about what is happening. Providing facilities for parents, including maths and English catch-up and even swimming lessons, means we get to see these children and get the information without having to be punitive about it. There is a flow of information because we are working with the home education community. The numbers that remain outside the easy orbit gets small, and they can be focused on. Building something that is supportive and works with home education is a double benefit—using the money well and allowing us to catch up with children who are being failed swiftly. I very much hope that that is the direction the Bill will take.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
Before calling Amendment 114A, I inform the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely and that if Amendment 114A is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 115 or 116 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 114A
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, along with other amendments to Clause 48, page 42, and Clause 49, page 47, in the name of Lord Lucas, are intended to simplify the immediate duty to one of registration, leaving it to the local authority to then inform the parents of the other requirements, and to increase the timescale to accommodate for additional responsibilities on parents. “School days” are used to exempt parents from having to disrupt holidays to provide the required information.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 114A is the first appearance of an amendment that deals with longer time limits. Such amendments seem to be scattered through a number of groups. I will try not to repeat myself, or indeed focus on them at this moment because there are many more of them in later groups.
The principle I am working to is that the time limits being set should work for a reasonably together, reasonably collaborative parent. We have to allow for the fact that children go on holidays and that out of term time, it may be hard to get hold of them. We should look at longer limits than are set out in the Bill, and at the concept of “school days”—the parental equivalent of working days—as the form these limits should take.
I am interested to know where my noble friend finds herself on this and all the other amendments on time limits. I am aiming to help the Government produce a system that works fairly. If we have a system that trips parents easily into school attendance orders, then we need to allow parents time to react first. I particularly think that we need to give parents time to get it wrong first. I know how often I managed to get things wrong. Reading through my amendments in putting together these groups, I can see that my drafting has not exactly been perfect. We ought to have human time limits. They should not be overlong, but they ought to allow for the real lives of the home educators involved. After all, local authorities are not known as the fastest people in the world when it comes to responding to inquiries. There ought to be some equality of allowance.
In this group, Amendment 122C questions whether, in this section of the Bill, the Government intend to catch hired home tutors—people picking up an individual from a tutor supplier and saying, “We’d love you to come in a couple of days a week to support us in home education”. Would they be caught by Amendment 122C? Where is the boundary between organised provision of education and a parent asking an individual to come in and help?
Amendment 126A asks that we look at the benefit of registering tutors, in much the same style as we have done with parking operators. The Government are expanding the number of tutors and their use in the schooling system, but we do not have a system that in any way is protective of the public. There is no useful form of registration for tutors. To my mind, this is a subject to which the Government should be bending a thought. The best I can hope for from my noble friend is, “Yes, we’re thinking of looking at it”, but I do think that they should be.
I have read through Amendment 128A before. This does need to be said somewhere, and I suspect it is in the guidance my noble friend has been talking about. The basis on which local authorities are supposed to be interacting with home education need to be made clear to them.
All the other amendments in this group—apart from Amendment 140B, which is just an example of an appeal—consider ways in which the support the Government mention in the Bill but do not, as far as I can see in the impact assessment, provide any money for, might be provided. They look at things that good local authorities already do. Amendment 173 suggests that this support should be in place before we pitch into activating the registration system.
The point was made when considering the last group that home educators are actually saving the state a lot of money. My noble friend said we should not start giving money to home educators, and that this was a decision they had made. Yes, but we should give money to local authorities so that their support for home educators is properly funded. In previous iterations, I have suggested that half the money the Government save should go to local authorities—with no undue ring-fencing—the intention being that it is a fund to provide for their support of home educators, to be used in a way that works best locally. That is not in the impact assessment at the moment, and I very much hope that the Government will have a figure in front of us before the Bill leaves this House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I remind the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the comprehensive introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to the wide-ranging amendments in this group has once again set the tone for many of us with concerns about this part of the Bill as originally drafted. I think that everyone, including the Minister, has said that they want to see the relationship between home-educating parents and their local authority start from a position of trust and support, while ensuring that there is a system that protects children too.
I am pleased that at the end of his speech the noble Lord mentioned that there should be some money for local authorities to help support home educators. That was one of the points I mentioned about the northern California home educators I saw at Sierra College, just outside Sacramento. That was exactly what had happened. The school board here understood that it could help parents without changing parents’ way of educating their children. As a result of that trust, the entire tone changed between the home educators and the school board.
I have signed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans’s Amendments 115, 117 and 119, which extend from 15 to 30 days the period in which parents must register their child and provide the information. Other amendments in this group do the same. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talks about “school days”, not just “days”, and that is very helpful and supportive as well. Amendment 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will ensure that children or teachers get the support for any special educational need or disability that they would have already got.
In previous groups I have talked about the problem that many parents have had of not getting the support they need for their child, even though they may be entitled to it. If they have had some support, it has not been enough to provide the specific support that the child needs, whether for special educational needs, disability or a mental or physical health problem. I have given examples of that before. As a result, some parents have been forced to withdraw their children from school, often because they felt that their child was literally not safe—perhaps a medical procedure requires a school nurse to do it but there is no longer a school nurse available. Sometimes parents have been threatened with off-rolling by the school. Sometimes the promised special educational needs support has not happened.
In the last group the noble Lord, Lord Soley, gave a further good example of children being withdrawn from school because of their challenging behaviour. It is important to recognise that children with this challenging behaviour should also get support. If they end up out of school with their parents trying to cope, that is a very big burden for parents. The behaviour of parents, when accused by the local authority of not doing things, often causes friction. Local authorities should always come from the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, outlined: that of teachers always wanting to help, understand and get to the root of the problem and provide the support that will change the child’s behaviour.
I believe the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is vital. A child with SEN, a disability or a health problem who is out of school should have the support that they would have got in school. They need it wherever they receive their education. His amendment needs to succeed.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group, of which Amendments 115, 117 and 119 were originally tabled by my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans, who is unable to be present in the Chamber today.
As he is absent, I will focus on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which also extend the relevant period in which a parent must comply with registration and provide information, as requested from a local authority, from 15 days to 28 days, 30 days or 30 school days respectively. I know my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans would have been happy to support these amendments, as do I, given their shared principle that giving parents sufficient breathing space to comply is helpful.
Fifteen days is simply too short a timeframe to register a child or provide any information necessary in accordance with the register. To begin with, parents may not even be aware of the obligation to register their child in the first place, making it imperative that there is a reasonable timeframe to inform the local authority that the child is eligible for registration. Home schooling is not subject to the traditional school calendar, meaning that a two-week holiday, far from unusual, would take up the entirety of the relevant period to comply. Fifteen days appears somewhat punitive and may unintentionally mean that parents fall foul of it, particularly where circumstances make it impossible to comply. I am not aware of any specific rationale behind this compliance timeframe of 15 days, so I would welcome the Government’s reason for it.
As it stands, I do not believe that the Government have reasonably considered the complexities of some families’ lives and the multitude of reasons for delays that could occur. Rather than being unnecessarily tight, as currently stipulated, the relevant period ought to reflect a more reasonable timeframe. I hope the Government will provide home-schooling parents with a relevant compliance period that reflects real-life circumstances, whether that is 28 days, 30 days or 30 school days.
Finally, I add my support to Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which helpfully defines the correct relationship between local authorities and home-schooling parents, and the constructive and non-judgmental attitude that local authorities should have when dealing with elective home educators.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, and I absolutely agree with everything he has just said. I rise to speak to Amendments 116, 118, 125 and 126 in my name. I tabled these amendments on behalf of home educators. There are quite a lot of them so I crave your Lordships’ indulgence.
As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the first two refer to wishing to lengthen the relevant period in a number of different situations. My amendments lengthen from 15 to 28 days the period in which parents are required to comply with duties imposed by local authorities, but I would be happy to go along with the 30 days in the other amendments. Parents would argue that they may need time to consult, possibly obtain legal advice or, at the very least, consider all the implications, and 28 or 30 days is a much more reasonable timeframe for that than 15.
Amendment 125 finds itself in this group. It seeks to ensure that the less structured but enormously beneficial forest schools and farm schools are not overlooked. Both teach a great deal to pupils and get them out in the open, with fresh air and acquiring a new understanding of natural surroundings, animals, crops and all the other invaluable work of farms. My daughter teaches four year-olds, who really love their forest school lessons. It is some of the most pleasurable and productive learning they achieve. It is particularly beneficial for town and disadvantaged children, who may never have walked through woods or seen a cow.
Amendment 126 ensures that someone who has made strenuous efforts to provide information should not be penalised if the information is deemed inadequate. People can do only their best, and we would not wish to see parents fined for matters that were not their fault.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129. I put my name to this because I saw it and said, “Yes, this is right”. What level of support are you going to give to a certain group with special educational needs, particularly if they do not have the plan? Anyone who has looked at special educational needs knows that there is a great struggle to get the plan. We have a bureaucratic legal system in which whether you get it often depends on the lawyer you have employed. I know that this was not the original intention of the Bill, because I did it. Going through this process, there was supposed to be something called a graduated approach involved. Can we have some indication of what the Government feel the process will be in future? I assume that the new review of special educational needs will come up with something that is an improvement.
The law of unintended consequences, or the cock-up theory of history, means that we have a mess in special educational needs at the moment. I do not think anybody seriously disputes that, but I hope that in future we will not be so dependent on the plan, the statement mark 2, the gold star tattooed on the back of your neck or whichever way you identify special educational needs; you will not be as determined on the higher classification. Many people are getting the plan now because they are not getting any support, their education is deteriorating and they are suddenly finding themselves in the higher-needs group.
I did the Bill and the noble Baroness did not, so maybe this fault falls more on me than on her, but that is the state of affairs at the moment. Some indication that the Government will intervene before they get to this crucial point would be very reassuring, at least with regard to their thinking and lines of progression on this. It is not happening at the moment, and some assurance that it will happen in future, or at least that the Government plan for it to happen in future, would make life a little easier.
Lord Storey (LD)
I was slightly diverted there. I am going to be very brief. I am diverted because—is Amendment 123 in this group? Yes, it is.
I will perhaps ask the Minister a question. Any teacher who is teaching children in a school has to have disclosure and barring clearance. Regarding the practice—and I do not complain about this—where some home educators use teachers either to teach their own children, not all the time but occasionally, and maybe a group of children, presumably those teachers have to also have safeguarding qualifications. What I am trying to say in this amendment is that there are cases—and this actually was raised with me by some home educators—where, for example, and I think this is very good practice, the children will meet other adults who are not qualified teachers but have particular expertise in a particular area to instruct or teach their children. What this amendment seeks is to ensure that those adults also have safeguarding clearance. I do not know what the current situation is on that.
I also want to respond to the point in Amendment 129, which my noble friend Lord Addington signed. This is the issue which I still struggle with. For those pupils who are permanently excluded from school—and in the vast majority of cases they are young people with special educational needs—if there is not a pupil referral unit on the site of the school, they get moved to an alternative provider. As we have discussed, I think in Written and Oral Questions, many local authorities, often because there is a shortage of places or because they have not got the money, look for the cheapest provider. I had a meeting yesterday with Ofsted, which told me—I was absolutely horrified by this—that one unregistered provider charges £50 a day plus taxi fares, including the £50, almost just to look after that child. That child could have special educational needs, so this cannot be allowed to go on. We need to take a firm hand. I am sort of having a second go at this, because I was chairing the session today at the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Education. The Minister on special educational needs spoke about this and I was very reassured, but hoped I could be reassured from our Minister on this issue as well. Other than that, that is all I want to say.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to repeat much of the good stuff that has been said, but I shall just mention our Amendment 128, which amends Clause 48 on sharing data between local authorities when a child moves. We are just pointing out that we must have regard to child protection and the safety of their parents when this is done. We are concerned that, where there are circumstances in which a parent is moving as a consequence of domestic violence or is a victim of or witness to crime, that they are protected. To be absolutely clear, we want to make sure that information can be shared, and that it can be shared safely and quickly.
On Amendment 129, about the support provided by local authorities to children with special needs or disabilities, we are very interested in supporting this. We take the points raised on time limits and school days and would be sympathetic to any reasonable amendments along these lines at Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the second group of amendments, starting with Amendment 128A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I would remind the House that the law is already clear that parents have a right to educate their children at home. The Government continue to support this where it is done in the best interests of the child. Our guidance on home education for local authorities is clear that elective home education, of itself, is not an inherent safeguarding risk, and local authorities should not treat it as such. We are also aware that there are a number of reasons why parents may choose elective home education. Sometimes, as your Lordships have already raised this afternoon, this may not be their choice, for example due to off-rolling, which is why we believe it would be valuable to require the recording of reasons for home education, so we can identify some of the wider system issues which my noble friend rightly points to in his amendment.
On Amendment 128, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the information held in registers will of course be protected under UK GDPR, like any other data, and the Bill only enables data to be shared with prescribed partners where the local authority feels that it is appropriate and proportionate to promote the education, safety and welfare of children. I am very familiar with the issues that she raises in relation to domestic abuse and just how devious some people can be in trying to track down a former partner, which is why that proportionality of risk is so important.
I would like to thank again my noble friend Lord Lucas, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, for Amendments 114A through to 119. We believe that the timeframe of 15 days in which parents or out-of-school providers must provide information for a local authority register strikes the right balance between minimising the amount of time a child would spend in potentially unsuitable education and allowing sufficient time to send the required information. In addition, defining the period in terms of “school days” would, we believe, be an inappropriate and impractical measurement for home-educated children who, as we heard in the debate, by definition do not necessarily follow a school calendar. But I think the issue with the timings and those proposed by my noble friend in later amendments on the school attendance order process is that, if you take them all together, it would more than double the length of time that a child would be without suitable education. It would take the total number of days to 120, instead of 51 on the Government’s proposed process. I think that is the way I would ask your Lordships to think about it. Each individual step may look tight to some of your Lordships, and to some home educators and proprietors of education institutions, but when we look at it in the round, the fact that a child could be in unsuitable education for 120 days, versus 51, is the point I would ask your Lordships to reflect on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, proposed Amendment 126. The monetary penalty for failing to provide information, contained in the new Section 436E, only applies to persons who provide out-of-school education to children without their parents being present. Parents who fail in their duty to provide information, or who provide false information, for the register would not be subject to any financial penalty. Rather, as I mentioned earlier, the local authority will be required then to initiate the process of finding out whether a child is receiving suitable education. That is obviously the central point of their inquiry. If they find that a child is not receiving this, then it could lead to a school attendance order. And if that attendance order is not complied with, it could eventually result in a fine being imposed, but only if the parent convinces neither the local authority nor the magistrates’ court that their child is being suitably educated.
Lord Addington (LD)
That was fairly helpful, but we are now overly dependent on the plans; I do not think there is any doubt about that. The Government are effectively saying that an identified need which is either not severe or has not yet gone through the process would still give some form of obligation, recognition and an entitlement to support in certain circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Under the changes proposed in the Bill—if I understood the noble Lord correctly.
I turn to Amendment 173 from my noble friend Lord Lucas. We would like the system of registration to be implemented as soon as possible to—I hope—reassure those parents who are doing a great job supporting their children at home. It will offer support to those parents who are struggling to provide education to their children at home, help safeguard those children who may be more vulnerable and not in school, and allow local authorities to better target their resources to those families who want or need support. We will take sufficient time prior to the registration system coming into force to ensure the registers work for everyone and that local authorities are clear on their support duty. Therefore, we do not feel it is helpful to set a strict implementation plan for the new support duty in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised Amendment 123. I hope he will be reassured that it is already a criminal offence knowingly to recruit someone to work in a regulated activity with children who has been barred from working with children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lord Lucas brought forward Amendments 122C, 125 and 126A. A threshold set out in regulations will ensure that the duty to provide information targets only those providers that are used for a substantial proportion of a child’s education. I was not altogether surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the issue of unregulated alternative provision. I know we are going to be debating it in more detail in a subsequent group, so I hope I can save my remarks on that for later.
There is also a power in new Section 436E(6) to make regulations creating specific exemptions to the requirement for providers to provide information, which could be used to exclude certain settings from scope. We will continue to engage with stakeholders on this. However, where providers are eligible, the duty will be vital in aiding identification of eligible children and ensuring the registration system is effective in safeguarding them from harm and promoting their education.
My noble friend—I mean my noble friend Lord Lucas; I have so many noble friends—referred to the importance of adequate funding. We are still in the process of determining what the minimum expectation on local authorities should be in terms of their new support duty. To ensure that it is as effective as possible, it is right that we undertake the necessary consideration and assessment of need, including how this can be achieved and the costs involved. We will engage closely with stakeholders on this prior to the statutory guidance being issued and we have also committed to undertake a new burdens assessment to identify the level of funding that may be required to support local authorities so that they can discharge their duty effectively and well. Therefore, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas—
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I have a very quick question before the Minister sits down. She talked about making sure that people have the relevant safeguarding qualifications and going through the process. Whose responsibility is that? Does the parent of a home-educated child have a legal duty to do the checking or does that power and responsibility lie with someone else? If it was a school, it would be the school’s responsibility. I am not sure whose responsibility this is.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s specific question, but I will get an answer and respond to her.
In closing, I ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw Amendment 114A and other noble Lords not to move the amendments in their names.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, yet again, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her replies. I assume that the Government have all the powers they need to create this guidance that we are all placing so much reliance on. I hope my noble friend will tell me if that is not the case, but I assume that it is. I look forward to reading her replies in more detail in Hansard and picking up any issues I have with them in correspondence. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others to Clause 48 in Baroness Garden’s name, are intended to lengthen the “relevant period”.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I shall move Amendment 120 and speak to Amendments 122, 123 and 134 in my name. I can be brief because we have effectively discussed all this already. The first three amendments all refer to wishing to lengthen the relevant period from 15 to 28 days in a number of different situations but, of course, I would be very happy to accept the amendment that suggests 30 days. I really will not go into detail on each of them, although Amendment 134 does ring the changes, as here, for some reason, it is 14 days. One wonders why, when we have had 15 all along, suddenly here only 14 days are given to challenge a monetary penalty. Could the Minister explain how these periods are arrived at? It would be helpful if we knew how the Government decided that some should be 14 and some 15. Anyway, my amendment does not waver. We still consider 28 days a reasonable time for such representations. I will not repeat previous arguments but will just say that that is a much more reasonable period in which to challenge and work out an appropriate response. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of amendments in this group. My noble friend covered the government arguments on this subject clearly under the previous group. I expect to come back at her in one form or another when I have the time to analyse the detailed timescale she is looking at—in other words, the whole distance between a worried local authority saying that a child is not being looked after properly and being able to enforce, and how that all works together. But I shall not move my amendments at this time.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, this is a technical question and compassion for parents who are often struggling to deal with vulnerable children must be factored in. These amendments are intended to simplify the immediate duty to one of registration, leaving it to the local authority then to inform the parents of the other requirements and increase the timescale to accommodate additional responsibilities on parents. School days are used to exempt parents from having to disrupt holidays to provide the required information. These all seem sensible alternatives to what is currently proposed by the Government. I conclude by asking the Minister what analysis lies behind the Government’s choice of a 15-day period in these proposals.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, represented tonight by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, for Amendments 120, 120A, 121, 122 and 122A. As debated with your Lordships earlier this evening, the relevant period has been set at 15 days to minimise the amount of time that children are potentially not in receipt of a suitable education and to allow local authorities to use their powers effectively. Therefore, extending this timeframe could reduce local authority visibility where, for example, a child might be missing education, and prevent them quickly redirecting their resource, where a child ceases to be eligible for registration, to those children and families still eligible. As I said in the earlier group, our approach to this has been to look at the total length of the process and consider the balance between the requirements placed on parents and providers with the rights of the child to access a suitable education as quickly as possible. As I said, the amendments would increase that from 51 days to 120 days, and I am sure all the former teachers in the Committee will be able to convert that into a term or more in a nanosecond. That is the reason we would resist these amendments.
Turning to Amendment 124 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, the response time for providers has been set to 15 days for similar reasons—so that local authorities can be sure that their registers are accurate and they are discharging their duties effectively to ensure that children are in receipt of a suitable education. By extending the timeframe, local authorities would not be able to identify where certain children are receiving their education or, at worst, if they are attending unsuitable settings such as illegal schools.
Finally, turning to Amendment 134: we consider extending the 14-day period unnecessary, as a person served with a warning notice is already able to extend their period to respond to 28 days if they provide notice that they will be making representations. Therefore, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, to withdraw her Amendment 120 and other noble Lords not to move theirs.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I am not sure she entirely agreed with us; still, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 48 standing part of the Bill to enable us again to have a full discussion of the issues in this part. Part 3 has drawn significant criticism from home educators and I want to put their significant anxieties and concerns about the introduction of the children not in school register to the Committee. They are very fearful of its consequences and its unintended consequences for their children and their children’s education. Sadly, many feel demonised by the tone of this part. As we have heard from the Government, their intention behind this part of the legislation is to tackle the increasing number of pupils who are disengaging from schools and increasing non-attendance. I hope, therefore, that this debate will allow the Minister to explain to the Committee, and put on record comprehensively, the reasons this part is being introduced. More importantly, I hope it will give the opportunity for the fears and anxieties of home educators to be alleviated, to allow the Government’s significant reassurances to be given to home educators and for this Committee to hear those comments before Report.
I think all of us in this Committee would recognise that home-educating families begin and continue with home education as they passionately believe the home is the best setting for their children to learn and thrive. There are many reasons why school is not a suitable environment for some children. Often, it is because the specific needs of the child cannot adequately be accommodated by a school, which may already be managing a lot of competing needs of the children in its care. By way of illustration, may I spend a few minutes giving the situations and views of two home-educating families?
First, I have first-hand experience of how a five year-old boy has thrived from being home educated. This little boy, settled now with his new adopted family, can be quite disruptive. In a school environment it became clear that, if bored, he would cause trouble and risked being too easily dismissed as the naughty kid in the class. Through home education this five year-old little boy now has a reading age of eight: he loves Shakespeare and reading about classical Greek mythology. In maths he is doing algebra because he loves it, and does it over and over. He is confident and, although only five, can have a proper conversation with anyone, including me. All that was needed was a different educational environment in which he could flourish. His parents and the home-educating community of which they are a part are terrified by this part of the Bill. His parents can understand the intent behind it, but they feel that
“this legislation is effectively punishing parents for doing what they feel is right by their child”.
My second example illustrates how a child’s specific health needs often mean home education is the only choice. For one mum the health of her daughter was paramount; her daughter developed absence seizures in year 1, a debilitating condition which affected her brain. Despite requests, her school refused to facilitate necessary long-term changes to benefit her health. They asked for her to attend school late once a week, so she could wake naturally, as advised by her consultant. Even though this was trialled prior to lockdown, when the school reopened the family was threatened with a fine. It appeared to the family that the school was far more concerned about the impact on its attendance figures than the needs of their daughter. Now, through home education, in which the family was able to deliver the needs advised by the medical professionals, the young girl has recovered from the seizures and her parents are determined to keep it that way. Her mum said:
“I am terrified the Schools Bill will result in her being forced back into school and the seizures recurring.”
What assurances can the Minister give both these families, and the many others that have contacted us, that the register will not be used by local authorities to force children back into school? For example, condition C in new Section 436B could be read as saying that consent needs to be secured to educate your child at home. Parents—and especially parents of children with special educational needs—need assurances that their child will not be compelled to attend a school that is unable or unsuitable to provide for that child. What assurances can the Minister give that this will not be the case? Will the Government consider tabling an amendment to this condition to ensure that this is not the case?
The renewed focus on reducing the number of children not in school must not lead to an overaggressive approach from schools and local authorities towards home educators. Can the Minister state or comment on whether it is envisaged that guidance about the use of the register regarding home educators will be issued? We already hear reports from home educators of overreach by schools and local authorities, threatening fines and prosecutions, and making parents feel like they are troublesome or elitist and making the wrong choice for their children. There is a lack of empathy and understanding that, for home educators, it is the successful education of their children that is utmost in their mind. How will the Government ensure that the regulation around the children not in school register and any associated guidance will not be used as a stick to erode parents’ democratic right to decide how best to educate their children?
In this part of the Bill, there is a huge increase in information for families to provide—so much so that it is intrusive. Home-educating families are already known to their local authority. Why is more personal and sensitive data needed? New Section 436C(2) states that the register may contain
“any other information the local authority consider appropriate.”
What information did the noble Baroness have in mind when this subsection was drafted? What reassurances can she give that the information requested by local authorities will not grow and be extended in different ways by different local authorities, creating a postcode lottery of registration information?
It is so important to be clear about what data will be published, who it will be shared with and how it will be kept secure, as the failure to provide this data, as people have said in the past, can result in fines and imprisonment.
New Section 436D creates a duty on parents to provide information requested by the local authority, but there must be exemptions for victims of domestic violence. One woman who works with home educators wrote to me to explain that local authorities will now require the names of both parents. The fear of data breaches from authorities is causing terror among some women who have fled abusive former partners. One mother she met through her work has already had to relocate three times, including once to a refuge with her daughter, because both social services and the local authority elective home education staff divulged her address to her former partner who, by court order, was not allowed to hold her or her daughter’s address. This situation happened under the current protections we have in place. How will the Minister protect victims of domestic abuse when the regulation around the register seems to eradicate this protection completely?
Many home educators are part of local groups and networks. They offer each other support and share information. That is why new Section 436E is a concern for those home educators who are part of active home education groups. It could allow for financial penalties to be levied against child tutors, childminders or home education groups where parents share care of their children. I am sure that was not the intent of this section, and therefore ask the Minister to look again to see whether the breadth of this section can be re-examined so that there are no other unintended consequences of this nature.
Finally, one of the stated aims of this part of the legislation is to give more support to home educators. However, it is not clear what support will be afforded to home educators, as it is left to the local authorities to decide what they think is fit. Furthermore, there is no clear and detailed framework to ensure that local authorities assess children’s education fairly and consistently. What support do the Government envisage being given to home education by this part of the Bill and by local authorities?
In conclusion, I thank all the organisations and home-educating parents who have contacted me; there have been many, including Education Otherwise, Square Peg and the elective home education art project, to name a few. I hope I have managed to get across their main concerns today. All the themes of their comments were the same: that home educators felt demonised not encouraged, unfairly victimised, and powerless to counter the additional local authority powers and demands. Clearly, this reaction from home educators was not the Government’s intention, so I hope that this debate, and the other debates we have on clauses in this part, will allow the Minister to allay the genuine fears of home educators across the country and consider how this part can be changed before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, whose introduction to this clause stand part debate was helpful, especially with the examples she provided. I also agree with her about ensuring that no data for victims of domestic abuse should be published or passed on. When doing my work on stalking law reform, I met a woman who was such a victim. She and her son had had to repeatedly move after her violent and stalker husband had found her. After the third move a big red flag was put on her file, but the social worker at the local authority decided to give her ex-husband her address because she felt that he should have access to his son. Unfortunately, he attacked both her and him. We cannot always guarantee the behaviour of people, but in this case we know that victims of domestic abuse are targets for their ex-partners.
The Minister has heard from noble Lords across the Committee over the last two days of debate concerns about this part of the Bill, particularly Clause 48, with questions about the language. My noble friend Lord Shipley raised concerns about the word “expediency”, but plenty of other concerns were raised too. For example, how exactly will data be held and used?
There are concerns too about the tone of the legislation, which is designed on the basis of home educators being a problem, as we have heard from many people speaking today. I know the Minister does not agree with that and is urging us to be careful with our language, but we are hearing from parents that the tone of the Bill is what worries them.
Once again, many parents have said that, unfortunately, their relationship with the local authority has been the root of their problems, which has meant that the child had to be withdrawn from school. Far too many local authorities have taken the view of having a hostile and difficult relationship. It has been helpful to listen to the debate and hear the supportive way in which many amendments, often led by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have tried to change that tone. It would be good to see that in revisions from the Minister at a later stage.
Concerns about the principles that underpin this clause also worry many. So I completely agree, first, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, that we should ask the Minister to respond to the clause standing part, but also with my noble friend Lord Shipley’s earlier comment that, with Report stage starting in under two weeks, it is completely wrong to proceed with this part of the Bill while there are so many unsolved problems: those of principle, language and attitude. Frankly, this means that there must be a delay to starting Report while the Government think again—at least until the autumn.
Lord Storey (LD)
I was not going to speak on this group, but I am now. My noble friend Lady Brinton is right: the tone is really important; we underlined that in previous debates.
I am very nervous that we said right at the beginning—I think there was agreement across the Committee—that this was about protecting the vulnerable and ensuring the rights of children. I guess that all noble Lords here have been bombarded with emails from home educators, and we must be careful that we do not believe everything that they tell us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was talking, I received an email giving a completely different view about how some home educators are suing one other over what they said; some are being told to be quiet. The noble Baroness mentioned a couple of organisations, but, for some people, there is more at stake here. We must remember—I repeat this—that the vast majority of home educators are doing a fantastic job; they want support and to work together. If we ramp up the fear that they will be threatened, they will feel threatened. We should try to ensure that they completely understand what we are trying to do to support them and their child.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we are respectful of the right of parents to educate their children at home, but we cannot agree that this clause should not be part of the Bill. There are clearly important measures that we support quite strongly and want to see enacted. We support the principle of a register. However, there have been some helpful suggestions for improvement—particularly on new Sections 436C and 436D(2), inserted by Clause 48—and the Minister has committed to go away and consider those further.
On the issues around data we raised in relation to Amendment 128 in an earlier group, having thought about what the Minister said and the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and other noble Lords, I think it is worth some further consideration, because clearly there are risks and we would not want to rush into anything that would cause more problems. We hope that, with some improvements, this clause will be a helpful and necessary change that will safeguard children. It is not about forcing children back into school; it is about balance between freedom to decide and safeguarding.
On the comments that we have just heard from my noble friend, this Bill is not ready for Report. We do not think that the Government will have time to reconsider some of the issues that have been raised. It would seem appropriate, given everything that has been said, for us at least to wait for the regulatory review to be completed before we take this Bill to Report.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for giving us the opportunity again to ensure that the tone we take when talking about this issue—as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and many other noble Lords in this debate have said—is one of support, of explaining what the Government are seeking to achieve with these measures and of trying to allay some the concerns we have heard, while being clear that we do not lose sight of the importance of protecting a child’s right to education. In doing so, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that the introduction of registers is not, in any way, intended to undermine or interfere with the parents’ right to educate their child how they choose. This clause includes no measures on monitoring or assessing the education that parents may be providing. Local authorities’ existing powers are already sufficient in this regard, and we have already provided guidance to support local authorities to determine whether education is suitable.
As many noble Lords have said, we know that many parents who home educate do it very well—often to a very high standard and in challenging circumstances. However, that is not the case for all. That is a key point I would like to emphasise: this Bill is about establishing registers so that we know who and where home-educated children are; it is not about forcing them back to school.
A school attendance order can be issued only if the local authority is not satisfied that the education provided for the child is suitable. The example raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of the little boy thriving at home with his new adopted family is clearly a case where the home education being provided is suitable and, if demonstrated as she described, the local authority could only agree with that. Similarly, on her example of a girl in year 1 who developed seizures, if the education being provided at home is suitable—and that is demonstrated to the local authority—the local authority could not reasonably issue a school attendance order. In addition, the current law, supported by guidance, already requires local authorities to take all relevant factors into account when taking a view on whether it is expedient for a child to attend school, including any medical grounds.
I turn now to the noble Baroness’s question about parents needing local authorities’ consent to home educate. I can reassure the noble Baroness that condition C in new Section 436B simply does not do that; it establishes that a home-educated child is eligible to be included on the local authority’s register. That is a statement of fact; there is nothing about consent involved in new Section 436B.
As we heard in an earlier debate, we must recognise that there are growing numbers of children not in school, particularly after the pandemic, and there are concerns that some of these children will not be receiving suitable education—and, in some cases, not at all. We need to be able to assure ourselves that they are receiving a suitable education, and that is what these provisions are all about. While parents of eligible children will be required to provide information to local authorities for inclusion on their registers, local authorities will be able to require only that information which is prescribed in legislation. Any additional information prescribed will be intended to support the promotion of the education, welfare or safety of children.
I have also heard the concerns about data sharing—which was raised not just in this group—and was sorry to hear about the specific situation the noble Baroness described; that absolutely should not have occurred. As my noble friend the Minister has explained, there will be protections in place: the clause allows local authorities to share information only with certain prescribed persons, to be set out in regulations, when they consider it appropriate for the purposes of ensuring the safety, welfare or education of a child—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is quite deep concern about this issue, and I wonder whether the regulations could be made available to us before Report.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can absolutely take that point away and see whether it is possible. If that is not the mechanism by which we can provide further detail and assurance, I will look at what else we can do to explore, and reassure on, that issue further.
As my noble friend the Minister said, under UK GDPR, parents have the right to object to any processing where UK legislation requires such processing, which would include the sharing of information to prescribed persons. The organisation responsible for that processing would then need to review the request and decide whether the processing is in the best interest of the child or family, and either uphold the request in the specific circumstances or proceed with the processing. The parent also has a formal route of complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has a range of powers in this area. It is essential, however, for local authorities to be able to share information, if needed, to support multi-agency safeguarding and education efforts, with the appropriate safeguards in place.
On the question of statutory guidance, which the noble Baroness asked about also, this will help ensure the consistency of interpretation and implementation of duties across local authorities. As we said, we will ensure that it is created in close collaboration with local authorities and home educators, and includes advice on how local authorities can best promote positive engagement, as we have heard the concerns from parents where that has not been the case. We have also heard examples of best practice, and that is what we will seek to draw on in drafting the guidance.
There was a concern about financial penalties for tutors or childminders and home education groups. The duty on providers to share information on request will be important in helping to identify those children who are not—but should be—on registers, and those regulations will be used to set a threshold at which an education provider comes into the scope of the duty in Section 436E, ensuring the duty is only placed on providers that provide a substantial proportion of an eligible child’s education. There is also the power to make regulations to create specific exemptions to this duty, and we have indicated our intention to use that power to exclude informal groups of home-educating parents from the scope of this measure.
I thank the noble Baroness once again for the opportunity to reiterate some of those points, and I think we have heard the areas that the Government will take away and look at to ensure that we continue to have a message for support for home educators, but not lose sight of the importance of what we are trying to achieve with these registers.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a good answer, but I feel my noble friend has not addressed the reasonable fears of some home educators about the way this Bill is drafted at present. For instance, in new Section 436C(1)(c),
“such details of the means by which the child is being educated as may be prescribed”
is a completely open phrase. This is an area which is used by some local authorities to pressure parents. They pursue parents for timetables, the details of subjects of studied and other things which do not necessarily form part of home education. Home education is not subject bound. Schools have to do it that way; if the Times has its way, schools may not have to do it that way, but they do so at the moment. Home education may follow timetables, or it may be something much looser. The age at which a child begins to read can be quite late in home education, or it can be very early. These things vary enormously from the practice which is necessary in school. That new Section 436C(1)(c) is in this Bill, and opens and then flows through to the school attendance order provisions, is a source of considerable worry, and I think reasonably so.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment specifies that the period within which a person must satisfy a local authority that a child is receiving education is a minimum of 28 days.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 136 and speak to Amendments 137, 138, 139, 141, 142 and 143 in my name. It might have been less painful if most of these had been grouped with my other amendments seeking to increase or specify relevant periods for parents to respond to notices.
Amendment 136 relates to “the period specified” within which a person must satisfy the local authority; home educators would wish this to say “of at least 28 days”, for reasons we have already set out. Amendment 137 replaces a period of not less than 10 days with our favoured 28 days. Amendment 138 once again specifies 28 days in place of the vaguer “specified in the notice”.
Amendment 139 moves into another area of concern: that of authorities taking on roles which may run counter to the wishes of parents or the best interests of the child. It would be preferable if the authorities’ wishes were supplemented by those of a “suitably qualified independent adviser”, and we have touched on this already in an earlier group, and surely the Minister can see that would allay fears of overriding officialdom.
Amendments 141, 142 and 143 all ask to replace 10 days with 28 days. Parents do not wish to dodge their responsibilities, but they do wish to have sufficient time to assess, research and respond in a way which, as ever, serves the best interest of the child.
I hope the Minister will appreciate how strongly home educators feel that this Bill is giving undue powers to authorities, powers which they feel more than able to fulfil themselves. Once again, we have to be aware of cautions over parents who do not have the best interests of their children in keeping them off school, but so very many excellent home educators can surely be allowed to serve their children without heavy-handed monitoring. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to take part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendment 137D and 143IB. Amendment 137D replicates Amendment 171V that I had in an earlier group, for children who are home educated or out of school long-term for other reasons.
Amendment 137D sets out that a local authority must take account of the advice of a doctor, social worker or youth offending officer when considering school attendance orders. This comes back to the issue that I have talked about often in these groups, where some parents have their children out of school not because they want to but because their child is not safe in school, whether that is for medical, psychological or other reasons. For the reasons I said earlier, and I will not go through them again, many parents say that the officer at their local authority refused to acknowledge the reasons why the pupil was out of school. This amendment ensures that the advice of the relevant independent expert must be taken into account when considering orders and school nomination notice for a school attendance order.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have some amendments in this group: Amendments 136A and 137A are timing amendments, and we have covered that subject already.
Amendments 140A, 143A, 143C, 143D, 143E and 143H are of a technical nature. I think the quickest thing would be for me to listen to the Minister’s reply, because I think I have made my intentions clear in the amendments.
Amendment 143IA goes back to an earlier discussion on the relationship between local authorities and home educators. It suggests that having Ofsted report on the quality of the home education provision in a local authority, and on the quality of the work that it does on school attendance, would be a useful way of redressing the balance between home educators and a local authority, and that it would direct the attention of the local authority to the need to perform well in this area, and would have similar benefits in the case of attendance.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have in Amendment 143G a very simple provision that, on acquittal for breaching a school attendance order, that particular school attendance order dies—no ifs, no buts. Surely, natural justice mandates that the court’s decision is respected for that specific attendance order.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the general thrust of these amendments is to make school attendance order conditions easier for parents by, for example, increasing the information handover period, compelling consideration of the child’s relevant medical conditions—looking at the child holistically.
An important factor that has not had enough mention is that of the impact of poverty on attendance. Poverty affects school attendance for a variety of reasons, and in the third decade of the 21st century some children are unable to attend school because their parents cannot afford fuel or travel costs, or they are more likely to be absent with sickness as their families cannot afford heating or hot water, or to provide a healthy diet.
For some children, not having the right uniform and missing breakfast are barriers to them setting foot in school. Children are having to take days off school due to unwashed, ill fitting or shabby clothes. This often leads to bullying, which is a huge concern when children are unable to dress like their peers and have poorer-quality clothing, shoes and school bags. I have seen and experienced these issues first-hand as a barrier to attendance, and teachers themselves often provide for children in these desperate circumstances. It cannot be right that in a society as wealthy as Britain, we still have children living like this. Poor attendance adds to the inequalities that they face.
We know that schools are often the first point of contact when dealing with such inequalities, so it is important that we have the correct resources and tools to deal with them. Our Amendment 144 ensures that schools’ attendance policies consider how to support staff who have been given new responsibilities for implementing the policies. This whole Bill will give hard-pressed teachers even more responsibilities, so we require recognition of that and to get them the support that they deserve in those areas.
Naturally, none of these measures will increase the resources for education, financial or physical. In the debate on Monday, I noted to your Lordships the paper-thin state of local government finances, and schools are finely balanced within that equation. Such an increase in monitoring and evaluation of attendance policies will be yet another job for an already hard-pressed member of the senior management team in a school. I have served in that capacity for decades; it is an extremely stressful occupation. This is one reason it is increasingly difficult to recruit heads and deputies in the secondary sector.
Our Amendment 146 will mandate the Secretary of State to produce a breakdown of those fined to allow assessment of disparities and compel them to consider the measures to address this. If we examine the data, attendance fines and fixed penalty notices are vastly skewed towards women, who are more often caregivers, and less affluent people, who are more often dealing with truant children. The Secretary of State should be forced to recognise this injustice and tackle it. I pose the question: where is the levelling-up agenda here?
I must stress that we do not disagree with this clause in principle. I set out earlier that we must ensure that the children at greatest risk attend school regularly, but I must press the Minister on what her department’s hard evidence is—whether behavioural science or otherwise—that fines will increase the information given or get more absent children into school. Children with poor attendance need support and staff need the resources to help them deal with it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox, Lady Chapman, Lady Brinton, Lady Bennett and Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for their amendments in this group. I shall speak to Amendments 136 to 143, from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and Amendments 136A and 137A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We have worked closely with a group of local authorities in developing the timeframes set out in the Bill. As we discussed in previous groups on school attendance order timeframes, we want to ensure that the school attendance order process is as efficient as possible, so that any child not receiving a suitable education is placed in adequate provision swiftly and can benefit from the full-time education to which they are entitled.
Amendment 143D, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would bypass the existing procedures under the Children and Families Act 2014 and associated secondary legislation for amending an education, health and care plan. Clause 49, as drafted, does not prevent a parent seeking to have the name of a school changed or removed from their child’s education, health and care plan, in line with the existing process and timescales set out in the Act. Following that process, a parent may apply for the school attendance order to be revoked as normal.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for their Amendments 140A, 143A and 143C. If local authorities were required to revoke orders simply on the grounds that a child has moved to a new area, the continuity of the child’s education and the local authority’s duties to safeguard children—and to satisfy itself that every child is receiving a suitable education—would be impeded.
When a child leaves the local authority area, including, as in the example given in Amendment 140A, to move to Wales, we expect both local authorities to work together to co-ordinate and facilitate the movement of children and parents subject to school attendance orders. We expect local authorities to facilitate this swiftly and efficiently, given the importance of ensuring that all children have access to suitable full-time education, in line with their common-law obligation to act within a reasonable timeframe. We will set out further details on this issue in future guidance.
On Amendment 143E, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, I assure him that school attendance orders already apply only to children of compulsory school age. This is included under new Section 436J(4), introduced through this Bill.
On Amendments 143G and 143H, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, Clause 50 as drafted already allows the court to use its discretion to rule that a school attendance order ceases to be in force in the event of an acquittal for breaching the order. This discretion is valuable, as there may be circumstances where there are clear reasons for the order to remain in force.
If the court finds that a parent has had their child registered at the school named in the order, they would find the parent not guilty of the offence, but there may be individual factors making it important for the child to continue attending that school and, therefore, for the order to remain in force; for example, if there had been a previous pattern of school attendance orders being required in respect of that child.
Amendment 143IA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, would create duties on Ofsted to oversee local authorities’ exercise of their functions in relation to electively home-educated children and school attendance in a way that encourages a positive relationship between the two. As your Lordships have heard me and my noble friend say several times this evening, that is absolutely our goal. Ofsted already covers both elective home education and children missing education as part of its children’s social care remit; local authorities are held to account in relation to those functions.
On school attendance, through recently published attendance guidance, which we intend to put on a statutory footing through the Bill, local authorities are expected to provide attendance support to pupils who face barriers to attendance prior to considering any legal intervention. As I said earlier, in response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, it is “support, support and support” before there is any kind of enforcement. We understand that the reasons children may not be attending school are often very complex and support is almost always the right answer.
On Amendment 137D, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, local authorities are already required by law to take account of relevant factors when making decisions, including on preliminary notices. They should have the necessary in-house expertise to make these decisions but, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, that is not always the case. If local authorities do not have the expertise, they are able to consult an external expert. Parents are able to ask local authorities to take account of expert advice when making decisions, and the local authority must consider this external evidence and any other relevant considerations in line with public law.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her full reply. There are still some issues that we may wish to come back to on Report, but she has dealt comprehensively with a lot of the matters that were raised. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 49, and the other clauses and the schedule set out in the group, standing part of the Bill. I do so partly because the Bill is such a mess. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, pointed out that a lot more discussion is needed on it, but we also need to facilitate a debate on the rights of home-schooling families. That is not clear to the families themselves, nor to me because of the Bill.
We have already had extensive debates on this on previous groups, so I will not go on, but I will briefly reflect the worry that many home-schooling families have expressed to me and to other noble Lords. The Minister said on Monday that the Government are not criminalising anything and that it is dangerous to talk in these terms, but that is the sort of language that we have heard from home educators; that is how they feel. If that is not right, they need to be told, and told clearly. They are genuinely fearful that their way of life will be trammelled by this legislation and that the state will use the legal system against them.
Can the Minister please take this opportunity to make a clear statement to home-schooling families about what the legislation means for them, what safeguards will be in place to protect their way of life and what work the Government will do to ensure that positive support, rather than coercion, is provided by local authorities? There are some points from Monday’s debate that might be worth reiterating, but I am aware that it is getting on and it would be wonderful to get through the Bill today.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely on this group. I therefore invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has already expressed the worries from home educators and why she is opposing the clause standing part. My queries are more probing as to whether these clauses and the schedule should stand part.
On Clause 49 on school attendance orders, many Peers have already raised a surfeit of problems during the debate. Unlike the current system on the government website that I described, there is no sense of a ladder of penalties, of support between each stage before progressing on, or how local authorities will work as constructively as they can with parents and pupils before the process for school attendance orders kicks in. I know that the Minister said before the break that the guidance will talk about support. The problem is that, if that guidance is not in the Bill or referred to in the Bill, it might easily be missed and ignored.
On Clause 50 and failure to comply with the school attendance order, I want to come back to something the Minister said at the end of the debate on the first group. I am sorry, and I appreciate that the Minister is probably getting frustrated by this, but I have frustrations myself. She said in response to my question that prison terms were increasing from three months to 51 weeks because magistrates’ powers were now being increased from three months to 51 weeks. In fact, the current maximum is six months. It is going up to 51 weeks, but it is not currently three months. I was slightly bemused by that.
Usually, a maximum prison sentence is defined by the level of the offence, not the sentencing power of the court that is going to hear it. That is exactly why I quoted examples of crimes that would receive sentences of up to six months—threatening someone with a weapon or a second offence of possession of a gun. The example that I gave of a 12-month sentence—I appreciate that 51 weeks is not quite 12 months—was of very serious harassment and stalking, over an extended period, which involved a large team of police investigating over many months, not to mention the distress it caused to the 30 people who were the targets.
I am hearing from the Minister’s response that the drafters decided that, because magistrates will have the opportunity to sentence a convicted criminal to up to 51 weeks, that should be in the Bill. There are three worries and three groups of people involved in this. First and most importantly, what is the impact on children of a parent, especially if it is a single parent, going to prison? For three months, a temporary foster placement or possibly a short-term placement with kinship carers might be possible, but social services view a 51-week sentence very differently, even if the parent comes out after half the sentence has been served.
The second is the impact on prisons. We already know that our prisons are overcrowded. I have no idea of the numbers the Minister thinks are likely to be involved, but it might be useful to have an indication. The third is the impact on the parent who is themselves imprisoned. I ask the Minister if the Ministry of Justice has said that it is content with lines 18 to 20 in Clause 50 and this new, much-increased maximum sentence of 51 weeks.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, sort of said “all home educators” and I briefly want to say that that is not the case. Some home educators feel threatened by a number of people in their organisation, particularly a number of ex-home educators who are running and providing services. I am happy to show the noble Baroness the evidence for that privately.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I did not say “all”. I am well aware that there are others, but I did not say “all”.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness said “home educators”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, corrected by saying “some home educators”, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said “home educators”. When she said that, it indicated to me that she was talking about all home educators.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am really sorry; the noble Lord is going to have to check this in Hansard. I have my copy and that is not what I said.
Lord Storey (LD)
If I am wrong, I am wrong and will apologise, but I make the point quite strongly that a large number of home educators are getting on with home educating. Within the home education movement, there are home educators who are behaving in an unacceptable way. In the first debate we had—I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was with us—we all agreed, or the feeling of the debate was, that we need to use language that brings home educators together and works with local authorities. That is really important.
I turn to the issue of school attendance, which, again, we discussed previously. Part of me asks that, if school attendance is important—of course it is; it is hugely important, and we want to make sure every child and young person is in school—what are the tools in our kit to ensure that it happens? It must be through encouragement, reward and so on. If that is the case, should we say that there should be no sanctions, and let us do it through all other means? If we want school attendance to thrive in our society, we should not be suggesting that parents be fined, taken to court or, as my noble friend Lady Brinton mentioned, criminalised. Should we have a serious discussion about doing away with all those sanctions? If so, we need to know the consequences. I prefer a carrot-and-stick approach, but the carrot should be the overriding way we encourage parents to ensure that their children are in school.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want to detain the Committee either, but my ears also pricked up at the question of six months or 12 months. I was part of the Bill Committee when we agreed that magistrates should have the power to hand down sentences of up to a year. This is a slightly odd one; I do not think I have ever seen an offence drafted quite like this, especially given the journey that people would go on to be subject to these orders. I absolutely accept that, for a situation to get this point, the circumstances would be extremely unusual. If you need to send a parent to prison for a year for failing to get their child to school, there is a lot more going on. There will probably have been multiple interventions from social services and elsewhere before we ever got to that point. Whether the child would still be in the care of a parent who needed to go to prison for failing to get them to school is an interesting question.
It is usual, I should think, with an offence such as this, for a Minister to explain why a penalty of a year will have any more of a deterrent effect then a penalty of six months, eight months or three months. I know they would be available to a magistrate, but it is unusual to see it done in this way. I do not know whether that is because it is a Bill of the Department for Education, rather than the MoJ, which is perhaps more used to dealing with such clauses. It would be helpful if the Minister said a bit more about this.
I am content that these clauses should stand part of the Bill, but I am sensitive to the concerns of home educators, particularly those who are doing a good job. We do not want them to feel undermined or threatened in any way by this. We can stand here and say “Well, they shouldn’t; there’s no need for them to”, but the fact is that that is how they already feel, so we have a job of work to do to meet them where they are on this. At this point, it would be helpful if the Minister said what she can on that, but we do not want the clauses removed from the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I shall speak to Clauses 49, 50 and 51 and Schedule 4, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, opposes. She asked me to summarise the purpose of this part of the Bill. The overarching purpose is that we should feel confident that every child in this country is getting a suitable education, that we should offer support to those home-educating parents who feel they need it, and that we should address the very small number of children who are not in school or being suitably educated at home, and who are exposed to a range of risks which we have discussed tonight.
The other point behind the noble Baroness’s very fair question was to ask us about the spirit in which we approach this and how we are doing it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, it does not matter whether we tell parents to think a certain thing: if we feel it, we feel it. I hope that the Committee senses that we acknowledge that. I feel it is our responsibility to try to address those anxieties and put ourselves in the shoes of parents who are worried about the proposals. It is material, in our commitment to develop guidance for local authorities, that we will do that in partnership with local authorities and home-educating parents, so both voices are there. I hope very much that we will reach a good place with them, and that that recap responds to the noble Baroness’s question.
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Chapman, regarding their questions. My understanding is that we are bringing the offence in this Bill in line with other similar offences, but both noble Baronesses have asked extremely good and detailed questions and I will respond to them in writing.
Clause 49 amends the school attendance order process in England to make an order a more effective measure for parents who are not providing their child with a suitable education, or who fail to demonstrate that they are doing so to local authorities. If a local authority knows that a suitable education is not being provided, or cannot deduce whether it is, it is important that this be acted on quickly to make sure that children get a suitable education as quickly as possible. For this reason, additional timeframes have been introduced and in some existing cases, as the Committee has debated tonight, shortened. We are trying to bring more consistency by aligning the process for and effect of orders for academy schools more closely with that for maintained schools.
Clause 50 similarly seeks to increase the efficiency of the process where a parent fails to comply with a school attendance order in England, and to support the child’s right to education and minimise the amount of time that a child misses education. Today, if a child is registered at a school but their parent keeps them at home without a valid reason, the parent commits an offence and can potentially receive a heavier penalty than if they simply withdraw the child from school completely without providing any education at all and ignore a school attendance order. Equalising the maximum penalties for those two situations removes this perverse incentive to take children out of school without providing suitable home education. These changes are only being made to the school attendance order process in England. Therefore, Clause 51 and Schedule 4 make consequential amendments to help separate the two processes in England and Wales and to ensure they are reflected in relevant legislation such as the Children Act 1989 and the Education Act 1996.
With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness not to oppose Clause 49, the other clauses and Schedule 4.
Baroness Whitaker
“(c) that those policies take into account shared protected characteristics of registered pupils, as set out in the Equality Act 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require schools to take greater account of gender, ethnicity, religion etc. when designing attendance policies.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, although this amendment was scheduled to be in the last group, amendments have been moved around a bit. I am sorry I missed it.
The rationale of Amendment 143J is that attendance policies should respect protected characteristics—that is, those that are cardinal to a child’s identity and enjoin small, short absences such as for religious or other festivals or necessary travel by parents. I beg to move.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand the importance of schools developing their attendance policies in a way that considers the characteristics of individual pupils, including those with protected characteristics that may mean they face greater barriers to attendance. The Equality Act 2010 protects pupils with certain characteristics, such as race, disability and religion, from discrimination in their educational setting. Schools have clear duties under the Act, and we expect them to develop all policies, including attendance policies, in line with those duties.
The department recently published attendance guidance, Working Together To Improve School Attendance, which we intend to put on a statutory footing through the Bill. In addition, through this guidance and their own Equality Act obligations, academy trust boards and governing bodies of maintained schools are expected to ensure that their schools have an attendance policy that considers their obligations under the Act.
As I believe the amendment to be unnecessary, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(f) the extent to which mental illness has contributed to truancy, and how mental health will be considered in developing the policy.”
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Good mental health is fundamental to thriving in life. I knew it from the other side of the tracks. My dear, late mother suffered greatly with mental health throughout her life, so I grew up and grew old trying to deal with it. It made me much more aware of what it means. I always used to say that if my mother came into school or wherever wearing a plaster cast on her arm, they would know that she had a broken arm. However, they did not know that she had a broken mind. At times it was extremely challenging. It made me a better person, more understanding and very aware of mental health issues.
More than one in 10 children aged 10 to 15 say they have no one to talk to or would not talk to anyone in school if they felt worried or sad. This is the same proportion of children who have a diagnosable mental health problem. Research shows that 50% of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 and 75% are by the age of 24. Young people in the UK today are dealing with high levels of stress due to a variety of issues.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely in this group. I invite the noble Baroness to take part.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, especially today when the Anti-Bullying Alliance is asking all of us to encourage children to talk to someone if they are isolated, depressed or bullied. We know that they are not alone, but of course they feel fearfully alone.
Amendment 145 returns us to the issue of mental health in children in schools, which I raised in earlier parts of the Bill. It looks specifically at school attendance policy and ensuring that any mental health illness that has contributed to truancy is taken into account. That is helpful and fits neatly with my other amendments about following the advice of a doctor.
Amendment 170 is more general, and asks for Ofsted to assess the mental health of a student body—the overall health of all children in a school. We know that children and young people, their parents, their families, Ministers and parliamentarians are all too aware of the effect of the pandemic on their mental health. It is really important that we learn from that.
That is why I am particularly pleased to see Amendment 171M placing a duty on the Secretary of State to report each year on the physical health and mental health of children at school in England. This is particularly helpful, especially with all the concerns expressed recently. I particularly like the physical side: we all talk all the time about how important it is that children take exercise and that they eat properly. On all sides of the House, we discuss it often. But I do not think we actually assess what is happening in schools. For the Secretary of State to have to prepare an annual report on this will be extraordinarily helpful. I particularly like, in the amendment, proposed new paragraph (b)(iii) and (iv), which specifies
“the length of time spent by pupils waiting for mental health support provided through their school”
and
“the adequacy of provision of mental health support in and through schools.”
That is because at the moment there is no focus. We keep saying that schools are the front line of mental health problems; indeed, we know that money has been put in by the NHS to provide counselling services, but we need to be able to see how long children are waiting and whether that money is sufficient. I have to say, wearing my health portfolio hat, that we know that mental health is still really underfunded, so we need to understand if delays continue even after some of this money has reached the front line.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is absolutely right: the NHS cannot do this on its own. But I would go further: managing children’s mental health problems must be a joint venture between the child’s school and their access to mental health services. By cataloguing this in a report, the Secretary of State can be held accountable, alongside the Secretary of State for Health, for making sure that the Government deliver on their promises for mental health for our children.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on the issue raised by these amendments. I support the thrust of them, although I do not support all the details, particularly the one about Ofsted. I think that would not be an Ofsted role, but I agree that we need to have focus on it and that some organisation needs to give it.
My worry is that we are in the foothills of learning about what we should do with mental health in school. When I taught, which was many years ago now, it was never even discussed. It was not on our agenda, yet the children I taught in the inner city were just as likely to suffer from mental health problems as the generation that we have now. We are very much learning how to deal with this, which is worth bearing in mind.
I do not know what the answers are, but I think there is a problem and it is growing. In a way, it is becoming more evident to us because we did not analyse it in that way. Historically, we have always assumed that children did not suffer from mental health problems. It could be unhappiness at home, bad behaviour or whatever, but in schools we did not focus on mental health being a problem, except in the most extreme cases. Things are being done, but we really are in the foothills and we had such a long way to go before now.
There is the whole issue about CAMHS and its underfunding. It is a disgrace—we all know that. So much more needs to be done. I was interested in hearing from the Minister was about prevention work and the things that we can reasonably expect schools to do to head off people needing more acute services. The work I do in the Birmingham Education Partnership has had some success in this. We received a grant from the clinical commissioning group—so it was actually health money—about three or four years ago. We have rolled out a programme across the city now. I think it has been taken up by the DfE and is either closely aligned to, or has become part of, the DfE initiative, where it is getting mental health leads in schools.
All that is good, and I have seen the good work happening, but it is not universally successful. In Birmingham, where we have over 400 schools, we have put in extra money, resource and effort; we value this highly and prioritise it. After three or four years, however, we have still not rolled it out to every school, and we have only one person on this. This is a major problem. That is where my concerns are.
I will end up not disagreeing at all with what the Minister says about the initiative that has been launched for mental health leads, but it is not at the pace or speed that we need. We are starting from way behind if you look at any other area of school activity, be it phonics, numeracy, PE, sports or art. We have only just started on the journey of understanding what to do to support our young people with mental health difficulties. I should like to hear from the Minister what else is going to happen, and how they will build on the small seeds which have been slowly put into the ground and will take decades to help solve the problem.
If we are to get this right, we must have a picture that schools will not be staffed as they are at the moment. I worry that it is the teacher who has become the mental health lead. To be honest, if it is the physics teacher doing that, we need them in the physics lab teaching physics lessons. We cannot constantly take teachers away from the subjects we need them to teach to give them extra responsibilities to address important issues.
I know I am harking back a bit but, in the days of Every Child Matters and Sure Start, the aim that we made a start on when I was in the department was for a school to be staffed with people other than teachers. I remember visiting a school in the north-east, in Gateshead, where the secondary head proudly told me that just under 50% of his staff were teaching. The other 51% were not teaching: they were counsellors, mentors, assistants, lab assistants, careers advisers—all those other things. Unless you have that multitude of roles within the school, you cannot expect schools to be a key player in this; they just cannot do it. They can enable politicians to tick the box, make a speech and say, “I have done this”, but they will not be delivering effectively.
My vision would be to go back to the model of schools as bases where we can begin to support children’s mental health needs. The only way to do that adequately is to staff them with people who have the skills to do it. Of course, teachers have a role in that and we need mental health leads. I do not have a problem with that, but we cannot have nothing between the mental health lead and CAMHS. That is what we have at the moment: there is nothing in between, as far as a school is concerned. That is my worry.
It is a shame that Amendment 171Y was not spoken to as it is about testing eyesight. It is a great little amendment and it would be effective. I happened to work with some researchers once who did research in American kindergartens, the lowest schools in the system; they were experts in literacy and numeracy. They did eye tests on all five and six year-olds, and the number of children proven to need glasses at that point was unbelievable. They gave the kids a pair of glasses and kept a pair of glasses at the school—it was in a deprived area—and the attainment rate at the school rose significantly. No one had spotted that poor eyesight meant that the child did not know that they were missing out to some extent, especially children sitting at the back of classes. It is an important amendment, which would not need as much resource as mental health, but it would add to well-being and health. That would acknowledge the point that if we want to remove barriers to children’s learning, making sure they are mentally and physically well is a prerequisite for everything else.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to raise some qualms about this set of amendments. For different reasons, I find myself agreeing with the way the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, has just raised some issues.
I have spoken, on earlier amendments, about my concern about pathologising and medicalising all sorts of everyday experiences for children and adolescents. If we see the trials and tribulations of growing up— goodness knows, there are many of them—too much through the prism of mental health, we can contribute to children being anxious and worried about their own mental health. There is a kind of danger that we make children self-absorbed or unable to get over things and undermine their resilience. Important work has been done on this. One of my favourite books is The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education by Professors Kathryn Ecclestone and Dennis Hayes, which was ahead of its time in worrying about some of these issues and raising them. There is a whole body of research on this work.
Lord Storey (LD)
For the first time, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in many of the things that she said. This is a first.
One thing I want to add is that the Covid lockdown certainly created real problems. However, you can go further back and say that the recession created a situation whereby local authorities had massive cuts to their budgets. For example, my local authority in Liverpool lost a third of its budget, and services such as CAMHS just went. The resource was not there.
We all understand that young children’s mental health is hugely important, but we have not really thought it through. I do not mean this as any criticism at all. Governments will say, “Yes, we’ve got this scheme going, we’re doing this and we’re doing that”, but I would much prefer it if we completely understood what provision we needed to provide in all our schools and then made sure that it was absolutely Rolls-Royce. I would rather we said that, in every single primary and secondary school in England and Wales, we will ensure that somebody referred to CAMHS is seen within 10 days. Currently, we cannot do that. On Monday, we took evidence from a group of parents regarding, I am sorry to say, alternative provision. A very young, single parent talked us through how she had waited never mind days but months to get referred to CAMHS. Let us do just one small thing at a time and be successful in it.
The second thing I want to say, which my noble friend Lady Brinton mentioned, is the importance of linking up with health. We are not very good at this. I remember that health was the real problem for the education, health and care plans in the Children and Families Act. Getting health to work with education was an absolute nightmare, so good luck on that one. I do not understand why that is the case.
I turn to Amendment 171Y. Noble Lords will be sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has had to catch a train back to Cardiff, so she asked me whether I would read out her speech—am I allowed to say that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord can speak to the amendment, but he should not read out the noble Baroness’s speech, as she is not here.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am learning all the time, after 10 years.
Some 80% of all learning is visual. A child who has undiagnosed, uncorrected vision problems faces academic disadvantages, particularly in literacy and numeracy. This affects their safety, social and cultural development, and physical agility, and disadvantages them for life. The current child screening programme recommended by the National Screening Committee is targeted at four to five year-olds starting school, but a recent pre-Covid study suggested that only around 50% of local authorities are fully compliant with its specifications, and there is no commissioned post-screening follow-up. There is no provision for vision screening in other age groups, despite the numbers needing visual correction increasing in secondary school years.
The prevalence of myopia—short-sightedness—among 10 to 16 year-olds has more than doubled in the past 50 years from 7.2% to 16.4% and continues to grow. During Covid, short-sightedness may have increased between 1.4 and three times, driven by more time indoors and increased screen time. Up to 15% of pupils need spectacles or need their spectacles reviewed. Although an NHS eye examination is free for under 16 year-olds, a child might not be fully aware of, or may be reluctant to admit to, vision problems that would be picked up by a simple universal screening programme. Parents, teachers and carers might also not realise that the child’s vision is deficient. Universal screening would ensure that advice is available to all.
Basic smartphone or laptop-enabled screening could take less than one minute per eye to carry out. It builds on screening carried out in developing countries by volunteers using an “E” shape. Here, training of volunteers or support staff takes only half a day. Reports from schools are positive. It simply alerts the parent or guardian that the child should have a free NHS eye check. The details of the standard can be agreed by the Secretaries of State for Education and Health, with appropriate input from professional bodies and education advisers.
The amendment would not interfere with the NHS’s special schools eye care service, which began to roll out in April 2021 to over 70 special schools. Four in five children with learning difficulties attend special schools and are 28% more likely to have a sight problem than other children; 23% need glasses. The NHS service in special schools is praised by schools and parents. It has already identified that half of children in special schools have a sight problem, and more than 4,000 children have already benefited from it. I hope the Minister can provide an assurance that the rollout of the NHS’s special schools eye care service will restart, to reach a further 130,000 children in the next few years.
The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to set the standards to provide simple screening for all schools to alert to possible vision problems, which, if unaddressed, threaten the academic potential and social development of the child. It aims to remove health inequalities and to enable all children to access the support they need.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, taking first Amendment 145, the Government recognise that some pupils, such as those with mental ill-health, may face greater barriers to attendance than their peers. To ensure that all pupils receive the support they need to remove barriers to attendance, the department has recently published new attendance guidance entitled Working Together to Improve School Attendance. Through this Bill, we intend to make this guidance statutory.
The new guidance sets a clear expectation on all schools to have an attendance policy that is applied in such a way that it considers the individual needs of pupils and supports pupils to overcome barriers to attendance. This includes supporting pupils with mental ill-health, so that they can attend school regularly. This is in addition to obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ofsted will consider schools’ efforts to improve or sustain high attendance as part of its regular inspections, which includes efforts on their attendance policies.
On Amendment 170, it is right that schools should be accountable for their role in supporting their pupils’ mental health, but requiring Ofsted inspectors to assess pupils’ mental health and then to restrict inspection outcomes on that basis, as this amendment would do, would place responsibility for pupils’ mental health squarely on the shoulders of the individual school. I hope your Lordships would accept that that is not appropriate. Many factors can influence a pupil’s mental health and some of these, such as the culture of a school, are inside the school’s control, but many others are not.
As I think noble Lords have agreed on previous debates on mental health, it is not for schools to take on the role of providing specialist mental health support. It is important that we hold schools to account for the right things: delivering a high-quality curriculum that meets people’s needs; providing strong pastoral support; promoting a strong ethos and an inclusive culture; ensuring pupils are safe and feel safe; and engaging effectively with parents and local services. These elements play a key role in supporting pupils’ mental health and are an essential focus of Ofsted’s school inspections.
On Amendment 171M, the department already gathers and assesses a range of data on children and young people’s mental and physical health to improve our understanding and inform the support we provide children, young people and education settings. We do this through publishing an annual State of the Nation report. The department also undertakes and publishes pupil, parent and teacher omnibus surveys, which include a range of questions about the type and level of mental health support provided in schools.
What the debate has been trying to get at—and we have had this for several days in Committee—is thinking through and making sure the Government continue to be held to account for improving the provision of mental health services for young people, including in the support they get through schools. We have put quite a lot of thought and work into that, but there is definitely more to do.
To take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, we have a policy of putting funding in place so that every school can have a mental health lead trained by 2025. That mental health lead can take a whole-school view of the school’s role in supporting pupils’ mental health. A lot of that might be about prevention, discussion in PSHE classes, the school’s ethos and other things. They will then be equipped with the training to make sure they develop the right approach for their school, but we know that they should not provide specialist mental health support. That is why we are rolling out mental health support teams to provide both early support within schools and that link to specialist support. That is funded by the NHS.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Picking up on the glasses point raised by my noble friend Lady Morris and in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I remember that we had a huge influx of Roma children to Newport a couple of years ago. Ensuring that they got their eyes tested was very much part of what we did for them—it opened up a whole new world and we kept a spare pair of glasses in school for them. We had about 150 children in one fell swoop. It was a great idea and I have seen it work in practice.
The new guidance to which the Minister refers will no doubt be welcomed, if there is specific awareness of mental health issues. I note her response regarding Ofsted and the comments from other noble Lords, but I still think that there are opportunities that could be developed. We indeed want to hold the Government to account for improving and developing the approach towards mental health matters; it is about playing catch-up, and this is not going to go away. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to stop large families being classed as a school.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, large families are not a school unless they are very large families and fish. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 147 and 152.
I applaud the Government for including in this Bill Clause 56, which seeks to ensure that schools currently avoiding registration and inspection are included in Ofsted’s remit in the future. This is a far more important issue than we may have considered it. This country has been standing by while an unknown number of extremist, fundamentalist, isolationist schools are teaching children to reject the values of the country in which they are growing up. What will some of those children do when they grow up? Will they join a terrorist organisation? We simply do not know.
Ofsted has written to me to give us the benefit of some of its information, which is worth quoting. It says that at least 6,000 children are being educated in 900 unregistered schools, or, as it puts it, likely many more. It is very concerning that Ofsted has issued more than 100 warning notices to those it believes are running illegal schools, and 40 % of those settings have not changed to comply with registration as a result. These are people who do not respect the law, so we have to be very tough with them.
It is worrying that children are not learning the most fundamental subjects, including maths and English. Not only is the narrow religious curriculum in many unregistered schools unacceptable but these schools may have unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Ofsted says that it found settings with severe health and safety hazards, and other problems. No one is able to check on these things so long as schools evade registration.
I want to thank Rob Cann of Humanists UK for his very detailed briefing and the precise wording of these amendments.
In Clause 56, the Government are seeking to extend registration to independent education institutions—that is fantastic—but only to those which provide all, or the majority, of the child’s education. Herein lies a significant loophole. The proprietors of some such settings know that if they are inspected, they will have to choose between changing to something very different and closing down. They are therefore very wily and will do all they can to continue to evade regulation and inspection. They will use every loophole they can find to wriggle out of their safeguarding duties. Amendment 146B would limit registration to establishments that provide 18 hours of teaching for 39 weeks of the year. That would be something, but I believe these schools would adjust their regime and continue to avoid registration.
Without doubt, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, these proprietors—who all know one another; there are little groups of them—will get together and split their provision into separate morning and afternoon settings, or some other configuration such as one teacher taking kids in the morning, another in the afternoon. Neither will then be subject to registration under Clause 56 as it stands, and I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on this loophole and whether the Government are content to see these extremist schools escape the important purpose of this Bill.
I recognise that Clause 56(2) allows further tightening definitions to be done through regulations. Here, I am going to say something from experience. Nine years ago, I allowed, if you like, the Government to have a little adjustment to my proposal for an amendment on the face of a Bill on the basis that they would introduce regulations and deal with the problem. I thought, “Well, that sounds okay”. Was I naive? Nine years later, nothing has happened, so I am not impressed with the idea that this can be dealt with through regulations. I fear that it simply would not be done. That is a bit cynical, but it really is my experience.
My Amendment 147 has been carefully thought through. By applying registration only to establishments providing at least a quarter of a child’s education, it would not catch common after-school classes in music, sport or, indeed, religion. I very much hope the Minister will feel able to accept it.
Amendment 152 would close off another loophole for unregistered schools. Many of them operate in private dwellings; indeed, 85% of illegal education settings in Hackney, the borough with the greatest prevalence of illegal schools, are private dwellings. If the proprietor puts down a mattress in a school, on inspection, the school may be classified as a dwelling and a warrant would be required under the law as it stands. Without a warrant, the inspection would be invalidated, so, as Clause 63 stands, a warrant will be required for almost every investigation to prevent that. This will generate unacceptable pressure on the courts, the courts will then put a whole lot of pressure on the inspectors to prove that they really need the warrant, and the whole system could be snarled up. It is reasonable to suppose that determined proprietors will disguise their settings as dwellings to try to protect themselves from Ofsted’s new powers. As I said, they will do just about anything.
Clause 63 introduces a requirement that inspectors can enter a private dwelling only if a warrant has been issued, and a request for a warrant is permissible only if consent has been refused. This leaves in limbo the situation of an inspection in what could be deemed a private dwelling where consent has been given. I am sure this is not the intention, but the wording leaves open the situation of those inspections where consent is given but there is a problem; it leaves an issue.
Registration and inspection of schools must, of course, be dealt with sensitively and authorities cannot be given free access to private dwellings without a warrant if consent is not given. Nevertheless, if the first intimation for Ofsted that a school is in a so-called private dwelling is when it attempts to enter the building, it will need to go away, fill in the forms and ultimately get a warrant, which could take a week or more. This will allow lots of time for the proprietors to conceal, dispose of or fabricate false evidence about whether a school was in operation within the dwelling. Surprise is essential in such situations.
Some proprietors will be less cunning than others and perhaps have less need to be, if a proprietor provides access immediately to an inspector arriving at the address. Amendment 152 clarifies that a warrant will be required only where consent has not been given for entry and where the setting visibly appears to be a dwelling. That sounds a bit pedantic, but it is important, on the basis that these people may just put a mattress down somewhere and claim it is a private dwelling. What is a private dwelling? All sorts of things can be done by them.
I hope the Minister will therefore ask officials to give serious consideration to the following two points. First, the current drafting of Clause 63 is poor and risks making matters worse for Ofsted inspectors. The element of surprise is so important, yet Clause 63 seems to reduce the scope for that surprise. Secondly, the clause does not clarify what a private dwelling is. Will the Minister ensure that, if possible, a definition of a private dwelling for the purposes of the Bill is given in it?
I failed at the beginning of my speech to thank the Minister very much indeed for the discussion we had, and I remember that one of her points was: how on earth do you define a private dwelling—it is probably impossible? I hope that efforts will be made to define a private dwelling to avoid what I call the mattress problem.
Again, I emphasise that the Government seek to achieve a very important objective in these clauses. I hope these comments are helpful; they are certainly intended to be.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I should like briefly to add my support to these two very sensible amendments, which would stop unscrupulous unregistered schools circumventing the law and speed up the inspection process.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 171C and 171D. I strongly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as well. I think she has a very correct estimate of the challenges and has presented some situations that are rather familiar in how they will be used to try to circumvent the Bill. I express my thanks to the Minister for her courtesy and for the time with her and her officials to discuss the matters raised in these amendments.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my own Amendment 149, and also speak to Amendment 152 and 171C. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the amendments and congratulate the Government for, for the first time, trying to sort this problem out. I do not want to repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, because she has painted the situation as it has existed, which is, frankly, totally unacceptable in our society.
I met with people from Ofsted yesterday—and I have had a long-running dialogue with Ofsted over the issue of unregistered schools. I asked them if we have sorted this issue out. They said, “Yes, Government have done the right things now, and this will make a real contribution”. They paused and said that, if we wanted to do something further, we could do, just to close that very small loophole in the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised. I hope between Committee and Report, the Government might look at this again. It would be silly to have got so far, and not be able to deal with that last bit where they morph into private dwellings. I know the Minister is very keen that we deal with this, and so I hope she will think carefully about that.
I turn to unregistered schools. We talk a lot about young children and attendance at school, and a lot of time, quite rightly, we talk about special educational needs. If there is one group of young people who are constantly forgotten, and pushed from pillar to post, it is those young people who are excluded from school. They are often excluded from school for all the wrong reasons. They are often young people who have special educational needs. In fact, the vast majority of young people excluded from school have special needs. Just think what happens to them. If they are lucky, there is a pupil referral unit on the site, and that seems to me to be the right model. I know the Government are looking at expanding the number of pupil referral units. It seems right to me that they are on the school campus and they can draw from the expertise of the school, and the young people can, we hope, go back into mainstream schooling—if that is the right expression to use. I welcome that, but that is not going to deal with the problem, because the progress in providing that number of pupil referral units will take a long time.
So what happens? If they are lucky, these young people go to a registered provider, but there are not enough registered providers. There is also the issue, which we have talked about quite a lot in this Chamber, of unregistered providers. Some providers are genuine, but some just want to make money and they are almost babysitting those young people. It is absolutely awful: Ofsted told me of a number of providers that charge £50 a day, plus the taxi fare in. If you speak to Ofsted, they will tell you that. What do you get for £50? You get somebody childminding a really vulnerable young person who has special educational needs. Why does that happen? It is because we do not have the places in registered schools, and also because local authorities are strapped for cash. In the past, I have questioned why local authorities do that. I think they do it because they are strapped for cash, but also there is not the provision available. If most of the young people have special educational needs, that special educational needs money does not get to them. Certainly, the staff in these establishments do not have the qualifications, the training, the expertise or the interest in giving them the support and education these young people need.
I do not have all the answers to the current situation we are in. Clearly, the Government are looking at this issue and we need to keep it high on our agenda and keep coming back to it. Noble Lords can be sure that we on these Benches will do that.
There are a couple of practices that I do not like, and which can be closed down straightaway. There is the “managed move”, which used to happen with local authorities: a young person who was disruptive, rather than being permanently excluded from school, was moved to another school to be managed. Sometimes it worked at the other school, or then they would maybe be moved to another school, and if it did not work, they would go back to their original school. If that failed, they would be permanently excluded. Now they go on a dual register, so they are on the register of the school that they are excluded from and the school or alternative provision that they are going to but then, come the examinations, they are immediately taken off the host school, because they affect the overall results. We must examine that very carefully indeed.
The Minister knows the problem better than anybody. I just hope that we can come to some sensible moves on this.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I want to embellish a couple of points particularly pertinent to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Meacher.
Some noble Lords may remember that a few years ago we created care orders in cases of FGM for the family court. What emerged from the research that I did into that was that it was the family units that were espousing FGM but, furthermore, they liked to see themselves as a society—and, in certain cases, belonged to a society—that initiated and believed in female genital mutilation. I make this point because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, it is very easy for a small group of people to move from being a family unit to being accepted possibly as a “school” and thereby having the moral authority to take forward these practices and propagate them. I mention this as a point which we should bear in mind, given what my noble friend Lady Meacher and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, were warning us about.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is a characteristically sensible suggestion. I hope that the Government are mindful and assure the House that there is no loophole or that an amendment will be used to close it. The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn raise similar important issue. The Minister is nodding, so I am sure that she will have something positive to say about this.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about excluded children, is an important one. Maybe we cannot deal with everything in his remarks through this Bill, but I hope that we can attend to those issues that have been around for such a long time. We still see managed moves used far too frequently. It is gaming the system. We know that it goes on. I am sure that when we put in measures to deal with that there will then be another set of behaviours to tackle, but such is life.
On our Amendment 171G, I was very keen to get something in the Bill that has come out of Josh MacAlister’s potentially ground-breaking report. MacAlister’s argument is that in too many places the contribution and voice of education is missing from multi-agency safeguarding conversations. I hear often from partners, usually in health, how difficult it is to engage with schools. Schools want their voices to be heard and to have a statutory role but are unable to do so at the moment. The recommendation from the MacAlister report is that there should be the opportunity that there is in this Bill—well, I am saying that it is an opportunity in this Bill. If we do not take it, I wonder whether when we get the Government’s full response to the MacAlister report we will look back at this and regret that we did not take the opportunity of what is quite a simple recommendation.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will comment briefly, following on from the noble Baroness. As usual in education debates, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council, which accredits and represents some 1,400 schools, and as the current president of the Independent Schools Association, one of the council’s constituent bodies, which has some 580 of those schools in its membership. There is not a household name among them, and none of them is large in size: many have no more than 200 pupils, some less. But all of them are serving their local communities; responding to their parents’ wishes; striving to keep fees down; and fulfilling their charitable purposes, not just by providing education—recognised as a charitable purpose in law for over 400 years—but by delivering wider public benefit through bursaries, partnership projects with local state schools, and participation in local community projects. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not give further details in full reply to the noble Baroness.
This amendment seems to have been dug out of the Labour Party’s archives.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It has not been dug out of an archive. I expect it to be in our next manifesto, so I expect the noble Lord to have to engage with this on a regular basis.
Lord Lexden
I want to give some background, if I may. At the general election of February 1974 the Labour manifesto declared:
“All forms of tax-relief and charitable status for public schools will be withdrawn.”
With some redrafting, “private schools” being substituted for “public schools” for example, this remained the Labour Party’s position during the rest of the 1970s and throughout the 1980s. At the 1992 election, the threat to charitable status disappeared, 30 years later to suddenly come back now, a weary ghost from the past.
What has happened during the last 30 years? Something significant has occurred: schools in the two sectors of education have moved ever closer together. The credit for this, of course, belongs to the schools themselves. They were drawn together by a recognition of the mutual benefits of partnership in so many different areas—in teaching, particularly in specialist subjects, music, drama and sport. Today this large programme of joint work is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the Independent Schools Council and the Government. Details are available on the council’s Schools Together website. Extensive though the programme is, there is more to be done. The best thing that everyone who has the interests of education at heart can do is to press independent and state schools to do more together. Noble Lords opposite should perhaps visit some independent schools to see what partnership work they are carrying out with state sector colleagues—that is the word they use, “colleagues”.
When I was at the Independent Schools Council, years ago, I found it quite difficult to interest the Conservative Party in any of this; Tony Blair’s Government was a different matter. Education Ministers, including Charles Clarke and David Miliband, came to the council’s offices for discussions. An official independent/state schools partnership scheme was set up to encourage progress, backed by modest funding from the Department for Education. In 2000, the then Schools Minister wrote that there had been “a huge cultural change”. In January 2001, she wrote: “There are no plans to legislate to remove charitable status from independent schools.” The same Minister got independent schools seats in the General Teaching Council and introduced special fast-track arrangements to help teachers in independent schools get QTS. She referred to them earlier in these debates. Always listen carefully to everything the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, says in this House. I am sorry she is not in her place at the moment.
For years, independent schools have used the benefits of their charitable status, and more besides, to give help with fees. Back in 2001, I used to say that for every pound of benefit received, they provided £2.30 in help with fees. What would be the effect of overturning a law that has stood for over 400 years by confiscating the schools’ charitable status? Fees would rise, bursaries would fall, and schools would become more socially exclusive. I think the policy embodied in this amendment should go back to the Labour Party’s archives.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, that was a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on a number of important issues, which I will try and cover in my remarks. I turn first to Amendment 146A from my noble friend Lord Lucas, which would exempt settings that are classified as being a family from regulation under the Education and Skills Act 2008. I can assure my noble friend that the Government already, and will continue to, consider private arrangements where parents home educate their own children only as exempt.
Turning to Amendment 146B from the noble Lord, Lord Knight: we consulted in 2020 on defining full-time provision as being 18 or more hours per week. However, we concluded that this approach would encourage gaming of the system, allowing settings to opt out of regulation by operating just short of the threshold. We heard powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about how there are settings determined to do just that. So, guidance will be produced to help settings to understand where the registration requirements apply.
Amendments 147 and 149 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to register part-time provision and other unregistered provision where local authorities place children. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also highlighted some of the cultural sensitivities that arise in addressing some of these settings. Unregistered alternative provision, as the noble Lord knows, can provide a valuable hook back into learning for children who have complex needs or require bespoke packages. Its use, though, as the noble Lord knows extremely well, requires extremely careful planning and oversight. We absolutely agree on the need to act to address poor commissioning practice, and I know my officials would be very keen to meet with the noble Lord if he would be agreeable to discuss this further. As we set out in the recent special educational needs and alternative provision Green Paper, we are absolutely committed to strengthening protections for children in unregistered alternative provision, and we will be issuing a call for evidence before the summer on its use. I know the noble Lord will contribute to that.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Regulating part-time settings would address the risk that currently unregistered full-time provision is split into separate settings. I know this is also a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. However, most part-time provision does serve a legitimate purpose, and this risks interrupting the support and education that those settings provide, where it is provided legitimately. We believe that automatically applying the regulatory regime for independent schools to therapeutic and part-time settings would be inappropriate and likely to introduce unnecessary burdens. However, we will look at this again in the light of the call for evidence.
On Amendment 152 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, Clause 63 introduces, as she described, new search powers. The powers as drafted aim to balance the need to enable Ofsted to search effectively with the safeguarding of civil liberties. This amendment would risk disrupting that balance. I know that the noble Baroness’s concern is that one would lose the element of surprise if inspectors went to an address and then had to go away and get a warrant, but requiring warrants before people’s homes are searched, particularly where consent is not given to enter the property, is a proportionate safeguard.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
This is not quite the right moment to do this, but I thank the Minister for allowing me to say a word. Has she been in touch with Ofsted and is she satisfied that it is reassured that it will be able to inspect these illegal schools—these, in my view, very high-risk schools? Is Ofsted content?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am obviously cautious about speaking on behalf of Ofsted, but we have worked closely with it in developing this legislation. My understanding is that it is content, but I would not want to speak on its behalf, as it is an independent body.
Lord Storey (LD)
That is a very fair answer but between Committee and Report, will the Minister just make sure that Ofsted is completely content and there are no further loopholes?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to do that.
I was talking about how institutions might be operating separately but effectively as one institution. The evidence Ofsted might use to establish that could relate to individuals acting in concert or other evidence of links between the activities, such as the same pupils being educated on different premises. Clause 63 is intended to enhance Ofsted’s powers of inspection in these circumstances. This could include the investigation of so-called “tapestry schools”, with which the noble Lord is rightly concerned. In brief, we believe that those loopholes are closed.
As I explained, we do not believe it appropriate to regulate part-time settings until we have considered the response to the call for evidence on unregistered alternative provision. However, as we have discussed at length, parents have a duty to ensure that their children who are of compulsory school age receive a suitable full-time education. As we know from our earlier debates, local authorities can check this, and where a parent cannot demonstrate that the settings a child attends provide a suitable education, a school attendance order could of course be issued. A parent who sends their child to a different setting that provides only a narrow religious education with no secular education each weekday is very unlikely to be ensuring that their child receives a suitable full-time education, which I think is the point the noble Lord is rightly concerned about. I would be delighted to meet with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to work through some of these examples in detail to assure them that we are meeting the spirit of their amendments.
Amendment 154 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman, would remove the charitable status of independent educational institutions. When the noble Baroness talked about a change of tone, I thought for a minute that we were going to go to a certain place, but I thank her for the very measured way in which she made her case.
Independent schools that are charities are already obliged to show public benefit, as the noble Baroness acknowledged. She questioned the strength of that, but we are concerned that we should avoid piecemeal reform of charity law, aimed at only one group of charities. The amendment risks creating pressure to extend the removal of charitable status to other sectors. All charities must exist for public benefit, but they are not required to serve the whole public. It is not clear why this principle should change for one group, namely independent schools, and not for other charities.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden explained better than I can and with much greater experience, 85% of independent school council members are already involved in cross-sector working. I have met with a number of schools that are in different partnerships. I think there is a real sense of mutual benefit for the private schools and state-funded schools working together. I know that the noble Baroness and the Government will not agree on this point, but we see independent schools as an asset in our school system. Our responsibility is to make sure they fulfil their charitable purpose and that we use that asset to maximum benefit.
Finally, on Amendment 171G, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, schools are already under a statutory duty to act in accordance with the arrangements set out by local safeguarding partners. The noble Baroness will remember the recommendations made in Sir Alan Wood’s report following the review of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. The Government legislated in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to remove the requirement for local authorities to establish local safeguarding children’s boards. The 2004 Children Act was then amended by the 2017 Act to include provisions relating to those three safeguarding partners—the local authority, police and health—including a duty to make arrangements for them and any appropriate relevant agencies to work together to deliver their safeguarding functions. So there is some history here that we need to remember and take into consideration. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out that the independent review included a recommendation to make schools a statutory safeguarding partner. It is something that needs proper consideration and to which we will respond in our implementation strategy later this year.
I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his Amendment 146A and I ask other noble Lords not to move the amendments in their names.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the answer she gave on my amendment. I had a lot of sympathy for Amendment 149, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey. If we are to require home educators to provide a suitable education, we should make the same requirement of local authorities. What is important is that all children get a suitable education, and we should not accept backsliding by the state on that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, would expect, as editor of the Good Schools Guide and a product of Eton, I do not have any sympathy for her amendment. It just seems self-defeating. If you take away the charitable exemption so that independent schools start paying rates, they will do that much less charitable work. That charitable benefit goes straight through to charitable work; the sufferers will be the people currently benefiting from the charity. It will all come back to the state because, although the local authorities may get some additional money from business rates, the state will find itself educating a lot more pupils who are currently being educated elsewhere, not at its expense. The same applies to VAT, but in spades. It appears merely to be an unsatisfactory solution to a long-running niggle. This Government’s approach to try to get the two sectors working together, integrated and benefiting each other, so that they become part of a unified system in rather the way that the health service works with private providers, seems a much better idea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“Education and childcare behaviour orders(1) The Education and Skills Act 2008 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).(2) In section 96 (unregistered independent educational institutions: offence), at the end insert—“(5) Schedule A1 makes provision enabling a court to make an education and childcare behaviour order where a person is convicted of an offence under this section.”(3) Before Schedule 1 insert—“Schedule A1Education and childcare behaviour ordersMaking an education and childcare behaviour order
1 (1) Where a person (the “defendant”) is convicted of an offence under section 96 (conducting an unregistered independent educational institution) after the coming into force of this Schedule, the prosecution may apply for an education and childcare behaviour order.(2) On an application under sub-paragraph (1), the court may make an education and childcare behaviour order if it thinks it is appropriate to do so for the purpose of protecting children from the risk of harm arising from the defendant conducting an unregistered independent educational institution or otherwise providing children with education, childcare, instruction or supervision. (3) An education and childcare behaviour order is an order which, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)—(a) requires the defendant to do anything specified in the order, or(b) prohibits the defendant from doing anything specified in the order.(4) The court may make an education and childcare behaviour order in respect of the defendant only if it is made in addition to—(a) a sentence imposed in respect of the offence under section 96, or(b) an order discharging the offender conditionally.(5) If, following an application by the prosecution for an education and childcare behaviour order, the court decides not to make such an order, it must state in open court its reasons for that decision.Duration of education and childcare behaviour order
2 (1) An education and childcare behaviour order takes effect on the day on which it is made.(2) An education and childcare behaviour order must specify the period for which it has effect, which must be a fixed period of at least six months and not more than three years.(3) Where a court makes an education and childcare behaviour order in respect of a defendant who is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.Application for variation or discharge of education and childcare behaviour order
3 (1) The defendant may apply to the appropriate court for an order varying or discharging an education and childcare behaviour order.(2) On an application under this paragraph, the court may by order vary or discharge the education and childcare behaviour order.(3) A defendant may not make an application under this paragraph—(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the order was made, or(b) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which any previous application under this paragraph was refused.(4) In this paragraph, the “appropriate court” means—(a) the court that made the order, or(b) a magistrates’ court for the area in which the defendant lives.Offence of breaching education and childcare behaviour order
4 (1) A person who breaches an education and childcare behaviour order is guilty of an offence.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine (or to both).(3) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, for “51 weeks” in sub-paragraph (2), substitute “six months”.(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this paragraph, it is not open to the court by or before which the person is convicted to make, in respect of the offence, an order for conditional discharge.”(4) In section 379 of the Sentencing Act 2020, in the table in subsection (1), after the entry for the Serious Crime Act 2007 insert—
“Education and Skills Act 2008 | ||
Schedule A1 | education and childcare behaviour order | offence of conducting an unregistered independent education institution”.” |
This amendment would enable a court, after having convicted a person of the offence of operating an unregistered independent educational institution, to make an order requiring or prohibiting certain behaviour by that person, if the court considers it appropriate in order to protect children from a risk of harm. Breach of an order would constitute a further criminal offence.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part in this debate remotely—at least I hope she is—and I invite her to move Amendment 150.
Clause 60: Failure to meet standards: suspension of registration
Amendment 150
Baroness Brinton
Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment aimed at understanding the protections that are in place for day pupils where a school has already been found not to be safe for boarding pupils.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Part 4, on independent educational institutions, particularly Clause 60, the detail seems to put independent schools on a standards system closer to that of publicly funded schools. As I said at Second Reading, I was struggling to understand the rationale for the provision under Clause 60(2), which says that the Secretary of State needs to be
“satisfied that … standards is or are not being met”
and have
“reasonable cause to believe that … one or more students at the institution will or may be exposed to the risk of harm”.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it seems delightful that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who, with the rest of us, objected to the Henry VIII powers in the earlier parts of the Bill, should be asking for Henry VIII to return to deal with the Abbot of Ampleforth, who is the seat of the schools problems when it comes to safeguarding.
This is the bit of the Bill that I would very much like to listen to the Government’s rationale behind. I also hope that they will consider the other amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—if not now, at least in terms of thinking through what happens when IICSA finally reports. As we have seen in this House with the Valuing Everyone training, when everyone knows what they must do if they see something wrong, wrong happens much less often.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 171Z on mandatory reporting. This is an area I am very interested in, having started my career in a sports setting, not least because I have a Private Member’s Bill in the queuing system that seeks to address the issue. Having the chance to debate this as part of the Schools Bill was an opportunity not to be missed, and perhaps is the first step in addressing this serious issue.
I thank Tom Perry from Mandate Now for his support on this issue over the years and for his advice on what is required in various settings. If the Government were minded to accept this amendment, it would send out a strong message that they are listening and have an interest in protecting children and young people. I and many others having been debating this for a long time and, over the years, we have been given many reasons why this is not possible to bring in: the cost; that it puts people in a difficult situation when having to report; and that there are other mechanisms which can be used. None of these seems a particularly adequate reason. I have also been told that, if mandatory reporting comes in, the number of cases will rise—well, of course, they will. However, we know from other jurisdictions that those cases stabilise over time.
The fact that this legislation exists in 86% of Europe may not be enough to convince some that it is necessary, but this is also about increasing knowledge and understanding. Schools are a place that have reasonable contact with young people. I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s response. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I suspect that it might include her saying that it will be difficult to do this in a school setting without doing it in a wider setting. If that is the case, I look forward to support of my Private Member’s Bill when we get the chance to debate it.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments give us another opportunity to talk about the important issue of safeguarding. It is an issue that has fallen between the cracks of the ambiguity we have dissected and discovered in our debates on most clauses of this Bill. The fact that there have been so many probing amendments in Committee speaks to the level of uncertainty in the House about dealing with such a vaguely worded Bill bereft of ideas and vision for making a better educational opportunity possible for all children and young people.
I acknowledge that the DfE has published an updated version of the statutory safeguarding and child protection guidance for schools in England, Keeping Children Safe in Education, which will be implemented this September. That contains important new guidance, not least the new paragraph setting out that
“children may not feel ready or know how to tell someone that they are being abused”.
It also includes the recommendation that
“governors and trustees receive appropriate safeguarding and child protection … training at induction”,
and then at regular intervals afterwards.
Nevertheless, there is always more that could be done. An old headmaster of mine used to say, “The biggest room in the world is the room for improvement”—I seem to remember he had it printed on a T-shirt. In a previous debate, my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned the MacAlister review, which proposed that schools be made a statutory partner. The review said:
“In too many places the contribution and voice of education is missing from partnership arrangements, and so schools should be included as a statutory safeguarding partner”,
which we have also proposed as an amendment in another group. Would it be worth the Minister giving an update on the Government’s progress on working through the review’s recommendations, and is becoming a statutory partner something that the DfE is likely to accept?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, turning first to Amendment 150, I hope I can clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a stop boarding requirement is discretionary but can only be supplemental to any suspension of registration which may be imposed in relation to an independent educational setting. Day students are therefore protected from a risk of harm in the first instance by the suspension of the institution’s registration. The intention of these powers together is that all students in an independent educational institution, both day and boarding where applicable, can be protected more effectively from serious risk from harm.
The noble Baroness asked me a number of specific other questions, which I will do my best to write to her on.
On Amendment 171Z, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, schools and colleges are already under legal duties to exercise their functions to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This includes having regard to Keeping Children Safe in Education, statutory guidance which is clear on the role all staff have to play. Children and young people who attend a school or college are afforded protection through these provisions. In all cases where concerns about the welfare of children are identified, Ofsted will pass the information on to the relevant police or local authority to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of children cared for at the registered provider.
As we set out in March 2018, in response to the reporting and acting on child abuse consultation, there was no clear evidence to show that introducing a mandatory reporting duty would help keep children safe, and therefore the case was not made for a mandatory reporting duty. We are keeping this under review, and as noble Lords have referenced, we are awaiting the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which is expected this autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, raised the MacAlister review. I believe we have addressed that in previous groups. The Government will be publishing an implementation plan by the end of year, to consider all of those recommendations.
With that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw her amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to respond now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank Tom Perry and Mandate Now, who have been advocating for mandatory reporting for many years, all the survivors of abuse at schools who have been in contact with me, and indeed some of the teachers who have written to me about how difficult it was for them after they reported abuse at their school.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a slightly jokey but important point about the Secretary of State’s powers, but the difference with Amendment 171Z is that those powers are detailed in the Bill. It is not giving a blind, blank cheque to the Secretary of State to produce regulations that Parliament cannot then comment on. I do not know whether others have better suggestions about who should take those powers. Clearly, somebody has to be able to do it for independent schools. Under the earlier parts of the Bill, it seems the Secretary of State is doing everything else as well. If we can get changes, that may work.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a missed consequential amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(g) paragraph 4 of Schedule A1 (breach of education and childcare behaviour order).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds the offence of breaching an education and childcare behaviour order to the list of offences in clause 63, meaning that the new powers of entry and investigation in the Bill would be exercisable in respect of a suspected offence under this Schedule.
Baroness Barran
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting clarification to make it clear that the reference to independent educational institutions inserted into s.141A(1) (teachers to whom the misconduct provisions apply) only catches such institutions that are not schools. Schools are already covered by s.141A(1)(a), so this amendment avoids an overlap between existing paragraph (a) and new paragraph (bb).